For those interested in old cars.

[Hobby]

Look at the purpose of 99% of cars on the roads - which is to get the occupants of the vehicle from A to B in as much comfort and safety as possible. 

 

That's it, nothing more, nothing less. Hence the development of all the safety and comfort features on new cars. 

 

I'd agree with Sam that to a certain extent the modern driver is an "operator" of a modern vehicle (though you could argue the same for any age of car), but even so they still have to have a certain degree of skill, just not the same as a driver from, say, the 30s or 40s where grip, brakes, etc., were nowhere near as good as they are now, though that is partially compensated by lower speeds and less traffic back then. 

 

I'd suggest that a driver of an early car, driving in the conditions around the early 1900s may well think that drivers of cars from the 50s and 60s had things easy, what they'd think of cars now I wouldn't like to guess, but I suspect they'd be divided into two camps, one lot who despised all the new features and the others who welcomed them with open arms... Which is rather like this discussion and the reason that there will be no agreement!! ;)

[Dunsignalling]

I doubt that drivers of early cars bore much nostalgia for the previous model, as the rate of improvement quickly demonstrated the advantages of getting a new one! There are some cars from the mid-1930s that I would enjoy driving (I wouldn't go any earlier) but those that I would have found affordable had I been around back then were entirely gutless. Same goes right up to about 1980 IMHO. Many (including me) dote on Escort Mexicos etc, but how would they feel if presented with a basic drum-braked 1100 model for a daily driver......

 

What it really boils down to, I think, is not so much the presence of modern features as the fact that, unless they can be switched off, they remove control from the driver. 

 

That's only really a problem if it's something you prefer to do for yourself. In my case, I'll eagerly take traction controlled 4wd, aircon, power brakes and steering, but draw the line at automatic gearboxes in general and CVT in particular! Oh, and "connectivity" just vile!

 

Yes, technology has removed the differences between makes/models, and reduced the "character" of vehicles. All too often with some older cars, though, "character" was a euphemism for handling vices that you had to learn to deal with!

 

John

Edited May 21, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[SamThomas]

8 hours ago, 45568 said:

Which is, of course, why we are saddled with countless numbers of the 'white goods on wheels' that constitute the Toyota range. All driven, (in Western Australia), slowly, badly and without any consideration for other road users!

Cheers from Oz, (aka the land of the slow white Toyota),

Peter C.

Love that term "white goods on wheels" - sums up the Toyota range perfectly.

 

Some decades ago it was rumoured that Toyota would take over Land Rover - there was much trumpeting about how they would make the products of Solihull reliable until the enthusists realised that in the process they would loose their charector - which Land Rovers have in abundance (well up to a few years ago  anyway).

[SamThomas]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

I doubt that drivers of early cars bore much nostalgia for the previous model, as the rate of improvement quickly demonstrated the advantages of getting a new one! There are some cars from the mid-1930s that I would enjoy driving (I wouldn't go any earlier) but those that I would have found affordable had I been around back then were entirely gutless. Same goes right up to about 1980 IMHO. Many (including me) dote on Escort Mexicos etc, but how would they feel if presented with a basic drum-braked 1100 model for a daily driver......

 

What it really boils down to, I think, is not so much the presence of modern features as the fact that, unless they can be switched off, they remove control from the driver. 

 

That's only really a problem if it's something you prefer to do for yourself. In my case, I'll eagerly take traction controlled 4wd, aircon, power brakes and steering, but draw the line at automatic gearboxes in general and CVT in particular! Oh, and "connectivity" just vile!

 

Yes, technology has removed the differences between makes/models, and reduced the "character" of vehicles. All too often with some older cars, though, "character" was a euphemism for handling vices that you had to learn to deal with!

 

John

Ah, the mkI Escort Mexico - wish I still had mine ! Apart from the shape they had little in common with the 1100cc drum braked gutless wonder.

 

I agree about the "modern features" being able to switch them off. Later model DAF's (as in HGV's) have some good features such as adaptive cruise control but the automatic (& hard) braking that comes on in traffic when the "uberoo's" cut in front of you*** standing the truck on it's nose & the "lane assist" that cuts it if you cross the white lines when joining an empty motorway without indicating - well, they get turned off every time.

 

I'm OK with auto boxes such as the DSG from VW & the I-Shift from Volvo Trucks - always in the right gear. As for the auto-boxes in DAF's, the gearchanging is all over the place like a cheap suit & often set up so that the driver cannot overide it.

 

*** & then the onboard telematics report you for "harsh braking" & you have to speak to a driver trainer..................

[30368]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

Yes, technology has removed the differences between makes/models, and reduced the "character" of vehicles. All too often with some older cars, though, "character" was a euphemism for handling vices that you had to learn to deal with!

 

Yes I agree John. A regular car type discussion (amongst older types like me) goes along the lines of:

 

"Modern cars - you can't work on them, everything is sealed"

"My mate had a ..........and the new engine management unit was £0000s"

" I remember my "please insert" back in the 60's it was dead easy to get at everything you could get the spares and could repair and service it yourself"

 

All of which is true and so is the unpleasant (perhaps) truth that you were always working on cars back in the 1960s because they were generally unreliable and needed lots of preventive maintenence. None of which is true of modern cars - they are brilliant, reliable and generally don't need preventive maintenance for a couple of years. In between we just get in them and drive!

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard B

 

[alastairq]

14 hours ago, Hobby said:

The whole point is that most drivers wouldn't get anywhere near the limits of a modern car

 That is not quite backed up by the evidence [especially first thing on a Saturday morning?] of the numbers of modern [new, even?] cars in ditches, or through hedges, on their roofs in fields and front gardens round these parts.

The fact is, modern cars are quite a lot more capable in terms of acquisition of speed [acceleration is another matter altogether] that many young drivers get caught out in their enthusiasm to 'show off' [for want of a better description] !

The much vaunted 'new' concept of promoting how 'safe' modern cars are [compared to older one's, even?] means folk will still get caught out as they push the car's limits way beyond those of the driver.

We may be in danger of reinvigorating what the Americans used to call, ''Volvo Syndrome?''

 

Another sign of the times which may contribute is the social acceptance of the taking of ''recreational '  {?} drugs? Such that, in my day  it was 'drink-driving'' which has now come to include 'drug driving'...

 

On the subject of the proliferation of wrecks in fields overnight [not nicked, either...and not too many youngsters get to walk away from them, it seems....judging by the frequency of local press reports?], whenever I pass by a new wreck in a field, I still give it a quick scan to see what , if any, parts are on it that I might be in need of...before it is recovered [and scrapped anyway]...

I am always disappointed since very little if anything on a   modern Corsa or whatever, is of use given my own motoring interests.  :(

[alastairq]

52 minutes ago, 30368 said:

None of which is true of modern cars - they are brilliant, reliable and generally don't need preventive maintenance for a couple of years. In between we just get in them and drive!

 

 All of which came about the hard way, by extending ever further the service intervals of components, until the customer found out they wouldn't last quite as long as the car manufacturer hopes, or the parts manufacturer claimed.

 

 For example, the ball joints, ''sealed for life'' [they used to have lubricators fitted, now no more].....Whose life? The life of the car? Or, my life? Or, more realistically, the life of the ball joint!

 

Plus, much of the technology of today's cars was arrived at in an effort to make the manufacture of cars more profitable. 

Or meet burgeoning environmental controls.

 

Old cars really were no less reliable...or not as unreliable, as today's commentators imagine.

Probably more reliable in many respects, class for class?

 

Thus today, the recycling centres are full of the cheaper end of the 'new' car market , as the plastics and cheaper quality components fail, so making the car unuseable.....In the 50's, for example, many of the cheaper makes and models were actually quite good in terms of material and engineering quality.

 

Is it a case of, at one time we needed protecting from each other? But now we need protecting from ourselves....?

 

 

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

I doubt that drivers of early cars bore much nostalgia for the previous model, as the rate of improvement quickly demonstrated the advantages of getting a new one! There are some cars from the mid-1930s that I would enjoy driving (I wouldn't go any earlier) but those that I would have found affordable had I been around back then were entirely gutless. Same goes right up to about 1980 IMHO. Many (including me) dote on Escort Mexicos etc, but how would they feel if presented with a basic drum-braked 1100 model for a daily driver......

 

What it really boils down to, I think, is not so much the presence of modern features as the fact that, unless they can be switched off, they remove control from the driver. 

 

That's only really a problem if it's something you prefer to do for yourself. In my case, I'll eagerly take traction controlled 4wd, aircon, power brakes and steering, but draw the line at automatic gearboxes in general and CVT in particular! Oh, and "connectivity" just vile!

 

Yes, technology has removed the differences between makes/models, and reduced the "character" of vehicles. All too often with some older cars, though, "character" was a euphemism for handling vices that you had to learn to deal with!

 

John

 

 Much depends on the aspirations of the car owner.

It is aspiration that has coloured our views too much, I think ?

[No, I wouldn't have thanked you for a Mexico, then or now....They may have 'gone well enough' but were pretty insipid as far as living with them was concerned]

 

I have, amongst other items a 1967 US Ford Mustang.  For my sins!

It is a 'base' model, a six cylinder engine [of quite a large capacity].....with a 3 speed automatic gearbox [Ford C4]... A coupe, so body-wise, the 'sensible' option.

It was ordered originally with a 'sensible' option of power steering ,from Ford [I have the original papers, from it's early US owners, who passed it down through the family for 30 years].....

It's only really modern concession is it has a basic US made disc brake kit on the front wheels, instead of Ford's drum brakes. [Discs were an option new, however].

 

But, as a car to drive in today's traffic environment, it actually suits me right down to the ground!

 

It handles as well as any modern, stops as well as any modern, and has the legs, speed-wise, both in traffic, and on a motorway, to keep apace, or even, ahead of any [equivalent] modern. [and some not so equivalent!!]

 

In other words it can carry me from A to B in comfort [if a tad noisily]...and at a pace that suits my needs [hardly 'slow', just that  I don't tend to drive too rashly these days..but then, my idea of not being rash in driving style may well not fit the ideas of the majority..so that's subjective, to say the least]

Its heater works, as does the demist. It's [original] door mirrors are rubbish when compared to the Suzuki daily [which is 20 years old, but modern in most respects]...but the interior mirror view more than compensates, since it has a 'proper' sized rear window. [Not the modern style letterbox size]

It isn't 'large' by modern standards.....and is constructed, from new, ruggedly enough to withstand road conditions many a modern would collapse on...

I can jump in and drive anywhere in it...it's let down compared to a modern being, fuel consumption. [Built for a US market primarily, as one would expect...not exactly a ''world car'' like the Corolla.]

 

Taken as a cheap-end market product it fulfils every motor ing criteria, back then, and probably [for me] even now.

 

Which begs the question for me, of, have  the manufacturers actually lost sight of the basics, in their quest for profitability, now that everyone can make a car that is as 'good' at being transport as the next brand's product?

[Hell, one can take half a dozen different brands  [or, makes?] of car, to find that underneath it all [and not so far underneath, either] they are in fact, one & the same vehicle?]

When a VW and an AUdi and  a Skoda can all have the same type of model, except ones electronics are altered just enough to increase performance, or reduced enough to make more mundane? A work colleague once had a new Skoda Octavia.....and it's engine ECU threw a spat...so, under  guarantee it was replaced by the dealer...who  couldn't, at that time, get the correct ECU [for the Skoda] so fitted the same ECU for an Audi,wich was in stock. This boosted the Skoda's road performance considerably..even though everything else was the same across the various model ranges. He was quite pleased, and told the dealer to forget getting the Skoda item..the ECU was obviously 'mapped' differently, as it was the same otherwise.

My biggest complaint against me going out & buying a new car [for my dotage, which I am realistic enough to realise  is coming upon me rather rapidly]....as I've said before, is that I cannot find [or know of] a new car which does not have all the bells and whistles I don't want.

Even Dacia have joined the game, to my dismay.

Yes, I know one doesn't need to 'use' the connectivity, or one can switch off the various bits one doesn't want to use !

 

But that is not my point!

 

They are there, whether I like, or want them, or not.

 

I don't care about the needs of any future buyer of my second hand car, either.

 

The fact that they are there means, I am paying for them, like it or not. I know, at McDonalds drive-thru, I can order a chicken mayo burger , but 'without the mayo'....I can order a Coke, but 'without the ice'....or a big Mac without the tomato......but I still pay the same price. 

 

I am told [you lot  often try to convince me??] that aircon is a 'must', yet I  would never use it [don't like it], but I can see how someone who drives a lot in a big metropolitan area, heated up as it will be by the huge square mileages of concrete, glass, and other stuff that turns a city into an oven! I don't drive in cities..I make sure I never have the need to.  I will rarely if ever get stuck in a motorway traffic jam, since these days I try to avoid motorways, or modern major routes.....Places I am sick of, so avoid.

Being retired, I drive for pleasure, using the excuse of necessity.

Aircon for me only has the purpose of making my 'new' car more sellable when time comes to 'move it on'...Which I may not really care about, when that time comes?

Same with alloy wheels?

Experience [especially trialling] has taught me that steel wheels are far more resilient, as wheels.

 

But make the car far harder to move on come change-over time!

Same with connectivity, or touch screens instead of switches. Heck, I struggle to text on my not-so-smart phone which has a 'touch' screen.

Lordy only knows how I'd cope with a modern car's touch screen? Or buttons on the steering wheel?  I don't always many to hit the 'horn' section on the suzuki when I want to....and end up driving down the road prodding all sorts of areas on the bland plastic airbag cover.

I need buttons!

I need proper switches.

I need real levers!

 

Hell, I even need a proper parking brake lever...Not one of these fancy electronic devices.

I like to feel I have some input into what the car does, or does not, do.

I am coming to believe that the hidden result of having access to, or being controlled by, all this technology is, the danger of drivers gradually becoming passengers in the car.

Not about automation, but about attitude.

 

But, nobody will sell me a car that is so basic in its equipment as they used to be, any more.

 

I have become discriminated against, for not succumbing to the sales blarney we are so pummeled with.

Because I don't conform to the new norm!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

Thus today, the recycling centres are full of the cheaper end of the 'new' car market , as the plastics and cheaper quality components fail, so making the car unuseable.....In the 50's, for example, many of the cheaper makes and models were actually quite good in terms of material and engineering quality.

 

Actually it is very rarely material quality (steel or plastics) that leads to cars being traded in for scrap now, it is the higher value electronic assemblies; because they are assemblies, they have to be replaced as a unit, so a £1000 ECU is required because a £2 capacitor on the board has failed.  After less than 10 years, the electronics are obsolete (in the correct meaning of the word, I manage obsolescence for a living) so if the old stock is still available anywhere, it will be for the last time.  Relatively few cars fail MOTs terminally on rust anymore, they are simply "withdrawn" as unsupportable or as in the example above, a physically small component costs more than the value of the vehicle*.  Here your point about needless complexity is absolutely valid; the more components there are in a vehicle, the less there is to go wrong.  Except that despite that, cars still go wrong less and last longer.

 

You are wrong to suggest that cars in the 1960s were as reliable as now, they simply weren't, all the statistics prove it.  Maintain a modern car to its specified service intervals and unless unlucky with something like a cambelt, 100,000 miles is within the lifespan of any car, 200,000 within that of most and 300,000 of quite a few and all of that with no major faults and rebuilds required.  1960s or 70s cars weren't designed for that kind of life, the materials weren't available to make it possible; the Mk1 Escort had a design spec of 1000 hrs at 70mph, which is why a 100,000 mile Escort would be doing 25mpg and 1000 miles to the pint of oil.

 

However I do agree with you about the point of drivers increasingly becoming operators which also reflects on how people maintain (or more often, don't maintain) their cars.  Cars - like other domestic appliances - are now assumed to be so reliable that most owners never even look at them, which is why you see so many less than 5y.o vehicles going around with lights missing or with clearly illegal tyres.  Until the garage tells them at the MoT or traffic police stops them (if only!), most would have no idea their car had a dangerous fault until it caused an accident.

 

*I do find it funny when I hear of people who scrap their £1000 car because they were given an MoT bill of £700, then buy a new car with a loan which will cost them £700 every two months for the next 3-5 years and which could still fail its first MoT with a £700 bill.

[alastairq]

3 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

ou are wrong to suggest that cars in the 1960s were as reliable as now, they simply weren't, all the statistics prove it.  Maintain a modern car to its specified service intervals and unless unlucky with something like a cambelt, 100,000 miles is within the lifespan of any car, 200,000 within that of most and 300,000 of quite a few and all of that with no major faults and rebuilds required.  1960s or 70s cars weren't designed for that kind of life, the materials weren't available to make it possible; the Mk1 Escort had a design spec of 1000 hrs at 70mph, which is why a 100,000 mile Escort would be doing 25mpg and 1000 miles to the pint of oil.

 Perceptions?

Then again, one needs to consider the typical driving life of a common car sold in the UK in the  1960's?

Owners rarely considered driving hundreds of thousands of miles, except if they were a rep? There really weren't  the opportunities to do so, in this country.

[Plus, there were viable [cost-wise as well] alternatives, which [cost-wise] dont exist these days.]

Nowadays the motorways have meant far more extended mileages for cars.  The system was all very bitty back then, up until the mid 1970's.

But, taking a look at a country where high mileages were the norm, rather than the exception....the USA?

Look at their more commonplace cars , marketed to the lower end of the economic market?

See how they fared in a market where long distance mileages, and reliability had to be a very important aspect of auto designers' thinking?

Sure, the servicing tasks and intervals reflected the technologies and construction methods of the day....but it wasn't as dire as is made out today...far from it.

 

I think back to my first car, bought in the last 1960's...a Morris Minor saloon, of the late 50's. A banger by any criteria...more than ten years old, and it didn't last me very long [not that unreliable as such, I was at sea for most of the time]. Today my daily is 20 years old.....and whilst not 'as good as new'...and was quite rotty under the plastic  side coverings, as many modern cars actually will be?]...still does all that is required of it, reliably enough...Now, back in the late 1960's, if I had bought a 20 year old banger, it would have been a car from the world war two era......The Morris Minor was light years ahead in most respects to anything made pre & post WW2.

Corrosion is still very much a part of modern car ownership....[as distinct from 'new' car ownership....but one didn't expect a Morris 1100 to be corroded, when it was new?]....

It's just that the designers have cleverly managed to hide the visible signs of corrosion [until it is too late?}

 

What has changed over the 5 decades I've been driving is , the focus of reliability, as you point out.

Today the average car driver doesn't worry about reliability.

This can be emphasised by what packages are included in the sale of a new [low end] car today?

One of them being, breakdown recovery!

 

Such is the network of breakdown services available today, reliability isn't an issue for a driver.....it doesn't matter, because the journey will be completed, and there will be little or no loss to the driver.

There really is no reason for any modern driver to be self-sufficient in skills, just to complete the journey set out upon.

Look at the attitudes of modern drivers to the types of journey undertaken 60 or 70 years ago, as a matter of course, by drivers back then? The impression is that such journeys were epics of the adventurous sort...

LAnds End to John O Groats, without using motorways, for example?

Many a modern driver would consider that to be in the order of an 'expedition to darkest Borneo....'  

 

Never mind in an old car?

 

But, it is old cars I am thinking of [on this forum?]...which don't actually have to be 'old' old.......to be 'modern' in my eyes.

Perceptions..?

 

 

[Rugd1022]

Nostalgia time once more....

 

 

 

 

[alastairq]

That Ogle was a very pretty car indeed, IMHO...

Shades of Reliant Scimitar about it?

 

Is that an Ogle mini behind?

Looks remarkably similar to the Bond Equipe? {Another car whose shape I like a lot..especially as it was a small engined car....in a world where big n powerful was deemed to rule?

[BernardTPM]

4 minutes ago, alastairq said:

That Ogle was a very pretty car indeed, IMHO...

Shades of Reliant Scimitar about it?

Yes, the styling was adapted for Reliant. Later Ogle developed the GTE version, but the early Scimitars were coupes like that.

[Hobby]

4 hours ago, alastairq said:

 That is not quite backed up by the evidence [especially first thing on a Saturday morning?] of the numbers of modern [new, even?] cars in ditches, or through hedges, on their roofs in fields 

 

Where is this evidence, especially in comparison with the old days? I also live in the country and can't remember the last time I saw what you describe!

[Dunsignalling]

I remember when I sold my last "old" or "proper" car (my definition is one with a carburettor, not injection!).

 

It was a 1360cc 1991 spec, but (just) 1990-registered Peugeot 205 XS, after the change from chain to belt drive for the camshaft, and with the revised light clusters. When I'd bought it, I had the choice of a GTi, but test drove both and the XS was so much better balanced.

 

A rarity for me, it was sold as a "going concern" to a friend (who is still a friend, so i didn't swindle him). Bog standard except the wheels which were 6x14 alloys (SH) instead of the standard 5.5x13 steels. It had done 113k in its 13 years, three quarters of both in my ownership and, apart from a battery dying on me, had barely missed a beat in that time. It was another 3 years before my mate had to get a bit of minor welding done, and the original clutch did 186k! The wheels are now under my mate's (2005) 206 Sport!

 

Discussing the disposal with an older work colleague, we mused that, not so many years earlier, most 13-year old cars were terminal MoT failures through rust and, if they'd covered 113k miles were probably half way through their second engine....

 

If I could have a new 205 exactly like it (or preferably a Roland Garros) tomorrow, I would, but only if I could keep my 2013 TDi Yeti as well....  

 

John

 

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Dunsignalling

[MJI]

I took a Chrysler Sunbeam up to around 120,000 miles while running a very lumpy cam.

 

Rust was the problem.

 

At to aircon, I find it now an essential, and it is simple enough.

 

Do I want to connect my phone to the car?  No.

Do I want to be able to do most servicing? Yes

Do I mind more maintenance for a longer life? Yes

Is my car that reliable? Not especially BUT it will get home regardless, once did 150 miles with no working fuel pump, on a Diesel.

 

I have just replaced rear discs pads and calipers, will rebuild old ones with a new piston and new seals. Someone thought I was repairing it, I said I was servicing it.

 

What does it come to when servicing brakes is repairs and not a service task?

 

And yes I am a bit OTT on my brakes, best to have them working.

[peanuts]

Hmmmm different 

[boxbrownie]

53 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

 

At to aircon, I find it now an essential, and it is simple enough.

 

Do I want to connect my phone to the car?  No.

Do I want to be able to do most servicing? Yes

Do I mind more maintenance for a longer life? Yes

Is my car that reliable? Not especially BUT it will get home regardless, once did 150 miles with no working fuel pump, on a Diesel.

 

I have just replaced rear discs pads and calipers, will rebuild old ones with a new piston and new seals. Someone thought I was repairing it, I said I was servicing it.

 

What does it come to when servicing brakes is repairs and not a service task?

 

And yes I am a bit OTT on my brakes, best to have them working.

Landrover, making mechanics out of drivers since 1948. 🤣

Edited May 21, 2022 by boxbrownie

[alastairq]

2 hours ago, Hobby said:

 

Where is this evidence, especially in comparison with the old days? I also live in the country and can't remember the last time I saw what you describe!

Possibly because the evidence no longer hangs around for long?

 

But, it is there if looked for.

 

Or, ask ones local constabulary about single vehicle RTC's in the surrounding areas?  I'm sure they'd  inform.

Every skid mark tells a story...often backed up by the hole in the hedge?

[alastairq]

Cars made this century rot too.

[That for me means 'modern' cars]

 

As I mentioned before, not so obviously compared to pre-2000 cars, due to the proliferation of plastic body covers [sills, especially]...

But, take the covers off, and all is revealed.

 

That is something I have experienced with my 20 year old daily Suzuki GV...It has been through two MoT's with the sills like doilies, underneath the plastic side covers.  I weld new steel in. purely for my own satisfaction, not that of the MoT tester. But the plastic covers do obviate the need to make my workmanship look 'pretty'.. Next step, if the thing doesn't blow something serious or unfixable [by me, I don't farm my stuff out if avoidable]...like its petrol engine....will be to buy myself some offcuts of steel box section, cheaply, and remake the sills with the box....They only hold the door holes apart, anyway..the GV having a very solid chassis underneath.

I await a passing tractor driver to lose the plot and crash though my fence or gate...and hit the Suzuki....Boy, will my eyes light up at the prospect of their insurance sponsoring my next, 'new' car!  I'd be straight onto Facebook marketplace to see what might be next??

 

We would lose an awful lot of recent cars if the MoT tester was allowed to remove sill covers, as but one example. Jaguars are an example I know of personally.  

What about the ''corrosion'' issue noted in recent, all-alloy Audis?

MAybe take a look on Youtube at modern crash repairs, just as another example?

How many times does a Citroen need a replacement subframe, one might ask? [Berlingo, anyone?}

 

 A lot of today's moderns end up scrapped due to the cost of repairing accident damage to original spec....Especially where special steels have been used in the passenger cell?

[Hobby]

36 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Possibly because the evidence no longer hangs around for long?

 

But, it is there if looked for.

 

Or, ask ones local constabulary about single vehicle RTC's in the surrounding areas?  I'm sure they'd  inform.

Every skid mark tells a story...often backed up by the hole in the hedge?

 

Hearsay then, no hard facts. Also if you did get any stats to show you'd also have to get the same stats for the old days and compare numbers of cars around then compared with now to make it a worth while comparison.

 

Perhaps best just to agree to differ like Sam and I have!! ;)

[alastairq]

I don't have any facts to hand....simply because I don't bother.

I simply read the local news online for the area...and I observe when I travel around the area.

Currently there are two cars  in fields on their roofs, on the B1248 between here & Beverley. Recent too [they weren't there last week, in other words]...

They won't be there next week, as they get recovered quickly enough. Farmers don't like them left lying around for too long.

Suffice to say, the numbers for a local, fairly rural area [with several towns dotted around], a notable but probably insignificant compared with down south.

Both cars are new[ish] One a Corsa, the other a Fiat. Neither interest me .

Both seem to be  case of the driver losing control during the night.

I would drive out and take photos, but I simply cannot be bothered...

 

Young drivers in these parts tend to opt for newish small cars, probably for insurance purposes.

I suppose I might take a peep at the local trafpol twitter feed, if it really matters? Providing those that post on it are on duty, there might be something mentioned? Usually they only mention the uninsured drivers and the seizures of their cars....

[MJI]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

Landrover, making mechanics out of drivers since 1948. 🤣

 

French cars need more work.

 

But I found big Vauxhalls were pretty good for reliability. Had 5 of them, but last was penultimate year of manufacture

[peanuts]

12 minutes ago, MJI said:

 

French cars need more work.

 

But I found big Vauxhalls were pretty good for reliability. Had 5 of them, but last was penultimate year of manufacture

French cars are great once all the fancy plastic bits have fallen off 

[Nick C]

8 hours ago, alastairq said:

Lordy only knows how I'd cope with a modern car's touch screen? Or buttons on the steering wheel?  I don't always many to hit the 'horn' section on the suzuki when I want to....and end up driving down the road prodding all sorts of areas on the bland plastic airbag cover.

I need buttons!

I need proper switches.

I need real levers!

 

Hell, I even need a proper parking brake lever...Not one of these fancy electronic devices.

I'm with you on that - touchscreens have no place in a car in my opinion, for the simple reason that they can't be operated by feel alone, meaning the driver has to take their eyes off the road to use them. Even buttons can be bad for that, whereas the three-knob heater controls, for example, just worked - if the windscreen started fogging up, you could set it to demist without needing to look at it.