Sticker Shock.

[ranma]

There is a reason why "They dont make them like they used tah" as they say. There is a video on youtube somewhere that shows gm crashing a 59 chev I believe with a 09 or 10 malibu. Shows how far they have come...not so much the "tin cans" people make new cars out to be. Here is the crash video

most of us know that gm's x frame setup isnt like a strait box frame.

[ranma]

Looks like that 59 had been sitting a while, and just painted up to look nice. the rust flying out of that thing when it crashed was a good sign of some pretty rough rust damage. kind of an unfair fight, like putting a 60+ year old boxer against a 28 year old MMA champ... it just doesn't add up. They should have run a '59 off the assembly line just for that test. I'm betting the '09 was brand new... Then again it was a chevy... if it were ford... i think the old ford would have done a -little- more damage to the malibu. But that's just my favoritism speaking.

that depends on what year 63-74 have frame cancer we had a 64 in school the body and int were like new but the frame rotted into! gm.s x-frame wasnt a good choice that impala wouldnt make it with a 66 impala

[monkeyclaw]

I kinda have to agree with Harry...my wife's car is an 11 Sonata; It has every widget one could imagine, and you get used to that stuff. When I get my old lincoln out of the Garage for a car show; I look to the features I am used to....I find myself staring at the dash, waiting for the backup cam to come on! We just get so used to the tech in today's cars....My old Lincoln doesn't even have a single cup holder.....anywhere....it does however have an ashtray; something that's gone the way of the Dodo bird in most new cars. Matt

[Joe Handley]

that depends on what year 63-74 have frame cancer we had a 64 in school the body and int were like new but the frame rotted into! gm.s x-frame wasnt a good choice that impala wouldnt make it with a 66 impala

Actually, that X-Frame car was the perfect choice for the IIHS to prove their relevance, that was probably the weakest platform they could find no matter what the age.

[ranma]

G.M. X- FRAME STARTED WHITH THE 58 TILL THE LAST YEAR BEING 64. NOW WITH THAT SAID if the car I was driving last friday was newer it would have been totaled.

[ranma]

Even if my wife could afford a new car or pickup we would not waste that much money on something that cost to much when it goes wrong. to have fixed.

[ZombieHunter26]

It would seem that nowadays you need to be an electrical engineer/computer programmer/ASE mechanic all in one to fix your vehicles.

Heck, back in my Dad's day, all you really needed was a set of wrenches and some elbow grease!

I feel I'm the only one in my age group that really wishes for the simpler days....vehicle-wise anyway.

[Terry Sumner]

Carmakers make what sells. Almost nobody wants manual windows and locks, so the manufacturers don't make them. They wouldn't sell. American car buyers love gadgets, gizmos and cupholders.

Got 'em both on my F-250 though!

[Gluhead]

I subscribe to the recycle set. I firmly believe that all new cars should be recycled to make more old cars.

[moparmagiclives]

Actually, that X-Frame car was the perfect choice for the IIHS to prove their relevance, that was probably the weakest platform they could find no matter what the age.

I dont know how much of that was "whos stronger"...A big enough brick wall would probly stand up pretty well also, but the point is, the driver of the 09 has a better chance of walking away. Which goes back to that big price tag.

[James Flowers]

I dont know how much of that was "whos stronger"...A big enough brick wall would probly stand up pretty well also, but the point is, the driver of the 09 has a better chance of walking away. Which goes back to that big price tag.

When you basically build the same car or truck with a few changes for 5 to 10 years? Why should it cost that much for safety features in said vehicle? The engineering and tooling cost should be taken out of the price of said vehicles. That only leaves maintenance cost of said tooling after the first year of sales.When you buy a new vehicle on these 5 to 10 year cycles are you really buying an new vehicle ?

[monkeyclaw]

Along with wheelman; my next car is probably be the CTS-V sportwagon................Matt

[Rob Hall]

Along with wheelman; my next car is probably be the CTS-V sportwagon................Matt

Cool..those CTS-Vs are pretty sweet...looked at the coupe, sedan and wagon at my local Caddy store back in the summer when I bought my STS...they were about $15k more than I wanted to spend, though.

[Junkman]

I just bought an absolutely MINT one owner 1984 Saab 900 non-turbo. It cost me all of 300 quid.

I cannot believe, what 'ordinary' poeple are willing to shell out for their cars. My neighbor just paid 5,800 quid for a 2005 Kia Picanto, for crying out loud!

A one owner 2002 Jaguar S-Type 4.2 is offered for 2,700! The latter was a 60k car when new, sod depreciation.

Then comes the insurance. I insured the Saab on a classic car insurance, fully comp, commuting, social and plasure use, capped at 5k miles a year, for 185/year. The picanto costs 660 to insure, unless you have some NCB racked up. But even with full NCB, it's still 330.

I haven't even looked at new car prices lately. I lost touch with new cars twenty years ago. I just don't have the money to pay for them and if I had I still wouldn't pay those prices.

[ChrisPflug]

Old cars are neat, but great improvements have been made in vehicles in "recent times"- having had several 60s era daily drivers (actual daily drivers- not just for fun cars) in the not-so-distant past for the most part "classics" are a less than enjoyable experience even when operating properly. Have you driven a '63 Fury through any kind of mountains with 10 inch drums all around? Anything with a Powerglide lately? In the 70s things got even worse with cars getting heavier and less powerful. I had a 74 Mark IV- whopping 194 horsepower from 460 cubic inches. In Michigan these things become even harder to drive when the snow flies and during the annual January 20 below "cold snap" carburetors become almost non functional.

Like them or not, the average, bland 4 cylinder new car will have more power, outhandle, and out brake the "muscle" versions of earlier. Maybe not the style- but much better transportation.

As far accidents- cars are easily replaced- I'd rather have one fold up around me and absorb that energy than, say a '56 Buick, where after an accident the car is pretty much intact and they can just hose you off the dash and sell it someone else afterwards

[FASTBACK340]

I'll add my .02. I have a `74 Dart I used as a bang-around car.A 2 dr. slant 6-auto in pretty good condition. It attracts attention when ever I go out with it but it's a liability too. It has 90 HP slipping through an automatic gearbox. It only has 82K on it, but it moves like it has a million miles. Slow as a mailbox.... After building the Barracuda I wasn't about to build another V-8 project.

So I bought a Maxima. It's 11 yrs. old with over 100K on it, but she's in mint condition (I'm the second owner...) and is the loaded sport model with white gauges, spoiler, alloys, and heated leather setas. Sun roof, ABS, fuel injected V-6 and automatic. Throw in 4 wheel disc brakes and a bullet-proof reputation and it's hard to argue with technology!

BTW: Aside from my Barracuda, which is as throw-back as you can get... I work for Infiniti. Want to talk about new-car technology? I have day's I come home with headaches....

[monkeyclaw]

Wheelman; I feel ya there...that's what kept me from the XLR....It amazes me how much the caddy cars lose in the 1st two years! But the only way to get the CTS-V wagon they way you REALLY want it is to order it new; kinda sucks....but it will most likely be the last car I buy...and there just hasn't been any other new car that I would buy......Matt

[Ramcharger]

OK, I've seen this video several times and the responses always amaze me! My fav is the "they used an old rusty POS for the test." Doesn't matter. I own a 1959 Ford and I can tell you, it's a death trap compared to my new Ranger. First, the dash is metal, real steel, no padding. How hard ya wanna bang yer head on that? No locking seat backs to launch you through the windshield at a higher rate of speed. Windshield is heavier and more solidly mounted so it's sure to kill you as you fly through it. The steering column is a solid shaft from the gear box to the wheel, which impales you in a head on collision. Oh yeah, NO SEATBELTS in 1959! That's right, when the car stops suddenly, you don't. Lastly, crumple zones are non existent! I had the front clip off her to change the motor and it weighs a ton! It took 5 guys to comfortably lift it off and there was no flex at all. When hit, all of the energy transfers and is not absorbed leading to greater damage. If you study the physics of the whole deal, the energy has to go somewhere when 2 two ton objects collide. BTW, you all know that the new cars weigh almost as much as the old ones, right? So there is no weight advantage for the old car. So we have 2 objects that weigh the same traveling at the same speed and stop from impact. One dissipates the energy throughout the whole vehicle and the other does not. Guess which one loses? Simple physics, the one that doesn't flex! I simplified this whole deal because it can get a little boring if you're not a math/science geek. Here's a gratuitous photo of my '59:

[ranma]

Heres something to chew over watch tucker a man and his dream. many of todays safety ideas came in 1948! Oldsmobile had air bag opt in the early 70's on a few of their cars

[ranma]

Heres something else, the median price of cars from 55-75 changed little after 1980 they tripeld the cost. my parents had to have the computer replaced 2x on one of their cars costing a bundle.

[Jeff Johnston]

wait 2 years and buy it with 30,000 miles on it for half the money. I bought my 05 Saab in 07 with 31,00 miles.. It cost 32K brand new...I paid 15.

[moparmagiclives]

When you basically build the same car or truck with a few changes for 5 to 10 years? Why should it cost that much for safety features in said vehicle? The engineering and tooling cost should be taken out of the price of said vehicles. That only leaves maintenance cost of said tooling after the first year of sales.When you buy a new vehicle on these 5 to 10 year cycles are you really buying an new vehicle ?

The cars and and the products they are made from are changing more offten then you think. I'm sure the people who design and test said vehicles get paid pretty handsomly to do so, not to mention certification costs, then you have to put them all together. Thats all got to be paid for somehow right? And they dont expect to sell every single vehcle made at full sticker price right? So the first 2/3 of the lucky public gets to make up for the last to go on sale. This could go on for ever, but it would start to get pretty politcal, which is a no no.

Its just stupid how fast the value drops, proves right there that your not just paying for the sheet metal up front.....except for jeeps and old toyotas for some reason those things never seem to get very cheap..