• fb_100000042346524 avatar Jack Posted: 8/21/2013 10:52am PDT

    Cars are unbelievably better today! In the 50's and 60's, a car with over 100k miles was considered scrap.

  • fb_824233354281962 avatar Avnish Posted: 2/4/2015 10:57pm PST

    This crash test of both the cars is really practical and we have learnt something after watching the video.
    my blog - http://www.upcomingcarsindia.org/

  • fb_824233354281962 avatar Avnish Posted: 2/4/2015 10:58pm PST

    my blog - Upcoming cars India

  • AlexKovnat avatar AlexKovnat Posted: 8/21/2013 9:48am PDT

    A problem I see with your article above is this: No matter how many hundreds of dollars worth and hundreds of pounds of safety equipment and crashworthiness standards cars are now required to carry, there's always going to be somebody who's going to demand even more safety doodads for other people's cars. Sooner or later we are going to have to ask, how fair is it to place the ego needs of self-appointed caped crusaders over the practical desires of those of us who have to live with their demands?

    The hundreds of pounds added to the weight of cars by safety requirements, should be seen not only in physical terms but also as a metaphor for the way we are being asked to carry the ego baggage of all these self-proclaimed consumer advocates.

  • fb_1779529571 avatar Bill Posted: 8/21/2013 11:43am PDT

    It depends on how one defines "awesome". Now for me it's forty three years of flawless service, thrilling performance and classic muscle car looks that draws admiration and respect. It's my 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T. Best ride of my life. AWESOME.... by definition.

  • wsears007 avatar wsears007 Posted: 8/21/2013 12:10pm PDT

    I've noticed that one unintended consequence of increases in safety features such as side airbags and rollover protection for roofs is poor visibility. Cars now have much wider A-pillars, smaller rear windows, and higher side window beltlines. Now we even have rear cameras to make up for the postage-stamp size rear window that 5 feet off the ground on SUVs, resulting in more weight, cost, and complexity. Who makes the decision as to whether one tradeoff offsets another?

  • neil733 avatar neil733 Posted: 8/22/2013 9:24am PDT

    Surely that should be poor "vision", not poor "visibility".
    Paint all the windows on a car bright yellow and you will improve its visibility, but reduce the driver's vision to zero.

  • wsears007 avatar wsears007 Posted: 8/23/2013 6:54am PDT

    If I'm a driver with poor vision, shouldn't I have glasses?

  • fb_727730720 avatar Jeff Posted: 8/21/2013 12:26pm PDT

    Cars are definitely better in every way: safety, reliability, handling, braking, zero to 60 speed, fuel efficiency. Today's vehcles might lack the great styling of past cars, but are far better otherwise.

  • fb_1275397985 avatar Patrick Posted: 8/21/2013 12:50pm PDT

    I have own a few cars and trucks from the sixty to present. My fastest was a 63 ford with a 427cid. yes she was fast could past anything but a gas pump. But compared to todays cars, I'll take todays cars anytime, one they are smarter, and more efficient and that is the name of the game. What I think is sad we could have been here tech wise years ago. Yes I'm still a car nut just don't have the money to show it.

  • fb_100000486050656 avatar Adam Posted: 8/22/2013 10:00am PDT

    My 1995 525I is better than any honda coming off the lot now.

  • oldsurfergirl avatar oldsurfergirl Posted: 3/24/2014 2:00pm PDT

    My 20 yr old Mercury Cougar is a gas guzzler, but it's also built like a tank i.e. When rear ended - the other driver's hood folded up against the windshield...the Cougar - not a scratch. A new "tin can" little car...no matter if it has 18 seatbelts & 25 airbags...wouldn't survive the Cougar. She's old - purrs like a kitten & one can't b---h about replacing 20 yr old parts. "Sides that, no one wants to steal it...