mmarshall

While there is such a thing as memory and nostalgia for older vehicles (and, yes, I've done a number of threads on that lately), we also, sometimes, have to take off the rose-colored glasses that color our view of the past, and look through the actual, clear, prescription lenses that bring the true view into focus. Otherwise, if we are not doing that, we are simply living in a past-world of our own time-tachines, not necessarily the one that, automotive-wise, actually existed.


So, let's do that....and take a serious look (and comparison) of what the 60s-vintage vehicles were like when I first learned to drive, compared to those of today, Yes, there were indeed some advantages to yesterday's cars. Controls and switches were simpler. We didn't have as much to distract us. We didn't have to drag out the Owners' Manual to do something as simple as set a clock (assuming the car had a clock to start with....many didn't). We didn't have to worry about periodic emissions tests....and replacing components that failed. Cars were much easier to work on for DYI'ers. You generally had a lot more room in the rear seat. Cars were generally more comfort-oriented in ride, tires, suspension, and seat-padding....though some seats were poorly-shaped and unsupportive.

But, sometimes we also fail to see the liabilities and shortcomings of those days. In many ways, we are spoiled today by the huge number of conveniences, and safety-features of today's vehicles. Although today's auto plants are not foolproof, and mistakes/defects still get through the assembly process sometimes, we are used to the generally-good assembly-quality today that comes today with precise robot-welding, laser-alignment of panels, rust-resistance of body-components, vehicles that don't develop rattles and squeaks practically overnight, and reliable cranking on cold mornings. We also have REAL warranties today instead of the 1/12 crap that was usually standard back then....though Chrysler, an exception, had 5/50 on their drivetrains for a while.

So, while there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands of improvements on today's vehicles, including the very small ones that we don't see or are not aware of, to me, ten single ones, in particular, stand out more than the others. I'll list them here, with an explanation, in ascending order of importance. I didn't include things like built-in cell-phones or infotainment systems, because, IMO, that's not driving....that's mobile-entertainment or mobile-office-work. I also did not include some things that, IMO, drivers should be watching (obstacles in front of the car, lane-markings, other traffic, etc...) instead of leaving it to electronics. The ten things that I listed, IMO, transformed driving and car-ownership itself more than anything else. I stuck to things that have generally been invented or adapted in my automotive lifetime.....I did not include things that went back to the time before I was born, like when the Oldsmobile automatic (clutchless) transmission was first used in 1940, or when seatbelts/padded dashes were first used (as an option) in mid-1950s Fords.


10. CLEARCOAT PAINT

In the 1960s, there were basically two different types of automotive paint.....Acrylic Lacquer and Baked-Enamel. GM and AMC used the Lacquer; Ford and Chrysler the Enamel. Neither, IMO, was really ideal from a longevity standpoint. The Lacquer went on, dried more evenly, and resisted chipping better, but, even if you kept it waxed, often started oxidizing and fading in less than a year.....you would start to see the surface cloud up. The Enamel, on the other hand, lasted longer before it started to oxidize, was more resistant to deterioration, but wasn't as smooth on the finish, had more of a tendency to show orange-peel, and chipped a lot easier if you did something careless like opening a door onto it.

Clearcoat, which, as I understand it, Ford was the first manufacturer (in the 1980s) to use in regular production, essentially solved both of those problems. It consists of one or more layers of clear transparent paint on top of the base-color. The extra layer(s) of clear paint helped protect the colored-pigment part of the paint from direct contact with sunlight/ultraviolet rays, acid rain, and oxygen in the air that cause premature fading/discolorization. It also added one or extra layer of solid-protection from chips and scratches. Yes, it did make painting and bodywork a little more expensive and labor-intensive for accident-repair (the car has to essentially be painted at least twice...once in the regular color and once or more in clearcoat)...but, IMO, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. Clearcoat also allows you to polish your car with cleaner/waxes that don't make the color in the paint come off on the rag and on your hands, making a mess. The clear layer of paint shields the color underneath from the hash/abrasive action of the cleaners...but that's also why you have to use products that are clearcoat-safe, so they won't leave visible swirl-marks in the clearcoat. SCRATCH-OUT, a liquid which which I have used for decades, is especially good in that regard.


9. INTERMITTENT WIPERS/WASHERS

Many cars I grew up, especially in basic-level compacts, with either had single-speed electric wipers (some AMC cars still even used vacuum-operated ones), or, of they had dual-speed wipers, did not have washers....which REALLY could make made a mess if you were driving on a wet or salty road and it was not raining. The washer-fluid, of course, helped keep the gas clean when it was dirty and you did not have a source of water, such as rain. Intermittent wipers were ice to have because rain and other precipitation not only varies in intensity, but the wiper-speed usually also has to be adjusted as the car stops and starts rolling again at speed. Intermittent wipers are not the total answer (they still often have to be adjusted up and down with the car's speed and rain intensity)...but that are generally a big improvement over the old ON/OFF switch and no variance, particularly without washers. Automotive historians generally give engineer Robert William Kearns credit for the invention. Ford was (supposedly) the first company to use it, but Kerns ultimately filed lawsuits against Ford, Chrysler, and Mercedes for using his patent without compensation.

Rain-sensing wipers, of course, offer potentially even more convenience, but I didn't include them for one main reason. Sensors automatically sweep them across the glass when they detect water-droplets on the glass, but, if dirt or other abrasive materials are also on the glass with those droplets, particularly if the windshield isn't very wet, the wiper-blades will also automatically wipe them as well, which is not good for the glass and could, after a little while, show abrasion marks. Personally, I'd just as soon do workout them.


8. REMOTE/KEYLESS-OPENING TRUNKS/HATCHES.

I'm not sure who to really give this feature credit to, as a number of automakers came out with a number of different methods and systems for remote-opening/closing of trunk-lids without using a key/lock. But they are a real convenience, IMO, particularly when you come out of a store with your hands full of bags and packages, or if you are carrying something large and bulky, like a living-room-chair, to beloaded into the rear of a large SUV.

As I said, there are many different ways of doing it, but I particularly like the system that Ford first marketed on the top-line Titanium versions of the Escape....you swipe your foot under the lower-part of the bumper, and a sensor automatically unlocks the hatch and raises it for you (just keep your head out of the way, of course). As long as the key bob is in your pocket, you don't have to use your hands at all. Kia has a more or less similar system, but I don't like it as much.....if the fob is on you, the trunk-lid will pop open when you get to within few feet of, whether you want it or not. That can be a PITA if you are working around the rear end of the car with the fob (such as washing/waxing it) and you don't want the lid to keep opening or closing. One potential minus of the Ford system is that you have keep the under-bumper sensor clean, so salt and dirt doesn't corrode it and make it fail, but, as I see it, that's simply part of routinely-cleaning the vehicle.



7. ELECTRONIC TRACTION AIDS

In general, I'm not a fan of advanced electronic features on today's vehicles, but there are three exceptions in my book. Anti-Lock Brakes (ABS) are a major safety-advance in bad weather and wet-icy roads. They prevent brakes/wheels locking up, and the vehicle sliding, by signaling computer-sensor to compare wheel-rotation-speeds under brake-pressure and rapidly pump the brakes when one or more wheels are on the verge of an impending lock-up. With this system, of code, you still have steering-control under heavy braking on slick surfaces. However, it does not necessarily result in lower stopping distances, because, ABS or not, the tires only have so much grip/traction in a wet or icy road, and the computer-sensors cannot change that. With ABS, you will usually stop in about the same distance.....just with steering-control, that's all.

The same ABS sensors, working in reverse, serve as Traction Control (TC) by sending signals to the computer when the drive-wheels are ready to break-traction and spin or slide instead of gripping the road. The TC then prevents the wheels from spinning by one (or more) of several methods....retarding engine timing to cut the amount of power, reducing the flow of fuel to the engine, or actually applying a brake to the spinning wheel (s). When the TC sensors work in tandem, one at a time, or across from each other, they produce what is called a Vehicle Stability System (or VDS....Vehicle Dynamic Stability). Sensors compare steering-wheel input to yaw/steering response, and actuate the brakes on one or more wheels to bring the nose (or the tail) of the vehicle in line, correcting either understeer or oversteer.

Many auto enthusiasts and auto magazines don't like stability systems (or sensitively-programmed ones) because they want to do what is called "Drifting"......classic oversteer, deliberately sliding out the tail of the vehicle around corners. I strongly disagree with this practice, particularly at higher speeds and on public roads, where it can be quite dangerous even if kids/pets or other vehicles are not in the vicinity. It is somewhat safer at low speeds, on slick pavement....indeed, some drivers and Student-Drivers practice manual skid-control (without electronics) that way, on empty snowy parking-lots. On dry pavement, though, particularly at higher speeds and G-forces, even without an accident, drifting can ruin a set of good rear tires (and perhaps wheel bearings as well) in a hurry. Sensible drivers avoid it.


6. RACK-AND-PINION STEERING

With perhaps a couple of rare exceptions (I think the Tucker-Torpedo of 1948 was one of them), Rack-and-Pinion steering, for decades, was virtually unheard of on American cars. Recirculating-ball steering was used almost universally....and, I think, is still used on some heavier trucks and heavier-duty pickups. That began to change when FWD was introduced in the late 70s and early 80s, although GM had tried FWD on the large, late-60s Olds Toronado and Eldorado. The rack-and-pinion system was easier to adapt to FWD transaxles, and offered better response.

I never led recirculating-ball steering, even though I learned to drive with it and drove many thousands of miles across all different kinds of roads and terrain with it. As it aged, it inevitably developed free-play across the center of the steering wheel, which meant you could move the wheel a couple of inches and get virtually no steering response at all. Hydraulically power-assisted recirculating-ball systems were generally more responsive than non-power systems, and tended to mask the slop and free-play across the center of the wheel, but part of that was because manually-steered systems were geared a little slower because of the higher effort needed to move the wheel.

Rack and pinion steering got rid of most, if not all, of that slop and free-play as the system aged, though the steering-racks themselves were not always as durable as the recirculating-ball system. Indeed, I had to replace a defective steering rack on my 1983 Chrysler Lebaron (a car almost as poorly-built as my notorious 1980 Citation), and the service-shop still didn't get it right...they replaced it with a non-standard, more sport-oriented rack that had only 2.5 turns lock-to-lock for the steering wheel....made the car steer almost like a sports car.



5. LUBED-FOR-LIFE CHASSIS

Remember the old automotive grease-guns? They were were a classic part of regular service, along with oil-changes. Every couple of thousand miles, it was the old "Grease and Go" routine....new oil, new filter, and crawl under the car (or under the lift) with the grease-gun, looking for the small aluminum-clooed grease-fittings/nipples on the steering arms, suspension-parts, etc.....the average RWD car of the period had maybe 8-12 of them. Behind each fitting was a larger rubber-bladder filled with thick grease.....you had to know just how much grease to pump out of the gun, into the bladder, without overfilling the bladder and/or rupturing it. Let the bladders go too long, and the grease would all be gone, and the protected part underneath would start to wear out with metal-on-metal contact.

The Lubed-for-Life chassis eliminated all of that (including the fittings) by using special lifetime grease, lifetime seals, and special metal-alloys at the factory where the vehicles were built......under normal circumstances, no periodic lubes were needed for the life of the vehicle, though some owners didn't trust them and deliberately installed manual-lube fittings/bladders and kept doing it the old-fashioned way.


4. DISC BRAKES

Anyone who has driven across the Appalachian Mountains, as I did, many times, particularly on the older roads, will appreciate the potential value of good brakes (the famous Uniontown, PA Summit-Mountain/Chestnut-Ridge 3.5-mile descent, at an almost constant 10% grade, on U.S. 40, will definitely make you nervous), although the correct thing to do, of course, is downshift and let the engine help hold you back. PA's Tuscarora Mountain, on U.S. 30, and the snake-like, curving 4.5 mile 9% descent of U.S. 50 at Skyline, WV, down the Allegheny Front, are other good examples.

Although some were worse then others (Chrysler-designed drum brakes of the period were notorious for rapid fade and short life), drum brakes, on most of the vehicles of the time, in general, did not inspire much confidence. Corvettes, Thunderbirds, and some Studebakers being exceptions before Studebaker went out of business in 1966, most American cars did not get discs (or power front discs) as an option until the late 1960s or early 70s. Just why is anybody's guess...the British, in racing, had perfected them some 15-20 years previously, and they were used on large aircraft, with anti-skid systems, long before the American automobile industry adopted them. Ford, to its credit, when it started installing them on V8-engined cars in the mid-late 1960s (at first, Ford wouldn't sell them on the sixes), really used some excellent ones for the period...for several years, Ford discs outperformed even their disc-cousins at GM, AMC, and Chrysler.

There are many advantages of discs over drums, but the main one is that discs don't fade and lose effectiveness simply because they get wet. Remember driving through puddles with drums, with water splashing, and then having to pump the pedal up and down for a while to try and generate some heat to dry them out so they would get some effectiveness back? I do. Discs are also inherently self-adjusting...the pads always just contact the rotors. Drums, if not self-adjusting (my 1964 Plymouth Barracuda lacked self-adjusters), needed periodic manual-adjustment as the brake-lining wore down inside the shoes, which caused more free-play in the brake pedal. Adjustment inside the drums was done with a device that looked like a sharply-curved large screwdriver, that clicked on a star-shaped device. Brake-adustments were a routine part of service. Discs were used primarily up front, of course, because on most Front-Engined vehicles, the heaviest braking loads are up front, though, in time, 4-wheel-discs became commonplace, with rear drums only on the very cheapest vehicles. Drums, however, do one thing very well.....they make good emergency brakes on the rear wheels, and some cars with 4-wheel discs have a small separate rear drum that serves as the emergancy-brake.


3. CAR-BASED ALL WHEEL DRIVE (AWD)

Yes, I know that some people tout the effectiveness of dedicated winter/snow tires over all-seasons, but, IMO, the development of car-based AWD was (and still is) a tremendous advance for bad-weather driving....no matter what kind of tires you have, though summer-only/dry-pavement tires will diminish its effectiveness. I credit AMC (American Motors), on the 1980-81 Eagle and Eagle SX-4, with the first idea of using a viscous/semi-liquid filled center-differential that allowed all four wheels on the vehicle (front and rear) to spin at different speeds, going around a turn, while under power. Previous 4WD systems were generally limited to trucks, Jeeps, and the other crude SUVs of the period....they didn't have any automatic systems, had manual-lucking front hubs, manual transfer-cases, and, lacking a center differential, could not be used on anything but a slick surface to allow for wheel-slip. AMC 's system, which became the norm for much of the industry today, was essentially a seamless, drive-and-forget, and required essentially no driver-input. I give AMC credit for the first production-applications of it, but, particularly after AMC went out of business, Subaru and Audi did the most to perfect it and adapt it to the industry as we know it. Even today, I consider Subaru's Symmetrical AWD systems to be the best inexpensive AWD systems on the market...and I had some 6 years experience with it on my Outback.

It must also be remembered that AWD is NOT a license to drive any way you want to on slick roads...as the number of crossover and SUV-accidents in every snowstorm makes obvious. Once you are actually moving, it generally will not make you stop, handle, or steer any better on a slice surface. What it DOES do (and usually does extremely well) is prevent you from getting stuck by allowing you to start up from rest without wheel-spinning or bog-down. Those who remember that (and drive accordingly) are doing well.



2. ELECTRONIC IGNITION SYSTEMS.

IMO, few things in older cars were more annoying (except the carburetor, which I'll get to in a minute) than having to replace ignition breaker-points/spark-plugs/rotor/distributor cap/condenser every 6-12 months....the classic tune-up. Frankly it was a PITA, and, once again, the Chrysler ignition systems seemed to need more tuning/replacement than some of the others, although the Chrysler engines themselves were quite durable. Like with the under-chassis-lubes I mentioned above, this as just one more trip to the shop to help empty your wallet on service....assuming you didn't do the work your self, though, to their credit, cars were easy to work on back then even if they did need a lot more service.

Electronic ignition systems, and other electronic engine-functions, like lubed-for-life chassis, replaced those periodic tune-ups with only a need to replace spark plugs. And the plugs themselves, thanks to lead-free gas, metallurgy, electrical-energy to them, and other factors, started lasting much longer, anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 miles...no more of those once (or twice)-a year replacements. Like AWD, this was an enormous automotive advance. However, Chrysler, to its credit, even though it made crappy conventional breaker-point ignition systems, gets the Gold Star for being the first automaker to put electronic ignition into its regular-production vehicles (1972) as a standard or optional feature. Ford and GM did not follow until several years later.


1. ELECTRONIC FUEL INJECTION

OK.....so now we get to what I consider the Crown Jewel of automotive advancements of my lifetime.....fuel-injection, particularly EFI. Yes, some of the above things, like tune-ups, chassis-lubes, weak brakes, etc....could be annoying or worse, but I absolutely hated, DESPISED carburetors. I hated both pre-emission ones, before 1970, and emission-regulated ones, though some of the worst ones of all were done in the 1980s when the mixtures were so lean (and non-adjustable) that the engines would barely run at all once the chokes pulled off. I could write a whole book on the problems I had with carbs in all stages of engine-performance, cold/warm/hot, start-up, winter/summer, choke-valves sticking completely closed or open, fuel leaks, mixture too lean/rich, float-problems, accelerator-pumps not working, carburetor-icing, manifold heat-riser systems (which are supposed to warm the carburetor quicker) not working, emission-controlled carbs not allowing access to some adjustment-functions, fast-idle-cams not working properly....the list goes on and on, and is virtually endless. The first car I ever owned with a true EFI system was my 1988 Mazda 323, and, drivability-wise, it was a TREMENDOUS improvement over any carburetor-equipped vehicle I had ever owned....some of them had been so bad during warm-ups that it was risky to try and pull out into traffic with them, risking a stall or stumbles. And it wasn't just me.....Consumer Reports, in their tests, also had stumble/stall problems with many of its post-emission carburetors.

Of course, some carbs were worse than others. The big four-barrel on my Dad's 1965 Thunderbird seemed to be reasonably reliable, and the big four-barrel on my big 1965 Buick in college was also reasonably reliable, though the fast-idle cams didn't always work right on it. But most of the carburetors I owned, particularly on the 2-barrel Chrysler V8s (I had two of those), and on the emission-controlled days after the early 1970s, were a PITA. In my opinion, the auto industry should have converted to EFI in the 1970s (or even the late 60s)......the technology was there, although in somewhat simpler form. But, instead, they waited until the mid-late 1980s. It was a very serious mistake, IMO....arguably the worst industry technical-mistake of my lifetime.

LeX2K

Aside from the obvious ones like disc brakes and rack n pinion EFI is the most welcome one to me. Especially when emissions standards started to kick the carburetor combined with the mess of vacuum lines and actuators was ridiculous. Early Toyota EFI systems are fantastic dead reliable unlike most other makes.

mmarshall

Looks like we agree on the EFI. Some of even the pre-emission carbs could be troublesome, though, particularly on 2-bbl Chrysler products.

TriC

Good list, mmarshall. I too would put EFI at #1. Way back in my pre-marriage days I put my money into cars rather than the bank, owning 7 Pontiacs at the same time. Many would set for long periods and it was a real PIA just to get them started!

Earlier than that, I steered my dad into buying a 1969 Chrysler Town and Country wagon (complete with rear air conditioning and a 440 motor). My touting of its Holley carb backfired (no pun intended) when the carb started leaking on our annual vacation to the Michigan UP in 1973. We spent most of that trip at the shop of small indie mechanic as he struggled to fix it.

mmarshall

Thanks. I was strongly tempted to put both the fully-automatic transmission and the electric-self-starter (which eliminated dangerous hand-cranking), both of which transformed driving as much as anything else...but they both went back too far....before my lifetime. Oldsmobile brought out the first mass-produced clutchless automatic transmission in 1940, and Cadillac the self-starter in 1912.

Yep....carburators were among the most exasperating automotive devices I can think of. Glad we agree.


Pontiac, over the years, has done some truly outstanding cars (Catalina/Bonneville, GTO, Trans-Am, G8), and some disasters (Fiero, Aztek, T-100). Even though it was a great idea and conception, I put the Fiero on the negative list because of its extremely poor build quality....the 1984 Fiero that I test-drove had more defects in it than any brand-new car I ever sampled at a dealership, though the 2008 BMW M3 I sampled came close. Fieros also proved very troublesome in the hands of owners.

Yeah, my late uncle in Ohio also had a '69 Town and Country....it was also very troublesome. But in terms of what it could carry, it was a mobile house.

Do you remember if your Dad's 440 had the two barrel or four-barrel carb? (the well-known 440 "Six-Pack" of three two-barrels wasn't offered on the wagons). In general, in terms of drivability, the 2-barrels on Chrysler products were more troublesome, but it sounds like the carb on your dad's car was suffering from other problems.

This might bring back some memories for you. My late uncle's was a light blue (matching light blue interior) with the woody-outside trim....just like this. I don't know if your dad's was a different color or not.

TriC

That photo is amazing! Yup, ours was that same blue color with the wood grain decals. The interior was a medium to dark blue vinyl. It was powered by a 440/375 HP with a Holley 4 barrel.

Never owned a clunker Poncho. My lucky seven in 1980/81 were:

1967 GTO - column automatic;
1967 GTO - loaded, console automatic;
1967 Catalina 2+2 - 428 H.O., 4 speed;
1968 GTO - 4 speed;
1970 Trans Am - 4 speed;
1973 Grand Am 2 door - automatic; and
1974 Trans Am - automatic.

mmarshall

You made some good choices... That was Pontiac's heyday, though, for several reasons, I generally preferred the late-60s Pontiac to the early/mid 70s.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

so cars got better in 60 years. shocked.

mmarshall

Well, yes, you would be shocked if you have a "current" vehicle.

Felix

Great group of tin indian's......Mine were a '67 GTO w/ the his/hers Hurst shifter, "74 shovel nose SD w/ the turbo400 &my middle daughter Cheryl's 1 car I find her a '68 Firebird which her & I swapped out the 350 for yes a 400 poncho motor, no Chevy yrs ago......

mmarshall

Speaking of the Native-American face, back in the late 40s and 50s, Pontiac had a hood ornament that actually lit up the face.

Hood ornaments, unlike the features I listed above, are probably more frills than anything else...but I like the way that some of them look. Adds a nice little touch, when driving, to look out over the hood and see them in front of you, particularly on premium/upmarket vehicles,

SW17LS

Some people=everyone.

LeX2K

Whoa that's amazing never seen that before.

mmarshall

Pontiac, in some years, also had larger, aircraft-inspired hood-ornaments with the same lighted facial-feature.

rdgdawg

Mike... I have to say, I have missed your write-ups... concise, thoughtful and spot-on... cheers to you my friend!!!!