OT: Reliable crossover vehicle

[gustafson]

With suspension and brake upgrades a lot of those 60s cars become essentially "modern", and engine options range from aftermarket throttle body injection upgrade to swapping in a late model performance motor.

Many years ago I had a late 60s musclecar and was amazed at the improvement in handling just by switching to radial tires, which at the time were not the most common type.

Some of those restomods are pretty nice cars.

 

[RJT]

My wife is on her second Ford Escape , (first one got T boned at 100K), never a major problem with either. I drive a Cadillac XT4 and love it, but it only has 40K on it so just getting broke in, daughter has a Subaru that has had 2 complete short blocks replaced under warranty (she had to pay labor on the first one, but that only lasted 30 days).

 

[plastikdreams]

Probably a reason they are the 21st largest auto maker in the world...

 

[GregSY]

Cars of the 60's are not sought after by only old men....the younger generations would LOVE to have them, too, but generally can't afford them. As I said...let's see who is fighting over a 1992 Taurus in 30 years.

Cars of the 60's didn't 'rot', rather, they were not built to withstand years of outdoor exposure as modern cars are. IMO, anyone who leaves a vehicle outdoors deserves to have a shitbox in 5 years. Imagine buying a $50,000 VMC and leaving it outdoors for 5 years. No different for a vehicle.

As I've said, there is no doubt systems have improved in the past 6 decades. They should improve - that's the natural progression of a healthy society. But cars have also degraded significantly...they are overly complex, full of shit designs and features, and nearly impossible to repair. Most of all, they contain computers which are the doorway to Hell.

A 1977 Volare? Really? You're gonna choose one of the worst years ever as the example? By 1973, it was a rapid downhill for all cars, no matter who made them.

As for safety....your showing that chart shows just why this country has gone soft. Do the Chinese care about safety? The Russians? The Pakis? Nope. They're getting tougher, we're getting softer. History has proven that is never a good outcome for the soft.

 

[BoxcarPete]

Cars of the 60's are not sought after by only old men....the younger generations would LOVE to have them, too, but generally can't afford them. As I said...let's see who is fighting over a 1992 Taurus in 30 years.

Cars of the 60's didn't 'rot', rather, they were not built to withstand years of outdoor exposure as modern cars are. IMO, anyone who leaves a vehicle outdoors deserves to have a shitbox in 5 years. Imagine buying a $50,000 VMC and leaving it outdoors for 5 years. No different for a vehicle.

As I've said, there is no doubt systems have improved in the past 6 decades. They should improve - that's the natural progression of a healthy society. But cars have also degraded significantly...they are overly complex, full of shit designs and features, and nearly impossible to repair. Most of all, they contain computers which are the doorway to Hell.

A 1977 Volare? Really? You're gonna choose one of the worst years ever as the example? By 1973, it was a rapid downhill for all cars, no matter who made them.

As for safety....your showing that chart shows just why this country has gone soft. Do the Chinese care about safety? The Russians? The Pakis? Nope. They're getting tougher, we're getting softer. History has proven that is never a good outcome for the soft.

I will say for the record that having been a part of automotive design (LV power distribution) the OEMs are constantly asking for more pounds of shit to be packed into a more oddly shaped bag. OEM designs are largely driven by studio because styling sells. Then, they need as many features as the next guy to keep up with the Joneses. That's why repair access sucks, they want more stuff in less space and there's no place to fit a wrench in between the parts any more.

 

[gustafson]

Cars of the 60's are not sought after by only old men....the younger generations would LOVE to have them, too, but generally can't afford them. As I said...let's see who is fighting over a 1992 Taurus in 30 years.

Cars of the 60's didn't 'rot', rather, they were not built to withstand years of outdoor exposure as modern cars are. IMO, anyone who leaves a vehicle outdoors deserves to have a shitbox in 5 years. Imagine buying a $50,000 VMC and leaving it outdoors for 5 years. No different for a vehicle.

As I've said, there is no doubt systems have improved in the past 6 decades. They should improve - that's the natural progression of a healthy society. But cars have also degraded significantly...they are overly complex, full of shit designs and features, and nearly impossible to repair. Most of all, they contain computers which are the doorway to Hell.

A 1977 Volare? Really? You're gonna choose one of the worst years ever as the example? By 1973, it was a rapid downhill for all cars, no matter who made them.

As for safety....your showing that chart shows just why this country has gone soft. Do the Chinese care about safety? The Russians? The Pakis? Nope. They're getting tougher, we're getting softer. History has proven that is never a good outcome for the soft.

Uhh, cars are cars, they live outside, so yeah old cars rotted

So your wish is to live in a third world country?
Go right ahead
Guess tough guys don't die in car accidents

 

[jim rozen]

Darn. Been keeping my 2007 corolla OUTSIDE all those years. Does that mean it'll only last five more years?

Best way to update a 60s car: raise car 10 feet in the air, put a new car under it.

 

[WizardOfBoz]

My 2014 Highlander is ok but its a big vehicle. My wife dislikes that aspect of the car. The suspension is a bit too stiff for my taste. It's been reliable, though. But if I were getting a car for someone less than 180 lbs I'd probably go with a RAV-4 (or with the Subaru Outback that a lot of guys seem to have and like).

 

[ratbldr427]

I'd vote for a Chevy Traverse,Buick Enclave or GMC Acadia, same basic vehicle. Every one who owns one I have talked to likes the way they drive, feels like a small car. The V6 has ample power ,over 300hp out of a 220 cu in motor. I have not heard of any engine problems just the early 8sp trans, seems the torque converter clutch failed early,blamed on the trans fluid and or the AFM system? No problems out of my 2016 Traverse but it has a 6spd.

I traded in my 2018 Canyon for a '22. Same basic truck same engine as my Traverse but gets better mileage, I figured that a 4 year newer vehicle maybe they fixed the trans issue. I think Toyota used that same block with their heads in some of their cars. It accelerates to a 100 pretty quick for such a small motor then shuts down pronto. Sadly this is the last year for the V6 ,going to turbo 4's.
My daughter has a turbo 4 in a Cruse ,not to reliable, don't know if the new turbo 4's are the same engine.

 

[EmGo]

Oh and driving?
OMG no, handling, NVH, stopping, cornering, 1960's cars are horrid horrid cars. Yeah, yeah, too much junk in new cars but the fundamentals of the vehicle are better in every way

I wouldn't call them "horrid" but new cars are definitely much better in most ways. GregSY is having early alzheimers.

Given the choice tho I'd still rather have a '64 Galaxie 500XL fastback or maybe even the convertible than any new car. '69 Mach One was okay too.

Or an 87 MR2 with leather and t-tops, but it's jap so out of the question. But very very fun to drive

p.s. China has safety standards as well. Just took them a while to figure out crumple zones. And seat belt laws, too. Can't even drive drunk anymore, I kinda miss the olde dayes.

 

[Mcfish]

This thread is similar to the accident in Palestine Ohio.

 

[sfriedberg]

This thread is similar to the accident in Palestine Ohio.

In what way is it similar, Mcfish? A train wreck? Very long? Hot and smelly?

I assure you the PM forums have seen far worse. This thread doesn't even qualify as a disaster. Pretty civil, substantially on the original topic. By our standards, this is a good thread.

 

[CarbideBob]

Cars of the 60's didn't 'rot', rather, they were not built to withstand years of outdoor exposure as modern cars are. IMO, anyone who leaves a vehicle outdoors deserves to have a shitbox in 5 years. Imagine buying a $50,000 VMC and leaving it outdoors for 5 years. No different for a vehicle.

I think it is different.
Even though I live where it snows none of my daily drivers have seen the inside of a garage for 50 years back.
The garage is for projects and occasion maintenance if the weather really bad.
My VMC was not built to be outdoors. My cars.. well I do not drive them indoors.

60's cars... They are not so nice about anything. Wife in love with the 57 vette and wants one if we win the lottery.
I try to tell her that you will not like driving this car. It is not like your new Jeep.
69 Mach with a 428CJ, LS7 Chevelle? Fun for a one hour toy. Past that compared to now .......

OTOH I do like brutal cars. 512 inch big block in a Opel GT. That was a ride but not practical by any means.
Now we have EVs. Almost soundless, stable and go fast.
Scary.

 

[gustafson]

This thread is similar to the accident in Palestine Ohio.

I dunno, people are giving lots of different opinions on a question, seems ok to me. Most people make decisions based on their own experience, tempered sometimes with advice from others. I think the OP has plenty of that here, so really a fairly successful thread

 

[Scruffy887]

Wife and I each drive a Ford Focus RS. Stealth Gray for me and Nitrus Blue for her. Ford brought them in from their German plant is 16 and 17. Guess it is a crossover as built on a car type chassis. Also know as Hot Hatch Backs. 350 HP, Brembo Brakes, Recarro seats. 6 speed box and Regular, sport, drift, and track modes. I have 16k on mine and resale value is almost the 40k I paid for it when new Last I looked). Both live outside.
But the Porsches live inside.
My 05 ML500 lived outside until 2019, had a few rust spots and one hole. Ran really well but I had other toys to drive and I traded it in when I got the Superduty Limited. Something crawled into the heater box and died. All windows open for the 20 minute ride to the dealer.

 

[PackardV8]

I test drove the Toyota RAV4 and the Honda CRV almost 10 years ago for my wife and I found them both annoyingly sluggish in different ways.

I tried a Mazda CX-5 and it was a dream, fun to drive, and very responsive. My wife bought that one. She has been driving it since with no problems.

I wanted to like the Toyota and Honda, but I hated how they drove. It doesn't mean they won't be reliable, but for the same price or less, I highly recommend the Mazda.

Agree, if one wants a reliable transportation module, go with Toyota or second best, Honda. The downer is they are both numb/dumb to drive.

Also agree, the Mazda is a much better driving experience.

Up here in the frozen-ass-end-of-nowhere, AWD is a given. Smartest thing Subaru ever did was make it standard on all models. Result is a otherwise dumb car sells 10X more than they would without AWD.

jack vines, who'll never own a Toyota, Honda or Subaru.

 

[gbent]

I'd vote for a Chevy Traverse,Buick Enclave or GMC Acadia, same basic vehicle.

Not true any more. Ended with the 2017 redesign of the Enclave. I wanted a new Enclave until I sat in one. The console between the seats is about 6" above the seats. Really uncomfortable. Traverse and Acadia are still sister cars and were considered.

2010 Enclave has 212K, still going strong.

 

[ratbldr427]

Not true any more. Ended with the 2017 redesign of the Enclave. I wanted a new Enclave until I sat in one. The console between the seats is about 6" above the seats. Really uncomfortable. Traverse and Acadia are still sister cars and were considered.

2010 Enclave has 212K, still going strong.

gbent ,I've only got 34k on my 2013. Guess I'm got to start driving the heck out of it to catch up with you! GM tries to make some cosmetic differences to keep them different but the mechanicals are the same. They hit a home run with those v6's. One good thing about them for any one looking for a used one is they don't hold a very good resale value.

 

[PeteM]

Seems many replies are based on personal experience going back a decade or more and preferences more suited to guys (off-roading etc.) than a (not so) little old lady?

Personally, I'd rate safety features right up there with reliability if it were my getting-older mom. Automatic emergency braking, blind spot detection, backup cameras, rear cross traffic warnings, good crash ratings, etc. might save her in more ways than just avoiding the cost of a fender bender.

Something like Consumer Reports might be a better guide than Road & Track for your mom. It rates the Suburu Forester, Honda CR-V, Hyundai Tucson Hybrid, and Toyota RAV4 as the top four modestly sized and modestly priced SUVS - in that order.

A just-now-retiring doctor friend says the Forester is the only SUV seat he's comfortable in. Far as I know the engine problems are mostly a thing of the past.

CR-V predicted reliability is (surprising to me) down a bit from the glory days.

I know zero about Hyundai (other than that they were the one company Toyota worried about years ago when I had automotive clients), but they're climbing in everything from Car and Driver to Consumer Reports ratings.

The Hyundai Santa Fe Hybrid is the top C.R. choice in the next size up.

In theory, an electric SUV should be the most reliable vehicle over a ten year period. Should a US company make a good one, there's likely to be a $7500 rebate available in 2023 - which might make a new model almost as affordable as a late-model used SUV?

 

[john.k]

If I had a 1960s car ,i would drive it like my old man used to .....three on the tree ,third gear everywhere ,slip the clutch when the revs dropped below 100........and not forgetting to cut corners to the opposite kerb...........sad to say ,I did have a sixties car ,and not realizing the things were worth money ,I sold it for $500 to a "picker" .....It was my mothers estate ,and I had a council order to clear the property,and was in a panic over various stuff at the time.