In general, what do you most dislike about modern cars?

[Junkman]

Is it wrong to say I like the Austin 3 litre and hopefully will own one again one day along with a Landcrab. But then I also like Allegros, 1100s and own one of each so I guess there is just no hope for me.....

The Austin 3-litre is one of the most comfy and capable cars I have ever driven.

Too bad they command rather stiff money now, otherwise you'd have to push me out of the queue if you wanted one.

[dollywobbler]

The Austin 3-litre is one of the most comfy and capable cars I have ever driven.

Too bad they command rather stiff money now, otherwise you'd have to push me out of the queue if you wanted one.

 

Aside from the bloody awful looks, it was only the engine that disappointed. Makes me sick how they went to so much trouble to redesign the C-Series engine, with a new seven-bearing crank, only to create an engine that has all the get up and go of my cat.

[MarvinsMom]

i too do not get this fashion for crazy, massive wheels with tires like a strip of licorice painted over the tops of the wheels.

 

and suspension that just does not work in any shape size and form.

 

but what about the seats? in just about any car younger than 2001 that i've been in seem to have seats made out of house bricks or bags of cement.

 

older ones, even quite cheap cars used to have comfortable, squidgy seats. nowadays, the design of the seats seems to owe more to a block of granite or some other immovable object.

 

then there is the beeping./boinging/pinging that modern cars seem to do. i had a ford focus once as a company hack and it was like driving friggin' R2D2...

 

and that is before mentioning stupid pointless shit like electric hand brakes, no proper keys and all the other shizzle that seems to matter.

 

it may look good in the golf club or at the masonic lodge, but most of the gadgets fitted are just a bloody pain in the arse. and you cannot order a new car without it.

 

but i too like the greatest hits of BMC or BL.....

[Lukas]

One thing I hate the most about new cars is this artifical feeling an electronic accelerator-pedal gives you. There is nothing better than a throttle-cable from the pedal to the engine. Not en electrolic pedal whichs starts to think at the moment you step on the pedal: Is the engine at the right revs, are all the other parameters right and if so, let´s send a signal to the engine that they might open the throttle a bit. I hate that!

 

I also hate the modern engines with their emission-restrictions. Old engines pull instantly from idle. New engines are so constricted by all this emission-control-techniques, it´s horrible.

 

I also hate that many panels on modern cars are only fixed with clips, Old cars are screwed together. 

 

I also hate the poor visibility most modern cars give you. Just because they are so bubble-shaped with narrow windows and a low driving position. Try to park a Mercedes-Benz GLA without PDC and rear-veiw-camera. Impossible!

[Lukas]

Oh wait, there is one more thing I hate about modern cars!

 

If you look at the windshield for instance. On an old car, there is the gasket which holds the glass in place. And at most cars, there is a chrome-metal-moulding so it looks like real craftsmanship. 

 

If you look at a new car, the glass is glued in. Nothing more. Looks cheap and not nicely done. Just cheap. 

 

So to me, an old car is craftsmanship. A new car is profit maximization.

[dugong]

Is it wrong to say I like the Austin 3 litre and hopefully will own one again one day along with a Landcrab. But then I also like Allegros, 1100s and own one of each so I guess there is just no hope for me.....

There's plenty of hope. Most people give less thought to their choice of car than their washing machine. Preserve whatever you want if it makes you happy - my choice in cars is equally hopeless.

 

I still don't understand why enthusiasts defend the failings of their chosen marque vicariously through their cars; this is a mentality which has always struck me as deeply, deeply odd. Harmless, but odd.

 

Now that is amusing, because it's writers like Harris that are entirely to blame I reckon! I got utterly sick of every week, him testing yet another Impreza against yet another Mitsu Evo. He was a key contributor at Autocar at a time where the magazine complained that a Mk4 Golf Cabriolet was a bit dull to drive because the back end wouldn't come out no matter how hard you tried. I just applauded VW for making a car that wasn't inherently dangerous. They used to rave about the Ka being fun, which is perhaps why I know of so many that have been crashed due to lift-off oversteer.

Have you considered that you may not have been the target audience for Autocar or Evo? Requirements differ. Not saying their editorial emphasis was right (or laudable), but I'm sure Evo's demographics find our tastes turgid and boring. Inverted snobbery is no better than snobbery itself.

 

I LIKE CARS, as someone more observant than me once typed.

[carlo]

Bloody touchscreens!

 

I was thinking last night on the M5, in the pouring rain and being dazzled by the modern headlights, whilst trying to overtake a truck with an SUV overtake me at 90mph; wouldn't it be fun now to navigate a touchscreen to turn the fan up on my heater?

 

So no, I'll never be buying a modern Peugeot or Citroen Cactus for example.  Another example of technology completely unsuited to its environment.

[Craig the Princess]

I didn't say 'slag off', Craig, I said 'act as apologist for'. There has to be a yardstick of quality and blindly sticking up for everything regardless is as bad as condemning them all to blazes.

 

Respect where respect's due. Everything else is fair game.

 

Fine, yeah. It must be me.

 

Bracing for semantic argument.

I guess I'm a little sensitive about this after the number of time people at car shows, marshals at car shows and opinionated bellends on the pa at car shows have slagged of the allegro.

 

How do you think cars that don't meet your definition of not appalling dross should be covered?

[dollywobbler]

Have you considered that you may not have been the target audience for Autocar or Evo? Requirements differ. Not saying their emphasis was right (or laudable), but I'm sure Evo's demographics find our tastes turgid and boring. Inverted snobbery is no better than snobbery itself.

 

Evo I understand. It's clearly a POWAAARGH title. That's fine. I can easily avoid it. Autocar was meant to be a more general title, but instead ended up demonstrating all that is wrong with modern motoring. It's like the difference between old Top Gear and recent Top Gear. Sadly, you attract more viewers by ignoring people who actually like cars and just pissing about getting all lairy in cars with too much power.

[dugong]

I guess I'm a little sensitive about this after the number of time people at car shows, marshals at car shows and opinionated bellends on the pa at car shows have slagged of the allegro.

 

How do you think cars that don't meet your definition of not appalling dross should be covered?

In relative terms, dear boy, on merit. I didn't mention the Allegro by name - you assumed that's what I was aiming at. I wasn't.

Unfortunately, people are arseholes. Comments like that at car shows are uncalled for. It's rather different face to face.

 

Sadly, you attract more viewers by ignoring people who actually like cars and just pissing about getting all lairy in cars with too much power.

Yep, because as an actual audience, we're tiny. Pandering to a niche of a niche gets you nowhere from a producer's point of view. Be grateful the Internet exists (actually, on second thoughts)....

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

My mate is one of those 'dumb fucks'. 

 

Oh dear. I hope he didn't pay the sort of money that would buy something that really is vastly superior.  Even Issigonis wanted nothing to do with it.

 

Ten grand buys a seriously good Silver Shadow, CX Prestige, Triumph 2.5PI or an example of something that wasn't a laughing stock. 

 

The 3 Litre isn't all bad, but it was a disaster for a reason. I find them intriguing due to the innate shitness  and would give one garage space, but only it it were cheap enough. Rare should not automatically mean valuable.

[dugong]

Oh dear. I hope he didn't pay the sort of money that would buy something that really is vastly superior.

In your opinion. I don't get it either, but wobbler's mate probably thinks you're odd for singing the praises of an Insignia.

[MarvinsMom]

the austin 3 litre was brilliant in a way that it answered a question that no one had asked....

 

like most of BMC and BL;s product list yes, they were/are crap, but crap in a nice way. 

 

such as the self levelling suspension that if you loaded up the boot without starting it up the engine, its arse stayed firmly on the deck!

 

i always say that they are loveable losers.

 

and yes, i'd like to see one on my drive. the cost been almost immaterial , DW's friend likes his, then good for him i'd be kinda jealous....

[trigger]

If we all like the same stuff it would be a very boring world.

[dugong]

the austin 3 litre was brilliant in a way that it answered a question that no one had asked....

....but lots of people find this weird, and that's where the disagreements start.

 

I have no issue with the folk whose attitude is: "Yeah, it's awful, people didn't get them at the time, but I like it". See Isuzu Piazza Turbo.

History will thank them for sticking their neck out to preserve something different. As praise-worthy as that task is, it doesn't automatically make other cars (say, more commonly accepted 'classics') any less valid.

Folk with wilful victim complexes baffle me - it all gets a bit blinkered and defensive.

 

Be glad these people exist, in spite of the classic movement, rather than because of it.

[twosmoke300]

If we all like the same stuff it would be a very boring world.

Exactly !

[stephen01]

electronic hand brakes.

[carlo]

Regarding suspension, I'm convinced that some of the problem is that modern car journalists seem to be a bunch of willy-waving speed freaks who absolutely panned any car that didn't get a bit 'lairy' on a race track. Even if it was conceived to take families across cities. Certainly, that sort of rubbish is why I cancelled my Autocar subscription back in about 2002. 

 

Another problem is I just don't see any of the media panning cars for having horrendously shit suspension. They seem more interested in whether Bluetooth is fitted, or whether the wheels 'fit the arches.' Long gone are the days when modern car journos would give sensible feedback to anyone at all, but then long gone are the days when cars were engineer-driven rather than marketing-clap-trap driven. Not that this was always a good thing - take note Issigonis...

 

Totally agree about Autocar, I'm always dipping into my collection from 1990 'till about 2003, unfortunately after which every cover had either a new/forthcoming BMW or Audi on it.  Perhaps co-incidentally that was the year they decided to scrub the annual index, which was such a useful tool if you had loads of them and wanted to look something up.  I suppose if they had have had one it would have only needed the letters A & B.

 

The best thing about them after that was usually the last page which would feature some obscure model from the 70s, 80s or 90s which was obviously deemed quite quaint by then.

 

One of my favourite road tests of the period was that of a Peugeot 306 XRDT in 1993; the concluding 'Against' column just had the memorable phrase "You tell us".  They were great cars though, and rightly lauded.

[New POD]

What do I hate about Modern cars ? 

 

Just the way the adverts tell you NOTHING about the technology.

 

It tells you it had a Bluetooth connected infotainment system, but not the engine size, power, torque, gear ratios, etc

[Junkman]

Aside from the bloody awful looks, it was only the engine that disappointed. Makes me sick how they went to so much trouble to redesign the C-Series engine, with a new seven-bearing crank, only to create an engine that has all the get up and go of my cat.

 

If that engine is as much a slouch as you make it sound, which is in stark contrast to the impression I had when I drove the car, why could the car have possibly been a favourite with the stockcar variety? All I can say is that the one I drove went like my cat. And my cat went like Smith's cat.

[Junkman]

Tonight, I was to the club.

 

In said club, they had stiff Martinis, as you would expect from a respectable club.

Several of said stiff Martinis ended up inside me. So I left the club in grand tradition, with a taxi waiting outside.

 

That it was not an FX4 was quite sobering, at least for me, it was some newfangled Skoda I don't even care to know. Diesel.

Eastern European, for God's sake. I might be a snob after all.

 

It had no windows. What little observation slots there were instead, were steamed up.

It had no power, no suspension, solid wood seats, no interior space, no headroom, and it radiated the charme of a porta loo.

It stank when it was sitting there ticking over, and it rattled and squeaked all the way.

Worst of all, when it pulled away after I managed to disembark through the unergonomically mounted doors,

I saw a chromed Vauxhall badge slapped on its ugly arse.

 

Do you now understand what I dislike about moderns?

[HMC]

Junkman, you are LJKS and ICMFP

 

As good a read as CAR at its best.

[cros]

 I found myself partially defending modern cars a bit earlier; I don't own anything less than 40 years old, but on the few occasions when I've driven something new I noticed that there have been some improvements, stuff like having the gearlever and handbrake inside the cabin with you, for example.

 The shit that degrades cars is the motoring equivalent of Jordan's tits, oversized and unnecessary adornment which soon starts to look tired, like most alloy wheels. Most of all I don't care for that Peugeot RCZ because it looks like a motorised arse.

[LC Torana]

I don't own anything less than 40 years old.

 

Well, there's an itch that must be scratched, if ever I heard one.

[dollywobbler]

If that engine is as much a slouch as you make it sound, which is in stark contrast to the impression I had when I drove the car, why could the car have possibly been a favourite with the stockcar variety? All I can say is that the one I drove went like my cat. And my cat went like Smith's cat.

Did you drive the manual or auto? I will say that the handling was so good that I could combat the lack of power by simply not slowing down.

[Vin]

I'm not a fan of external chesterfield panels...

[gordonbennet]

The massive increase in braking power of recent years is probably a good thing, at least it helps the incompetent twats not to have a smash up every other day cos lemming like they've driven faster than they can see ahead, convoys of the bastards jammed up each others arse at 90 in the dark and wet..

 

However my grump is with brake lights, 3 billion lumens is not necessary when someone has just applied the gentlest of pressure to the footbrake in order to slow slightly more than engine braking would allow.

 

We have a variety of warnings now when heavy braking means business but the makers haven't standardized this so it makes not a bit of difference to anyone behind unless they have computer fast encyclopaedic knowledge of every make and models heavy braking warnings.

My lads BMW apparently lights two bulbs (probably leds) at high level for normal braking but under heavy braking this increases to 4 bulbs, this isnt a bad system and i'm assuming he's right in what he tells me, but i wouldn't have had a clue till he told me and it still won't make any difference because should the bloke in the 14 plate Merc in the lane beside him just rests his foot on the brake the entire back end of it will burst into red blinding glare and i wouldn't be able to see the effin Bimmer anyway.

 

My suggestion would have been that a compulsory high level brake light should only illuminate above a certain braking rate, so it actually means something and not there just to destroy what little vision the poor bastard behind had before for no good reason.

 

Lorries are just as bad, our Scanias have an exhaust brake that is of almost no decelerative use at all apart from make a noise, it's effect is frankly laughable, yet as soon as the exhaust brake is applied all the effin brake lights come on, all this safety shit and so so much of it is counter productive.

 

Why is is to so difficult for these things to get standardized, yet the EUSSR can come up with reams of legislation about meaningless shit.

[Dick Cheeseburger]

The thing I dislike is when people choose to drive modern cars, and then complain about them. If they're that bad, don't drive a modern. Unless of course, those people just need something to moan about...

 

[tooSavvy]

..... hmm ..... my inability to muster sufficient funds to purchaze one.

 

Not jellis like

 

 

TS

[fatharris]

I have to say its the overly light steering, the boomy cabins, the easily scratched plastics and the general anonymity to the design.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk