primitive vehicles ?

[Bfg]

Question :  Why is it that modern, such highly competent motor cars are boring to drive.. even when pushed to their limit it's only ever a quickie cheap thrill.   Clearly on this website I'm not alone in being drawn to more primitive vehicles.? 

 

I don't know but it seems like the most popular cars of all time were the VW beetle, the Citroen 2cv., the old Mini,  the Moggie Minor,  the VW Combi,  Fiat's 600,  the Landy's, possibly the frog-eye sprite &/or the Lotus-7, and so on.. 

 

Good looking, quirky or ugly - each had almost unburstable mechanicals ...and they ooooozed with character.

 

Is this simply nostalgia ? or are there other explanations to what is otherwise irrational ?

 

And then, aside from those listed above - what else is there ?  and why ??   I'm not talking about old saloons here (nor their high performance derivatives) which 20, 30, 40, 50 years later have become interesting again. Nor am I enquiring of the higher performance marques.. 

No, there's something about the aforementioned handful of everyday cars - which have something of an extra special appeal. 

[mercrocker]

Most of the vehicles you mention remained in production way beyond the normal "shelf life".   Therefore, their idiosyncrasies were ignored/celebrated/enjoyed by people who chose them over, say, an Anglia, J2 van, Sunbeam Alpine or whatever.   They were already out of step with progress and yet still available new to people who had a choice.   

 

Probably the same with the Austin 7, Morgan 3 wheeler, Trojan and flat twin Jowetts of earlier times.  I would add the BMC Farina range to the mid-century examples.  They were not only out of date but in the case of the Morris and MG versions a positively backward step compared to the models they replaced. 

 

Another example of the type you mention is of course the side-valve, upright Popular that wheezed into the 1960s as a brand new car.

[warren t claim]

Question :  Why is it that modern, such highly competent motor cars are boring to drive.. even when pushed to their limit it's only ever a quickie cheap thrill.   Clearly on this website I'm not alone in being drawn to more primitive vehicles.? 

 

I don't know but it seems like the most popular cars of all time were the VW beetle, the Citroen 2cv., the old Mini,  the Moggie Minor,  the VW Combi,  Fiat's 600,  possibly the frog-eye sprite &/or the Lotus-7, and so on.. 

 

l. 

Maybe because you knew that if you crashed major injuries or death were an almost certainty?

[Dick Cheeseburger]

Character = quirks.

Tolerances in most mass-produced modern car design and construction don't allow for quirks (apart from French, which are more shit, than quirky).

I did a performance track day for my 30th a few years ago, and drove an Elise, Prodrive Impreza, some Porsche and then a Ferrari 4something. The Porsche was too smooth, the Impreza too predictable, and the Elise too slow for what I'd signed up for. Getting into the Ferrari changed things though - it was a good ten years old and I was given quirk warnings as soon as I slid into it.

"Lift your legs right up as you get in, or else you'll catch the throttle pedal".

"Take it easy with the gear changes as the linkage is quite fragile and some previous drivers have pulled the stick right out."

The best part though? The 'mechanic' came towards the car with a wrench in his hand, waving it towards the back of the car. When I enquired what he was doing, my driving instructor calmly pointed out that he was giving the starter motor a whack to get it to engage. I was at one with that thing from that point onwards.

The only other way to inherit quirks is to buy a mass produced car which wasn't built with them, then buy it when it's old enough to start going wrong.

[SiC]

Were old cars really that reliable????

 

Nowadays, its pretty common to go for many tens of thousands of miles without a FTP or even a single major problem on most modern cars. Modern being pretty much >1998 - by the time manufacturers mastered electronic fuel injection. You get in modern car, turn key/press button/etc and it pretty much always fires up*. That does mean there is less excitement and faults certainly give a car "character". But that's what the majority of people want day-to-day from a daily transport.

 

I'm too young to remember living old cars - my first proper memory of cars were from the late 80s/early 90s and my parents almost always bought new stuff by then. However speaking to them and many others, they can pretty much recall many times their car before then stranded them at some point.

[bub2006]

The escort van I had. 51 plate so relatively new but had 260k on the clock and was an ex royal mail van so didn't do too bad. No ecu,abs,traction control or anything. Regularly got 45mpg plus around town and once had over 55 to Kent and back. Slow but it just got on with everything I asked. Could be fixed with an hammer and didn't half do bad at all in an impromptu crash test. If I've misinterpreted the thread title or thread then my apologies

[warren t claim]

Engines lasting 200,000 miles is quite normal these days although oddly enough my first car to hit that milestone was a Montego Diesel. 

[mercrocker]

SiC makes a good point (as does Bub...) but the cars mentioned in the original post were probably more reliable than their peers due to the proven nature of their components achieved through comparatively long and numerous production levels. 

 

New cars were not always reliable back in the day, they rusted quickly and their mechanical components relatively short-lived.   However, the basic design principles were durable as was the longstanding nature of the cars' appeal.   I have friends with many varieties of classic car, most of which are far more exotic, valuable and desirable than my Morris 1000 but the genuine fondness expressed by ex-owners (not, admittedly "car enthusiast" types) for the Moggy usually outweigh similar comments directed at 50s Yanks, Porsches or MGs of my acquaintance.

[forddeliveryboy]

An MGF is modern and highly competent but not boring, neither are early Berlingos or Kangoos. I think the influence of the German car industry on other Euromakers has made things a bit sleep-inducing, though. Wooly steering is my big problem with most post-1990 stuff.

 

200,000 miles was nothing for a Citroen DS or CX in a dryish climate, the problems arose in cold, damp Britain with salt-laden winter roads.

[Bfg]

...but the genuine fondness expressed by ex-owners (not, admittedly "car enthusiast" types) for the Moggy usually outweigh similar comments directed at 50s Yanks, Porsches or MGs of my acquaintance.

 

"the genuine fondness"  ..is what I'm taking about ..but not only by ex-owners surely ? 

 

Reliability is another issue, not least because most of us, however lower down in the food chain,  are better off than our parents were. or which we were as students or in our first job..  Austerity lends itself toward a lack of regular maintenance, poor quality replacement parts, non replacement of perishable rubbers, and of course spanner work by d.i.y. roadside mechanics - whose workshop manual was a magazine article.   Admittedly there were ongoing issues with contact breakers, water in electrics, lack of water in radiators, wipers not wiping, and screen demists not demisting - but these things are somewhat different to thrashing the bollocks off the little bugger - and it keep coming back for more ! ..no ?  

[Urko]

 

 

Good looking, quirky or ugly - each had almost unburstable mechanicals ...and they ooooozed with character.

 

Is this simply nostalgia ? 

Yup.  Having owned some of said chod back in the day, the mechanicals were far from unburstable.

[For Fiats Sake]

I'm too young at nearly 50 to have driven proper old bangers, grew up on a farm so learnt to drive on 2wd tractors, series Land Rovers and moving up to Dads SD1s.  Sadly too young to have ever taken the V8 on the road but did buy his Diesel SD1 as my first proper car.

I used to borrow my Aunties old City Metro and a love affair with small cars was born.  At 6'2" too big to get into my dream 126 and never interested in mini's and metros a bit too awkward with my longs legs.

After being near bankrupted trying to keep the old Rover on the road, the next car acquired was a mk1 Panda.  Hopelessly full of rust and random FTP but what a character.  I chopped it in for a Maestro as I couldn't afford to have the clutch fixed but got a loan for the clubfoot.  Maestro was chopped in for a Uno, I just missed the agility of small cars.  Moved on into a Golf mk2 next, really overated and kept it longer than I should have as Dad had put it through an mot at great expense (I never found out how much it cost him).  Back to small with a 205 diesel which my cousin wrote off, then a Cinquecento until that was broken and repaired so badly I sold it on.

Into modern with a 2 year old diesel Yaris mk1 I bought for work use (the 207, then corsa I was supplied with kept being vandalised outside my house) which ran on veg and would have had another if they hadn't have increased the size by 25% and made it look shit.

Bit of a left field move into a Hyundai i20, very nice but dull, only because I found out that the  Aygo I fancied weren't that good.  Chopped in for a Fiat 500 which I loved but wasn't ideal for running mum about so back into a Panda - but a mk3!

 

So for me, small 90's cars equals entertaining, larger cars are great for distance and speed but just meh, leave me cold.

Give me a small car, small engine which can be happily revved and I'm happy, get me a nice bit of road free of trundling giffers and I'm ecstatic!

[Timewaster]

A lot of rose tinted nostalgia if you ask me.

 

I had a mini as a first car and yes it was great fun and chuckable on a summer afternoon but winter was months of steamed up, cold misery.

Servicing was almost monthly and pissing about with points and grease nipples and seized drum adjusters with rounded off heads that meant the car shot towards the nearest ditch with every press of the brakes.

 

Most of your examples rot away to nothing in a decade and only the cherished examples survived.

 

They were Characterful but crap.

Modern cars are dull but brilliant.

[warren t claim]

I'm too young at nearly 50 to have driven proper old bangers, grew up on a farm so learnt to drive on 2wd tractors, series Land Rovers and moving up to Dads SD1s.  Sadly too young to have ever taken the V8 on the road but did buy his Diesel SD1 as my first proper car.

I used to borrow my Aunties old City Metro and a love affair with small cars was born.  At 6'2" too big to get into my dream 126 and never interested in mini's and metros a bit too awkward with my longs legs.

 

I'm 45 and remember buying V8 SD1s for a couple of hundred and have travelled in the back of a 126 many times even though we're the same height.

[rml2345]

They were Characterful but crap.

Modern cars are dull but brilliant.

This. If you aren't too interested in cars and see them only as transport then modern beats classic just about every time. Old cars are fantastic but to use one as everyday transport requires a genuine interest. Back when many of our favorite cars were current, owners were out working on them not because they were interested but because they wanted to get to work on Monday.

[djimbob]

A lot of rose tinted nostalgia if you ask me.

 

I had a mini as a first car and yes it was great fun and chuckable on a summer afternoon but winter was months of steamed up, cold misery.

Servicing was almost monthly and pissing about with points and grease nipples and seized drum adjusters with rounded off heads that meant the car shot towards the nearest ditch with every press of the brakes.

 

Most of your examples rot away to nothing in a decade and only the cherished examples survived.

 

They were Characterful but crap.

Modern cars are dull but brilliant.

 

I'm afraid I agree with all this, modern cars go round the clock and keep on going, thirty years ago if you reached the dreaded 100k mark, then you knew the fucker would explode within days - and they did

[wuvvum]

I'm 6'1 so only marginally shorter and I managed to drive a Fiat 126 with no discomfort.

[vulgalour]

So primitive, walking was quicker.

 

 

[dollywobbler]

I'm afraid I agree with all this, modern cars go round the clock and keep on going, thirty years ago if you reached the dreaded 100k mark, then you knew the fucker would explode within days - and they did

 

That's just not true. Perhaps it was of Fords, but most cars from 30 years ago (1986 just to remind ourselves) could top 100k with no worries. BX diesels could do three times that without breaking a sweat (although the petrols were sometimes a bit flaky). I bought my 1986 2CV with 89k miles on it, and the engine sailed past 100k with no worries (pulled it out at 170k because the rings needed doing. Not done that yet...). 1986 was when Toyota and Nissan were on the scene, and their cars were pretty long lived too. 

 

Mind you, even in the early 1980s, Land Rover was still selling diesels that needed a rebuild every 60,000 miles - petrols would likely last 80,000 miles. And they wondered why Nissan and Toyota began stealing sales from them...

 

I don't think character comes from flaws either. I just think older cars are generally more engaging to drive than moderns, and certainly a lot different. A BX vs Bluebird battle would be full of variety that wouldn't be there in a Cactus vs Juke comparison.

[dieselassist]

I would say that older designs, are preferable to a lotta of folk, because of modern cars - in their designs n production 'concerns' like - costs of materials to produce, location of production of said same car (the same make/model can/ is produced in 2 or 3 different countries, often 2 different continents n all variants sold in same market - eg UK/Ireland etc - how complicated does it then make to source a replacement part of that model, when two/three different parts exist for the seemingly outwardly same car??) and modern economics, recyclability of materials used, disposability of same, complex often unnecessary technology, make modern/newer car more complicated, harder to fix (even by the main dealers 'technicians themselves) n virtually impossible to maintain on a DIY basis...

...on a driving 'standpoint' - with electric steering/ ESP/traction control/ limp home mode n all the other interferences, newer cars are just 'harder to love'/ n live with... some do; live with them - often through their pocket - either on initial crippling finance or maintenance bills, but these folk either don't know any different/have rich mummies n daddies/huge wage packets etc etc.

 

Ive driven a lot of 'moderns' with switch button handbrakes, hillstart assist etc etc; I just prefer an older car; as per bub; my 99 disco has neither ABS or airbags - most things - bar the heavey duty stuff, are a 10/13/17/19 spanner to be 'readjusted'/fettled to get me goin again if it 'fails to proceed'....

Ive owned n run a lotta shitters in my time; that 2000 yaris on N24 thread is the most modern Ive owned - I cant see any difference in terms of 'driveability' - if anything ye get more feedback from simpler cars of 12- 15 years old +- IMO

[Timewaster]

There was a psychological barrier at 100k that no longer seems to exist.

 

For years, if your car got to 90,000 then it was seen as being on borrowed time.

Servicing went out the window, Castrol GTX or Duckhams got replaced by £2.99 20/50 and low and behold it was dead by 100,000.

 

IMO it was the Mk2 Cavalier that broke the barrier in most people's eyes. Once they sorted the cam wear issues.

[JohnK]

There was a psychological barrier at 100k that no longer seems to exist.

 

For years, if your car got to 90,000 then it was seen as being on borrowed time.

Servicing went out the window, Castrol GTX or Duckhams got replaced by £2.99 20/50 and low and behold it was dead by 100,000.

 

IMO it was the Mk2 Cavalier that broke the barrier in most people's eyes. Once they sorted the cam wear issues.

This is still the case though. In the last couple of weeks I've had 2 different people (one work colleague, one friend) tell me they're now looking for a new car as there current one is 'really high mileage'

 

On further investigation both cars were on just over 70k.

 

I've just bought a 4 year old diesel with 61k on the clock and thought that was fairly reasonable mileage!

[Tamworthbay]

Can't speak for lots of makes but most fords of the 60s and seventies (and half the eighties) were on crossflows and pintos and austins on a and b series. No reason they can't do 200000 without problems IF serviced properly. I think the issue was more that did diy servicing more then so any old crap went in once in a blue moon. Now people are scared to have a go so it's done at a garage most likely. New engines are certainly better but the idea that older engines were knackered after a few miles isn't my experience.

[skattrd]

My current daily is a 1987 (29yr old) Honda with 118k on it. It still feels tight and I can't imagine it was much different to drive when it had 18k on the clock.

 

I think for older/simpler/quirkier cars you really need to go back to cars designed in the 60/70s (or earlier).

I think of the big change in reliability being electronic ignition and fuel injection. No carb/points etc to tinker with or fail.

[stephen01]

Engineering is better today, I think most would agree with that, it's not uncommon for new cars ie less than 5 years old to have banged on 100k and still be tight as a nut, when I got my Honda with 115k on the clock my dad thought I was mad, I think his words were. "With that mileage everything will be worn out' I'm in 157k now and all I've had done is a TPS. Admittedly more complex and expensive than a accelerator cable.

 

I genuinely believe that the excitement comes from the feel you get while driving, moderns feel detached while hugging the ground, my herald feels terrifying, least when the door flung open going round a bend and I didn't have my seatbelt on! That feeling of oh fuck I'm going to be thrown out the car, you just dont get that in a new car.

[cros]

I notice that there is an engine access hatch between the rear seats of the four seater 'Smart' that would be very inconvenient if attempting sexual intercourse in one of these cars. This sort of shoddy design would never have been tolerated in the 1970's.

[Timewaster]

If you drive a 4 seat smart car then space for sexual activities is unlikely to be an issue.

[Timewaster]

Is a lot of worry about cars getting high mileage more about resale value rather than reliability?

 

For some reason our firm still bins is company cars at 100k

[danthecapriman]

Can't speak for lots of makes but most fords of the 60s and seventies (and half the eighties) were on crossflows and pintos and austins on a and b series. No reason they can't do 200000 without problems IF serviced properly. I think the issue was more that did diy servicing more then so any old crap went in once in a blue moon. Now people are scared to have a go so it's done at a garage most likely. New engines are certainly better but the idea that older engines were knackered after a few miles isn't my experience.

This!

Old Fords are easily capable of high mileages. As with most old cars that did high mileages they did the work, racked up the miles and then most ended up scrapped and forgotten about. The ones that have survived, in general, are the low mileage giffer owned examples with lower mileages.

My mk2 Granada V6 is almost on 200k miles and it drives fine and goes through mot's fine.

My Capri is on nearly 140k miles, the body's a bit rough but it drives fine and has no trouble at mot time.

One of my uncles had a mk4 Cortina 2.0 estate, that went way over 200k miles before it did eventually rust to death.

Another uncle even had a mk3 Escort 1.3 estate that managed an insane amount of miles before being sold on.

 

A mate of mine used to work on a fleet of taxis back in the 80's, most were 70's and early 80's Fords with high miles, but the oldest car he worked on was a late 60's Austin A60 farina, daily use as a taxi from new and by the time rust finished it off in the mid 80's it was well over the 300k mile mark!

 

 

For me though, it's all about old materials and manufacturing in old cars making them easy to work on and keep them going. The styling of old cars is fantastic whatever your tastes may be, nowadays everything is completely boring to look at and almost intentionally made to look as ugly as possible. Old cars give you a driving experience a modern just can not, you feel detached and isolated in moderns.

I used to work on moderns (mid 90's onwards) for a living and I utterly hate just about every one of them, the newest car I've had and used as a daily was a 91 J reg Volvo 340 (still running a carb!) and that won't ever change. The few advantages modern cars do offer, for me are vastly outweighed by disadvantages. It makes way more sense to me to use the money you'd spend buying new or nearly new to instead keep an old car in top condition and keep running that.

[castros_bro]

I'm old (and stupid?) enough to have owned/driven/dumped a lot of the "interesting" vehicles and they were almost universally crap as a means of transport, All the usual 1300GT engine mini through a hedge because the brakes failed, Herald FTP blocking the tram tracks in Karlsruhe, Standard 10 with burnout exhaust valves in Tossa del Mar, A35 van boiled over in the Antwerp rush hour, 4/44 with petrol pouring from cork carb seal on pedestrian shopping precinct 's-Hertogenbosch, sister in laws FTP Renault 5 dumped in Belgium, BSA B40 FTP given to Guzzi shop in Nimes in exchange for a train ticket, V4 tranny terminal FTP autobahn near Darmstadt, Solara FTP on A303 towing 40 foot glider trailer.  Then someone started putting electronic ignitions and OHC with injection  OR the French took over the Diesel world  and all fitted into well machined engine blocks as normal and the everything changed. Now happily do 1000 miles in two days in a £200 150,000 mile  106 or ZX diesel without a boot full of tools and spare parts, so far less "every journey is an adventure" meaning "how I missed being best man at a friend wedding".  Not to mention carrying a spare spark plug + spanner and dreaded 6 monthly decoke of a BSA bantam.  A small percentage of  older vehicle chunders on but usually with a higher proportion of maintenance and care which is not a problem as they are mainly a short distance 2nd (or 6th) car or in my case 1950 moped/motor bikes.