luxury cars 1940s image
Katie Kim
Were they considered luxuries? Did few people own them?
Answer
Cadillac have always been consider luxury cars. In the past usually only rich people owned them. But now with diverse credit anyone can own them. I have my eyes set on a 71-73 Coupe Deville for my next project.
Cadillac have always been consider luxury cars. In the past usually only rich people owned them. But now with diverse credit anyone can own them. I have my eyes set on a 71-73 Coupe Deville for my next project.
What would you drive? A new car or a classic?
Richard
Choose one of the two along with what car model and explain why.
Answer
A classic car easily wins, for aesthetic appeal: lots of the old cars simply had character and style.
The cars of the 1920s and 1930s bespoke luxury; even the "cheap" cars usually had some feature or aspect that was simply beautiful. Not all were practical, and maintenance costs could be extreme if the car was driven often or for "great" distances: the fenders would crack from vibration, etc.
The cars of the 1940s and 1950s were attractive for a different reason -- and, at least generally -- reliability, efficiency and utility were all greatly improved.
Power has always been in vogue, but the 1960s saw an explosion in its availability.
There are variations on these themes throughout automotive history: a decade-long generalization is far too broad to recognize developments within the decade, and many trends began in one decade and disappeared in another -- only to reappear in a later decade.
Engine swaps and other types of modification enable the possibility of retaining the style and luxury of earlier automobiles while adding the reliability, efficiency and environmental friendliness of modern technological improvements.
So, ignoring the possibility of making my own ride from scratch, I'd probably go with something like a 1971 Ford Boss 351 (or other trim level based on the 63R body code), or a 1994 Mazda RX-7 with the manual trans -- or, if I was feeling like a purist and I was looking for a family car, the 1989 Ford SHO Taurus.
In the case of the SHO, mine ran 14.86 @ 101.0, 142 mph sustainable cruising speed (also the top speed), got 28.3 mpg on a 6-stop run averaging 95 mph for 388 miles, and returned its best (highway) fuel economy of 36 mpg while commuting with the cruise set at 75 mph.
The combination of acceleration, speed, reliability and fuel economy in a car having great comfort and decent room (I consider the Taurus a "mid-size" car) makes the 1989 SHO my choice for the best car yet made. Reliability problems attributed to its transmission/transaxle were actually the fault of shoddy final assembly by US workers, who left the clips out of the shift linkage grommets.
The SHO's problem was exacerbated by the incompetence of Ford's dealer network to maintain Ford vehicles. Beyond that, the Goodyear tires were good for fuel economy but (in 1989) were insanely expensive as the only other car with that size tire was the 60k+ Acura NSX (which in those days was impressive for its performance), and they didn't last when driven hard.
In 1989, got a set of Kelly Springfield shoes for my SHO for less than 1/4 the price of a replacement set of Eagles; the Kellys had a lower speed rating, and they were so "grippy" that they actually lowered the top speed to 135 mph. Cornering improved with the Kellys, but they didn't give the warning that the Goodyears did: they were more of a "driver's tire."
Peak fuel economy with the Kellys dropped to 28 mpg during my commutes.
I test-drove the 1994 RX-7; it performed brilliantly (ever done a 1-g drift across an unguarded ramp having a 50+ foot drop at the edge of the shoulder-less pavement: it's a boaner-fide thrill!), but the Bose sound system was junk and the panels lying in the "rear seat" area (I forget what they were called) didn't fit anywhere close to properly, which made me suspicious of the overall quality of the car.
My Type I Volkswagen Beetle Sunroof Sedan (I think it was from the 1950s) had the most comfortable seats and the best ergonomics of any car I've ever been in, and no vehicle of which I have any firsthand knowledge has ever exceeded any reasonable estimation of possible performance to the degree evinced by the 1968 Ford F-100 LWB Styleside pickup with the 360 V8.
Having said all that, my favorite is still the 1971 Mustang Mach-1 or Boss 351, in metallic argent, with black stripes and the "ram air" hood (blacked-out scoop, blah blah), the front and rear spoilers. It's simply beautiful. Would I make improvements to it? Yes, and when I got done, it wouldn't be a 1971 car, anymore -- but that's what makes it a classic, to me.
A classic car easily wins, for aesthetic appeal: lots of the old cars simply had character and style.
The cars of the 1920s and 1930s bespoke luxury; even the "cheap" cars usually had some feature or aspect that was simply beautiful. Not all were practical, and maintenance costs could be extreme if the car was driven often or for "great" distances: the fenders would crack from vibration, etc.
The cars of the 1940s and 1950s were attractive for a different reason -- and, at least generally -- reliability, efficiency and utility were all greatly improved.
Power has always been in vogue, but the 1960s saw an explosion in its availability.
There are variations on these themes throughout automotive history: a decade-long generalization is far too broad to recognize developments within the decade, and many trends began in one decade and disappeared in another -- only to reappear in a later decade.
Engine swaps and other types of modification enable the possibility of retaining the style and luxury of earlier automobiles while adding the reliability, efficiency and environmental friendliness of modern technological improvements.
So, ignoring the possibility of making my own ride from scratch, I'd probably go with something like a 1971 Ford Boss 351 (or other trim level based on the 63R body code), or a 1994 Mazda RX-7 with the manual trans -- or, if I was feeling like a purist and I was looking for a family car, the 1989 Ford SHO Taurus.
In the case of the SHO, mine ran 14.86 @ 101.0, 142 mph sustainable cruising speed (also the top speed), got 28.3 mpg on a 6-stop run averaging 95 mph for 388 miles, and returned its best (highway) fuel economy of 36 mpg while commuting with the cruise set at 75 mph.
The combination of acceleration, speed, reliability and fuel economy in a car having great comfort and decent room (I consider the Taurus a "mid-size" car) makes the 1989 SHO my choice for the best car yet made. Reliability problems attributed to its transmission/transaxle were actually the fault of shoddy final assembly by US workers, who left the clips out of the shift linkage grommets.
The SHO's problem was exacerbated by the incompetence of Ford's dealer network to maintain Ford vehicles. Beyond that, the Goodyear tires were good for fuel economy but (in 1989) were insanely expensive as the only other car with that size tire was the 60k+ Acura NSX (which in those days was impressive for its performance), and they didn't last when driven hard.
In 1989, got a set of Kelly Springfield shoes for my SHO for less than 1/4 the price of a replacement set of Eagles; the Kellys had a lower speed rating, and they were so "grippy" that they actually lowered the top speed to 135 mph. Cornering improved with the Kellys, but they didn't give the warning that the Goodyears did: they were more of a "driver's tire."
Peak fuel economy with the Kellys dropped to 28 mpg during my commutes.
I test-drove the 1994 RX-7; it performed brilliantly (ever done a 1-g drift across an unguarded ramp having a 50+ foot drop at the edge of the shoulder-less pavement: it's a boaner-fide thrill!), but the Bose sound system was junk and the panels lying in the "rear seat" area (I forget what they were called) didn't fit anywhere close to properly, which made me suspicious of the overall quality of the car.
My Type I Volkswagen Beetle Sunroof Sedan (I think it was from the 1950s) had the most comfortable seats and the best ergonomics of any car I've ever been in, and no vehicle of which I have any firsthand knowledge has ever exceeded any reasonable estimation of possible performance to the degree evinced by the 1968 Ford F-100 LWB Styleside pickup with the 360 V8.
Having said all that, my favorite is still the 1971 Mustang Mach-1 or Boss 351, in metallic argent, with black stripes and the "ram air" hood (blacked-out scoop, blah blah), the front and rear spoilers. It's simply beautiful. Would I make improvements to it? Yes, and when I got done, it wouldn't be a 1971 car, anymore -- but that's what makes it a classic, to me.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment