Is it a function of age?
 

I'm currently having an argument with my brother, the Jag nut who lives in England about the merits/demerits of Mercedes and Jaguar. It got me thinking about how we like what we like etc.

I recall my father when I was a kid going on about how useless, nebulous, junky etc modern cars were wheras the cars of the 30's and 40's when he was young were instantly recognizeable individualistic classics (at least to him). To me they were just weired looking old things I could never distinguish apart. Whereas to me the current 1960's thru 70's etc Mercedes were the epitome of instantly recognizeable individualistic classics etc. I'm 44. And to me the W140 was the "last true Mercedes". I will never own one made since that series as quite apart from the quality issues I just don't like the look of them. To me they are nebulous Jappanese inspired blobs. They "do" absolutely nothing for me when I see them in the street.

Just wondering if age has anything do do with this? Do we automatically prefer the vehicles of our formative years over newer stuff that will appeal in turn to the next generation etc? What do the rest of you think?

- Peter.

We always like the things we liked when our testosterone was flowing at its peak.

My teenage son and I are in agreement that the new Merc's are impossible to tell apart from Japanese-Korean appliances, especially now that the star is hard to see from a distance, the only exception possibly being the two seaters, whatever they're called. I'm not so sure it's a function of age.

I was born in 1991, and my favorite Mercedes are most certainly not The W210, W220, W202, W163, etc etc. :eek:

The first Mercedes I ever drove was when I was 10, and it was a W108 280SE.. I still find that body style the most beautiful Mercedes ever devised. However, my favorite 'modern' Mercedes are the W126 and W140. Also a special place in my heart for a W201... the things I'd do to toss one around the streets around me...

But I do share the inability to discern models of cars years past-- the way my dad can tell from 50 feet at a glance a 1963 from a 1964 Camaro is mind boggling until I put into perspective I can do that with a W126 :D

Sorry Snake, but they didn't make Camaro's in '63 OR '64. Since you weren't around then, you get a pass. No harm, no foul.

When I was a kid in the fifties, my Dad would call off the models of the cars from the thirties and forties and it amazed me that he could tell them apart. They all looked the same to me. When my kids were growing up, they were equally amazed that I could tell apart the cars of the fifties, sixties and even the seventies.

The Camaro came out in 1968...Yup, you're 20. LOL

My favorite Mercedes era was the 1970's and 1980's. It was a car that showed the world that you finally made it to the top.

Today's cars, regardless of the make, have lost true styling...they are all basically the same, with the exception of the sports cars.

Actually, the Camaro came out in 67.

Oops...don't like them enough to really care. I just knew that they younger than Snake stated. :D

That would be a 1970 Belvedere GTX

Apparently we had more privileges back in the day as well! :D

Dunno. I never had a taste for older cars or other things. Maybe older (than myself) women but even that is to a point. I boinked a 60yo woman when I was 20, does that count as "classic appreciation"? Beyond that, I was born in 67 and aesthetics never played a role for me and I always prefered the newer stuff with the whiz-bang technology in it.

The styling copycatting going on is ridiculous. Hundai exterior styling looks a lot like Acura looks a lot like________ looks a lot like________ (insert any up market car here).

Agree with the comments on 80's MB's (naturally;)) Top to bottom the best around...then and now. Specially the W124.

What I believe made W124 E-Class the mid-size luxury vehicle to have was that it was one of the most complete Mercedes-Benz cars to incorporate everything that is the Mercedes-Benz brand--and that encompasses a lot. It's about solidity, longevity, safety, luxury, engineering excellence and of course, prestige.
Best Mercedes-Benz Ever: W124 E-Class

Of course, I'm prejudiced.:D
http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/2827936-post9.html


The earlier stuff from my teen decade? Well, I survived. That's a good thing.:o;)
Guys seen this old vs new crash test? Surprised the driver of the old Chevy didn't follow the windshield out the front of the car!!

Old vs New Chevrolet Crash - YouTube

The old muscle cars did in fact lack technology and gadgets. What they lacked in those areas, however, was made up for with HUGE amounts of low end torque.

Many of the old so called Muscle Cars would be run away from by many modern cars, but it's done with horsepower instead of low end torque. The Muscle Cars would lose the races, but they win big in the fun factor area.

Horsepower wins races, but low and medium range torque makes a car fun to drive. Those old cars had torque in spades!

Not only the muscle cars of the era displayed the torque factor. My heavy '64 Galaxie with a 289 and three in the tree feels really snappy. In a drag race it wouldn't outrun a 300D by much, but by comparison it feels like a rocket ship.

I also would not discount the fact that gasoline octanes where much higher than, a big block burning hot fuel was something to behold.

Yes, regular in the late sixties was higher octane than today's premium. The higher compression ratios were indeed a contributing factor in the blood and guts torque equation. High compression makes an engine "snappy."

Now that you're 44, would you boink an 84 year old?

And back then you could work on cars with basic hand tools instead of a laptop!

Remember when you wanted to add horsepower, you would install a pair of headers...not a computer chip!

How much money are we talking of again? :D Probably not. 60 would be my current limit still

I like the way the new benzes (most of them) look but am put off by the lack of servicability of them. I like the 123s best because I can work on them. It is getting harder now though to find good ones.

The US cars of the fifties are what I grew up with and can name year and model of most of them....sixties too but in the seventies I start losing out. I can come pretty close on the year and make of a lot of the cars of thirties and forties too if they are fords or chevys, but the minor makes I can only come close.

I like em all pretty much.

If I buy a new car though I want the warrenty.

I do think it is a function of age but not necessarily in the way you mean. I think it is the age of the design - some of them stand the test of time and just look good / better as they age. The Ford Mondeo is a good example (in my opinion) - I thought it looked really really crap when it was launched but now it seems to have a bit more character about it.

Army,

I doubt that there are very many people here who know what a Mondeo looks like. It is not sold in the US.

In the Summer of 2000 I was late for a flight late in the day from Eindhoven to Hamburg. I got in touch with the off field rent car people asking if they had any cars that needed to go to Germany. I ended up with a Mondeo station wagon with a reasonable amount of power and a five speed manual.

I knew that I wasn't far from Germany and that I could turn it loose on the Autobahn. When the car they came up with was the Mondeo, I thought "oh no, this will be a long night." I was fooled. That was a GREAT Autobahn cruiser and if I remember correctly I made it to Hamburg in about five hours. I don't remember how far it was but it was certainly well over 400 miles. By the time I got to Hamburg I was a fan of that car.

Well I did a mapquest to try to find out how far from Eindhoven to Hamburg and I guess I must have been thinking 400 KM. I remember it was before dark when I left Eindhoven and before midnight when I got deep inside Hamburg.

Anyway, it was a great Autobahn cruiser.

Crap! Sorry folks - I thought the meaning of "mondeo" was an insinuation of "world car" and that it was a world wide sold Ford...

Here's a picture

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0308_front.jpg

from Ford Mondeo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps they only used the floor pan in the US? (I'm not too bothered to read all about it in Wikipedia though even if I did post the link!)

Yes Larry they are pretty good at what they do - there's a chap in the UK called Honest John (Honest John) who says they are currently one of the best built cars on the market (well for that type of car)

Army, as memory serves me the basic car was sold at Lincoln/Mercury dealers under a different name.

Oh thanks - sorry I edited in between!!!

Ford Contour?

"........New safety features are standard equipment, among them the new GM developed energy absobing steering column" !:rolleyes::eek::D:D

Too funny!!!
First Chevy Camaro Commercial - YouTube

Yep, that steering column was cutting edge safety equipment at that time. Seatbelts had been mandated only one model year earlier.

No wonder they're worth so much money now-- they're forged by Hephaestus himself!

I'm not sure. I just don't follow front wheel drive cars at all.

I had a '63 Dodge Dart once that didn't have seatbelts.

I don't know if it's a function of age so much as a function of taste. I'm of the opinion that Detroit for the most part stopped building cars around 1972. European manufacturers were better at meeting new safety and emission standards without having to build a car that sucks. Still, there are very few new cars that interest me. Automotive styling today seems to be a contest to see who can build the ugliest vehicle and the technology in new cars (some market driven, some mandated by the .gov) is adding weight, cost, and complexity without improving the driving experience. I don't want or need SatNav, a twelve speaker stereo, ten airbags, TPMS, ESC, ABS, DSG, DPF, SLS, traction control, or any of the other silliness that has crept into cars over the years. I will admit to having a certain fondness for OBDII, EFI, and the general incorporation of overdrive to new vehicle designs.

I was born in 78 BTW.

A former Navy shipmate of mine shipped over in late 1967 when we came home from the Med. He took his shipping-over bonus and went out bought a new 1968 Camaro or GTO. He promptly goes out drinking and totals it.... you got it...no collision insurance! Fortunately, he wasn't banged up too bad. This notwithstanding, one of the smartest guys I met in the Navy, officers included. Went on to make the Navy a career and afaik now lives in Hawaii.

Lots of human road kill before seatbelts!!!, nevermind airbags.:(

Cars get less and less interesting with each passing year. For my tastes, cars suitable for daily driving peaked in the late 1990s. My plan is to keep my 1999 BMW as long as possible. I plan to supplement it with a late 1990s Subaru and my 1985 300D. Those three cars are going to carry me into old age. It's probably a stupid plan.

The most interesting cars were from the mid- to late-1960s, IMHO, but I would not want to drive one every day.

Those Bimmers are easily the most fun and enjoyable cars to drive. If I could convince my dad to switch his 740 out to me and get the E39 540 or M5 like he dreams, I'd be a happy camper :D My only issue is their beautiful handling is all sitting on that veeery finnicky suspension that costs a mint to replace.

Ditto that. I live on a dirt road and it's starting to beat up my suspension a bit. That's one reason I need to get another late 1990's Impreza. I got a 1997 Impreza for the wife and put a Prodrive suspension kit on it. Prodrive was to Subaru what AMG is to Mercedes. That car loved dirt roads, just ate them up. Unfortunately, the Impreza got totaled when I tee-boned a lady who ran a stop sign in front of me. :mad:

the camaro came out in 7, I got one of each- droptops:D

For me the best cars for daily driving peaked in the late 70's and early 80's. I can think of some cars from the 60's that wouldn't be too bad as daily drivers. For example a /8 220D.

Japanese and German cars from the 90s (particularly early 90s) were incredible. Easy enough to work on with simple electronics, decent fuel efficiency and huge gobs of power and handling, very mod friendly. I'm thinking about the twin turbo rwd and awd beasts from japan mainly. 300zx, rx7, 3000gt, supra, etc. The new rockets are pretty sweet too, I've come to like my gti...only a matter of time until o get a reflash up to around 300hp/tq

Dammit, stupid tapatalk posted prematurely :( I meant to also add each era had it's great cars. From the 70s my hands down favorite would be the z's, even into the 80s. In the 1980s the rx7s were sweet and of course the 126, 124 And BMW 3 series were also incredible.

I grew up being able to discern the autos' make/type at NIGHTTIME by the headlight pattern and even the taillight patterns. :thumbsup:

Now, I don't care if I can tell a Prius from a curb-side garbage can in full daylight. They're both made of plastic and are full of $h!t. Oh...wait...that's the baby's diaper in the garbage can.

Never mind...They both stink...one via the smell, the other by its styling. And the garbage can is the "classic." :rolleyes:

Either it was real or imagined. Long ago in my formative years the car was a real status symbol. Or considered one anyways. Today it is considered more a utility device than back then. Even by the younger generations.

Here are a couple of pictures for you to rekindle that early memory and I agree with you about the body style as being a beautiful Mercedes.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7...0/DSCN0292.jpg

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-l...0/DSCN0313.jpg

Regards,

280SE Guy

For me those two pic's say it all. There is nothing on the road today from this manufacturer that competes in terms of presence, let alone aesthetics.

- Peter.

Yeah and before you guys go waxing all nostalgic about those '60's and '70's chunks of Detroit iron remember;

Ignition points which broke, burnt or slipped at the most inconvenient times.
Drum brakes on performance cars :eek:,
20K miles on a set of plugs? Forget about it!
"Automatic" chokes which "automatically" decided WHEN they were going to work.
100K on an engine? What are you smoking? Yeah, yeah, I know, "My Uncle Harvey had a '52 Chevy which went a bajillion miles". One out of a 1000 cars, maybe.
10-12 mpg on most of those "performance" cars.
Carburetors, carburetors, carburetors. Did I mention carburetors?
"Quadra-floods", "Auto-light on fire's", "Thermo-burns", "Holey shyte, it's on fires".
Distributors precisely engineered to funnel any bit of moisture into the cap shorting it out, at 3:00 AM, in your girlfriend's parents' driveway after sneaking her home three hours after her curfew.:P:P:P

People tend to long for the "good old days" without looking at the bad parts. I sold my wife's ATV off to get the next year model because it had EFI. No more need to rejet whenever you change altitude. All my powertoys are fuel injected. Jetskis, ATV, motorcycle. If I could be switching over all my stuff to fuel injected, I would.

If it was delivered in America, it had seatbelts. Problem is, not many people used them in those days. Seatbelts were mandated in the US beginning model year 1966.

I don't disagree with much of the above. 20K out of a set of plugs in a battery ignition car would make it hard to start and it would run like crap.

I religiously changed points and plugs and set everything properly at 10K mile intervals in those days. If you didn't change points and plugs at the same time, you were asking for it.

The first cool morning of the late Fall, early Winter had seemingly half the cars on the block not starting. I'm sure if you had done some research, you would have found that the ones not starting had seen points and plugs in awhile.

Of all the modern automotive technologies, electronic fuel injection is at the top of the list IMHO. Once we got away from carburetors we did away with the washing of the oil off the cylinder walls during cold starts. This decreased engine life pretty seriously.

Most any car today is capable of 300,000 miles with reasonable preventive maintenance. In the sixties, 100K miles was about par.

I think, for most of us anyway, we like and seek cars that make us feel like we did when we were much younger and first saw them. Everybody is getting older and everybody is mortal and as we age (I'm a 1962 model) we wax nostalgic to bring back the feelings from a bygone-never-to-return era.
Also boys tend to absorb their Father's viewpoints and if Dad liked it we probably will too.

In 1967-69 I worked in a gas station--full time in the summer, part time during school.
Esso--then Exxon sold 3 grades of gas--94, 97 and 100 octane. They discontinued the 101 octane about 1966

Every time we had rain after a long dry spell, we knew the phone would ring for "no start" service calls. Most of them seemed to be Chryslers. Maybe that's why Chrysler went to electronic ignitions earlier than the others, for their whole line. Most everyone had transistor ignition on HP models.
We do tend to view the past thru rose-colored glasses. Remember when 10,000 miles per a set of tires was good? Carburetors were acceptable because it was the only way to mix fuel and air--except in a very few HP models. The Rochester FI on early Vettes was so bad that a friend of mine told me that they simply replaced them with Q-jets, and used the FI units for door stops. Oh to have a time machine and visit that dealer and pick up some door stops! Anyway, in cold weather, with a cold engine, the first start was often a problem. Pump the accelerator to inject a little gas into the manifold, and set the automatic choke, wait a few seconds or minutes for that fuel to vaporize, and hit the starter. No instant starts like today, but grind, grind, grind, until it started, or the battery gave out. Batteries, as well as Generators, or Alternators were of much lower ratings than today. A 30 amp Alternator was OK.
Drum brakes---I never had a problem with high speed fade, but did lose brakes due to water floooding the drums--drove for literally MILES standing on the brake to generate enough heat to dry them out.
How about vacuum windshield wipers? They would nearly stop when the engine was driven hard --WOT produces little vacuum.
No child safety locks on doors, and we didn't lose many children by them falling out.
Remember trunks large enough to lay down and sleep in?
Remember rust starting almost before delivery--at least in some parts of the country--, and large rust holes on 2-3 year old cars?
How about Ford's Muscle Parts? They had a catalog of HP parts, and the best way to add the parts to get whatever horse power you wanted? The full Shelby kit for a small block--intake, 4 bbl, cam, lifters, springs a keepers was around $400 IIRC, including the aluminum valve covers? Of course you could buy a new car for $2000, so $400 is a pretty good piece of the cost of a car.
Cars had "character". Maybe today's vanilla, dead-on reliability is better.

So your thesis is that we are trying to recapture our youth like the stereotypical middle aged guy buying a sports car and have a young wife?

No, I'm thinking that by seeing that '70 Chevelle or '57 Chevy drive by and wistfully remembering days gone by will be enough youth-recapture that we won't jump off and buy a sports car and trade in the wife on a newer model.:D;)
OTOH, I have been pondering an older SL.....:rolleyes:.....but the Wife stays.