Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 11,919
- Location
- SE England
Quite literally, I set fire to a cyclist in mine.....
I've fixed the over fueling now though, runs lovely!
Retro Vs New
- Thread starter Zip
- Start date
Quite literally, I set fire to a cyclist in mine.....
I've fixed the over fueling now though, runs lovely!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
commited said:
You are quite correct, every time we have a thread like this and people post their OPINIONS you come wading in, add nothing to the thread, and criticise those who's views differ from you.
I'm glad it's finally begun to bore you, does this mean we won't be seeing it in the future?
Jonny69 said:
See this I can appreciate. You take proper classic cars, quite some years old, and do all sorts of wierd and wonderful things to them. I would never do the same myself and much prefer modern cars, but I can appreciate the work you put in and the reason why you do it.
But then, you are not one of the people I've criticised in this thread - I've never seen you posting, for example, that your Anglia is simply a better car than a Ford Focus. Presumably you accept the fact the Focus is a better car, but dislike it's modern-ness and much prefer your Anglia for reasons you've explained.
Thats cool.
[TW]Fox said:
This is just trying to get a reaction though - adding nothing to the thread
[TW]Fox said:'Character' is annoying rattles, the worry of whether it'll actually start, and that inadequate braking system.
Character is a crutch for people trying to excuse the inadequacies of their older vehicles
Everyone is entitled to their opinions but trying to get a rise out of people is just silly and pointless. Then it leads to you commenting how irrational and ott classic car owners are in their protection and justification of their ownership.
Bottom line is that you didnt need to post what you did and there was no point. I have absolutely no problem with differing views than mine. People post in here about owning various cars and liking them - fair enough for them. Although I do remember posting my opinion in a certain thread and getting slated for that....
How can I stop you posting things that I find boring? That sentence really doesn't make any senseI'm glad it's finally begun to bore you, does this mean we won't be seeing it in the future?
Well, time for me to throw my 2p worth in here.....
A blanket statement like, "Classics are better than most newer cars" CAN be true in a few aspects.
Most "classics" are generally higher spec cars of thier line. To give an example, not too many people are going to lovingly restore (or keep in mint condition) a 250cid I-6 2spd automatic 1967 Chevrolet Camaro. But come along with a 1968 Camaro RS with a 350 small block (or even better a 427 big block), 4 spd Muncie, 12 bolt posi diff, Corvette disc brake conversion, Moroso T-104 exhaust, Firebird bonnet with ram air scoop, Tracker suspension upgrades, etc etc etc, it's going to be a MUCH more desireable car (and safer to drive) than a 2006 Toyota Prius.
The only advantage to the Prius will be the fuel mileage. Other than that, the Camaro will accelerate MUCH faster (duh), stop quicker (a LOT more rubber on the road and better brakes to stop it with), handle the corners much better due to the race-inspired suspension, and be MUCH safer in brown trouser moments because of all of the above. It will also survive a "normal" (read 5-35mph) impact much better than the Prius. It will also be much more reliable due to being lovingly restored to new condition with QUALITY parts instead of the "supplied by the cheapest bidder" components cars are made from initially, and the fact that there isn't 20 miles of wiring going to multiply redundant sensors that don't really help that much to begin with. Hence a lot less to go wrong.
Granted, take a 1974 Ford Pinto (it IS a classic) and put it up against a 2006 Subaru Outback and there's just no comparison. The Scooby will obliterate the pony car in every aspect that makes it a car!!
But to write all classics off as "worse" cars than new is silly. There's still cars being produced today that use drum brakes on the rear that are absolutely no different in design than what was on a 1959 Volkswagen Beetle (read worse than useless). Whereas most of what are considered "classics" in the general sense came with 4 wheel disc brakes standard. Not all. Look at all the American muscle cars. Every single one of them bar the Corvette still had rear drums all the way up into the 90's (Mustang). Then again, when you consider just how much of the braking was done by the rear brakes on one of these monsters, there wasn't much point in the added expense of discs for them.....
But all in all, if someone's going to keep or restore a classic, it's going to be one of the higher spec ones. It will also most likely not fall prey to cancer, because if it was going to, it would have already. Johnny69 is quite the exception here....
And as for safety, you can all have your crumple zones and your airbags. I much prefer a good solid steel frame under my arse to save me. Having been in two rather major accidents, both in my little Chevy L.U.V. truck and quite literally walking away from both (and driving the truck), I can honestly say that either one of them would have hospitalised me and totalled the car had I been in my 2001 Neon. As much as I liked the car, I really didn't fancy my survival chances in a 40mph collision with an immovable object. Whereas that's precisely what happened in my little truck. 40mph collision and I walked away uninjured. Twice.
A blanket statement like, "Classics are better than most newer cars" CAN be true in a few aspects.
Most "classics" are generally higher spec cars of thier line. To give an example, not too many people are going to lovingly restore (or keep in mint condition) a 250cid I-6 2spd automatic 1967 Chevrolet Camaro. But come along with a 1968 Camaro RS with a 350 small block (or even better a 427 big block), 4 spd Muncie, 12 bolt posi diff, Corvette disc brake conversion, Moroso T-104 exhaust, Firebird bonnet with ram air scoop, Tracker suspension upgrades, etc etc etc, it's going to be a MUCH more desireable car (and safer to drive) than a 2006 Toyota Prius.
The only advantage to the Prius will be the fuel mileage. Other than that, the Camaro will accelerate MUCH faster (duh), stop quicker (a LOT more rubber on the road and better brakes to stop it with), handle the corners much better due to the race-inspired suspension, and be MUCH safer in brown trouser moments because of all of the above. It will also survive a "normal" (read 5-35mph) impact much better than the Prius. It will also be much more reliable due to being lovingly restored to new condition with QUALITY parts instead of the "supplied by the cheapest bidder" components cars are made from initially, and the fact that there isn't 20 miles of wiring going to multiply redundant sensors that don't really help that much to begin with. Hence a lot less to go wrong.
Granted, take a 1974 Ford Pinto (it IS a classic) and put it up against a 2006 Subaru Outback and there's just no comparison. The Scooby will obliterate the pony car in every aspect that makes it a car!!
But to write all classics off as "worse" cars than new is silly. There's still cars being produced today that use drum brakes on the rear that are absolutely no different in design than what was on a 1959 Volkswagen Beetle (read worse than useless). Whereas most of what are considered "classics" in the general sense came with 4 wheel disc brakes standard. Not all. Look at all the American muscle cars. Every single one of them bar the Corvette still had rear drums all the way up into the 90's (Mustang). Then again, when you consider just how much of the braking was done by the rear brakes on one of these monsters, there wasn't much point in the added expense of discs for them.....
But all in all, if someone's going to keep or restore a classic, it's going to be one of the higher spec ones. It will also most likely not fall prey to cancer, because if it was going to, it would have already. Johnny69 is quite the exception here....
And as for safety, you can all have your crumple zones and your airbags. I much prefer a good solid steel frame under my arse to save me. Having been in two rather major accidents, both in my little Chevy L.U.V. truck and quite literally walking away from both (and driving the truck), I can honestly say that either one of them would have hospitalised me and totalled the car had I been in my 2001 Neon. As much as I liked the car, I really didn't fancy my survival chances in a 40mph collision with an immovable object. Whereas that's precisely what happened in my little truck. 40mph collision and I walked away uninjured. Twice.
