[68454SS]

I was thinking the other day, are new cars more reliable because they are 'newer' and thus have zero wear and tear on them, or are they more reliable because they are better engineered? For example, if you restored a 1970 Chevelle to the point where it could be considered 100% NEW content down to the last bolt (and you weren't afraid to drive it like a new daily driver) and bought a NEW 2006 ~whatever~, which would last longer assuming identical driving conditions and wear? I'm not talking better economy/ergonomics/performance, I mean which would last longer in a real world situation? Recently, the wife's 1998 Lumina turned 118,000 miles (the same original mileage as my '68 SS) and the drivetrain is still great, but the interior and body are really starting to show some wear. I doubt that any new cars will live to 35 years old. Is this just a perception that old cars were 'better' because the only ones left are collectors and thus not driven as hard?

 

[Jim Mac]

I think the new engines would last longer, mainly because computer control fuel injection, you don't have excess gas washing the oil off of your cylinder walls, electronic spark control, no detonation. however your sealed bearings on the front wheels may let go before your old chevelle which gets regular maintnance. CV shaft may wear out because you cant grease them, but you can grease your U joints. I don't know just thinking out loud. Jim

 

[71elkySS454]

Even though we want to think differently, the newer cars are a lot better engineered and a lot more reliable. Having worked in the new car industry, Far and above most of the warranty claims on new vehicles nowadays are for things we didn't even have on the older cars-- power windows, cruise control, antilock brakes, etc. A ton of electrical and electronic claims. These things didn't even exists on our older cars. In our shop we never had an engine go bad, very rarely had to replace a tranny or rear end under warranty. Just the opposite was the case back in the 60's. I can remember being in the shop of the local small town Chevy dealership and seeing 5 or 6 Big Block Chevelles and /or Camaros in there at one time for an engine or tranny rebuild or replacement. They had true mechanics back in those days. Now the dealerships have
'technicians' or parts changers as I like to call them.

 

[Derek69SS]

I'd give the chevelle 15k miles before it needs points, plugs, and maybe some carb-tuning.

Old cars were built better, but the new tech is almost maintenance-free. For daily use, I'll take maintenance-free

 

[Autoengineer]

I think the tranny, rearend, and draveshaft on my Chevelle are more durable than either of my daily drivers (a Nissan Maxima and Honda Accord). The engine though is a different story. I remember most of my dad's old cars were pretty much shot at around 120K miles or so. I had a 93 Saturn that had 235k miles on it the day I sold it and the guy drove it home. I agree with Jim Mac, the engines today run cleaner with all the electronics and plus the tolerances on the pistons and rings and everything are much tighter as well. MY tranny, driveshaft, and rearend are supposedly good up to 500hp. I bet if I tried to put even 400hp thru my Accord tranny, I'd end up having to tow the car home and I'd have to sweep the tranny parts off the pavement

 

[rianbechtold]

They each have their pro's and con's. For exapmle, the older engines may be deemed "unreliable", but they are certainly easier to work on. Many garage mechanics can fix a small block chevy in a weekend. New cars are another story. And yes, with the advances in technology, there are more problems encountered and more avoided. Then there is the question of plastic part longevity on new cars. Oh, and to the dependability of the engine issue. My car came with a 402 but was replaced with a 307 in 1986 by the guy i bought it from. He has every mile documented and used the car as a daily driver. When i removed it a couple months ago, it had 650,000+ miles on it. Granted, it had two rebuilds but they were garage rebuilds (with exception of machine shop boring etc..). When was the last time you saw a guy able to rebuild a modern motor in his garage?

 

[Professor_SS]

I'm sure modern cars/trucks are engineered better, that is obvious, look at the HP/fuel economy they get compared to our velles. And usually on a lot less displacement. And modern engines do last forever, I have a 87 dakota approaching 300k. But having said that, simplicity has its own rewards. Our cars are 30/40 years old. I think they lasted this long not because they were well engineered, but because they are so simple most of us can wrench on them. Modern cars will have a difficult time living as long (years wise not mileage wise) as our cars have, mostly due to the complexity of them. Imagine keeping the electrical/computer systems living in them when they're 40. I had a 77 Datsun 280 in the early 90s that blew a computer, talk about difficult to find, and costly :angry: Also, things like fuel systems. We have so much selection, and carbs are so interchangeable. Fuel injection, not so much so. Also, the astounding use of plastics. Makes them light, but look at the plastics on some of the cars starting to age a bit, it is just not holding up. Modern cars are designed as throw away as is most of the rest of what we buy these days is.

 

[Derek69SS]

For exapmle, the older engines may be deemed "unreliable", but they are certainly easier to work on.

People knew how to work on them out of NECESSITY. Everybody needed to know a few things just to keep them running. If our late-models needed work as often as our chevelles, we'd all know more about fixing them too.

 

[bisjoe]

The newer engines are more efficient and may last longer, but in my experience with new cars the weakness is the automatic transmissions. Nothing lasts like an old TH350/400. Then the new cars have a lot of plastic parts that just break, especially interior trim. Then there's all of the electrical systems, driven by computer, all the sensors, they may last 70k miles but are very expensive to diagnose and replace. We've all heard stories of people paying several hundred for diagnosis to replace a $50 part that takes 5 minutes to change. All I need for my EC is a dwell tach and timing light.

 

[mr 4 speed]

IMHO and experience,older cars are just plain easier to work on and to diagnose problems.

 

[69boo307]

Manufacturers don't want you to keep a car for 40 years, they want you to trade in on a new one every 3-5 years. Rick hit the nail on the head, they're designed to be 'throw away' now. They're made with cheap flimsy materials that look great for a while, but can't stand up to the test of time. Old cars are made mostly of good ol US steel.
Sad thing is, even houses are starting to be built that way. At least around here, very few people keep a house for more than 5 years, and the new houses that get thrown up are just crap. Meanwhile I live in a 40 year old house that is made out of wood that has the consistency of granite and will probably still be standing when the new houses across the street are bulldozed for a mall

 

[Wwalstrom]

Recently, the wife's 1998 Lumina turned 118,000 miles (the same original mileage as my '68 SS) and the drivetrain is still great, but the interior and body are really starting to show some wear.

Wow ... ONLY 118K ... My 1998 Lumina has 224K on it, and still going strong. Interior isn't new, but it's still not showing any wear (but then again, the seats are leather).

 

[Wwalstrom]

People knew how to work on them out of NECESSITY. Everybody needed to know a few things just to keep them running. If our late-models needed work as often as our chevelles, we'd all know more about fixing them too.

But we still wouldn't be able to afford the diagnostic equipment!

 

[Motorhead62]

I have a 1993 Saturn SL1 that has 160K on it and is still kickin' and gets 30-40 MPH! It has been paid off for a LONG time too! :beers:

 

[NOZ34ME]

Everything about the new cars is better than the old ones, IMHO. I notice it every time I drive the Chevelle- - - granted I may not have mine in the condition that a lot of you do, but handling, power, mileage, reliability (even with new GM) is just way ahead of 35 years ago.

That said, when something broke, it was a lot easier for the average Joe to figure out the problem in 1968, vs 2005. I think that's what a lot of folks on this forum appreciate.

Remember when it was an ordeal to get the car ready for vacation?

 

[Keith Tedford]

The old cars are easy and inexpensive to repair for the most part. The new ones are great when they are working but cause a lot of wallet pain when things go wrong. It was over $800 before we had the fuel pump and sender unit replaced in our '97 Olds. A wheel bearing was close to $300. Compare that with the old Chevelle. Changing either part is relatively minor work. We probably put close to 200K miles on our COPO Chevelle. We had 200K miles on our '94 Saturn but I doubt it would not have taken the abuse that the Chevelle drivetrain took. You are better crash protected in the new cars and they don't start to rust through in 3 years like the old ones did. Gas mileage has definitely improved. Check out the EPA mileage figures for the new Corvette. There isn't much new stuff out there today that will be worth anything 30 years down the road. I'm still a '60s old car guy.

 

[79943]

there is a "rule" in engineering that when reliability goes up maintainability goes down. cars are a perfect example. new cars are without a question much more reliable but are in general much less maintainable than those of 30 years ago. a lot of the younger members probably dont realize it but in the '60's if you got 20k miles on a set of tires you were bragging and/or exaggerating. same thing with 15k miles on a tune up...battery lasted maybe 2 years if you were lucky, and if you pushed the car hard you were doing rings and bearings in less than 50k in some cases. drum brakes were horrible and needed shoes frequently. there is no doubt that there have been major improvements to mileage and reliability on the new stuff. to me the down side is that with electronics (which in many cases is the basis of the improvements) failure, when it does occur, is instantaneous ...with no warning . on the older cars where everything was basically mechanical in nature, you usually had warnings of sound or diminished performance to let you know something needed attention, before it died on you and left you stranded.

 

[Junkyard Dawg]

IMO I think new cars have better technology...I mean sohc and dohc beats push rods and fuel injection beats carbureation. 4 wheel disc brakes surpass 4 wheel drums by a long shot. And electronic ignition makes the breaker point style ignitions really look prehistoric.

But then again, cars like our Chevelles were built to last, whereas cars made these days are built to be replaced after 10 years.

Also the other bad thing is the newer cars require sophisticated tools to fix them whereas on our cars, the common shade tree mechanic with a simple set of hand tools could fix.

 

[plain 69]

I think the newer cars are more reliable for the reasonable every day driver. I just wonder how long the average new car could take powerbraking, neutral drops and dropping the clutch at about 5,000 rpms compared to the old cars back in the day.

I used to run around with guys that could be G.M. wear and tear engineers. I mean these guys would get in their old 70 Impala 4 door and be screaming in reverse and slam it into L1 and that old turbo 350 with a ten bolt rearend would live although a little more play in the 10 bolt. Try that in your 2005 Impala. You don't know how much abuse I used to see in my younger days.

I don't think drivers abuse vehicles like that anymore except for rental cars.

 

[Chevelle Dude]

I think "Reliable" has a different meaning to me. IMO Id like an old point system anyday over an electronic Computer controlled vehicle if I was doing cross country driving. Seriously..I know People are saying "this kids crazy" but seriously...If I loose a Condensor on my 71, It'll run like crap and backfire..but will still get me to the nearest rest stop. AND, If its something like a set of points, I can change it on the side of the road in 5 min..If you in your 2005 F-150, Good luck...If something goes..your callin the tow truck and paying a mechanic $200 just to tell ya whats wrong with the damn thing. People moan and groan about having to adjust points...tell ya what Ill adjust my points, and you pay $400-800 for a new computer or Ignition Module.
I dont mean to sound like I know everything, But my fathers a Master ASE tech, and will tell you that alot of the designs out there are just plane stupid...Like Having Transmission shift solinoids(how do ya spell that??lol) in hot Tranny fluid isnt the best things...And when they cram a ton of Wires and Computers under a hot hood, and have sensors next to a hot motor...they're usually going to fail. My mother had a 2000 Chrystler sebring and needed 3 different trannys in it, all due to shift computers/solinoids...the first one went at 30k.
My dads 99 F-150 had a fuel pump that went bad at the boat ramp...Well, after $700 in parts and labor he had a new one...My fuel pump whent bad in the velle last year after god knows how many years of service...$40 and 5 minutes later It was fixed.
When it works right, yeah sure...new stuff is great, But ya gotta remember, The drivers of those BB Chevelles and camaros in the shop back then were under way more stress with the HP and TQ and more than likely were under constant driver abuse. Take a new car out and race it and beat the crap out of it..Youll have the same problems. I think there is some logic behind the saying "they dont make em like they used to"