More Typical Very Old Car Experience

Too frequently you hear here and elsewhere about the 15-20 year old Volvo or
something else that "runs like a top". I saw this article in the New York
Times today and thought it was far more representative of what "runs like a
top" really means...

From New York Times, January 23, 2004:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/23/automobiles/23JUNK.html

---

THERE is a certain type of car owner who takes pride in driving the latest
and greatest model. Upon hearing that the Mercedes Deluxe is being followed
by the Mercedes Super Ultra, the hairs on their arms tingle. Al Engelhart is
not one of those people.
Mr. Engelhart, who lives in Hingham, Mass., belongs to another breed of
driver entirely. One that, as a consequence of thrift, sentimentality or
perhaps plain old inertia, is wedded to the same aging vehicle for a very
long time. We're talking decades. Indeed, Mr. Engelhart still owns the 1983
Volvo 244 GL he bought new 20 years ago and calls Blanche for its ivory
color. The body is rusted and the car is drafty in the winter. And, frankly,
it smells like gasoline. But, Mr. Engelhart, a chemical engineer, argues
that it "still runs like a top."

For dedicated old-car owners like him, the routine act of driving can be a
highly involved journey. There are frequent mechanical failures, long
caucuses with mechanics and salvage yard workers and nickel-and-dime
problems - windows that don't shut, broken gauges - that drive everyone but
the owners crazy. Not to be forgotten are the social indignities: ribbing
from friends, pleas from embarrassed relatives.

"People are always asking me, `When is your father going to get rid of that
car?' " said Karen Hewitt, whose 77-year-old father, James McKeon, still
drives his beloved 1984 Cadillac Coupe DeVille. When Ms. Hewitt, who lives
in Queens, recently borrowed the car, known as the Cadoo, to take her
6-year-old son to a New York Rangers game, it stalled in a busy
intersection. "My son slid down in his seat and begged me to never take the
car again," Ms. Hewitt said.

Many old-car drivers say the decision to hang on to a clunker is one of
simple economics: they're saving a bundle on new-car payments. But it's
often only a delusion, said Richard Hart, who lives in Durham, N.C., and
owns a 1963 Dodge Dart that has seemingly spent as much time in the shop as
on the road. "You always tell yourself, `It's only a couple hundred more
bucks,' " Mr. Hart said. "It's like you have amnesia. You think if you get
it fixed, it'll be good for another year. Of course, it never is."

A look at Mr. Engelhart's repair records shows just how pricey an old car
can be. Told in color-coded, spreadsheet format, the story of Blanche is one
of small, routine costs punctuated by eye-popping expenditures, like the
$2,400 bill in March 1992 for "Volvo salvage and reconstruction." "My wife
slid down a hill on one of those icy days," Mr. Engelhart said. "Totaled the
front end." Or the $2,300 he spent in November 1998. "I took it for a paint
job and the guy says, `It's rusted. Your whole frame might split in half.'
Blanche had to have a complete floor job. There was an argument in my house
over that one."

While some hold on to old cars to avoid the costs of buying a new model,
others, like Mr. McKeon, do so out of sheer devotion. To hear him recall the
day, in 1985, that he walked into Potamkin Cadillac in Manhattan and bought
the Cadoo is to attend the beginnings of an epic romance. "The salesman told
me, `See that car, Jim? It's the last of the big ones,' " Mr. McKeon said.
"The minute I laid eyes on it I fell in love."

Like all passionate affairs, however, his is a bit starry-eyed. In Mr.
McKeon's view, the car is "almost like new." If, of course, you overlook the
deep scratches on the bumper. And the cracks in the leather upholstery, the
duct tape on the taillights and the rust on the wheel wells. Still, at
nearly 20 years old, the car has only 87,000 miles on it, and, Mr. McKeon
says, people will sometimes leave a note on his window asking if he wants to
sell. The answer: an emphatic no.

Then there are people like Jim Travers, who don't seem to be motivated by
either love or money. Mr. Travers, an Internet marketer in Dania Beach,
Fla., has three old cars, including a 1992 Chrysler Town & Country minivan
that, he noted, is "not a car anyone would keep for sentimental reasons
unless they're an idiot." It has been recalled several times, and the
air-conditioning works only on high. "You have to be seriously motivated to
cool down," he said. The speedometer began following its own scientific
principles, adding a one to the miles per hour - 145 equals 45 - before
quitting entirely and emanating a green glow at night, which, besides being
creepy in a Stephen King way, drained the battery.

Why does he still drive the thing? "I guess it's the familiarity," Mr.
Travers said. "I can parallel park it with my eyes closed. And I know how
it's going to behave in any weather situation. Plus, it's gotten me out of
car-pooling at work." No one will ride in it.

NEARLY everyone has held on to a car too long at one time or another. But it
takes a distinct personality to consistently go against our car-conscious
society and drive what many would call a clunker. Will power is important,
to resist the lure of splashy car advertisements, as well as a certain
indifference to advancements in design and even a disregard for safety
improvements like antilock brakes and traction control.

Above all, driving an old car requires a good mechanic. "Finding an auto
shop near your work is key," said Mr. Hart, an editor at an alternative
weekly. "That way being without a car isn't so bad - you can walk to your
job." Mr. Hart's Dodge is in the shop again, awaiting a steering column
tube, an obscure part he tracked down from a Dart enthusiast near the Arctic
Circle in Sweden.

Mr. Engelhart, meanwhile, has assembled around Blanche a crack team of
specialists more commonly associated with million-dollar race cars: a
tow-truck operator, a body man, a painstaking mechanic who can eke the most
out of an aging engine. Which is a good thing, because two Saturdays ago Al
Jr. was on his way to a snowboarding meet when Blanche spun out of control
and smashed into a guardrail, doing several hundred dollars' worth of
damage. Mr. Engelhart's prognosis? "I think we're going to be able to save
the car," he said.

But maybe there comes a time when even the most die-hard owner should just
pull the plug. Curtis Burrell, reached at Bobby's Junkyard in Cornelia, Ga.,
is used to seeing drivers comb the lot for parts for their old pickups. Mr.
Burrell can sympathize. "I had a car like that for about five years," he
said, "a 1988 Ford Bronco II, and I just couldn't get rid of the damn thing.
I was obsessed with it. It kept breaking down."

Finally, he had had enough: "I stuck a sign out on it and sold it. I tell
you when the guy drove off, it felt like a thousand- pound weight had been
lifted off my shoulders."

 

There comes a certain point when a car is just not worth keeping, and that's
usually something we don't often experience here, rust. If a car is a rust
bucket it'll never be nice again. If you take good care of a car it's
possible to keep it not only running nice but looking nice virtually
indefinitly.

 

Because there's more to the internet than hits alone, James Sweet
wrote:

Volvo seemed to get the rust problem cracked with the 740. My 16 year
old has spent the last five years living out in the street in all that
the British weather has to offer. The only rust I had to have patched,
when I bought it, was underneath behind the rear bumper, adjacent to
the spare wheel well.

Every year or so I go underneath with a big can of Waxoyl and the
bodywork gets hard waxed a couple of times a year. It's enough to keep
it pretty well immaculate.



--

Stewart Hargrave

Finally visible on www.hargrave.me.uk

I run on beans - laser beans


For email, replace 'SpamOnlyToHere' with my name

 

I think the author of that article is a blathering idiot. I've known lot's
of nice older cars that didn't require a fleet of attendants and weren't
held together with bailing wire and duct tape. I owned one myself, a 1974
Volvo 142GL (for Grand Lux) I believe. It drove like a dream and was 100%
reliable for the two years I owned it. It didn't burn oil and it got
fantastic fuel economy, had solid doors and a great heater/defroster.
Everything worked fine except the heated seats which most cars don't have
anyway and the clock which wasn't particularly troubling since I wear a
watch anyway.

Certainly there comes a time in every cars life when it's time for
retirement but that point does not come just because a car is 20 years old
or has 150,000 miles on the clock.

 

Don't you know you should NOT believe everything you read in the
newspapers...

I have a '93 240 and it looks and rides like new. Any (pre-Ford)
Volvo that is well maintained will last 20-30 years. The problem is
most people are not "strong" thinkers and easily influenced. So when
the neighbor buy a new car, it itches to do the same soon after.

Additional benefits of keeping older cars are very low insurance
costs, less interest in car-jacking as well as theft. Plus driving
something that is rare to find is always a pleasure. Not to mention
that you never get rich by spending.

Moreover, they don't built cars the way they used to. You'll be hard
pressed to find a car today that may last 20 years on the road. Even
the "new" Volvos are not built to last. Hell, they have trouble
making it through the warranty period. How many trips to the
dealer???

 

Moreover, they don't built cars the way they used to. You'll be hard

I'm laughing out loud! My 2000 S80 will easily still be on the road in 2020
if it's not involved in an accident. You don't know what you are talking
about. Older cars were not built with paint and under-coating this durable.
And I've only been to the dealer for it's scheduled services every 7500
miles.

 

I was agreeing with you up until this point. Modern materials and design
techniques will ensure that today's cars last a lot longer, get better
mileage, pollute less and offer greater crash protection than cars built
a couple of decades ago.

I can think of quite a few problems I and my family had with our cars as
I was growing up in the 70's and 80's. Rust was by far the biggest one,
and that has been pretty much licked. Why else would manufacturers be
offering such lengthy warranties against body rust? My favorite nasty
was the carburator, which caused no end of woes and could never really
be fixed properly, and the host of crap that came around it.

If what you were saying were true, manufacturers wouldn't be offering
5/50k warranties (or even 10/100k powertrain warranties). That would
have been suicide in the 80's. No, today's cars can and do last...you
just have to choose wisely.


Cheers,
-+JLS

 

Depends on who you talk to. A new car is built every bit as well as
something made 20 years ago, tho they give the appearance of perhaps less
solidity, due to their styling, and the fact that they crumple in accidents
instead of keeping shape (crumpling is better for occupants, staying in
shape is better for the car, what is more important?). The new Volvo's are
QUITE well made, they just have a LOT more technology in them that can break
down.... I'm sure back in the day there were certain cars no one would think
would last 20 years, and did.... What did people say of the 240, top of the
line versions when they were introduced?

I agree with you about everything else. I am hoping I will get my current
car (1999.5 VW Golf) to drive till she's 1000K Kms (just because it's a
diesel, and I want to see her old enough to smoke screen everyone), either
that or inherit the 1993 965 from my father, and see how long I can get it
to last.... Maybe I should try for 25 years or so.... 14 to go only.

 

Not taking great exception with your other points, but I should point out
that Chrysler had a 5/50k warranty in the 1981 model year. This was partly
a matter of statistical analysis and consistent quality control, partly a
great sales pitch, and partly because the company desparately had to sell
cars to generate capital (having been recently baled out of bankruptcy at
public expense). The first part about statistics turned out to be true,
many of the famous "K-cars" had their midlife crises just out of warranty.
The quality control was on target, and the statistics turned out to be
fairly accurate. One doesn't necessarily have a great product to turn a
profit in business...

 

The New York Times...there's a bunch of real car enthusiasts.

What a crock...

<snipped a bunch o' crap>

 

Despite my complaints about other problems, I have almost no rust on my 1996
850R. However -- and it's a very significant however -- I have a 1994 Jeep
Cherokee that I drive when there's snow/slush/ice/salt on the streets in the
winter. So the 850R has essentially never seen salt and should be rustless
like a sunbelt car.

 

I'm also surprised at the "they don't make ____ like they used to" crowd.

I wish I still had my Atari 400. They don't make computers like they used
to...

 

Really? I believe everything I read in the newspapers just like I believe
everything I read on, say, newgroups.....

No. It's because new cars are better performers. When I bought my 850R in
1996 the sticker was $40k (in 1996 dollars) and it produced 240HP and was
the fastest four door sedan beside the 540i and the Mercedes AMG C36 which
cost over $50k (no 4-door M3 yet at the time).

Now, your homely $20k Accord produces 240HP and there are at least 6-10 four
door sedans under $35k (about $28,000 in 1996 dollars at only 3% a year
inflation, or about 30% less than the 850R) that can crush a stock 850R in
performance. It's a great time to be alive if you are a car freak.

Yes, some lemmings buy just because their neighbors bought. But let's not
pretend that there are not *massive* improvements in cars over just the past
7-8 years because there are.

Those are legitimate reasons.

ROFLMAO.

The idea that a car from, say, 1984 will last longer than the same priced
car from 2004 with the same amount of maintenance and repairs is quite
simply insane. Enough said.

 

Not sure what you are laughing at...

Here's one example. You 2000 S80 is using very thin metal sheet for
the exterior of the car. This results in the car denting very easily.
It has been reported by owners of S40, S60 , S80, etc. . Plus the new
"ecological" paint deteriorates much more easily.

A dented car is a lot less attractive and costs a few $$$$ to bring it
back to a "new" shape. My 2 Volvos, '93 and '98 don't suffer from
such problem.

Moreover, changing the computer(s) on today's car like the S80 will be
a great deal more expensive than on a 15 year old car. There are many
examples of what I said in my previous post.

Bottom line is that nowadays, it is a bad business practice to build a
product that last "too" long.

P.S. My mom's previous Maytag washer lasted 31 years with little
maintenance except for the pump once and the pipes twice. Her new top
of the line Maytag (Calypso) purchased last year has already needed to
service call. First to change the rubber seal around the tub and
second to change the sophisticated computer.

P.P.S. Buy the Kenmore Elite HE3Tinstead, much better and more
reliable ~ $1,300US. I have one.

 

One more thing I just remembered...

The S80 MY2000 had a "slight problem". Both front air bags would
deploy in a 3-5 MPH frontal collision. An indep research group made
the discovery. Volvo at first denied it. But after further testing,
found out it was true.

Volvo implemented a solution midway through MY2000 production. But
did not order a recall. You may want to check with your dealer
whether your S80 has the sensitive air bags or not. Apart from the
$$$$ you will have to spend to replace the 2 front air bags, people
sometimes suffer injuries from air bag deployment. In particular
since this kind of collision often happens in parking lot when people
are not belted and are sitting closer to the air bag.

Just the facts, nothing else. Happy motoring.

 

Patrick, I don't consider that thinner body panels make the car any less
short-lived. This is not done to save money but to make the car perform
better and get better fuel economy. My S80 has a hood and trunk lid made of
aluminum for the same reason. This helps reduce weight and lower the center
of gravity for better handling. But it costs quite a bit more than even a
thick steel hood/trunk. In 1980 only very expensive and exotic sports cars
used any aluminum body panels. Expensive? Yes. As strong? No, but strong
enough to do the job. Would I walk on my hood? Of course not. Does that mean
it's not built as well? No, it's actually built better.

I've had my car four years and over 50,000 miles now and it has one dent
that you can only see if the lighting is perfect and the angle is correct.
If I make it 16 years and over 200,000 miles and have four such dents I will
be very pleased. Personally, I think the lighter skins improve the qualities
of the car, not cheapen it. My S80 has a chassis that is far more rigid than
any comparable sedan in the 1980's, Volvo's included. This makes it much
more sure-footed during evasive manuevers.

My S80 has 18 separate computers in it. So far I've replaced zero. Computers
are getting cheaper all the time. I don't buy your argument that computers
make a car prohibitively expensive to keep in service.

I made the mistake of buying a Maytag Neptune washer/dryer set. I won't buy
another Maytag as long as I live. It's bad business to design a product to
fail early. I will buy plenty more Volvo's because they continue to serve me
well and be reliable. I don't buy your theory that "nowadays" it's bad
business practice to build a product that lasts too long.

See, you're proving my point. You are singing the praises of the more
reliable machine. That's good business for Kenmore. Cars are the same way,
people love to talk about their cars with family/friends/co-workers. If
someone has a lemon, you will hear about it. I buy European cars because
I've seen my friends domestic cars fall apart before my eyes and heard their
tales of woe. It's not good business to design a major purchase to fail
early, you are so far out in right field it's ridiculous.

 

You are making my point for me. Cars 20 years ago didn't have airbags.
Modern cars are a lot safer.

The thing you fail to mention with the "overly sensitive" front airbags in
the S80 is the following:

The S80 is one of the few cars that has two sensitivities to the airbags. If
the seatbelt is buckled, the airbag will not deploy at 5 mph. And the
seatbelt will not deploy at 5 mph if it hits another car, only if it hits a
large stationary object. Yes, this is a little too sensitive and Volvo
detuned the airbags in later models which, is one more example of cars being
made better as time marches on.

Those who claim older cars are 'better" are generally the people who can't
afford new ones as often as they would like.

 

You're right, they don't, the 400 is quite a classic, though not nearly as
much as some. Not too long ago I saw an Apple Lisa fetch over $4000, you
could buy a hell of a new machine for that. Some of the old S100 bus
microcomputers will get quite a bit of $ too. Most of the mid 80's-90's
computer stuff is pretty worthless though.

 

It's kinda hard to compare consumer electronics and appliances with cars,
they've all become so disposeable it's ridiculous, I'm not one of those
hardcore buy american types, but I like to at least buy products that were
manufactured in countries that provide a similar quality of life to my own,
something that's becoming increasingly difficult to do. If the car market
went the same way as the electronics and appliance market everyone would be
driving a Kia or a Daewoo by now, and all the famous marques would be made
by them as well and rebadged.

 

There's advantages to newer and older cars, and it's mostly a matter of
preference. I could just about go pay cash for a new Volvo right now, but
I'm pretty happy with the ones I have, they meet my needs, both current and
for the forseeable future, there's simply other things I'd prefer to budget
for rather than being a typical american up to my eyeballs in debt with a
house full of fancy new stuff. It'd be nice if people would quit arguing
about what cars are "better" and just focus on enjoying the car of their
choice. If you like all the new bells & whistles and don't mind paying
someone to work on it when something breaks then go for it, others will
always prefer something a bit simpler with less to go wrong and the things
that do are better documented. My personal liking is for the 700/900 series
because I feel it's a very good compromise between simplicity, styling and
creature comforts. I still occasionally have an itch for a nice 850R wagon
but not enough to get rid of the two cars I already have, I feel rather
attached to them.