Who still drives a stick in 2025?

[WinterDeere]

It didn't even have 30,000 miles. He didn't even have it a full 3 years at that point.

That's why I always find it so funny when people claim these old vehicles were "bulletproof" or "they don't build them like they used to". Someone made that exact claim about a 1939 Dodge or Plymouth in another thread just today. We happened to own one of those, the original owner retired it after less than 5 years, my dad bought it from him as a junker for $15.

People claiming new cars are junk are willfully ignoring the fact that today's cars routinely go 3x - 5x the average mileage of any car build 50 years ago.

 

[Oaktree]

I think the national comparisons varied a lot by year, as well. The 78/79 Fords rusted so fast, you could almost hear it happening. I've heard some blame Ford switching from American to Mexican steel at the time, but I think it's more likely that new environmental reg's had forced them to stop using some of the more effective rust-preventative treatments on the back side of their door and fender panels, right around that time.

I've only had to condemn and junk two vehicles due to rust in my life, and one was a 1984 Volvo that was scrapped before it's 14th birthday. I've also seen some pretty badly rusted Saabs that weren't very old, so I'm not sure the Scandanavian cars were exempt.

My mother drove Saabs for many years, and I don't recall any of them being rustbuckets...and she was never one who took particularly good care of vehicles. Certainly they didn't get washed often.

As far as your comments about Ford not being able to use older rustproofing treatments, I don't recall anyone's vehicles of that era using any sort of factory rustproofing. My guess is that for weight reductions they were using thinner-gauge sheetmetal.

 

[WinterDeere]

My mother drove Saabs for many years, and I don't recall any of them being rustbuckets...and she was never one who took particularly good care of vehicles. Certainly they didn't get washed often.

Yeah, mine too. But as I said, it seemed to vary more by year than by brand. My mom had three Saabs in a row, roughly 1990 - 2015, and they were all fine. But I remember others friends parents having older Saabs, 1970's or maybe early-1980's models, that rusted more quickly.

As far as your comments about Ford not being able to use older rustproofing treatments, I don't recall anyone's vehicles of that era using any sort of factory rustproofing. My guess is that for weight reductions they were using thinner-gauge sheetmetal.

I'm not talking about any factory-optioned rustproofing, just their standard treatment. The 1978's and 79's definitely rusted faster than the predeeding or later models. I remember this clearly, because I had a 1978 Ford in the early 1990's. Older guys who saw how fast it was rusting after just 12 - 14 years, always commented on how bad those two years were, in particular.

 

[masseyrider]

That's why I always find it so funny when people claim these old vehicles were "bulletproof" or "they don't build them like they used to". Someone made that exact claim about a 1939 Dodge or Plymouth in another thread just today. We happened to own one of those, the original owner retired it after less than 5 years, my dad bought it from him as a junker for $15.

People claiming new cars are junk are willfully ignoring the fact that today's cars routinely go 3x - 5x the average mileage of any car build 50 years ago.

I've made the same argument.
How many older cars needed valve jobs by 80K miles.
Carbs., points, timing fiddled with regularly. Remember adjusting lifters.
A car with 100K was a survivor.
Bodies rotted out in 4-5 years in my climate.
And tires were real crap.
Neighbor drives a 14 year old Ford Flex I sold him. It's over 350,000km. Never had a tune up yet.
Brakes, an exhaust joint, couple alignments that were the fault of the local roads, AC recharged but not much else.

 

[4570Man]

That's why I always find it so funny when people claim these old vehicles were "bulletproof" or "they don't build them like they used to". Someone made that exact claim about a 1939 Dodge or Plymouth in another thread just today. We happened to own one of those, the original owner retired it after less than 5 years, my dad bought it from him as a junker for $15.

People claiming new cars are junk are willfully ignoring the fact that today's cars routinely go 3x - 5x the average mileage of any car build 50 years ago.

Is that the same people that claim “old houses are built so good”? Old growth timber was better I’ll agree with that but that’s about where it ends.

 

[WinterDeere]

Is that the same people that claim “old houses are built so good”? Old growth timber was better I’ll agree with that but that’s about where it ends.

Yep. I live in an old house, and grew up in old houses. My family being one of the originals to settle the area, we owned a lot of old houses that were handed down through many generations into my early adulthood.

The ones left standing today were indeed built very well, but anyone who look at old maps can quickly conclude that those standing today are the exceptional, and that many others have come and gone in their time. The old houses you see standing today are just the very few built by wealthier owners, worth being cared for and preserved over many generations, and not a very good representation of the "average" of their time.

Even at that, my mason was laughing at the stonework in one of my gable walls a few years back, saying that if one of his employees ever laid up a wall so crudely, he'd fire them!

 

[4570Man]

Yep. I live in an old house, and grew up in old houses. My family being one of the originals to settle the area, we owned a lot of old houses that were handed down through many generations into my early adulthood.

The ones left standing today were indeed built very well, but anyone who look at old maps can quickly conclude that those standing today are the exceptional, and that many others have come and gone in their time. The old houses you see standing today are just the very few built by wealthier owners, worth being cared for and preserved over many generations, and not a very good representation of the "average" of their time.

Even at that, my mason was laughing at the stonework in one of my gable walls a few years back, saying that if one of his employees ever laid up a wall so crudely, he'd fire them!

Even the “good” ones that are left which were probably in the top .5 percent of quality in their day are so loose that heating cost a fortune and likely didn’t have plumbing, electricity or HVAC in the original construction. People make comparisons of the cost then vs now which I agree cost has outpaced wages and inflation but if you eliminated wiring, plumbing, utility hookups, septic systems, HVAC systems, insulation and you dropped the size to 1200 sf you could considerably lower the cost.

 

[WinterDeere]

Even the “good” ones that are left which were probably in the top .5 percent of quality in their day are so loose that heating cost a fortune and likely didn’t have plumbing, electricity or HVAC in the original construction.

I guess we should start a new thread if we want to go on an "old houses" tangent, which is probably my favorite subject, having lived in a long list of very old houses. But yes, I'm presently heating 7800 sq.ft. of old construction dating back 290 years, and the fuel usage would make most folks' head spin.

 

[2manyrocks]

So much depends on the house and how it was constructed. My grandfather's house was built in the 1920s and had a boiler system with cast iron radiators that were wonderfully warm, but there was no central air so it wasn't pleasant in the humid summer months.

So far as cars go, seems like the VW beetle was about $1,695 new before inflation drove the price up to $1,995 in the 1970s which today seems like a reasonable price for affordable transportation. Basic Corolla seems to be about $25-$28,000 today.

 

[Cub 7275]

I remember people making the same exact argument over fuel injected cars 40 years ago, and then great aftermarket fuel injection controllers hit the market 25 years ago.

I guess I just don’t see any bit of automotive electronics ever being made in numbers so small that there won’t be a good refurbished or aftermarket supply chain. That ZF transmission in your car is used not only in your model, but dozens of others as well, to the tune of many tens of millions around the world.

Making everything electronic makes everything from aftermarket and tuning way easier for those young guys with computer skills, not the other way around! Look at all the aftermarket tuners out there today, as just the tip of the iceberg.

It may be more a mystery for those who only understand points and carburetors, butnot the young guys who will be working on today’s cars when they get older.

Yes it makes them easier to tune, but it also brings many more potential points of failure. Kids in the future will have to become their own electronics repair stations. Electrical connections will be a potential point of failure that can take the entire car down, like the $3,000 F150 taillight example. Troubleshooting will be more complicated since there is so much software controlling everything. Even sensors, like an O2 sensor, have software controlling their outputs. Many "modules" need specific OEM programming before being functional, etc.

I get to hear about some of the software / electronics problems that stump the OEMs and can only imagine the fits they will cause shade tree mechanics in the future.

It’s odd to see so many sound vehicles with zero rust end up scrap because the cost of air bags, catalytic convertors or other emission parts make repair not viable.

It's a darn waste. Michigan just dissolves cars away and we have no rules requiring older cars to have their emissions updated. Those who can't afford, or simply don't want, the latest and greatest new vehicles would snap up rust free older vehicles. My commuter car is a bare bones 2003 Saturn Ion (stick shift) that came from Georgia. Not rust free like a car from southern California, but I'm hoping to get another 5 to 10 more years out of it before the rust here kills it.

.....
People claiming new cars are junk are willfully ignoring the fact that today's cars routinely go 3x - 5x the average mileage of any car build 50 years ago.

50 years ago, maybe, 20 years ago nope. People are likely just venting their frustrations at the overpriced new cars. New cars aren't junk, but they are stupidly excessive. My Saturn has AC, AM/FM radio and air bags as the only unnecessary bling. It gets me anywhere some expensive, dumb, new rolling computer network on wheels would and gets 30+ mpg doing it. The only things close to a safety nanny are the clutch interlock switch so it can't start in gear and the seat belt chime. Contrast that with the new cars with safety nannies for EVERYTHING under the sun. Seriously, did the population really get so dumb they can't even be trusted to lock the doors correctly without a nanny's overriding supervision? Cars peaked decades ago, now they are over complicated, overpriced play stations on wheels. Will any US mfg wake up and offer a plain Jane model for the masses or will it be the 1970s all over again?

Hey get off my lawn.