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

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: 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.


I've never personally seen a 403 Trans Am. That might have been a California emissions thing. I've seen several Formula Firebirds with the Olds 403 though.

I've personally observed a 403 Formula get beaten by a Chevrolet 350 powered Formula. The 403 sounded like it was running well. Felt pretty healthy when I rode in it. No telling what the 350 Chevy had.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: 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.


I've never personally seen a 403 Trans Am. That might have been a California emissions thing. I've seen several Formula Firebirds with the Olds 403 though.

I've personally observed a 403 Formula get beaten by a Chevrolet 350 powered Formula. The 403 sounded like it was running well. Felt pretty healthy when I rode in it. No telling what the 350 Chevy had.


My Pontiac knowledge isn't that detailed. The Firebird wiki does indicate that the 403 was FIRST used for California and high altitude cars (it had more compression than the Poncho 400 up until 77). But I've read other sources that indicate that over the 3 years, there were actually MORE 403 T/As built than 400 T/As. My turn to

 

[cadfaeltex]

I'll throw in my highly uninformed and uneducated impression on this. I think the powertrains are much more durable and certainly much more efficient. As an example, my little supercharged MINI Cooper had more horsepower than an early 80's corvette. I also think that the powertrains are more likely to go further mileage - tighter tolerances and better tools to design. The possible exception might be the transmissions.

What I think brings the newer cars longetivty into question is everything else. Beginning in the '90's the electronic control of every aspect has expanded rapidly.

As to interiors, they do seem somewhat homogenized. I wonder how much of that is safety restictions. I like the look of metal dashes but wouldn't if it was coming at my face at the end of a collision.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Sorry for the topic drift, but the evolution of engineering over the decades, and comparisons between different manufacturers' methods has always fascinated me.


Me too. On a related note, Pontiac's V-8 engines and Oldsmobile's V-8 engines shared some common parts. If I recall correctly, the timing chain set was exactly the same part number, meaning the crankshaft to camshaft center-to-center must have been exactly the same, or at least very close.

I put an Olds 403 into my '87 Buick Regal...swapped out the knocking 307. That 403 sure had some torque. It was out of breath by 4000 rpm, but it sure had torque. Which was odd because that engine was so over-square. It shared the same 3.385" stroke as the rest of the small block Oldsmobiles. With some good-flowing heads, a sturdy head gasket, and the right camshaft, that engine could have been made into a real screamer.

 

[Nick R]

That olds was great. Other than a starter motor, the engine was pretty solid iirc. The big problem was that it needed 3 new transmissions from the time it was bought new, to when my parents sold it before moving to NY the first time, back in... 00' I think.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
[
I put an Olds 403 into my '87 Buick Regal...swapped out the knocking 307. That 403 sure had some torque. It was out of breath by 4000 rpm, but it sure had torque. Which was odd because that engine was so over-square.


Everyone generally thinks of undersquare engines (like the Olds 455) as being the best way to build a torque monster. But the truth is that oversquare engines have some advantages. For the same cylinder pressure, peak torque goes up as the square of bore but only goes up linearly with stroke length. Oversquare lets you build with big valves for high-RPM breathing IF YOU WANT TO, but it definitely leaves the door open for building lots of torque. The Mopar 383 is another good example- its got a shorter stroke than the smallblock 360 does, but it easily develops more torque (at least until the 360 got MPEFI).

The real downfall of radically oversquare engines was emissions and efficiency. There's too much quench area around the top piston ring when the circumference gets large, so more fuel (percentage wise) is converted into unburned hydrocarbons.

 

[SteveSRT8]

I've had a couple of radical 360 Mopars with a bin full of Hipo 340 parts.

They were very good to me, one in a 1977 Dodge van could rip off a 14 flat in the quarter with decent mileage and full accessories intact.

I'm a real fan of old Pontiacs too. My fav old car is the 73 super duty trans am, it was a monster. And it did it with LOW compression on unleaded gas! 13.08 on street tires!

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Me,I HATE the interiors of today`s cars with a passion! They`re all made from the cheapest plastic on the planet,and all look the same.


Me too man.

90's cars are my favorite. I've always been a Nissan fan and I still think the 4th gen Maxima is the best Maxima ever (95-99)
Best overall looks, and best interior.

 

[urchin]

A 90s vehicle you have a decent chance of being able to diagnose most electrical issues without too much difficulty, and because there is less complexity there will be less difficult problems to troubleshoot in the long run.

These vehicles today are so electronically complex that even with computer diagnostic tools it is still a huge challenge to actually find issues, and if it is in the wiring good luck, many electrical and electronic functions are carried out by multiplexed wiring systems, and this makes diagnosing almost impossible in some cases.

Todays cars are heavy as heck too, and the handling suffers because of it, also the mpg does too.

I would gladly buy a brand new old 84 VW Rabbit GTI or even a new old 96 VW Golf GL compared to anything they are selling today.

The other benefits are plentiful, decent quality, inexpensive replacement parts that can be found easily on line.

I am not a fan of cars from the past decade or so at all.

 

[hattaresguy]

Depends on the car, a 90's era Mercedes is about equal to a $20k car today equipment wise.

But they are 20 years ahead of their time anyway.

A W140 is still a better driving car than anything new you can buy for less than $60k.

New cars have a lot of traction aids, I'm still amazed people can actually still crash them! The computers just won't let you kill yourself.

If I'm driving say a 1992 S600 and decide to do something stupid like oh take a 90 degree corner at 40 I better watch it because the tail is coming around or its pushing into the curb.

OTOH if I do that same stupid move with a new Mercedes the computer just slaps you on the hand and says lets save this stupid idiot, and the car just goes around. Dash lights up, power cuts, brakes apply and it kind of works.

Just like a video game!

OTOH new drivers if they get behind the well of say oh a 1973 911 and try that [censored] will discover real fast what driving is.

 

[silverrat]

Originally Posted By: mva
Way more safety features, more power, much larger tires, same or better gas mileage:

1994 Honda Accord base 2 door 5 spd

manual windows
no A/C
manual locks
manual mirrors
AM/FM cassette with 4 speakers
14" Steel wheels with 185/70R14 tires
no ABS
driver and passenger airbags

25/31 City/Hwy

2.2 litre, 16 valve, 130 hp

Curb Weight 3050 lbs

1994 price = $15,000 USD

Inflation since 1994 = 40%

Price in 2011 dollars = $21,000 USD

2012 Honda Accord base 2 dr 5 sp

power windows
A/C
power locks with keyless entry
power mirrors

160-Watt AM/FM/6-Disc In-Dash Audio System with 6 Speakers, USB, Speed sensitive volume, Aux/MP3

17" Alloy wheels with 225/50R17 tires
tire pressure monitoring
ABS with brake assist
traction and stability control
driver and passenger 2 stage airbags
side airbags and side curtain airbags
seatbelt tensioning

23/32 City/Hwy

2.4 litre, 190 hp

Curb Weight 3184 lbs

price = $23,000 USD



Your numbers are wrong, 1994 Accord 2 door curb weight is 2855 lbs.

 

[sparky123]

In 1990 bought the first Mazda Protege LX w/5-sp and 1.8 liter engine. What a great car! My 2010 Focus SE 5-sp. is very similiar in the way it drives and feels. The Focus has TPMS and the additiional air bags. SYNC also. I think the Focus is a throwback and probably the last newer designed car which is a basic car. I sense the Focus is a very reliable, well built car. Time will tell. The 5-sp. is a blast to drive.

 

[cadfaeltex]

This morning provides a pretty good comparison for me. I had a 2010 Lexus IS 350 C that I sold about six months ago to start a debt free lifestyle. I got a 'beater' 1994 Jag XJS.

Impressions of the 2010: Nice car, super reliable in the 19 months I had it. However, it was very little fun to drive. Seemed so isolated from the road. The 3.5L engine was very quick but got terrible gas mileage (avg. 17). The top notch interior was very plain and dominated by 'good' pebbled plastic (which from what I understood had a tendency to melt).

Impressions of the 1994: Hasn't stranded me yet. The engine and transmission have been great. I've had to replace the tires (age), belts and hoses, stereo to get bluetooth, and power steering pump to fix a leak. The 4.0L engine is smooth and not as powerful as the 3.5L Lexus. The ride isn't as smooth but to me more fun. The gas mileage is the same around town and about 2 mpg less on the highway. Biggest problem I've had is with the auto HVAC system on the Jag. It's driving me crazy. Got the A/C working for a bit and now I have not heat, defrost, or rear defrost as we head into the fall. The jag does have ABS and airbags but no traction control.

All in all I'd like my 1994 to be in new shape. The fact that I like to drive it more is evidenced by the fact that in 6 months I've put almost as much mileage on it as I did the Lexus in 19 months.

 

[dwcopple]

what made you pick a '94 Jag? I'm just curious.

 

[teambeechstreet]

Originally Posted By: dwcopple
what made you pick a '94 Jag? I'm just curious.

ditto.

 

[wander2039]

If it's anything like the Jag I drove once serious fun factor. In the hills of the ozarks that thing hugged the hills. Perhaps the best car in the corners that I've drove.

 

[cadfaeltex]

When it came to getting a cheaper car, I didn't want to give up some of the fun factor. It was the best deal locally that I could find that met my needs.

 

[hattaresguy]

Jag's are awesome cars, why not?

 

[rslifkin]

^ Agreed. My grandmother has an 88 XJ6 VP with the 3.6, and despite being pretty slow (and big), it's an all-around awesome car to drive. I'd think the smaller, more nimble XJS would be even better.