Allpar Forums banner
101 - 120 of 123 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
33,636 Posts
Dave said:
Yes, the cars survived crashes better. The people, on the other hand, did not. Especially before shoulder belts were made mandatory.

Crashes were at lower speeds most of the time... and the peak highway deaths in a year? 1972.

As for rust, no, no, no. A modern car is far far more rustproofed. You look at a 20 year old car now and it can look brand new. It was rare to have a ten year old car, at least in the humid East, that didn't have holes all over it, back in the 1970s/1980s.

If all it took was masses of steel, the 1957s should have been ideal.
I've owned seven cars over the last 35 years, some new, some used. Vintages were 1966, 1972, 1984, 1985, 1992, 1992 and 1993. The 60s and 70s cars did develop panel rust ONLY on the lower edge of the fenders and rear quarters. Never structural. The 1992 and 1993 cars have rusted horribly through the rear crossmembers and the rocker panels, with small holes in the floorboards, and also hood edges and the bottoms of doors, where the wraparound panel separated, inner and outer. Maybe in 2013 the rustproofing will prove to be better, but in the 1990s, it was in fatal areas. Also, I've had brake and fuel lines rust out early. A clerk at NAPA told me he has had customers replacing brake lines on 4-5 year old cars for rust.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,427 Posts
AutoTechnician said:
The SRT4 may have little trouble with WRXs, but not an STi. An STi is almost a full second faster to 60, and about 8/10ths faster in the quarter. The updated SRT-4 closed the gap, but the STi is still a fair bit faster.
Never had trouble beating them on the street. Standard WRX's were easy pickens.

STi's are insane, if the driver knows what they are doing. Most do not.

Mike
bumonbox said:
I'm sure the WRX STi is going to keep coming up, but really I don't think it should...
I don't think it should either. That niche market is shrinking fast.

Mike
 

·
Say no to kool-aid
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
Mike V. said:
Never had trouble beating them on the street. Standard WRX's were easy pickens.

STi's are insane, if the driver knows what they are doing. Most do not.

Mike

I don't think it should either. That niche market is shrinking fast.

Mike
It certainly is. Note, rumor has it the Mitsu Lancer is not long for this world, and by extension the Evo version of it. Rumor I read is that Mitsu is going all midget mobils, and the evo will be on one of those, but I highly doubt as powerful.

That aside, These days, in the auto market, MPG is being listed before power output more often than not. The best liked vehicle is likely to be the one that still allows the driver to have fun, with out giving up MPG. At 23 MPG highway, the STi is going to have a fairly narrow audience. (By the way, the SRT-8 Dodge Charger gets the same highway, but lower combined). But yeah, focus less on beating the STi, as I doubt many will care about that in this category. Focus on offering a good package, that is fast, but also easy to live with, and pay for. As a company, it will pay off much better.
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
39,889 Posts
I've owned seven cars over the last 35 years, some new, some used. Vintages were 1966, 1972, 1984, 1985, 1992, 1992 and 1993. The 60s and 70s cars did develop panel rust ONLY on the lower edge of the fenders and rear quarters. Never structural. The 1992 and 1993 cars have rusted horribly through the rear crossmembers and the rocker panels, with small holes in the floorboards, and also hood edges and the bottoms of doors, where the wraparound panel separated, inner and outer. Maybe in 2013 the rustproofing will prove to be better, but in the 1990s, it was in fatal areas. Also, I've had brake and fuel lines rust out early. A clerk at NAPA told me he has had customers replacing brake lines on 4-5 year old cars for rust.
Hi, Bob.

Agreed on the brake and fuel lines, but that's nothing to do with the question of weight...

I've seen a lot worse on the 1960s/1970s cars. The 1980s Diplomats, a very traditional design, had rust that destroyed the front suspensions...

It's funny that our experiences are so far apart! Our Neon and 300M had practically no rust. I was stunned at how clean my '93 Sundance was, up on the lift, when I parted with it. Even our '88 Escort was clean! though it didn't spend a lot of time on the road before dying.

The last really badly rusted cars I had, were all from the 1970s. But ... well, you're right that they had no "structurally important" rust. Thing is, neither did my newer cars...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
697 Posts
Bob Lincoln said:
I've owned seven cars over the last 35 years, some new, some used. Vintages were 1966, 1972, 1984, 1985, 1992, 1992 and 1993. The 60s and 70s cars did develop panel rust ONLY on the lower edge of the fenders and rear quarters. Never structural. The 1992 and 1993 cars have rusted horribly through the rear crossmembers and the rocker panels, with small holes in the floorboards, and also hood edges and the bottoms of doors, where the wraparound panel separated, inner and outer. Maybe in 2013 the rustproofing will prove to be better, but in the 1990s, it was in fatal areas. Also, I've had brake and fuel lines rust out early. A clerk at NAPA told me he has had customers replacing brake lines on 4-5 year old cars for rust.
Dave said:
Hi, Bob.

Agreed on the brake and fuel lines, but that's nothing to do with the question of weight...

I've seen a lot worse on the 1960s/1970s cars. The 1980s Diplomats, a very traditional design, had rust that destroyed the front suspensions...

It's funny that our experiences are so far apart! Our Neon and 300M had practically no rust. I was stunned at how clean my '93 Sundance was, up on the lift, when I parted with it. Even our '88 Escort was clean! though it didn't spend a lot of time on the road before dying.

The last really badly rusted cars I had, were all from the 1970s. But ... well, you're right that they had no "structurally important" rust. Thing is, neither did my newer cars...
If I may add to this with our '72 Road Runner: It was a north east car with under coating and the main family ride, so it was driven every day in all types of weather.

It had HORRIBLE rust problems: quarter panels, hood hinges toward the very end, along some fender rot over wheel wells. But the biggest problem - and the problem that forced my father to give up on restoring it - were the inner panels. They were totally shot and unrepeatable at that time, or so we were told, unless you had metal custom fabricated. You couldn't even slap some bondo on them - nor would you want to.

This was 1982 so there were no prefab patch panels to speak of. They're available now though. Too little to late.

Someone once told me that the sheet metal for those cars was out sourced from Japan at the time, but I don't know if that's true.

Outside of that:

'65 Fairlane - Passenger side quarter were shot, patched. Trunk was starting to rot.

'74 Road Runner - rocker panels bubbled up.

'73 Road Runner - quarter panel on passenger side fixed with some putty.

85 Blazer - quart panels on the passenger side rotted completely.

87 Regal - no rust, although the paint faded after three years.

00 Neon - absolutely no rust. But a friend of mine's 00 Neon had a cross member that was totally shot.

00' 300M - no rust although I haven't been under it for a while.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
33,636 Posts
I was behind a Town and Country tonight that was nearly brand new, and there was a line of bubble rust along the entire length of the bottom edge of the tailgate, about 2 inches high, scabby. Saw the same thing on an almost-new Ram the other day.
 

·
Say no to kool-aid
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
Bob Lincoln said:
I was behind a Town and Country tonight that was nearly brand new, and there was a line of bubble rust along the entire length of the bottom edge of the tailgate, about 2 inches high, scabby. Saw the same thing on an almost-new Ram the other day.
My 2002 Chrysler 300m, has little to no rust on the sheet metal, and little under. The 2004 Town & Country is rusting something fierce, especially the rocker panels. That alone will drive me to replace it before the 300m.
 

·
Fits and Finishes
Joined
·
1,108 Posts
CJDsalespro wrote: LOVE and Value sells cars....... This pkg is the pkkg that the Dart should have offered a year ago. I am confident that if they just get their pricing and marketing right the Dart will be just fine.

Isn't that typical of our beloved Chrysler's relatively recent model introduction history?? Too pricey, no automatics, underpowered, poor tranny match, butt-ugly design, etc.

The company shoots itself in the foot so often but still manages to stand on both of them. Amazing, really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Bob Lincoln said:
I was behind a Town and Country tonight that was nearly brand new, and there was a line of bubble rust along the entire length of the bottom edge of the tailgate, about 2 inches high, scabby. Saw the same thing on an almost-new Ram the other day.
It's the "enviromentally friendly and cheap " brine solutions they spray on the roads. Its nasty stuff for any metal on cars and its difficult to get off especially if the crystals have gotten into any nooks and crannys in the car body where a car wash can't spray them off. Since its moisture activated it can eat away at a car all year long and the humid summers help it along. A car around here will show rust within 2-3 years and within 10 will have major rust through spots everywhere. Some of the newer bridges (
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
113 Posts
ralph.jones said:
It's the "enviromentally friendly and cheap " brine solutions they spray on the roads. Its nasty stuff for any metal on cars and its difficult to get off especially if the crystals have gotten into any nooks and crannys in the car body where a car wash can't spray them off. Since its moisture activated it can eat away at a car all year long and the humid summers help it along. A car around here will show rust within 2-3 years and within 10 will have major rust through spots everywhere. Some of the newer bridges (
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,526 Posts
If I remember correctly, C/D estimated the 2.0L automatic Dart at 9.2 seconds for 0-60. The brand new Mazda 3 2.0 is estimated at 8.2. How much faster does that one second "feel"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
Dave said:
I still cannot see the 2.0 Dart as a "slug." Unless you're coming off a Corvette or something.
It's not a slug. I get to drive one on a semi regular basis and it's not a slug. Not nearly as fast as my 200 but it's more than adequate. Doesn't really feel feel any slower than a Focus SE I drove a few weeks back.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
I'm sure there's an "Internet Blogger's Guide to Car Acceleration Adjectives" in which it states that if the 0-60MPH time is greater than 8.5 seconds, you may use adjectives like "slow", "sluggish", and "leisurely." :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,688 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
I'm sure there's an "Internet Blogger's Guide to Car Acceleration Adjectives" in which it states that if the 0-60MPH time is greater than 8.5 seconds, you may use adjectives like "slow", "sluggish", and "leisurely." :rolleyes:
There are four official adjectives : slow, sluggish, leisurely - and the one you forgot, Strat :
" Lord, Have Mercy ... You CAN'T be serious!"

I'd say that when we drove an 80's GM Buick Riviera Diesel ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
Dave said:
I still cannot see the 2.0 Dart as a "slug." Unless you're coming off a Corvette or something.
Would you consider it a "slug" if you're coming off a manual transmission first gen Neon?
 
101 - 120 of 123 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top