How different are today's cars from 90s cars?

[rslifkin]

^ Agreed. That's what always surprises friends about my Jeep: neck-snapping torque off the line, even though it's not terribly fast.

Also, my 90s Jeep interior is great. It doesn't squeak, doesn't rattle, is still in pretty good shape, etc. Plus, it's still a pretty nice interior by modern standards, and the controls are pretty well laid out, with only a few exceptions.

 

[Nick R]

It's been a long time, but we used to own a 78 olds regency 98 with the I want to say 403ci olds engine. Kinda wish we still had it, that thing was a tank.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
It's been a long time, but we used to own a 78 olds regency 98 with the I want to say 403ci olds engine. Kinda wish we still had it, that thing was a tank.


The 403 was an Olds engine. Its the one that found its way into a bunch of Pontiac Trans Ams instead of Pontiac's own 400 back in the day when GM was swapping engines between divisions but not making it public. One of the sillier moments in automotive history. The 403 was actually only made for 3 years (77-79) and wasn't one of Oldsmobiles finest achievements. It was known as a head gasket eater like the Chevy 400 and for the same reason: siamesed bores. It was built on the Oldsmobile "small" block like the Olds 350 (technically there were no Olds small or big blocks- it was the same block with a different deck height, same method as a Mopar 383 versus a Mopar 413/440). The bigger displacement was made possible by a big bore necessitating the siamesed cylinders.

 

[Spazdog]

Apples to apples, let's compare Civics.

To get ABS standard in 1995, you had to get a EH9 EX sedan. Sure, some EJ1 EX coupes had it, but some did not. All EH9 EX sedans did. ABS, stability control, everything else comes on every model now as far as I know.

The interior fabrics on the LX and EX models in '95 were as good as the fabrics today, but if you got leather in '95 it was a dealer add-on. You can get an EX-L with leather today.

The dash controls were much easier to use 1995. Particularly the HVAC. Push the button of where you want the air to come from and select hot or cold. Set the fan speed where you want it. It was pretty straight-forward. Anybody that had ever owned any make of car before could figure it out in seconds. Now, it seems less user friendly. Sure, you get used to it, but it seems like it has a steeper learning curve.

Only the EX and Si models for the 5th generation had variable valve lift and timing. Now all models have variable timing. Both types have SOHC 16-valve engines (except for Si-s from 99 up which were DOHC) The current model has a bigger engine and more horsepower than it's predecessor, but it's hauling a heavier car so we'll call that a draw.

In '95 you could still get a Civic with manual roll up windows and without A/C....you might still be able to get that, but I haven't seen a 2006+ Civic without power windows and A/C yet.

The suspension is the biggest departure. The 4th, 5th, and 6th generation Civics had double wishbone front and fully independent suspensions. The current model has been significantly dumbed down in the interest of cost saving and maximizing interior space to traditional McPherson strut front and torsion beam rear suspension.

But in stark contrast to that, if you compare the current Focus to the '95 Escort or the current Cruze to the '95 Cavalier, there is no comparison. The current cars are better in just about every aspect. Except maybe in dash controls....but all cars are like that now. Now, I'm a big defender of Mazda, and that generation of Escort is built on a Mazda platform, but the Focus is still light-years ahead of the Escort.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Cars are becoming throw-away appliances. People are replacing them with new ones because they're too expensive to repair.



Is this really true, though? Don't cars last longer now, in terms of both mileage and years, than ever?

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Nick R
It's been a long time, but we used to own a 78 olds regency 98 with the I want to say 403ci olds engine. Kinda wish we still had it, that thing was a tank.


The 403 was an Olds engine. Its the one that found its way into a bunch of Pontiac Trans Ams instead of Pontiac's own 400 back in the day when GM was swapping engines between divisions but not making it public. One of the sillier moments in automotive history. The 403 was actually only made for 3 years (77-79) and wasn't one of Oldsmobiles finest achievements. It was known as a head gasket eater like the Chevy 400 and for the same reason: siamesed bores. It was built on the Oldsmobile "small" block like the Olds 350 (technically there were no Olds small or big blocks- it was the same block with a different deck height, same method as a Mopar 383 versus a Mopar 413/440). The bigger displacement was made possible by a big bore necessitating the siamesed cylinders.





The 403 felt like it had more power than the 400. I could be mistaken on that one.

 

[TomYoung]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Cars are becoming throw-away appliances. People are replacing them with new ones because they're too expensive to repair.



Is this really true, though? Don't cars last longer now, in terms of both mileage and years, than ever?


You're both right. Cars in the modern era are liable to fall apart around still working transmissions and engines. If you keep the car maintained, the likelihood of an engine or transmission failing in 250k miles is negligible. In the sixties and seventies, that failure was inevitable. Nowadays, after a car has got some years and mileage on it, the even the HID system's repair cost could conceivably take it off the road.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: TomYoung
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Cars are becoming throw-away appliances. People are replacing them with new ones because they're too expensive to repair.



Is this really true, though? Don't cars last longer now, in terms of both mileage and years, than ever?


You're both right. Cars in the modern era are liable to fall apart around still working transmissions and engines. If you keep the car maintained, the likelihood of an engine or transmission failing in 250k miles is negligible. In the sixties and seventies, that failure was inevitable. Nowadays, after a car has got some years and mileage on it, the even the HID system's repair cost could conceivably take it off the road.



Man have you got that right! Those friggin hid`s are great, but they do cost like crazy to repair.

 

[Hokiefyd]

It is true that the main difference between the Oldsmobile small block and big block engines is the deck height. 9.3" on the small block and 10.6" on the big block. An easy field-test is to measure the distance across the top of the engine at the intake manifold base: small blocks are 12" and big blocks are 14". Another difference, though not often noted, is the crankshaft journal size. Small blocks have 2.5" journals and big blocks have 3.0" journals. The only exception that I know of is the diesel 350 had the big block journals.

Regarding the Civic's suspension, it is true that the front has gone MacPherson strut, but at least today, the rear suspension is still a multilink setup. I can't swear it's been that way for every Civic generation, but I think it has. The Fit and Insight do use a torsion beam suspension.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
It is true that the main difference between the Oldsmobile small block and big block engines is the deck height. 9.3" on the small block and 10.6" on the big block. An easy field-test is to measure the distance across the top of the engine at the intake manifold base: small blocks are 12" and big blocks are 14". Another difference, though not often noted, is the crankshaft journal size. Small blocks have 2.5" journals and big blocks have 3.0" journals. The only exception that I know of is the diesel 350 had the big block journals.

Regarding the Civic's suspension, it is true that the front has gone MacPherson strut, but at least today, the rear suspension is still a multilink setup. I can't swear it's been that way for every Civic generation, but I think it has. The Fit and Insight do use a torsion beam suspension.

The cruze, who's handling has been complimented by almost all reviewers, and the ride. Impressive, considering it's a standard Macpherson Strut in front, and Torsion Beam rear.

 

[kb01]

I've always considered the 1990's as the beginning of the modern era of cars -- fuel injection, ABS, air bags, etc. Ownership of a 1990 vehicle was night and day better than a car from 1980. I really can't say the same thing about a 2010 vs. 2000 model year car.

The biggest thing I miss about "older" (it's funny considering the 1990s old) cars were the triangular ventilation windows and normal size dashboards.

My favorite standard feature on cars of today are the key remotes. It seems like a silly feature but it has helped me hundreds of times to find my car in a packed lot, or keep me dry w/out fiddling for keys. It's also kind of handy that cup holders and axillary ports on stereos are now standard, as well as the search button on digital radios. Even more so, it's really nice to be able to set a digital clock without using a paperclip.

I really don't consider basic ownership to be much different for any car in the post-carburetor era. Just lots of extra gadgets and more refined technology.

 

[lexus114]

The bad thing about fob`s is.....the other day some clown locked his car (from a distance) right as i passed in front of it. And the Horn`s were loud! Our cars (my wife`s and mine) have a light electronic beep which I feel is a lot nicer. Sit in a parking lot one day, all you going to hear is the car horns; BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!From people locking their cars! And some people do it two and three times! They cant hear it locked the first time or what?

 

[sciphi]

The 4-cylinder engines are more refined. The chassis tuning once found on expensive cars is now applied to econoboxes. A 90's Lexus level of interior noise can be found in many cheaper cars.

Pretty much the tech once reserved for high-performance cars is mainstream.

 

[mechanicx]

I went into the menu and disabled all the horn beeps and flashing headlights for my remote keyless entry. People who leave those activated probably enjoy making annoying racket. Look at me I can make my car's horn beep.

 

[SteveSRT8]

If you're talking 90's era, then I'm with you.

Performance cars have improved HUGELY since the 90's. Not even close.

And Lexus114, the Poncho 400 was way better than the Olds 403. But I bet that 403 had a ton of torque, which always feels like more power.

 

[lexus114]

Steve, I never had the pleasure of driving one of the T/A`s from that era. But worked with two people (back in the day) one guy had a 403,the other had a 400. One T/A was a 77 the other was a 79. The 77 had the 400 4 speed, the 79 was the 403 automatic. Both hauled some seroius [censored]!

P.S Sorry about the rant over the fob`s and the horns. Just gets a little sickening when some people lock their car`s waiting at a bus stop. And the car is right under their friggin nose,never leaving their sight even for a second! I mean C`mon now.

 

[Hokiefyd]

I personally prefer the interiors today over those from yesterday. Yesterday's interiors had "better materials" but they weren't durable. You had cloth and velour on the door panels...it looks nice, but that stuff wears. Both my '84 Cutlass and mom's '92 Crown Vic had velour door panels, and both had the velour almost worn through on the top from resting elbows, etc.

The harder plastics CAN be made to look nice if done right, and in my experience, they're far more durable than "nicer" materials like velour. Plus, with kids, plastics clean far easier than cloth material does.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Cars are becoming throw-away appliances. People are replacing them with new ones because they're too expensive to repair.



Is this really true, though? Don't cars last longer now, in terms of both mileage and years, than ever?


Mileage: on average yes new cars are lasting longer, but its hard to really say whether cars are made better, or things like lubricants and filtration are better and the rise of quick-lubes (much as I hate them) have on AVERAGE made the car fleet better maintained. There are plenty of 60s cars that made it to 200,000 miles or more with excellent care, so its certainly not IMPOSSIBLE for older vehicles to go the same distance. I've got a 70s car with almost 430,000 miles on it (not in my .sig, its stored waiting restoration but it pulled into its storage bay under its own power after being in daily use.)

Time: I think new cars have a harder problem with time (in excess of 15 years from date of manufacture, roughly) than older cars did. 60s cars had so much more metal and so much less plastic in the dash and under the hood that they win that one. Air boxes, dash ductwork, vents, switches, and even intake manifolds and intake ducting, sensor mounting points, etc. on new cars will begin to deteriorate and potentially fail due to ozone and hydrocarbon exposure within 15-20 years, whereas the metal equivalents on 60s cars won't fail unless they're underwater.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: lexus114



The 403 felt like it had more power than the 400. I could be mistaken on that one.



Oldsmobile V8 engines, in general, were torque monsters and when putting around town I'm sure a 403 would "feel" a little more powerful than a Pontiac 400. IMO the Olds engines were more reliable overall, but the 403 clearly had at least one big weakness that gave it a bad rep.

However, the Pontiac 400 actually produced more horsepower when it got up on its peak power RPM, and is more desirable today in collector cars. It was also mated to the manual transmission in Trans Ams, whereas automatics tended to get the 403.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Another difference, though not often noted, is the crankshaft journal size. Small blocks have 2.5" journals and big blocks have 3.0" journals. The only exception that I know of is the diesel 350 had the big block journals


Again, this is EXACTLY like the difference between the "raised" big-block (RB-block) Mopars (413, 426, 440) and the low-deck (B-block) (350, 361, 383, 400). The rod journals were all the same size, but the RB engines had bigger main bearings. It was discovered by aftermarket engine builders in later years (1990s- way after the engines were out of production) that the best overall bottom-end strength came from the smaller main package, since leaving more "meat" in the block webs more than offset the smaller cross-section of the crank through the mains. the crank, after all, is forged steel and inherently stronger than the nodular iron block material.


Sorry for the topic drift, but the evolution of engineering over the decades, and comparisons between different manufacturers' methods has always fascinated me.