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

[PHLBOS]

One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?

Snow tires (including studded ones), tire chains, limited-slip differential (GM called posi-traction) if one's car was equipped with such and/or higher-profile tires with a narrower stance.  Growing up in MA during the 70s and 80s; a twice-a-year ritual in my family was to put on and remove the vehicles' snow tires.  I changed my first car tire during one of these rituals as a kid.  Since most of the cars back then were RWD-based, only the rear tires needed to be changed.

Additionally, heavier vehicles were actually better in snow provided that the weight-distribution was more even; many of the then-popular mid-size personal luxury coupes fell way short in the latter category with their long hood-short deck/trunk design.  Many would place either sand bags or cement blocks in their trunks during the winter as a means to help the vehicles get better traction.  Similar was also done on 2WD pick-up trucks (sandbag/cement blocks on the truck's bed).

Also, too-much horsepower in snow and/or mud is not necessarily a good thing.  Since many of the common vehicles of the 70s and 80s had less power; many of them, the FWD-based small cars in particular, weren't too shabby in snow as a result.

Since there were a higher percentage of vehicles with manual transmissions back then; using the lower gears when driving in snow helped greatly.  Automatics, typically 3 or 4-speeds back then, had lower gear shift settings as well for driving in snow and/or mud; but not everybody used those settings.  One going from a manual to an automatic in a multi-vehicle household; the forced-downshift move came more naturally/instinctively.  Utilizing a lower gear on today's vehicles still helps as well.

Reasons why many of today's cars, even FWD-based ones, don't do as well in snow compared to their older predecessors are:

1.  Many of the standard tires are of the lower-profile, wider stance variety.  While such are great for handling, their disadvantages are when driving in snow & mud.  In short, the narrower the tire foot-print, the better.  Even AWD vehicles with the large, lower-profile tires are garbage in snow.  Case & point: my brother's '98 Sable wagon with 16" tires did better in the snow than his 2003 Taurus (same platform & drivetrain as the older Sable) with 17-inchers.

2.  Many of today's all-season tires are realistically not much better than what used to be referred to as summer tires.

3.  Since roadways, especially side-streets, weren't always plowed down to the pavement; the snow tires of that era featured a more aggressive tread design across the board.  Today, one has to pick and choose which snow tire has the best design for traction.  My brother, who still resides in MA, placed a pair of Blizzak snow tires on his 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis and he noticed major improvements in terms of traction in snow (his driveway's on a steep incline).

4.  Even the most basic of engines in today's smallest of cars perform better powerwise than their older predecessors.  However, that advantage actually becomes a detriment when driving in snow or mud.  A friend of mine had a FWD '81 Buick Skylark that went through snow like it was a Jeep, his words.
_____________________________________________

People back then & as a whole also didn't head out with a false sense of security (i.e. got cocky) because their vehicles had such-and-such.  I can not tell you the number of times in recent years where someone with either a 4WD or AWD vehicle thinks they're invincible only to see them get stuck on either the embankment or the median during the winter months.  One December day following a snowstorm that hit much of the northeast the night before about 10 years ago, while driving along I-84 eastbound through CT (in my '97 Crown Victoria); I counted at least three later-model AWD Subarus at different locations along that 97 mile stretch that were off the road & abandoned in the snow.

Features aren't a substitute for common-sense driving.  Such is just as much true today as it was then... if not more so.

[Tonytone]

One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?

Snow tires (including studded ones), tire chains, limited-slip differential (GM called posi-traction) if one's car was equipped with such and/or higher-profile tires with a narrower stance.  Growing up in MA during the 70s and 80s; a twice-a-year ritual in my family was to put on and remove the vehicles' snow tires.  I changed my first car tire during one of these rituals as a kid.  Since most of the cars back then were RWD-based, only the rear tires needed to be changed.

Additionally, heavier vehicles were actually better in snow provided that the weight-distribution was more even; many of the then-popular mid-size personal luxury coupes fell way short in the latter category with their long hood-short deck/trunk design.  Many would place either sand bags or cement blocks in their trunks during the winter as a means to help the vehicles get better traction.  Similar was also done on 2WD pick-up trucks (sandbag/cement blocks on the truck's bed).

Also, too-much horsepower in snow and/or mud is not necessarily a good thing.  Since many of the common vehicles of the 70s and 80s had less power; many of them, the FWD-based small cars in particular, weren't too shabby in snow as a result.

Since there were a higher percentage of vehicles with manual transmissions back then; using the lower gears when driving in snow helped greatly.  Automatics, typically 3 or 4-speeds back then, had lower gear shift settings as well for driving in snow and/or mud; but not everybody used those settings.  One going from a manual to an automatic in a multi-vehicle household; the forced-downshift move came more naturally/instinctively.  Utilizing a lower gear on today's vehicles still helps as well.

Reasons why many of today's cars, even FWD-based ones, don't do as well in snow compared to their older predecessors are:

1.  Many of the standard tires are of the lower-profile, wider stance variety.  While such are great for handling, their disadvantages are when driving in snow & mud.  In short, the narrower the tire foot-print, the better.  Even AWD vehicles with the large, lower-profile tires are garbage in snow.  Case & point: my brother's '98 Sable wagon with 16" tires did better in the snow than his 2003 Taurus (same platform & drivetrain as the older Sable) with 17-inchers.

2.  Many of today's all-season tires are realistically not much better than what used to be referred to as summer tires.

3.  Since roadways, especially side-streets, weren't always plowed down to the pavement; the snow tires of that era featured a more aggressive tread design across the board.  Today, one has to pick and choose which snow tire has the best design for traction.  My brother, who still resides in MA, placed a pair of Blizzak snow tires on his 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis and he noticed major improvements in terms of traction in snow (his driveway's on a steep incline).

3.  Even the most basic of engines in today's smallest of cars perform better powerwise than their older predecessors.  However, that advantage actually becomes a detriment when driving in snow or mud.  A friend of mine had a FWD '81 Buick Skylark that went through snow like it was a Jeep, his words.
_____________________________________________

People back then & as a whole also didn't head out with a false sense of security (i.e. got cocky) because their vehicles had such-and-such.  I can not tell you the number of times in recent years where someone with either a 4WD or AWD vehicle thinks they're invincible only to see them get stuck on either the embankment or the median during the winter months.  One December day following a snowstorm that hit much of the northeast the night before about 10 years ago, while driving along I-84 eastbound through CT (in my '97 Crown Victoria); I counted at least three later-model AWD Subarus at different locations along that 97 mile stretch that were off the road & abandoned in the snow.

Features aren't a substitute for common-sense driving.  Such is just as much true today as it was then... if not more so.

Holy shit. Thanks for the info P.

One thing I don't understand is the people who do 70+ in rain or snow!??!

I understand better tires give you more traction but one slip & your whole car will be in a ditch or barrier. I cant count how many times Ive seen cars in a ditch during a snow storm like you said or cars that have sped by me only to see them in a ditch or crashed into another car ahead.

From the info you gave above cars weren't just hunks of metal even in the 70's & 80's. Tv has a way of making it seem like that. Good to know cars were built with some common sense & people had common sense when driving.

So Snow tires really do work? I never thought they did since they look just like regular tires.


iPhone

[Max Rockatansky]

To that end by the time I was in high school in Michigan back the late MDOT created a stir by banning chains and studded tires on State Trunklines.  To that end they had improved greatly in terms of plowing and treating state maintained roadways.  Local roads there more of a crap shoot and you still often had to employee many of the methods described above.  I actually used both chains and studded tires on my truck with relative frequency to shuttle people to school (for a fee of course) because the Township wouldn't cancel school but expect everyone to get there somehow when the buses weren't running. 

[Tonytone]

To that end by the time I was in high school in Michigan back the late MDOT created a stir by banning chains and studded tires on State Trunklines.  To that end they had improved greatly in terms of plowing and treating state maintained roadways.  Local roads there more of a crap shoot and you still often had to employee many of the methods described above.  I actually used both chains and studded tires on my truck with relative frequency to shuttle people to school (for a fee of course) because the Township wouldn't cancel school but expect everyone to get there somehow when the buses weren't running.

God damn Max how old are you.

You have knowledge & wisdom. From low to high, you have plenty of stories.

You ever think of getting into office?


iPhone

[J N Winkler]

One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?

First of all, once one takes appropriate measures to address reduced visibility and the possibility of hydroplaning on ponded water, driving in rain is not that much different from driving in the dry.

As for snow and ice, the main thing that is different is that older cars tended to have rear wheel drive while front wheel drive is the norm nowadays.  FWD makes it a little easier to avoid skidding through corners and to avoid getting stuck.  However, RWD works just fine in snow as long as you remain conscientious about keeping friction demand low.  Larger cars in the 1970's and 1980's also had higher ground clearance.

For me, it is in the dry that the performance differences between older and newer cars are the most apparent.  In the old days, RWD cars tended to have overboosted steering and double-wishbone suspension in the front.  As a result, they tend to glide around corners very nimbly, but once the shocks wear out in the front, they have great difficulty following sweeping curves, such as on a long ramp in the middle of a freeway-to-freeway interchange.  Nowadays, FWD cars have steering boost that is less aggressive and that often varies (under electronic control) according to vehicle speed, and MacPherson struts in the front are so forgiving of wear that they are virtually a lifetime part.  As a result, a modern FWD car tends to "want" to plow straight ahead when confronted with curves and corners, but once you crank the wheel for a bend, you typically don't have to make frequent corrections to stay on track.

[Max Rockatansky]

To that end by the time I was in high school in Michigan back the late MDOT created a stir by banning chains and studded tires on State Trunklines.  To that end they had improved greatly in terms of plowing and treating state maintained roadways.  Local roads there more of a crap shoot and you still often had to employee many of the methods described above.  I actually used both chains and studded tires on my truck with relative frequency to shuttle people to school (for a fee of course) because the Township wouldn't cancel school but expect everyone to get there somehow when the buses weren't running.

God damn Max how old are you.

You have knowledge & wisdom. From low to high, you have plenty of stories.

You ever think of getting into office?


iPhone

37 actually.  I grew up in Michigan and in turn worked on cars my entire life.  My Dad actually taught me how to drive when I was 9 on the family property.  I ended up working for a couple garages and even a race team in high school. 

One thing I do know after a lengthy career in government work is that I'm not cut out for politics.   Now...if someone wanted to pay me for telling stories about roads and cars I'd jump on that in a second. 

[renegade]

One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?

I understand it takes skill to drive in it. But even today with all the new features of skid control & etc, It can still fail. I couldn't imagine what a heavy ass 1960 chevy would do in 5 inches of snow.

That's easy.  You just didn't drive it like you stole it.

[Tonytone]

One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?

First of all, once one takes appropriate measures to address reduced visibility and the possibility of hydroplaning on ponded water, driving in rain is not that much different from driving in the dry.

As for snow and ice, the main thing that is different is that older cars tended to have rear wheel drive while front wheel drive is the norm nowadays.  FWD makes it a little easier to avoid skidding through corners and to avoid getting stuck.  However, RWD works just fine in snow as long as you remain conscientious about keeping friction demand low.  Larger cars in the 1970's and 1980's also had higher ground clearance.

For me, it is in the dry that the performance differences between older and newer cars are the most apparent.  In the old days, RWD cars tended to have overboosted steering and double-wishbone suspension in the front.  As a result, they tend to glide around corners very nimbly, but once the shocks wear out in the front, they have great difficulty following sweeping curves, such as on a long ramp in the middle of a freeway-to-freeway interchange.  Nowadays, FWD cars have steering boost that is less aggressive and that often varies (under electronic control) according to vehicle speed, and MacPherson struts in the front are so forgiving of wear that they are virtually a lifetime part.  As a result, a modern FWD car tends to "want" to plow straight ahead when confronted with curves and corners, but once you crank the wheel for a bend, you typically don't have to make frequent corrections to stay on track.

Ahh thats a pretty nice history on the vehicles.

But I still dont feel safe while driving in rain, maybe its my tires. I sometimes feel the car drift in the rain when it hits ponded water on a highway & it baffles me to see a car going 70 past me while im doing 55.

I tend to not go out in rainy or snowy weather anymore. It's just not worth the risk. If I dont have anything important to do & it's gonna rain or snow all day im in the house.

Now when I was younger I would drive my 98 Acura Tl in the 1 foot snow.

Shit I just found out that bigger tires & 4WD isnt better in snow. Go figure huh


iPhone

[J N Winkler]

But I still dont feel safe while driving in rain, maybe its my tires. I sometimes feel the car drift in the rain when it hits ponded water on a highway & it baffles me to see a car going 70 past me while im doing 55.

How are your tires doing on tread depth?  When the car loses directional stability as it hits ponded water, that is often a sign the tires are getting close to needing replacement.  Plus, even for new tires, tread patterns vary somewhat in how efficient they are at cutting through water.

I think I am myself getting close to needing new tires on at least one axle, so I am not pushing it as hard in the rain as I might be otherwise.

[Max Rockatansky]

Corrupt Senator

[Tonytone]

Corrupt Senator

When I see this van I think of a start of "Walmart families"  & road trips. Kinda peaceful actually however also the start of a new era.


iPhone

[D-Dey65]

I kind of dig the look of the Citation, it fits the stereotype of a cheap 70s car...which was sold in the 1980s. 

The Citation was an example of what most auto manufacturers and enthusiasts thought of as a car of the 1980s, before Ford came out with the aerodynamic Thunderbird, and Audi came out with the C3-Type 5000 sedan.

[Max Rockatansky]

I kind of dig the look of the Citation, it fits the stereotype of a cheap 70s car...which was sold in the 1980s. 

The Citation was an example of what most auto manufacturers and enthusiasts thought of as a car of the 1980s, before Ford came out with the aerodynamic Thunderbird, and Audi came out with the C3-Type 5000 sedan.

The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2.  I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe. 

[RobbieL2415]

So many different model names in the 80s and 90s.
Citation
Spirit
Daytona
Celebrity
Chevette
Horizon
Reliant
1000
Grand Am
Grand Prix
Bonneville
LeSabre
Park Avenue
AstroVan
Previa
Loyale
Lebaron
Imperial
Roadmaster
Country Squire
Grand National
New Yorker
Grand Caravan
Cirrus
Sundance
Town & Country
Voyager

Just to name many.

[Henry]

So many different model names in the 80s and 90s.
Citation
Spirit
Daytona
Celebrity
Chevette
Horizon
Reliant
1000
Grand Am
Grand Prix
Bonneville
LeSabre
Park Avenue
AstroVan
Previa
Loyale
Lebaron
Imperial
Roadmaster
Country Squire
Grand National
New Yorker
Grand Caravan
Cirrus
Sundance
Town & Country
Voyager

Just to name many.

I'll add to this list:

Cavalier, Caprice, Parisienne, Phoenix, Sunbird, Sunfire, J2000, 6000, Ciera, Omega, Calais, Achieva, Delta 88, Ninety Eight, Touring Sedan, 442, Firenza, Cimarron, Fleetwood, Seville, Aries, Acclaim, Omni, Conquest, Laser, Fifth Avenue, Shadow, Stratus, Breeze, Pulsar, Stanza, Prelude, Tercel, 323, 626, 929, RX7, Scirocco, Galant and Justy

[GCrites]

^There's that many crossover names today but nobody cares. Not even Karen or Megan.

[GCrites]

The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2.  I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.

Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.

[RobbieL2415]

The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2.  I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.

Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.

Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.

[Stephane Dumas]

The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2.  I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.

Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.

Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.

Pontiac got their version of the Chevette earlier in Canada with the Acadian. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1980-Pontiac-Acadian-Brochure/index.html

Same with the Vega version, the Astre. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html

[bugo]

One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?

I understand it takes skill to drive in it. But even today with all the new features of skid control & etc, It can still fail. I couldn't imagine what a heavy ass 1960 chevy would do in 5 inches of snow.


iPhone

Put sandbags or something else heavy in the trunk.

[bugo]

The Citation was an example of what most auto manufacturers and enthusiasts thought of as a car of the 1980s, before Ford came out with the aerodynamic Thunderbird, and Audi came out with the C3-Type 5000 sedan.

The true Ford of the future was the 1986 Taurus. The styling was highly influential and in some ways, it was more like the Citation than the 1983 Thunderbird, which was based on the RWD 1978 Fairmont (Fox platform.) The '83 Thunderbird's styling was an early look at the Taurus. The Fox body cars were RWD with a live rear axle and were evolutionary dead ends.

[Tonytone]

One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?

I understand it takes skill to drive in it. But even today with all the new features of skid control & etc, It can still fail. I couldn't imagine what a heavy ass 1960 chevy would do in 5 inches of snow.


iPhone

Put sandbags or something else heavy in the trunk.

I know about the old snow or sandbag trick. But when you have a nice clean car you want nothing in the trunk,   Or in the car. I know yall hate stuff moving around when driving. Its the worse.


iPhone

[Henry]

The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2.  I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.

Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.

Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.

Pontiac got their version of the Chevette earlier in Canada with the Acadian. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1980-Pontiac-Acadian-Brochure/index.html

Same with the Vega version, the Astre. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html

IMHO, the 2001 Aztek was a clue that Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque. Remember, the offerings from all the other divisions were inspired by Chevy in one way or another, and still are today.

In a similar vein, Cadillac lost its own credibility as a GM marque with the 1982 Cimarron. At least it got away with making the 1975 Seville look very different from the Nova and its related counterparts, which is remarkable in its own unique way.

[Max Rockatansky]

The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2.  I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.

Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.

Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.

Pontiac got their version of the Chevette earlier in Canada with the Acadian. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1980-Pontiac-Acadian-Brochure/index.html

Same with the Vega version, the Astre. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html

IMHO, the 2001 Aztek was a clue that Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque. Remember, the offerings from all the other divisions were inspired by Chevy in one way or another, and still are today.

In a similar vein, Cadillac lost its own credibility as a GM marque with the 1982 Cimarron. At least it got away with making the 1975 Seville look very different from the Nova and its related counterparts, which is remarkable in its own unique way.

What was worse to me was that Pontiac started to turn it around a short time after the disaster of the Aztec but got the axe anyways.  The GTO while just a rebadged Holden was unique in the GM lineup but more so was the Solstice before Saturn got it's own variant.  Had I been kick for the day I would have picked Pontiac to save over Buick, but the latter was much better shape as a division. 

[Ned Weasel]

What was worse to me was that Pontiac started to turn it around a short time after the disaster of the Aztec but got the axe anyways.  The GTO while just a rebadged Holden was unique in the GM lineup but more so was the Solstice before Saturn got it's own variant.  Had I been kick for the day I would have picked Pontiac to save over Buick, but the latter was much better shape as a division. 

Has anyone else ever thought GM could have saved all the divisions if they just had fewer models per division (and therefore less re-badging)?  Same for Ford and Chrysler.