Maybe American car manufacturers should bring back simple, easy-to-maintain automobiles(perhaps successful models from the 1950s - 1970s).

[ModerationNow!]

Nowadays, cars are built without ANY concern for making it easy for the customer to repair them. They are basically designed so that the customer must rely on the dealership or other professional mechanics to repair or maintain them. But they used to be designed with ease of repair in mind.

Having lived during the 1980s - 90s, I was easily able to afford to buy cars and trucks from the mid 60s and 70s, which were usually very simple to maintain and repair. In the mid 90s, I owned a 1966 Chevy C10 short bed, step side pickup with a 250 cubic inch straight 6cyl and the venerable Chevy 2-speed "Powerglide" automatic transmission. Its components hadn't been rebuilt, and it had been sitting in the woods behind some guy's house for years!

It sorta needed new shocks and muffler, but It only cost a few hundred dollars in 1994 to have Midas install 4 new shocks, a new muffler and tailpipe. So I had them do it, since those things can be difficult to do, especially if the vehicle is decades old.

But I did have to replace the water pump after a year, and there was slippage in the transmission, so I did both. This provided an example of the cost differential between an older, simpler vehicle vs a newer car. My 1966 C10 truck needed a new water pump and fan belt, and I was able to do it myself for $35 in 1995! Turns out the transmission slippage was fixed by tightening its bands, which was as simple as loosening a locking nut 2-3 turns, then tightening the adjustment nut about 1/2 turn, and re-tightening the locking nut. It took 5 mins.

In the meantime, a family friend needed a new water pump on his 1990s BMW 5-series, which cost $1,500 just got the part + hundreds more for the labor!

So why not bring back a few older, simpler car designs that were proven, without computers and a million sensors, but with basic emissions equipment?

 

[Mr Person]

Yeah, and then we should bring back computers that were the size of a big room and had 256 bytes of memory! And legal segregation! And we can put women back in kitchens and take away their right to vote! Whoohoo golden age!

The stupidity....I swear...




If you want some big heavy steel gas guzzler without any of the safety features of the modern era, you're going to have to buy a used one. There's no meaningful market for newly manufacturing those things.

 

[aociswundumho]

So why not bring back a few older, simpler car designs that were proven, without computers and a million sensors, but with basic emissions equipment?

Won't pass emissions, won't pass safety standards, won't help with cafe ratings. Welcome to the progressive regulatory state, where politicians decide what kind of car you may buy.

 

[RF667799]

Nowadays, cars are built without ANY concern for making it easy for the customer to repair them. They are basically designed so that the customer must rely on the dealership or other professional mechanics to repair or maintain them. But they used to be designed with ease of repair in mind.

Having lived during the 1980s - 90s, I was easily able to afford to buy cars and trucks from the mid 60s and 70s, which were usually very simple to maintain and repair. In the mid 90s, I owned a 1966 Chevy C10 short bed, step side pickup with a 250 cubic inch straight 6cyl and the venerable Chevy 2-speed "Powerglide" automatic transmission. Its components hadn't been rebuilt, and it had been sitting in the woods behind some guy's house for years!

It sorta needed new shocks and muffler, but It only cost a few hundred dollars in 1994 to have Midas install 4 new shocks, a new muffler and tailpipe. So I had them do it, since those things can be difficult to do, especially if the vehicle is decades old.

But I did have to replace the water pump after a year, and there was slippage in the transmission, so I did both. This provided an example of the cost differential between an older, simpler vehicle vs a newer car. My 1966 C10 truck needed a new water pump and fan belt, and I was able to do it myself for $35 in 1995! Turns out the transmission slippage was fixed by simply tightening its bands, which was as simple as tightening a single nut!

In the meantime, a family friend needed a new water pump on his 1990s BMW 5-series, which cost $1,500 just got the part + hundreds more for the labor!

So why not bring back a few older, simpler car designs that were proven, without computers and a million sensors, but with basic emissions equipment?

I don't think you can achieve the mandated emissions/efficiency standards without those sensors and computers.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yeah, and then we should bring back computers that were the size of a big room and had 256 bytes of memory!

There's no demand for that, but there is a demand for cheap, easy to repair cars and trucks.

And legal segregation! And we can put women back in kitchens and take away their right to vote! Whoohoo golden age!

Yeah, that's relevant to car production.

The stupidity....I swear...

Indeed.

If you want some big heavy steel gas guzzler without any of the safety features of the modern era, you're going to have to buy a used one. There's no meaningful market for newly manufacturing those things.

Bullshit. If that were true, then there would be no need to outlaw them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yep, while all progress requires change, not all changes result in progress.

 

[Lisa]

Bullshit. If that were true, then there would be no need to outlaw them.

When and where were old cars outlawed? This is news to me.

 

[justoneman]

Nowadays, cars are built without ANY concern for making it easy for the customer to repair them. They are basically designed so that the customer must rely on the dealership or other professional mechanics to repair or maintain them. But they used to be designed with ease of repair in mind.

Having lived during the 1980s - 90s, I was easily able to afford to buy cars and trucks from the mid 60s and 70s, which were usually very simple to maintain and repair. In the mid 90s, I owned a 1966 Chevy C10 short bed, step side pickup with a 250 cubic inch straight 6cyl and the venerable Chevy 2-speed "Powerglide" automatic transmission. Its components hadn't been rebuilt, and it had been sitting in the woods behind some guy's house for years!

It sorta needed new shocks and muffler, but It only cost a few hundred dollars in 1994 to have Midas install 4 new shocks, a new muffler and tailpipe. So I had them do it, since those things can be difficult to do, especially if the vehicle is decades old.

But I did have to replace the water pump after a year, and there was slippage in the transmission, so I did both. This provided an example of the cost differential between an older, simpler vehicle vs a newer car. My 1966 C10 truck needed a new water pump and fan belt, and I was able to do it myself for $35 in 1995! Turns out the transmission slippage was fixed by simply tightening its bands, which was as simple as loosening a locking nut 2-3 turns, then tightening the adjustment nut about 1/2 turn! It took 5 mins.

In the meantime, a family friend needed a new water pump on his 1990s BMW 5-series, which cost $1,500 just got the part + hundreds more for the labor!

So why not bring back a few older, simpler car designs that were proven, without computers and a million sensors, but with basic emissions equipment?
View attachment 67564408

I have an old car from the 50's I am working on. It is incredibly simply to wrench on. I appreciate your point but it is an unrealistic expectation, however, I think there is a market for a basic utilitarian vehicle that is designed for ease of self maintenance. Some cars today you cannot access the oil filter or plugs. Some even require an engine removal to replace the water pump. To replace the heater core you have to pull the steering wheel and dash. It is absurd. Henry Ford must be rolling in his grave.

 

[medi]

I used to do a lot of my own work on a number of different models of vehicles through about the 90s here in Japan. Started in the U.S., of course. Even did some work on that Army jeep so many years ago. Have worked on aircraft flight controls and power plants. Avionics I wasn't too good with. But a flight deck these days is way different than back in the 60s and 70s and 80s; 80s for a bit.

I think I agree with the idea that those older engines in vehicles did pump a lot of nasty stuff into the atmosphere, so I guess I couldn't agree with this idea to bring back the older engines.

BUT I do agree that the engine compartment of a modern vehicle these days looks like something from Star Trek or something. All sorts of weird stuff in there. But my driving days are over because of all the medication they have to give me to keep me alive, so I don't have such engine fixing worries like a few decades ago.

I will state, though, that some of those older models were sure sturdy as heck. I had a Pinto slam into the front right wheel well of my old Thunderbird and messed up that Pinto really bad. After the fuzz filled out their forms on that accident we just popped the metal away from the wheel of my Thunderbird and went on to the airfield where we were originally heading. Autos these days don't look so sturdy, even if they do have those fancy bumpers, or whatever they call those now. And they got that air bag thing, too. I guess that is safe, but if there is a fire, not so good to have that air bag bothering you to get out.

 

[Peacenik]

Those vehicles were not safe. They don't have air bags, head restraints, seat belts or shoulder belts, crumple zones, safety glass, anti lock brakes, cushioned dash boards.

The death rates on American highways in deaths per miles driven were atrociously high then.

It was only after consumer outcry, sparked by books like Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed," and functional government action demanding manufacturers improve vehicle safety that the American highway carnage rate dropped.

When manufacturers incorporated all of the newer advancements, they also retooled their lines to make them easier to mass produce. At the same time, the government rightly demanded that vehicles get better mileage (which was atrocious back then.) During the factory retooling over the years, cars had to become lighter and smaller and be driven by smaller more powerful efficient engines. That meant cramming things in tighter spaces, making them more difficult to work on. The upside is that high production levels meant the tolerances had to get tighter and that resulted in fewer failures and more reliability.

Cars of the 60's-70's era typically lasted only 100K miles before becoming financially upside down in too many expensive repairs. Now, cars go twice that distance before they are not worth repairing.

Yes, they are more difficult to work on, but they don't usually need as many repairs, and it does keep a lot of people employed fixing cars.

 

[ModerationNow!]

Yeah, and then we should bring back computers that were the size of a big room and had 256 bytes of memory! And legal segregation! And we can put women back in kitchens and take away their right to vote! Whoohoo golden age!

The stupidity....I swear...




If you want some big heavy steel gas guzzler without any of the safety features of the modern era, you're going to have to buy a used one. There's no meaningful market for newly manufacturing those things.

WTF are you talking about? I've never seen such an irrational leap of logic! This thread is about making cars that are more affordable and easier to repair for lower middle class and poorer people. Making transportation more affordable seems like a reasonable and caring concept, but you somehow LEAP from helping poorer people get to work, to stripping rights away from women and segregating black people! You come across as a paranoid person, and it's kinda shocking that 2 other people also think that affordable transportation = women and black people in bondage! I don't want either of those things.

 

[Moon]

Nowadays, cars are built without ANY concern for making it easy for the customer to repair them. They are basically designed so that the customer must rely on the dealership or other professional mechanics to repair or maintain them. But they used to be designed with ease of repair in mind.

Having lived during the 1980s - 90s, I was easily able to afford to buy cars and trucks from the mid 60s and 70s, which were usually very simple to maintain and repair. In the mid 90s, I owned a 1966 Chevy C10 short bed, step side pickup with a 250 cubic inch straight 6cyl and the venerable Chevy 2-speed "Powerglide" automatic transmission. Its components hadn't been rebuilt, and it had been sitting in the woods behind some guy's house for years!

It sorta needed new shocks and muffler, but It only cost a few hundred dollars in 1994 to have Midas install 4 new shocks, a new muffler and tailpipe. So I had them do it, since those things can be difficult to do, especially if the vehicle is decades old.

But I did have to replace the water pump after a year, and there was slippage in the transmission, so I did both. This provided an example of the cost differential between an older, simpler vehicle vs a newer car. My 1966 C10 truck needed a new water pump and fan belt, and I was able to do it myself for $35 in 1995! Turns out the transmission slippage was fixed by tightening its bands, which was as simple as loosening a locking nut 2-3 turns, then tightening the adjustment nut about 1/2 turn, and re-tightening the locking nut. It took 5 mins.

In the meantime, a family friend needed a new water pump on his 1990s BMW 5-series, which cost $1,500 just got the part + hundreds more for the labor!

So why not bring back a few older, simpler car designs that were proven, without computers and a million sensors, but with basic emissions equipment?
View attachment 67564408

I think there’s definitely a market for less expensive vehicles, as evidenced by the overwhelming success of the Ford Maverick pickup. The challenge is to provide a lower cost vehicle with all of the required safety and emissions requirements, plus the things that people feel they must have. Any manufacturer who can pull it off would have a huge hit.

 

[ModerationNow!]

Those vehicles were not safe. They don't have air bags, head restraints, seat belts or shoulder belts, crumple zones, safety glass, anti lock brakes, cushioned dash boards.

The death rates on American highways in deaths per miles driven were atrociously high then.

It was only after consumer outcry, sparked by books like Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed," and functional government action demanding manufacturers improve vehicle safety that the American highway carnage rate dropped.

When manufacturers incorporated all of the newer advancements, they also retooled their lines to make them easier to mass produce. At the same time, the government rightly demanded that vehicles get better mileage (which was atrocious back then.) During the factory retooling over the years, cars had to become lighter and smaller and be driven by smaller more powerful efficient engines. That meant cramming things in tighter spaces, making them more difficult to work on. The upside is that high production levels meant the tolerances had to get tighter and that resulted in fewer failures and more reliability.

Cars of the 60's-70's era typically lasted only 100K miles before becoming financially upside down in too many expensive repairs. Now, cars go twice that distance before they are not worth repairing.

Yes, they are more difficult to work on, but they don't usually need as many repairs, and it does keep a lot of people employed fixing cars.

I agree that it they re-released older models, they should incorporate some modern safety equipment designs into them. But as far as gas mileage, my 2005 Dodge Ram 1500 gets 10mpg with a relatively small 4.7l V8, which is as bad or worse than 1/2 ton pickups from the early 70s. I drove my 302cu in V8 1978 Ford Mustang II Cobra II from southeastern Pa to Myrtle Beach SC in 1985, and I monitored my gas mileage on the way back, which was just under 30mpg highway.

As far as not having antilock brakes, there were a couple times where I had to slam on the 4-wheel manual drum brakes with ^that 66 Chevy pickup, and although they locked up the wheels, it actually skidded to a stop in impressively short distance, in a 100% straight line in both instances. One of those instances involved driving over a steep, blind bridge and running into completely stopped traffic halfway down the other side of the bridge, requiring immediate stomping of the brakes. It stopped about 1.5 car lengths away from the nearest stopped car.

I've done the same thing in full sized 1 ton Chevy vans with ABS, and the ABS's intermittent on/off brake pressure almost prevented me from being able to stop in time, which almost led to me running through a busy intersection and causing a major accident.

But I wouldn't oppose installing an effective, inexpensive ABS style system on a re-released older car.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Those vehicles were not safe. They don't have air bags, head restraints, seat belts or shoulder belts, crumple zones, safety glass, anti lock brakes, cushioned dash boards.

The death rates on American highways in deaths per miles driven were atrociously high then.

It was only after consumer outcry, sparked by books like Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed," and functional government action demanding manufacturers improve vehicle safety that the American highway carnage rate dropped.

When manufacturers incorporated all of the newer advancements, they also retooled their lines to make them easier to mass produce. At the same time, the government rightly demanded that vehicles get better mileage (which was atrocious back then.) During the factory retooling over the years, cars had to become lighter and smaller and be driven by smaller more powerful efficient engines. That meant cramming things in tighter spaces, making them more difficult to work on. The upside is that high production levels meant the tolerances had to get tighter and that resulted in fewer failures and more reliability.

Cars of the 60's-70's era typically lasted only 100K miles before becoming financially upside down in too many expensive repairs. Now, cars go twice that distance before they are not worth repairing.

Yes, they are more difficult to work on, but they don't usually need as many repairs, and it does keep a lot of people employed fixing cars.

That (bolded above) seems a bit contradictory.

 

[justoneman]

BUT I do agree that the engine compartment of a modern vehicle these days looks like something from Star Trek or something. All sorts of weird stuff in there. But my driving days are over because of all the medication they have to give me to keep me alive, so I don't have such engine fixing worries like a few decades ago.

They can certainly design a modern vehicle with the computer and sensors and all the safety equipment and have the engine bay roomy and thoughtfully arranged for ease of access to everything. Instead they make it tight and inaccessible in order to make the car attractive on the outside. The Ford Bronco back in the day was a modest priced utilitarian vehicle. Today it is a status symbol. Car makers are focused on selling expensive cars. They either make luxury cars or they make bottom line econo subcompacts.

 

[Peacenik]

That (bolded above) seems a bit contradictory.

Agreed, the sentence does appear that way, but the upshot is there are millions more vehicles on the road being driven far more many miles than in the 60's-70's. Coupled with repairs that are more complicated and cost more, it does keep a lot of people employed working on cars, even though the typical car owner gets many more miles before needing a repair.

 

[BabaVoss]

I undertand the desire for simpler and cheaper vehicles, but American cars from the 50s to the 70s were pretty awful. They handled poorly, ran dirty, bodies rotted out quickly, and were quite inefficient. And it was rare to have one live long enough to go 100,000 miles. That is commonplace now.

Let's not go backwards to shitty cars.

 

[Juin]

Yep, while all progress requires change, not all changes result in progress.

Exactamundo!

 

[BirdinHand]

Nowadays, cars are built without ANY concern for making it easy for the customer to repair them. They are basically designed so that the customer must rely on the dealership or other professional mechanics to repair or maintain them. But they used to be designed with ease of repair in mind.

Having lived during the 1980s - 90s, I was easily able to afford to buy cars and trucks from the mid 60s and 70s, which were usually very simple to maintain and repair. In the mid 90s, I owned a 1966 Chevy C10 short bed, step side pickup with a 250 cubic inch straight 6cyl and the venerable Chevy 2-speed "Powerglide" automatic transmission. Its components hadn't been rebuilt, and it had been sitting in the woods behind some guy's house for years!

It sorta needed new shocks and muffler, but It only cost a few hundred dollars in 1994 to have Midas install 4 new shocks, a new muffler and tailpipe. So I had them do it, since those things can be difficult to do, especially if the vehicle is decades old.

But I did have to replace the water pump after a year, and there was slippage in the transmission, so I did both. This provided an example of the cost differential between an older, simpler vehicle vs a newer car. My 1966 C10 truck needed a new water pump and fan belt, and I was able to do it myself for $35 in 1995! Turns out the transmission slippage was fixed by tightening its bands, which was as simple as loosening a locking nut 2-3 turns, then tightening the adjustment nut about 1/2 turn, and re-tightening the locking nut. It took 5 mins.

In the meantime, a family friend needed a new water pump on his 1990s BMW 5-series, which cost $1,500 just got the part + hundreds more for the labor!

So why not bring back a few older, simpler car designs that were proven, without computers and a million sensors, but with basic emissions equipment?
View attachment 67564408

Why not go back to horses?

 

[Airyaman]

Nowadays, cars are built without ANY concern for making it easy for the customer to repair them. They are basically designed so that the customer must rely on the dealership or other professional mechanics to repair or maintain them. But they used to be designed with ease of repair in mind.

Having lived during the 1980s - 90s, I was easily able to afford to buy cars and trucks from the mid 60s and 70s, which were usually very simple to maintain and repair. In the mid 90s, I owned a 1966 Chevy C10 short bed, step side pickup with a 250 cubic inch straight 6cyl and the venerable Chevy 2-speed "Powerglide" automatic transmission. Its components hadn't been rebuilt, and it had been sitting in the woods behind some guy's house for years!

It sorta needed new shocks and muffler, but It only cost a few hundred dollars in 1994 to have Midas install 4 new shocks, a new muffler and tailpipe. So I had them do it, since those things can be difficult to do, especially if the vehicle is decades old.

But I did have to replace the water pump after a year, and there was slippage in the transmission, so I did both. This provided an example of the cost differential between an older, simpler vehicle vs a newer car. My 1966 C10 truck needed a new water pump and fan belt, and I was able to do it myself for $35 in 1995! Turns out the transmission slippage was fixed by tightening its bands, which was as simple as loosening a locking nut 2-3 turns, then tightening the adjustment nut about 1/2 turn, and re-tightening the locking nut. It took 5 mins.

In the meantime, a family friend needed a new water pump on his 1990s BMW 5-series, which cost $1,500 just got the part + hundreds more for the labor!

So why not bring back a few older, simpler car designs that were proven, without computers and a million sensors, but with basic emissions equipment?
View attachment 67564408

You can move to Cuba, I hear they have some really old cars there.

 

[ModerationNow!]

I think there’s definitely a market for less expensive vehicles, as evidenced by the overwhelming success of the Ford Maverick pickup. The challenge is to provide a lower cost vehicle with all of the required safety and emissions requirements, plus the things that people feel they must have. Any manufacturer who can pull it off would have a huge hit.

Yeah, but it doesn't seem like any of the American manufacturers have considered the concept of designing simpler cars that the average person can repair.

 

[BirdinHand]

This thread is about making cars that are more affordable

Why the presumption that there is great desire in the market for more simplistic vehicles?

Or lower quality vehicles?

 

[Juin]

Why not go back to horses?

Iron horses?

 

[ModerationNow!]

Won't pass emissions, won't pass safety standards, won't help with cafe ratings. Welcome to the progressive regulatory state, where politicians decide what kind of car you may buy.

The eventual goal of the left and their WEF/UN bosses appears to be to completely pricing regular people out of the car market altogether. It seems obvious that they want most people either walking or forced to move to cities to take public transportation.

 

[medi]

Yeah, but it doesn't seem like any of the American manufacturers have considered the concept of designing simpler cars that the average person can repair.

Is there any software on the market that can inform an owner exactly what part needs changing? Maybe other software that then can tell the owner how to change the part?