To each their own of course, but I would have the opposite view. I enjoy driving and new cars are just so much better at driving than the old 60's muscle cars were. Way faster, better brakes, handle much better, much faster throttle response, etc. Not to even mention the better reliability and longevity of modern cars.
My thoughts were similar as I read the posts...I know these were young kids. But I remember in HS, nobody worried about what vehicles the parents had but what we wanted...and in the early 80s when I was in school, "you were the man" if you one of those late 60s vehicles. And they didnt even have to be restored except with a paint job.
5 miles, each way, and without shoes! And that was only when we got time off from work.Uphill both ways through the snow?
To those that post here about your adequate but crappy car. You may be suffering from a severe case of status anxiety as defined by de' Botton and others. Keep trying to convince yourself that you are still relevant and not deeply inferior to those with a modern European marquis.Conspicuous consumption is the spending of money on and the acquiring of luxurygoods and services to publicly display economic power—of the income or of the accumulated wealth of the buyer. To the conspicuous consumer, such a public display of discretionary economic power is a means either of attaining or of maintaining a given social status
Yes, we learn that cars are status symbols pretty early. In high school the rewards of a "status" car were probably a little more tangible than in middle age.
I saw some study posted the other day about american debt and the average household had $27K in auto loans.. never could find the source of that study because it just seemed crazy high.
I still walked to/from school since it was only a mile and we rarely got more than 10 feet of snow in the winter, plus I had to pay for my own gas (mean parents )
Pfffft, kids these days! When I was that age, my father finally replaced the VW Beetle he drove us around in (I was third kid, mind you) with that ultimate status symbol, a brand new Chevrolet Vega! The wagon, no less. WORST CAR EVER!
We also had a Vista Cruiser wagon for a short time, which was awesome, especially with those rear seats at the back so you could suck up some exhaust on the way.
I was so proud to get my first car, a $200 AMC Hornet, I patched the holes with metal and rivets and then painted it brown with a roller
Had a steady girlfriend, so didn't need any extra rewards
I still walked to/from school since it was only a mile and we rarely got more than 10 feet of snow in the winter, plus I had to pay for my own gas (mean parents )
5 miles, each way, and without shoes! And that was only when we got time off from work.
I would much rather have some restored late model 60's Chevy's, Dodge's (or even Ford's) than a brand new BMW, Lexus or Mercedes.
I don't know about that. We had a Pinto station wagon!...a brand new Chevrolet Vega! The wagon, no less. WORST CAR EVER! ...
On the Vega comment, they were not actually as bad as the reputation. Yes the engine would burn oil after 50K miles or so. Yes they did have a rust issue, it was related to the shipping technique, they were loaded on rail cars and flipped vertical. This caused some entrapped moisture and subsequent rusting issues.
I wasn't really talking about cars that were modified...I am talking plain Jane off the showroom floor.
Even my new Jeep is quicker, faster and handles better than most any older muscle car I have ever had, including several Vette's. I'll probably drive at least 50k miles this year and 98% of that will be in 2015 model years or later BUT, there is still nothing like the shake, rattle and rumble of a 45+ year old naturally aspirated 426 hemi or 427 big block chevy to make me smile.
Uphill both ways through the snow?
I would imagine that stock, s '67 Chevelle SS-396 would do the quarter mile in around 15 seconds. Much of it would depend on the transmission and gearing. In those days cars were hampered by automatics that only had 3 forward gears at best (although the first GM hydramatic actually had 4), and stick shifts that only had 3 or 4 gears. So, they'd play around with axle ratios, and as a result you could have a car that was fast in the quarter mile, or a car with a really high top speed (until wind resistance factored in), but it was hard to get both.
Without looking it up, I'd guess a stock 396 had around 325-350 hp in 1967. And that's gross hp. In modern net-hp terms, probably around 250-280 I'd guess?