What has 36 years of car development bought?

[Six-cylinder]

What has 36 years of car development bought?

In 1976 I started helping look after a 1932 Invicta 4 ½ Ltr Low Chassis that was 44 years old. It felt like a car from a different era. It seemed an age away from the 1968 Hillman Imp, 36 years younger I was driving at the time. The Invicta needed a starting procedure, heavy positive controls, right hand gear change, rod brakes, heavy arm churning steering, chassis flex and a world apart from the Imp.

When I am driving my 36 year old 1986 Mercedes it seems normal, even against things like that brand new Kia Sorrento I had on loan. So is it me, is it because I drove new cars that are now 36 years old they seem normal? I could drive 80s cars for ever more and be happy. For those younger than me is driving 80s cars an alien experience, how does driving a 36 year old car feel to you?

[bunglebus]

I think car design from a functional point of view peaked somewhere in the 80s-90s, since then it's been about having more gadgets than the "old" car.

Reliable fuel injection was about the best thing that happened, along with 5 speed gearboxes better suited to motorway driving. Give me those and I'm happy 

[reb]

I have a very narrow range of experience with cars really, the oldest I've owned being from 1994 and the newest from 2004. The 205 is admittedly from 10 years into their production though.

Comparing the 205 to the C2 there's a strong feeling that it's a refinement of the same ideas. Even the engine is the same really, while mine was a 1.6 16v the base models had an engine nearly identical to the smaller engined petrol 205s bar fuel injection and electronic ignition.

It's obvious that maintainability has gone out of the window in the intervening years and the quality of components has reduced. Cast parts giving way to pressed steel and stuff like that.

The main difference between that C2 and something newer from PSA is the amount of electronics involved, something I have no interest in.

I'd quite happily continue to drive 90s cars forever as long as parts availability remains at a decent level. I can see myself resorting to an e bike and renting a car or van as needed in the future if 80s and 90s stuff becomes unviable.

[Missy Charm]

One has to take into account that the basic family car didn't change much between, say, 1985 and 2005.  Things like fuel injection and power steering came along, heaters and radios and the like got better but at the heart of it, a car was a front wheel drive saloon or hatchback with a five speed manual gearbox and a plastic and velour interior.  Posh people had things like air conditioning and leather seats, but nothing overly outlandish.  

As long as one could deal with the occasional manual choke, unpowered steering and automatic gearboxes, one could hop into almost anything and drive it.  So, for the average driver used to ten or fifteen year old cars, an eighties car wouldn't seem that strange.  Properly modern stuff, however, God only knows.  I walked past a brand new BMW yesterday that had been left unattended with the engine running.  I thought about how easy the car would be to steal, then glanced in through the window and saw that it was a modern auto of some description without any obvious gear selector or handbrake.  Whilst I can drive an automatic, I wouldn't have had a hope in Hell of getting that BMW going.  The controls looked completely alien.  

Someone familiar with only modern cars might have trouble in an eighties Escort, for instance, but someone who's had a licence for a decade or so probably wouldn't.  

[Kringle]

I suppose it's the same with any technological field where the tech is refined so substantial variations disappear and innovations become harder to find.

Computer gaming from 2022-2007 has less of a groundbreaking change compared to 2007-1992 and indeed 1992-1977.

[captain_70s]

I can happily jump between my 80s Volvo and "67" plate modern van. Both feature power assisted everything and servo brakes etc. 

Having said that a Peugeot Partner is probably more similar to a base spec car from the early millennium than a new Volvo...

I think to folk used to lane assist, auto braking, blind spot warnings, auto lights/wipers and climate control my high spec 80s Volvo would feel very old and basic.

The Acclaim has a manual choke and requires starting and driving a particular way when cold which would cause issues to somebody not familiar with carbs. It and the Dolly also feature a fraction of the grip, braking force and weight of a new car and I imagine they'd feel quite unstable compared to a modern.

They're also much noisier than a modern car, with audible exhaust and engine noise you simply don't get with new stuff.

[D.E]

Fun thing is, if you would compare the Invicta to cars that were 36 years old when the Invicta itself was new, it would seem highly advanced. 

[juular]

I feel like car manufacturing has reached a point similar to that in IT, where companies need to keep adding more and more 'stuff' just to keep things looking fresh and competitive, but with the exception of electric motors, the underlying technology is pretty much the same as it always has been. We've reached the point of diminishing returns.

Between the 60s and 80s I think there has been a great advancement in certain things that improve driveability and ownership, such as fuel injection, better brakes, electronic engine management, or safety features such as the seatbelt or ABS. I can't count the safety features of most moderns as being safe. Anything that can steer and brake for you and potentially fail or be confused is not at all safe in my view, not to mention the ridiculously bright lights and shit visibility.

I've been thinking about this subject a lot recently as I've started using my '88 Volvo 240 as a daily commuting car.  It's comfortable, has heated seats, PAS, electric windows and mirrors. It can keep up with traffic, feels safe and handles very well.  The only real thing that lets it down is the fuel economy, but then any modern NA 2.3 petrol is unlikely to be much better to be fair, and even modern 5 cylinder NA volvos haven't improved on that front.  All in, it doesn't feel 'old' in comparison to a modern vehicle and anyone could hop in and drive it.

Comparing it to the most modern car we own, a 2009 Honda accord, the only real difference is in the refinement and soundproofing. In many ways the 240 is a far better car to drive as the controls are simpler and less cluttered, the visibility is far better, the ride is better, the pedals are bigger and have more of a tactile feel.  It's probably an ideal car for a beginner driver actually, as it's so predictable, competent and the visibility is so good that you feel you can see every corner of the box shape.

[reb]

10 minutes ago, Missy Charm said:

 I walked past a brand new BMW yesterday that had been left unattended with the engine running.  I thought about how easy the car would be to steal, then glanced in through the window and saw that it was a modern auto of some description without any obvious gear selector or handbrake.  Whilst I can drive an automatic, I wouldn't have had a hope in Hell of getting that BMW going.  The controls looked completely alien.  

Someone familiar with only modern cars might have trouble in an eighties Escort, for instance, but someone who's had a licence for a decade or so probably wouldn't.  

Standing at a drive thru window all day I'd see all manner of modern cars, the more pedestrian stuff I reckon I'd be able to get in and drive no bother, the luxury stuff not so much.

I learned to drive between a Corsa D, a P80 V70 and a 6N Polo, they were all pretty similar to drive really. The newest car I've driven is a 67 plate Dacia Duster, which was again pretty similar except for the 6 speed box.

[Conan]

The oldest car I've ever driven age wise was a Series 1 Jaguar XJ. The oldest car I've ever driven design wise was a Peugeot 404. Both I can get in and go pretty much immediately. Even though when I drove the 404 it was the first time I ever driven a column shift manual. Even if we go slightly back further into the 50's and 40's a car without power assisted brakes or no synchro on first wouldn't pose much of an issue. But once going back further into the 30's and beyond I reckon I would indeed have more trouble but only if it's something that's completely different layout, braking only on the rear, or no synchromesh in any gear.

In my opinion, cars were pretty much standardised by the 1940's. Say, a 1947 Buick wouldn't pose much of a challenge to a 1983 Ford Sierra driver either. Might feel weird at first but once you get to grip with the looser control you'd be able to go anywhere no problem. But I feel that soon there might be a revolution in "car control" once again, with autonomous driving and such becoming more common.

[barrett]

15 minutes ago, Conan said:

The oldest car I've ever driven age wise was a Series 1 Jaguar XJ. The oldest car I've ever driven design wise was a Peugeot 404. Both I can get in and go pretty much immediately. Even though when I drove the 404 it was the first time I ever driven a column shift manual. Even if we go slightly back further into the 50's and 40's a car without power assisted brakes or no synchro on first wouldn't pose much of an issue. But once going back further into the 30's and beyond I reckon I would indeed have more trouble but only if it's something that's completely different layout, braking only on the rear, or no synchromesh in any gear.

In my opinion, cars were pretty much standardised by the 1940's. Say, a 1947 Buick wouldn't pose much of a challenge to a 1983 Ford Sierra driver either. Might feel weird at first but once you get to grip with the looser control you'd be able to go anywhere no problem. But I feel that soon there might be a revolution in "car control" once again, with autonomous driving and such becoming more common.

Pretty much, yeah, I agree with this. Anything with synchro is more or less idiot-proof really. Anyone with a modicum of common sense could tell within a few feet of setting off that a 1950 whatever won't handle the same as a 2021 whatever and will adjust their driving accordingly. If you have to double-declutch on every gearchange, things will get difficult. I know people that have owned their Vintage cars for 50 years or more and who still can't get it right every time.

[DoctorRetro]

Oldest I've owned/driven was a late 70's Avenger. Yeah, a bit heavy and clunky , but essentially the same to drive as anything else. Mind you an 77 Avenger and a 1996 Lada Riva are about the same to drive 😂

 

I do think I'd struggle with some very early stuff, where controls aren't where you'd expect etc, but I'm pretty good at figuring stuff out. (Says the bloke with a Japanese car who constantly sprays the windscreen instead of flashing headlights 😂)

[tooSavvy]

*resident IMPnutter*

Yeah, I love IMPs, me....

4pot/OHC xflow screamer

#Swift... 3pot/OHC xflow [EFi] screamer

Ohhhh

🤡

[LightBulbFun]

2 hours ago, Six-cylinder said:

What has 36 years of car development bought?

In 1976 I started helping look after a 1932 Invicta 4 ½ Ltr Low Chassis that was 44 years old. It felt like a car from a different era. It seemed an age away from the 1968 Hillman Imp, 36 years younger I was driving at the time. The Invicta needed a starting procedure, heavy positive controls, right hand gear change, rod brakes, heavy arm churning steering, chassis flex and a world apart from the Imp.

When I am driving my 36 year old 1986 Mercedes it seems normal, even against things like that brand new Kia Sorrento I had on loan. So is it me, is it because I drove new cars that are now 36 years old they seem normal? I could drive 80s cars for ever more and be happy. For those younger than me is driving 80s cars an alien experience, how does driving a 36 year old car feel to you?

Funnily enough I was just talking about something like this in the Bus shite thread the other day  

 

On 05/02/2022 at 18:02, LightBulbFun said:

On 05/02/2022 at 13:31, cms206 said:

At the time of this shot, PBL 57F was 21 years old; the equivalent of a 2001 Plaxton President or the likes today.

in that I have looked at other pictures like that and thought to myself its amazing, how much things changed over such a period of time

I mean you look at a 2001 car, sure its different to a 2021 car, but a lot of 2001 cars can still blend in just fine

but in 1989 if you looked at a 20~ year Old Morris minor compared to a modern car of the time there is such a vast difference between the 2 and a Moggie minor would stand out in traffic a lot more then, than a 2001 car would today

so I have always found that quite interesting, just how quickly things changed back then

I think as others said, the development of the car has just simply slowed down over time as the car itself gets more mature, we have been at this whole car malarky for now well over 100 years

yet go back to a Morris Minor and the car had only been a thing for 50-60 years! and so there will still plenty left on the table to be played with

but it is still just very interesting how quickly things changed back then

 

I mean a first generation ford Focus is over 20 years old, but can still blend into traffic pretty well, but as mentioned in my post above, back in the 80's if you took a 20 year old Morris minor into traffic you where much more noticeable!

and I doubt a 20 year old Ford focus drives much differently from a modern car, but take a 20 year old Morris minor vs a modern 80's saloon car and they probably drove very differently! 

 

I will say as someone who has kindly been given the opportunity to drive a fair few different cars (around a field) I find I much prefer the older ones just because you can actually feel, see and hear whats going on around you and what the car is doing

I hate how modern cars are devoid of any sort of feel, yet still somehow having a ride that will leave you hurting

[PhilA]

2 hours ago, Conan said:

In my opinion, cars were pretty much standardised by the 1940's. Say, a 1947 Buick wouldn't pose much of a challenge to a 1983 Ford Sierra driver either. 

Common standardization was almost fully ratified by 1971 in the US. That being, position of controls and operation of controls.

For instance, regulation stipulated that the pedals must be in a particular order and require a specific range of force to operate. Automatic gears on a sequential shifter must be PRND(L+L-1). Suggestions had light switches in the same place (left of the steering wheel), wiper controls beside that, ignition keys that operate Lock/Ign/Start. Horn push in center of steering wheel.  Standardized symbols for functions and warnings, along with standardized colors for the warning lights. High beam light (the only warning light) is red. Uses the words BRIGHT LIGHTS, no symbols anywhere. Gauges marked BATTERY FUEL OIL WATER. Speedometer has no unit (only miles existed when it was built). 

But yeah... Getting into my Pontiac is not completely alien in use. There's a few things that need to be pointed out to anybody who's used to newer cars (ignition is on/off, starter push button is on the other side of the dash, wipers are the rooster-head in the top center of the dash and they only work when the engine is running, your high beam is that switch on the floor and the gears go NDLR. That big silver handle under the dash is the handbrake. Pull for on, twist to release. 

Beyond that, the driving experience mirrors modern vehicles (minus all the driving aids and value-added stuff like aircon).

Post-war was the first major turning point, yes. The 80's were the second where vehicles mostly became push-to-go without having to prep the vehicle or baby it while it warmed up.

Phil

[PhilA]

You made me go look. My previous car had PARK BRAKE on the pedal- the truck actually has the ISO symbol:

The dash is however stoically American.

Symbol symbol symbol BRAKE symbol symbol

What amuses me is the common brake symbol is there (O) with ABS in the center to differentiate what part of the braking system the light is about. Then the seatbelt warning (got the same symbol in my Renault), the malfunction indicator, tire pressure system warning and airbag warning. Other side has battery, oil, traction control etc, all symbols- the rest of the warnings and function "lights" come up on the screen.

(Dash there doing the gauge sweep test/lamp test upon switching on ignition).

[Crackers]

Interesting food for thought, this thread. I could probably go on at great length about my thoughts on this, but I'll try not to.

In my view, the main development in modern cars over the last 20 years (other than in-car technology/connectivity obviously, and LED headlights) has been the shift from large-capacity understressed engines, to small-capacity turbocharged units pulling along some surprisingly heavy cars. For example, many BMWs are now powered by a 1.5l 3-cylinder threshing mill, when a 2.0L might have been considered under-capacity for a similar car at the turn of the century. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends entirely on your outlook on reliability, fuel economy, power delivery etc, but it's definitely a standout development.

Also: crash safety. I know a lot of people on here will argue "the massive A-pillars on modern cars make it harder to see out, and therefore easier to crash", and while I agree with that to an extent, if you do have that crash (especially a big one), you'll be glad of the state-of-the-art crash structure keeping that massive energy transfer away from you. We'll be saying the same in another 20 years time, I'm sure.

 

On the flipside, I think "peak car" in terms of features/reliability/driving dynamics balance was late 90s to the early 2000s, we have a separate thread on this so I won't go on.

My 1972 P6 accelerates, stops, and handles well enough to feel perfectly at home on the roads of the 2020s. In terms of "operating the car", it's really not that far removed from my 2001 MX5, or the Mk1 Focus I had before - you get a decent amount of communication of what's going on, while retaining a good ride quality. Contrast this to the two newest cars I've driven, a 2020 Mini and 2021 1-series, which felt so numb and devoid of communication that I'd feel much more confident driving hard in my 20 year old Mazda than a brand new, premium "sporty" hatchback. 

So yeah. While we've come on a hell of a long way in some respects, there's definitely also plenty of ways we've gone backwards.

[grogee]

I think it's fair to say a lot of the improvements have been behind the scenes. 

There's an assumption (at least in the developed West) that a new car will have five-star EuroNCAP capability, which is designed in at a very early stage. 

That wasn't the case in 1986. Safety was the preserve of expensive cars and maybe even quirky old Volvo. 

The trouble is, without a big accident to experience all this secondary safety, we can't really 'see' it or appreciate it. I think the emergency services might, though. 

I'm also firmly in favour of primary safety tech which 'watches' me drive. Thinks like collision alert, auto brake, driver fatigue alert. One of the most common accidents is the 'punt driver in front when looking right at roundabout'. So easy to do. 

We are at a weird time in automotive development where we have the beginnings of automation but can't just get in our metal box and have a nap while it takes us to work. But convenience features like parking, active cruise etc are welcomed by me. 

There are other less obvious improvements. If you were buying a 1986 Fiat, there's a good chance it wouldn't start in the rain. Buy any 2022 Fiat and it's virtually guaranteed to start in all weathers. 

Unfortunately a lot of the clever engine tech that has improved efficiency has been offset by weight gain. But it does mean they run better, smoother, quieter, for longer - in most cases. 

I do look forward to a world of electric cars that are highly refined batteries on wheels using lots of standardised parts that make do with minimal maintenance and just 'work' all the time. But it probably won't happen. 

What still boggles my mind is the sheer amount of sophistication you can buy for not much money - £1000 or so buys you a 10 year old luxury barge crammed with really clever tech. Ok it may not work but it's still impressive value for money. £1000 doesn't go very far elsewhere in life eg holidays, furniture, home improvement etc. 

Cars are amazing really. 

[Eyersey1234]

My Focus is 6 1/2 years old and I think of it was quite new, but jump back 30 years to 1992 and it makes it the equivalent of a C reg Escort, which to a 5 year old me was old. 

[wuvvum]

The oldest cars I've driven any distance in were from 1938 (Renault Novaquatre and Vauxhall 10).  Both were perfectly manageable - the Vauxhall's brakes needed allowances to be made (the Renault's were assisted and it stopped like a modern) but other than a few idiosyncrasies such as the Renault having a floor-mounted starter button, nothing was too alien - both had decent synchromesh on the upper gears and the Vauxhall even had self-cancelling trafficators on a column stalk.

As others have said, when you get back to the early '30s and before is when things start getting more awkward - crash gearboxes, centre accelerator pedals, manual ignition advance etc.  I've not really driven anything that age on the road but I imagine it'd take some getting used to at the very least...

[reb]

2 minutes ago, Eyersey1234 said:

My Focus is 6 1/2 years old and I think of it was quite new, but jump back 30 years to 1992 and it makes it the equivalent of a C reg Escort, which to a 5 year old me was old. 

I was going through old photos last night and found one from 1993 of mum sitting on the bumper of dad's V reg Saab. I wonder where I got the impulse to drive old Swedish shite from?

[SteersWithThrottle]

There has, as far as my experience goes, a general trend towards coccooning the driver and insulating them from the outside environment.

My 60 plate Insignia is so very different from the S plate 1.9 CIH Cavalier (the first car I owned). Yes, it's more refined, more reliable, and a whole hell of a lot faster and better handling, but it's not any more comfortable, not much more economical, and a great deal less involving to drive. The driving position wraps around you in a way the Cav just gave you space and visibility.

The gen 6 Celica GT I had was more refined, more reliable, and a whole hell of a lot faster than the gen 1 and 2 ST's that my dad had, and again, the comfort and economy wouldn't be hugely different. The driving position again was far more generally sporty (lower, more dash wrap etc), but the biggest difference would be the driving dynamics.

Even though it's probably more capable, I'd hesitate to throw the Insignia around like I would have with, say my M plate TU3 205 on its 165/70s.

[Crackers]

41 minutes ago, SteersWithThrottle said:

Even though it's probably more capable, I'd hesitate to throw the Insignia around like I would have with, say my M plate TU3 205 on its 165/70s.

Likewise. IMO a communicative car with lower ultimate grip inspires a fair bit more confidence than a distant-feeling modern even though the modern will stick to the tarmac like whatsit to a whatnot. 

Plus, the more grip you have, the faster you can go before it starts to break loose, which means that when you do have a crash you're probably going to be travelling a hell of a lot faster.

[Eyersey1234]

I must admit the 2 Focuses I have had I've thrown around more than the 2 Fiestas I used to have 

[Bren]

36 years of development? Cars that are now too complicated to own - leasing is the only way to have one safely.

[chodweaver]

Likewise. IMO a communicative car with lower ultimate grip inspires a fair bit more confidence than a distant-feeling modern even though the modern will stick to the tarmac like whatsit to a whatnot. 
Plus, the more grip you have, the faster you can go before it starts to break loose, which means that when you do have a crash you're probably going to be travelling a hell of a lot faster.

Agreed. The MX5/MR2/GT86 ethos means you have the back end out, if you want it, at a speed that might not kill you, if it goes wrong.

[MisterH]

IMO, after about 1990, cars stopped making massive leaps in terms of driveability and useability. The R8 Generation Rover 200 I feel heralded this new era of driveability and standards, and the Mk1 Focus and Mk4 Golf were the first cars of the generation we have today. Even with these though, there hasn't really been a Paradigm shift since the 70s really as far as I can make out. My Volvo 480 has everything you'd expect in a modern, and while the Audi 80 Sport is a bit agricultural, it has the guts to outside lane it with the best of the 21st century

[ETCHY]

Secondary safety is vastly improved. An accident that years ago would kill someone can now mean just an airbag rash, moderns are superb in that respect.

However the thick pillars, crap visibility & stupid touch screens for all sorts of shit including basic functions mean you have to take your eyes off the road more now in many cars &  that will lead to many having a crash they might once have avoided..(although to be fair ABS etc has also helped greatly in avoiding crashes).

I don't think cars date like they did, they don't rot to the same degree & the styling is often so generic they don't age as much.

Over complication, weight (see crash safety above) & a dull sameness are what we seem to have achieved currently.. Oh yes & the ride has generally got crapper due to stupid low profile tyres & bigger wheels.

[New POD]

5 hours ago, bunglebus said:

I think car design from a functional point of view peaked somewhere.....

in the 80s with the mk2 cavalier 1.8 CDi. 

Or in the 90s with the mk3 cavalier SRi with SEH 8v 

 

 

Edited for absolute accuracy. 

Having worked in the Automotive Supply chain for 10 years in the 90s, most change, was either aesthetic, or to reduce cost. Often reducing the cost was done by improvements in process capability, but often by making design changes which took out cost but at the expense of life expectancy. 

 

[New POD]

2 hours ago, Eyersey1234 said:

My Focus is 6 1/2 years old and I think of it was quite new, but jump back 30 years to 1992 and it makes it the equivalent of a C reg Escort, which to a 5 year old me was old. 

My first cars in the 80s were 10 or 12 year old british Leyland* cars from.the 70s but designed in in the 50s and 60s 

Both had an unlikely 70k on the clock and were proper fucked. 

*1974 Mini 1000 and 1974 mk4 Spitfire. 

I'd think nothing of buying a 30 year old mx5 or a 21 year old Bini with 140k on the clock.