Ask the Car People.SM


Is a classic car right for me?

178 messages,  Last post on Jan 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Car Buying, Classic Cars, Coupe, Convertible, Sedan

Messages Page 14 of 19

#123 of 178 Re: A new batch to consider [Mr_Shiftright] by isellhondas

Jul 20, 2011 (9:59 am)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 20, 2011 9:29 am)
It used to be, not much changed from year to year but today's cars require constant training to stay on top.
 
The old time mechanics usually learned on the job. They didn't have the Vo Tech schools that they have now.
 
Still, it's a tough way to make a living and the veterans are quick to tell the new people that.

#124 of 178 Re: A new batch to consider [Mr_Shiftright] by fintail

Jul 20, 2011 (11:07 am)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 20, 2011 9:29 am)
Sounds right. Warranty claims can go to the dealer as you're more likely to get a loaner etc there too...but afterwards, not so attractive. So much today is modular and based on what a computer tells you to do, as well.

#125 of 178 Re: Pls help me decide on which classic car to get [Mr_Shiftright] by 101dave

Aug 05, 2011 (1:29 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (May 27, 2011 8:04 am)
I checked into this forum because I have been considering a late 80's SL purchase. I had Ghia as my only driver. Since it is essentially a bug with nicer skin you should understand that it's not the best handling or safest car out there. In the price range you are looking you will probably see many that have been well cared for and probably babied with some modern updates. I can tell you from personal experiance you should avoid a fixer, the bodies are difficult to work on and the electrical systems can be tricky if it has not been updated. As a daily driver cars like this are not as charming as when they are sitting still so an SL will be much more comfortable. Although, the Ghia will have more of a soul. If you are realistic about it, and can give up some comforts I'd go with the Ghia. It's been twenty years since I sold mine and it's the only car I regret selling. You should also check out some of it's British counterparts, less reliable probably but more fun to drive.

#126 of 178 Still thinking about a daily driver by astphard

Dec 20, 2012 (7:29 am)

OP here. Still haven't given up on the idea of finding a "classic" as a daily driver. A few months back I was transferred to a site even closer to my house, so I'm unlikely to even put 5,000 miles a year on the car (mostly city driving). But I live in the humid south and have a driveway, but no garage. At the moment I'm purely a checkbook mechanic, though I'd be interested in learning more.
 
My wishlist:
-A backseat big enough for a large dog or small kids
-A trunk big enough to fit 2 carry-on suitcases
-A vehicle less than 200" in length (the shorter, the better)
-Air conditioning (which I'm willing to add on)
-The best gas mileage I can get (though I know it won't be like new cars...I'd prefer 20mpg or better, but I'm learning I'll have to be flexible here)
-Needs no more than $1-2k/year in maintenance costs
-Can do 0-60 in less than 15 seconds (the faster the better)
 
From what I understand, domestic makes might be more reliable and economical to run. So I've thought up these models:
 
Corvair '60-'64
Dodge Lancer '60-'62
Ford Mustang Fastback '64-'66
Plymouth Valiant '60-'65
Plymouth Barracuda '64-65
Studebaker Lark '59-'63
 
Of course, I'm still partial to the imports, but acknowledge part availability and costs of maintenance may be higher. The BMW 2002 is still on the list, and other suggestions are welcomed.
 
I guess the most basic part of my query is, should I still consider an older car or just give up the dream?

#127 of 178 Re: Still thinking about a daily driver [astphard] by andre1969

Dec 20, 2012 (9:52 am)

Replying to: astphard (Dec 20, 2012 7:29 am)
I used to have a car that pretty much fit that description...a 1969 Dodge Dart GT hardtop with a 225 slant six, and air conditioning.
 
It was tight in the back seat, but I could fit, and I'm 6'3" A dog or kids should be fine, I'd think. Trunk was something like 17.1 cubic feet, which is bigger than most cars today. However, it was a shallow trunk, so you couldn't up anything tall that had to sit upright in it.
 
Overall length was 196". Fuel economy was around 15-18 mpg in local driving and 22-23 on the highway. 0-60 came up in about 14 seconds, per Consumer Reports' test of a 1968 Dart with the same engine/drivetrain. They also tested a 1967 Valiant, which was about 100 pounds lighter and had a 2.94:1 axle rather than the 2.76 they started using in 1968, and got 13 seconds.

#128 of 178 Re: Still thinking about a daily driver [astphard] by texases

Dec 20, 2012 (10:04 am)

Replying to: astphard (Dec 20, 2012 7:29 am)
"A backseat big enough for a large dog or small kids"
 
I can't recommend ANY classic car for frequent transport of small kids. Cars were MUCH less safe then.

#129 of 178 Re: Still thinking about a daily driver [texases] by andre1969

Dec 20, 2012 (11:57 am)

Replying to: texases (Dec 20, 2012 10:04 am)
I can't recommend ANY classic car for frequent transport of small kids. Cars were MUCH less safe then.
 
Oops...can't believe I totally glossed over that! Also, safety issues aside, getting a child car seat in and out of a 2-door car can be a major pain. And in some of the smaller ones, like a Corvair or Mustang, would they even fit? I do know from experience that one will fit in the back of a '68 Dart hardtop, but getting it in and out is not easy.

#130 of 178 Re: Still thinking about a daily driver [andre1969] by astphard

Dec 20, 2012 (1:46 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 20, 2012 11:57 am)
There are no kids yet, just planning for a possible future. Though I'd prefer a 2-door model, I would consider a sedan, which would also ease any carseat worries.
 
But...if it wasn't earlier in this thread, then it was in another, where people were talking about classics and children. My impression of it was that although modern cars have added many safety features, that for decades older cars got millions of people where they needed to go without killing their kids, and they were unlikely to start doing so now. Is that impression incorrect?

#131 of 178 Re: Still thinking about a daily driver [astphard] by texases

Dec 20, 2012 (1:56 pm)

Replying to: astphard (Dec 20, 2012 1:46 pm)
Yes, it's incorrect. The death rate in cars from the 60s (deaths per million passenger miles) was about 4 times what it is today. You'll get lots of 'well I'm here, and I drove cars back then so they were just fine!' comments. Problem is, the dead don't post much...
 
And I too survived, a '65 Mustang, not much safe about it.

#132 of 178 Re: Still thinking about a daily driver [astphard] by andre1969

Dec 20, 2012 (1:59 pm)

Replying to: astphard (Dec 20, 2012 1:46 pm)
My impression of it was that although modern cars have added many safety features, that for decades older cars got millions of people where they needed to go without killing their kids, and they were unlikely to start doing so now. Is that impression incorrect?
 
I think that as long as you put the kids in the back seat, and have them securely fastened, they should be fairly safe. One reason so many people died back in the day was because they didn't wear seatbelts, and they let the kids go hopping all over the car! Heck, I even remember, as a kid in the 70's, not wearing a seatbelt, playing around in the back seat, getting bored, and then climbing over to get up front between Mom and Dad. Or Grandmom and Granddad.
 
The important thing though, is to make sure the car seat is fastened. I don't think cars were required to even have seatbelts in the back until 1965, so if you get a 1964 or older car, there might not be anything to attach the car seat to. Seatbelts were available prior to 1965, but were an option and not ordered all that often.
 
One other thing to remember though, is that the disparity between small and big cars has gotten much greater in modern times. Most of the cars you listed most likely weighted less than 3,000 lb, and in some cases, much less. Even the biggest Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Imperials weren't much more than 5,000 lb. And when they'd hit, at least the bumpers would line up.
 
But, today there's a whole armada of big trucks and SUVs out there, that weight much more than any full-sized car of the 60's or 70's did, and when they hit, their bumpers and frames will over-ride the bumper of a car, and penetrate disturbingly deep into the passenger cabin. And I don't even want to think about getting t-boned by something like an Expedition or Suburban in ANY old car, let alone a lightweight compact!
 
And even cars today are bigger, heavier, and stronger than they used to be. A couple years ago, NHTSA did a crash test where they ran a 2010 or so Malibu into a 1959 Impala. Both cars were totaled, but the crash test dummy in the Malibu suffered very little damage. What happened to the dummy in the Impala was downright disturbing. And, a 1959 Impala isn't a particularly small car...
 
Of course, the less you drive, the less chance you'll have to worry about that. If you were out there driving 15-20,000 miles per year or more, and regularly carting kids around, I'd think twice. And, if you drive an old car regularly, just be extra attentive of what's going on around you. Old cars don't react as quickly as newer ones, and often lose control more easily. So you have to make sure you leave a little more distance between you and the car in front of you, realize that people are going to dive and swoop in front of you, etc.

Messages Page 14 of 19

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement