The Sorry State of Affairs in Automobilia in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

[Max Rockatansky]

Pontiac Phoenix; the most bastardized Chevy Nova until the 80s NUMMI version:

[PHLBOS]

Mustang II

Video snipped

For what its worth I always thought the Mustang II was a fairly decent looking car.  Had a V8 been offered from the first model year I don't think it would get so much shit from performance car fans playing Monday Morning Quarterback.  The Trans Am definitely was the lone bright point in a dark decade for performance.

While the Mustang II was indeed an initial let-down for older-Mustang & performance car fans for being much smaller and offering no V8 (in its first year); such didn't matter at the time.  Due to its launch (unintentionally) coinciding with skyrocketing gas prices (& long gas lines); sales for the '74 model increased to numbers not seen post-1967 (385,993 units).  Such was the only new subcompact offering for that model year; everything else carried over from '73.

[Max Rockatansky]

Prelude Si 4WS:

[Max Rockatansky]

Ford F250 Centurion Van/Truck

[bugo]

We had a '75 Mustang with the 302/5.0L V8 that was a blast. We had it was 14 and I had just gotten my restricted driver's license and I thought spinning the tires was cool. The Mustang was actually quite fast and it had 13" wheels and it would squeal them for as long as you wanted to. The street in front of our house had black marks going in several directions. I had no idea how obnoxious I was and lucky I was that I never got in trouble for it. It was the 1980s and it was a different time. But yeah, that Mustang was powerful and had good acceleration. I don't know if the engine was stock or if it had been modified. I have fond memories of the Mustang II and don't think it deserves the bad reputation they have. Well, the 1974 model deserves all the scorn in the world but the V8 really woke that car up and made it a good performer. We had a '78 fastback with the 171/2.8L V6 which was absolutely gutless. It was a terrible car. But I had a lot of fun in that '75.

Nexus 5X

[jon daly]

I saw a PT Cruiser yesterday and someone at work drives an HHR. Why does the Charger/Challenger revival seem to "work" for me, aesthetically speaking, while these don't?

[Max Rockatansky]

I saw a PT Cruiser yesterday and someone at work drives an HHR. Why does the Charger/Challenger revival seem to "work" for me, aesthetically speaking, while these don't?

Probably because it's not a specific throwback to any particular model and an era nobody was asking for.  The SSR and HHR had the exact issue the PT Cruiser had in term of design asthetics.  Granted the volume PT and HHR sold wel but the automakers found out quick after those experience people wanted stuff from the 60s/70s.  There was huge hype for the 05 Mustang when it came out because it like a first generation. Chrysler and GM followed with the Challenger and Camaro concepts which essentially were close to one-to-one with the how the production car look.  The GTO drove and preformed almost exactly like the 2010 Camaro SS but people hated it because it looked like a Chevy Cavalier. 

In regards to the Mustang II automakers until recently had a really bad habit of launching cars with incomplete or weak engine lines.  In the case of the Mustang II had the 302 available in 1974 nobody would complain about it today. The Camaro wasn't a pretty bad car in the late 70s but skates by because of the engines available and that most people just want to remember the 400 Trans Ams.  Conversely I think the SSR would have found a market had it launched with the 6.0L LS2 instead of the 5.3L.  The 5.3 made it really apparent the SSR was a Trailblazsr reskin.  The Pontiac Fiero was supposed to have a V6 it's first year but it got mixed which killed the repuatation of the car also. 

[PHLBOS]

In regards to the Mustang II automakers until recently had a really bad habit of launching cars with incomplete or weak engine lines.  In the case of the Mustang II had the 302 available in 1974 nobody would complain about it today.

Today?  Most of those lack of V8 complaints on that car were from the mid-70s and came from die-hard pony/muscle car enthusiasts.  However, at that particular time, pony & muscle cars were on the wane due to soaring insurance premiums, increased pollution/emission control regulations/standards taking place in a very short period of time & skyrocketing gas prices.  The coincidental timing of the debut of the '74 Mustang II sans the V8 option with respect soaring gas prices & long lines (including odd/even plate number gas rations) worked in Ford's favor (see the first year sales figures as proof) and most of the buying public (at least initially) didn't care about the no V8 option.

The Pontiac Fiero was supposed to have a V6 it's first year but it got mixed which killed the repuatation of the car also.

Not sure where you got that info. but based on old issues (from that era) of Motor Trend, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, etc.; the Fiero was originally conceived (late 70s/early 80s) to be a two-seat economy (read 4-banger) commuter car... much like the more conventional front-engine/FWD Ford EXP/Mercury LN7 that were launched (spring of '81) as early '82 models.  It was only when gas prices started leveling off/dropping and a *pause* of government regulations (mainly the CAFE standards peaking at 27.5 mpg (it even dropped to 26 mpg for about three years in the late 80s)) that Pontiac decided to offer a V6 for the Fiero.

[jon daly]

Oh yeah; the SSR. That one looks like something out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. At least the Cruiser looks like a toned down version of the car on the cover of ZZ Topp's Eliminator.

[Max Rockatansky]

In regards to the Mustang II automakers until recently had a really bad habit of launching cars with incomplete or weak engine lines.  In the case of the Mustang II had the 302 available in 1974 nobody would complain about it today.

Today?  Most of those lack of V8 complaints on that car were from the mid-70s and came from die-hard pony/muscle car enthusiasts.  However, at that particular time, pony & muscle cars were on the wane due to soaring insurance premiums, increased pollution/emission control regulations/standards taking place in a very short period of time & skyrocketing gas prices.  The coincidental timing of the debut of the '74 Mustang II sans the V8 option with respect soaring gas prices & long lines (including odd/even plate number gas rations) worked in Ford's favor (see the first year sales figures as proof) and most of the buying public (at least initially) didn't care about the no V8 option.

The Pontiac Fiero was supposed to have a V6 it's first year but it got mixed which killed the repuatation of the car also.

Not sure where you got that info. but based on old issues (from that era) of Motor Trend, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, etc.; the Fiero was originally conceived (late 70s/early 80s) to be a two-seat economy (read 4-banger) commuter car... much like the more conventional front-engine/FWD Ford EXP/Mercury LN7 that were launched (spring of '81) as early '82 models.  It was only when gas prices started leveling off/dropping and a *pause* of government regulations (mainly the CAFE standards peaking at 27.5 mpg (it even dropped to 26 mpg for about three years in the late 80s)) that Pontiac decided to offer a V6 for the Fiero.

Regarding the V6 Fiero, this article is a good read about the initial design concept:

https://pontiacfiero.wordpress.com/about/

In short the Fiero basically was neutered for the sake of the Corvette keeping as top GM performance dog.  It seems absurd that anyone in retrospect at GM thought a V6 would put preform a C4 Corvette.

Regarding the Mustang II I think that I mentioned the high volume numbers upthread and the wane perfoamce pony cars.  The real truth is that all early pony  cars had a large percentage of straight six sales.  It's sad to see in modern times so many perfectly good vintage I6 get chopped up for restomods. 

[PHLBOS]

Regarding the V6 Fiero, this article is a good read about the initial design concept:

https://pontiacfiero.wordpress.com/about/

In short the Fiero basically was neutered for the sake of the Corvette keeping as top GM performance dog.  It seems absurd that anyone in retrospect at GM thought a V6 would put preform a C4 Corvette.

The short-lived Regal Grand National & GNX say "Hello"... at with respect to 0-60 times.

The Fiero was conceived as a small, two-seat sports car with all new suspension and V6 engine. While General Motors management and accountants were opposed to investing in a second two-seater sports car that might compete with the Corvette, they perceived the oil crisis as a market opportunity for a fuel-efficient sporty commuter car. To this end, the Fiero was re-designed to use a fuel efficient version of GM's 2.5 L (150 cu in) four-cylinder "Iron Duke"  engine capable of 31 mpg-US (7.6 L/100 km; 37 mpg-imp) in the city and 50 mpg-US (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg-imp) on the highway with the economy-ratio transmission option. These figures are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency test-circuit results, published by Pontiac, and confirmed from multiple sources. It was impressive mileage for a 2.5 L engine of the period, and still good by today's standards, but the three-speed automatic reduced highway mileage to only 32 mpg-US (7.4 L/100 km; 38 mpg-imp). With respect to fuel economy, the Fiero was intended to appeal to a market niche for which the Corvette with its V8 engine was unsuitable.
...
By 1985, the oil crisis was long past and demand developed for a Fiero having more engine power and better sports car performance. Pontiac responded by introducing the GT model which included upgraded suspension tuning, wider tires, and a V6 engine having 43 hp (32 kW) more than the base four-cylinder.

I'd be curious to know when this article was written and/or when the initial plan for a V6 engine was conceived because the majority if not all the press (including such from GM) prior to the 1984 launch of Fiero made no mention of it initially/originally coming with or offering a V6 engine when planned. 

[Takumi]

The CB (4th generation) Accord. Interesting that he says he'd prefer an airbag; the car got one in the 1992 facelift. Also the last Accord without a V6 until the current generation came out early this year (both engines in the new Accord are turbo 4s).
https://youtu.be/9cm1JIhY0QM

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the V6 Fiero, this article is a good read about the initial design concept:

https://pontiacfiero.wordpress.com/about/

In short the Fiero basically was neutered for the sake of the Corvette keeping as top GM performance dog.  It seems absurd that anyone in retrospect at GM thought a V6 would put preform a C4 Corvette.

The short-lived Regal Grand National & GNX say "Hello"... at with respect to 0-60 times.

The Fiero was conceived as a small, two-seat sports car with all new suspension and V6 engine. While General Motors management and accountants were opposed to investing in a second two-seater sports car that might compete with the Corvette, they perceived the oil crisis as a market opportunity for a fuel-efficient sporty commuter car. To this end, the Fiero was re-designed to use a fuel efficient version of GM's 2.5 L (150 cu in) four-cylinder "Iron Duke"  engine capable of 31 mpg-US (7.6 L/100 km; 37 mpg-imp) in the city and 50 mpg-US (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg-imp) on the highway with the economy-ratio transmission option. These figures are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency test-circuit results, published by Pontiac, and confirmed from multiple sources. It was impressive mileage for a 2.5 L engine of the period, and still good by today's standards, but the three-speed automatic reduced highway mileage to only 32 mpg-US (7.4 L/100 km; 38 mpg-imp). With respect to fuel economy, the Fiero was intended to appeal to a market niche for which the Corvette with its V8 engine was unsuitable.
...
By 1985, the oil crisis was long past and demand developed for a Fiero having more engine power and better sports car performance. Pontiac responded by introducing the GT model which included upgraded suspension tuning, wider tires, and a V6 engine having 43 hp (32 kW) more than the base four-cylinder.

I'd be curious to know when this article was written and/or when the initial plan for a V6 engine was conceived because the majority if not all the press (including such from GM) prior to the 1984 launch of Fiero made no mention of it initially/originally coming with or offering a V6 engine when planned.

And Buick never saw a true performance coupe again after the Grand National...shame too... 

Regarding the Fiero, I believe one of the major car magazines covered the Fiero and how it was supposed to have a V6 from the get-go.  For the life of me I can't find the article or video I seem to be remembering it from.  Either way, why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?  Granted the 3rd Gen F-Body also had the Iron Duke as the base engine when they rolled out...

[D-Dey65]

I'm not a big fan of the Colonnade cars, but for some reason I like the Pontiac Can Am. I don't even know why.

The quad square headlights and the body sculpture that fit them took the gaudiness away from the Colonnade-era cars... at least in most cases.  The Buick Century had square headlights too, but they were vertically stacked. It was an improvement over the 1973-75 Buicks and it was unique compared to the Regals, Customs, and Specials, but it was still pretty gaudy-looking.


Speaking of Regals, there was a guy in Florida who had a 1986 Buick Regal GS 455 Stage One!!!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1986_Buick_Regal_Stage_One;_Front_End.jpg

[PHLBOS]

...why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?

Again, one needs to understand the time and economic situation that was going on at the time.  The decision to initially go with a 4-cylinder for the Fiero was made based on the assumptions that the cost of gasoline was going to be $3-5/gallon by 1985-1990 and that the 27.5 mpg CAFE figure for 1985 was going to increase shortly thereafter.  Needless to say wouldn't happen until some 20+ years later.

Granted the 3rd Gen F-Body also had the Iron Duke as the base engine when they rolled out...

Such was obviously done for CAFE reasons.

[Max Rockatansky]

...why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?

Again, one needs to understand the time and economic situation that was going on at the time.  The decision to initially go with a 4-cylinder for the Fiero was made based on the assumptions that the cost of gasoline was going to be $3-5/gallon by 1985-1990 and that the 27.5 mpg CAFE figure for 1985 was going to increase shortly thereafter.  Needless to say wouldn't happen until some 20+ years later.

Granted the 3rd Gen F-Body also had the Iron Duke as the base engine when they rolled out...

Such was obviously done for CAFE reasons.

That's the thing, why not offer the V6 and the Iron Duke from the get go then?  Yes I understand that the volume of the cars would go with the base engine due to economy and cost (hell people still buy 4 cylinder Mustangs and Camaros).  What I was getting at is GM goes and builds a two-seat car platform that obviously has some sort of sporty intentions to it but doesn't even bother an engine option at launch.  1980s, 90s, and even 2000s GM would launch cars repeatedly without option packages that would have promoted the car so much better in the eyes of the public and with automotive crirtics.  Couple that up with GMs dubious build quality compared to foreign competitors it's really not a wonder that they post so much market share during those decades. 

Incidentally one of my favorite inflation comparisons is $1.50 a gallon gas in the early 1980s.  Basically it would math out to over $4 dollars today which people became more or less accustomed to paying just a year or so ago.  What really exceeded the price of inflation was the price of a car.  It's interesting to take the price a pre-EPA era car and watch it price out what would be the equivalent as a modern entry level car.  All those safety regs, technology, and crash standards don't come cheap. 

[PHLBOS]

...why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?

Again, one needs to understand the time and economic situation that was going on at the time.  The decision to initially go with a 4-cylinder for the Fiero was made based on the assumptions that the cost of gasoline was going to be $3-5/gallon by 1985-1990 and that the 27.5 mpg CAFE figure for 1985 was going to increase shortly thereafter.  Needless to say wouldn't happen until some 20+ years later.

That's the thing, why not offer the V6 and the Iron Duke from the get go then?

In the case of the Fiero, the marketing/launch at the time was a 2-seat commuter car w/sporty looks.  Ford did similar with its Escort-based EXP (& Mercury LN7) and Toyota did such with its MR2 (remember those?); both those two-seaters only offered 4-cylinder engines during their entire runs.  The fore-mentioned leveling off/lowering of gas prices coupled with the pause setting on regulations helped fuel the renaissance of performance-oriented cars during the mid-80s and motivated Pontiac to offer a V6 option in its Fiero later on.

1980s, 90s, and even 2000s GM would launch cars repeatedly without option packages that would have promoted the car so much better in the eyes of the public and with automotive crirtics.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment here; GM's likely reasoning for initially offering only a handful of/limited option packages may be due to their wanting to wait-and-see if the car would actually sell first.  That and the bean-counters had a greater pull on the purse strings in the production department so-to-speak.  Multiple option packages equates to added production costs.  If the car turned out to be sales failure early on; the limited options, in their eyes, helped cut down on those losses. 

I know, penny-wise/dollar foolish; but that was the philosophy then and sadly, such is still true now and not just with GM (read: Ford's recent move to phase out all its sedans & hatchbacks in the US market within the next two years).

[Max Rockatansky]

...why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?

Again, one needs to understand the time and economic situation that was going on at the time.  The decision to initially go with a 4-cylinder for the Fiero was made based on the assumptions that the cost of gasoline was going to be $3-5/gallon by 1985-1990 and that the 27.5 mpg CAFE figure for 1985 was going to increase shortly thereafter.  Needless to say wouldn't happen until some 20+ years later.

That's the thing, why not offer the V6 and the Iron Duke from the get go then?

In the case of the Fiero, the marketing/launch at the time was a 2-seat commuter car w/sporty looks.  Ford did similar with its Escort-based EXP (& Mercury LN7) and Toyota did such with its MR2 (remember those?); both those two-seaters only offered 4-cylinder engines during their entire runs.  The fore-mentioned leveling off/lowering of gas prices coupled with the pause setting on regulations helped fuel the renaissance of performance-oriented cars during the mid-80s and motivated Pontiac to offer a V6 option in its Fiero later on.

1980s, 90s, and even 2000s GM would launch cars repeatedly without option packages that would have promoted the car so much better in the eyes of the public and with automotive crirtics.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment here; GM's likely reasoning for initially offering only a handful of/limited option packages may be due to their wanting to wait-and-see if the car would actually sell first.  That and the bean-counters had a greater pull on the purse strings in the production department so-to-speak.  Multiple option packages equates to added production costs.  If the car turned out to be sales failure early on; the limited options, in their eyes, helped cut down on those losses. 

I know, penny-wise/dollar foolish; but that was the philosophy then and sadly, such is still true now and not just with GM (read: Ford's recent move to phase out all its sedans & hatchbacks in the US market within the next two years).

I guess the point is conveyed with the MR2 getting a supercharged engine later in it's run in the 1980s.   Either way its still kind of a shame the Fiero isn't remembered very fondly, I always thought it was a solid car handling car.

Regarding phasing out certain segments of the market, Ford really ought to be careful about that.  Chrysler really has backed itself into a corner relying almost entirely on truck/SUV sales smattered in with an aging LX platform. 

[J N Winkler]

That's the thing, why not offer the V6 and the Iron Duke from the get go then?  Yes I understand that the volume of the cars would go with the base engine due to economy and cost (hell people still buy 4 cylinder Mustangs and Camaros).  What I was getting at is GM goes and builds a two-seat car platform that obviously has some sort of sporty intention to it but doesn't even bother with an engine option at launch.  1980s, 90s, and even 2000s GM would launch cars repeatedly without option packages that would have promoted the car so much better in the eyes of the public and with automotive critics.  Couple that up with GMs dubious build quality compared to foreign competitors it's really not a wonder that they lost so much market share during those decades.

The Fiero's problems went well beyond using an engine whose main point of commercial appeal was reliability rather than performance (it never received multiport fuel injection while the Fiero was in production, for example).  It had mediocre performance because off-the-shelf suspension and braking components were used.

Incidentally one of my favorite inflation comparisons is $1.50 a gallon gas in the early 1980s.  Basically it would math out to over $4 today which people became more or less accustomed to paying just a year or so ago.

The big drop in retail gasoline prices occurred in 2015.  In 2014 the nationwide average gasoline price was about $3.50/gallon; beginning in 2015 it has been around $2.50/gallon.

What really exceeded the price of inflation was the price of a car.  It's interesting to take the price of a pre-EPA era car and price out what would be the equivalent as a modern entry level car.  All those safety regs, technology, and crash standards don't come cheap.

Actually, in constant real dollars, I think the cost of ownership from new to end of life has stayed about the same if it has not actually dropped.  Cars from the late 1960's/early 1970's had exaggerated turnunder with all-steel fenders and steel body panels did not receive an elpo dip before they were primed and painted, so they rusted out rapidly.  Engines ran dirtier and would go out of tune if you so much as looked at them cross-eyed, so the rule of thumb was 100,000 miles if normally maintained or 200,000 miles if "overmaintained" (maintenance intervals halved).  Now 200,000 miles is normal life with maintenance, and continued good performance at much higher mileages is available with customized regimes that don't necessarily involve across-the-board halving of intervals.

My father used to own a 1967 VW Beetle that he kept for 14 years and, in the mid-1970's, he had to buy a heavy bolt with a thick washer to cover up a hole where the floorpan had rusted through.  My second car was a 1986 Nissan Maxima, which still had all-steel fender panels but did not start developing visible rear wheel arch rust until it was over 20 years old, and never had floorpan rust.  My current daily driver is a 1994 Saturn SL2, which is still rust-free at 24 years old.

When I go to car shows locally, I notice a substantial minority--if not the majority--of the like-new restorations have retrofitted EFI.

[Stephane Dumas]

Regarding phasing out certain segments of the market, Ford really ought to be careful about that.  Chrysler really has backed itself into a corner relying almost entirely on truck/SUV sales smattered in with an aging LX platform. 

Nissan did a similar move in Australia, keeping only the 350Z, GT-R and Leaf. All the rest are SUV/crossovers. http://www.nissan.com.au/cars-vehicles/browse-range

[Max Rockatansky]

Just out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars?  It seems that mine tend to get replaced after 7 years or 150,000 miles.  Its generally not because of maintenance issues but rather just wanting something new, the 200,000 seems obtainable even in the worst cars.

Speaking of that, there doesn't seem to be a complete basement of the car world like the days of old.  Even some of the worst cars produced to today can't measure up to the legendary low-end of the market crap that used to be churned out of factories in the era that this thread is dedicated to. 

Speaking of gas, its an interesting to see how the price tends to really influence what the buying public wants.  Right now were in a tread where gas prices are falling which has led to a rise in SUV/CUV sales and big cars getting more market share again (which seems to be having a effect on market segments as described above).  It would be interesting to see what kind of dynamic electric cars, hybrids, and even more efficient engines across the board would have if gas ever hit $4.50-$5.00 a gallon again. 

[J N Winkler]

Just out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars?  It seems that mine tend to get replaced after 7 years or 150,000 miles.  Its generally not because of maintenance issues but rather just wanting something new, the 200,000 seems obtainable even in the worst cars.

In this family we generally keep them until they drop.  The average age at disposal (sale, donation, or accident loss) or the present age (if still in our ownership) of the 10 vehicles we have owned since the 1967 VW Beetle (inclusive) is 14 years.  Two cars (one still in service) have made it past 20 years.  Most were bought new, although three were acquired used.

I believe only two at most have been sourced through auto loans, the last being a 1974 Buick Regal.  It has been at least 40 years since we last traded in a car to buy another.  (I am frankly not sure we have ever done it.)  We typically buy to keep indefinitely and are therefore very choosy about reliability, quality of materials, driver/passenger comfort, etc.  When we have failed to be selective, we have ultimately come to regret it.

I am personally more willing to put up with cosmetic aging and even loss of non-essential systems (such as A/C) than I am with certain functional limitations.  For example, I have learned not to accept poor driveability or a lack of cruise control.  I was happy to get rid of a 1978 Chevy Impala, even at very low mileage (got it at about 5,000 miles, parted with it at about 20,000 miles), because it was very hard to start and did not have cruise control.

Despite hail damage, rips in the driver's seat, headliner fabric hanging down, assorted leaks, and about 20 other problems or issues I have written up in a file somewhere, I still love the 1994 Saturn SL2.  It is only because its A/C does not work and is (probably) not economically repairable that I am slowly becoming emotionally ready to part with it.  On the other hand, if the cruise control stopped working tomorrow and I could not fix it, it would probably go on Craigslist the very next day.

Speaking of that, there doesn't seem to be a complete basement of the car world like the days of old.  Even some of the worst cars produced to today can't measure up to the legendary low-end of the market crap that used to be churned out of factories in the era that this thread is dedicated to.

There aren't cars like the Yugo on the market anymore, but there are entry-level vehicles where interior finish materials wear out rapidly (seats rip really easily, etc.) as a way of pushing the customer to buy a newer vehicle.  The newest vehicle in the family, a 2009 Honda Fit, already has seat rips at nine years and 60,000 miles, while our 1986 Nissan Maxima never had any even after 22 years and over 200,000 miles.

Speaking of gas, it's interesting to see how the price tends to really influence what the buying public wants.  Right now we're in a trend where gas prices are falling which has led to a rise in SUV/CUV sales and big cars getting more market share again (which seems to be having a effect on market segments as described above).  It would be interesting to see what kind of dynamic electric cars, hybrids, and even more efficient engines across the board would have if gas ever hit $4.50-$5.00 a gallon again.

I view it as an example of what economists call myopic choice.  A car is such an expensive investment that a long view has to be taken of total ownership costs.  This means buying fuel-efficient even when gas is $2.50/gallon (or even lower) today, because it might be $5/gallon five years from now.  (In the 24 years the Saturn has been in the family, gas has ranged from $0.80/gallon to $4.50/gallon.)

Even with gas prices and their effect on customer preferences taken out of account, myopic choice is why the auto dealers' four-square system works.

At the same time, I realize that the auto industry would implode and life as a car buyer would become very difficult for me if everyone else carbon-copied my family's approach toward car ownership.

[jon daly]

Just out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars?  It seems that mine tend to get replaced after 7 years or 150,000 miles.  Its generally not because of maintenance issues but rather just wanting something new, the 200,000 seems obtainable even in the worst cars.

Speaking of that, there doesn't seem to be a complete basement of the car world like the days of old.  Even some of the worst cars produced to today can't measure up to the legendary low-end of the market crap that used to be churned out of factories in the era that this thread is dedicated to. 

Speaking of gas, its an interesting to see how the price tends to really influence what the buying public wants.  Right now were in a tread where gas prices are falling which has led to a rise in SUV/CUV sales and big cars getting more market share again (which seems to be having a effect on market segments as described above).  It would be interesting to see what kind of dynamic electric cars, hybrids, and even more efficient engines across the board would have if gas ever hit $4.50-$5.00 a gallon again. 

Until they drop. I live vicariously through the other drivers I see on the road.

[Max Rockatansky]

1991 Dodge Stealth R/T

[PHLBOS]

Just out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars?

I try to keep mine as long as possible.  If my '97 Crown Vic (that I owned since Nov. 1996) wasn't totaled in a 3-car accident two-and-a-half years ago (I replaced it with a 2011 Crown Vic., a former rental); I'd still be driving it.  I've had my other car, a 2007 Mustang convertible, for just over 11 years.

At the moment, I have no plans to replace either of them.