Some cars haven't changed much in 30 years...

[addyguy]

In the late 1980's, my family bought a new 1989 Toyota Tercel. Totally basic 3-door; 4-speed standard, and NO options except a rear wiper. Had a carbureted 1.5L SOHC 4-cylinder with 76HP. Dark grey and black all-vinyl interior.
A couple of years later I took drivers ed on a 1991 Mazda 323 equipped the same way, basic 3-door, 5-speed with few options. FI 1.6L SOHC engine with 82HP, black and dark grey all-vinyl interior.

Today, if you want a totally basic car, you can buy a Nissan Micra. It is a 5-door hatch back with few options. It has a 1.6L DOHC engine with 106HP, and it has an all-vinyl interior in dark grey and black. I have driven both of these vehicles, and it stuns me just how similar in specifications, features, power level, and 'feel' they are.

Now, I am aware that back in the late 1980's/early 1990's, the above vehicles weren't the bottom-rung economy cars, that would have been a Hyundai Excel or Chevy Sprint. Today, the Nissan Micra is basically as cheap as it gets. But the Micra and 323 or Tercel are very similar in size and equipment level, and still 'Feel' the same - the vinyl seats are very similar, the dash/console/shifter look and feel very similar.

It just surprises me that after 30 years these two vehicles are SO similar, like there has been no real progress in basic Asian compacts in 30 years. If in 1988 you had gone back even 10 years, there was huge differences between cars - a 1978 Mazda GLC and a 1989 323 were not even comparable.

Thoughts?

 

[SeaJay]

I don't think the Micra is sold in the US.

 

[Lolvoguy]

Originally Posted by addyguy
If in 1988 you had gone back even 10 years, there was huge differences between cars - a 1978 Mazda GLC and a 1989 323 were not even comparable.

What are the "huge differences" between the above cars?

Aside from fuel delivery systems, they seem pretty identical to me.

 

[maxdustington]

Back then even the cheapest models still had insane build quality because they were still trying to beat the Americans. They reflected the contemporary Japanese design ethos of simple but high quality. Now-a-days those cars are built for people who want a new car but have bad credit, they are disposable.

JDM small car with insane build quality for the price v appliance for a financially irresponsible normie. Big difference.

 

[ekpolk]

Perhaps they've settled into a pattern that, from market feedback, works and there's not a lot of incentive to invest more in improving or "updating" something that's already performing its intended mission quite well.

There is a strange tendency for named car models to grow over the years. Current Civics and Corollas are essentially the size, inside and out, of the Accords and Camrys of twenty-plus years ago. So what happens? We get Fits and Yarises to "refill" the small and inexpensive tier of the market.

One thing I'd like to see is the return of the truly very basic, but larger car. Many makers are close, but still drifting away (and up market). I bought a 2002 Camry this way (it's only option as I recall was side-curtain airbags; I added dealer installed alloy wheels). That was a great car for the brief time I had it (until some ------- totaled it for me...). It was solid, light and clean feeling. A really enjoyable car. But today, you can't even get a Camry with a manual trans. I guess the market has spoken, but I believe there are some out there who'd like a "bare-ish" car, but in some of the larger models.

 

[CT8]

The same is better.

 

[zorobabel]

They don't feel different because econobox vehicles reached perfection with the 89 Tercel ). Most "improvements" would ruin them.

 

[Number_35]

Originally Posted by Lolvoguy
Originally Posted by addyguy
If in 1988 you had gone back even 10 years, there was huge differences between cars - a 1978 Mazda GLC and a 1989 323 were not even comparable.

What are the "huge differences" between the above cars?

Aside from fuel delivery systems, they seem pretty identical to me.

The '78 would have been carbureted, RWD, had ignition points, and only lap belts in the back. The base transmission was a 4-speed manual. An AM radio was an option.

The '87 would have had a sophisticated variable-venturi carburetor (that is, with feedback from an O2 sensor, so effectively a TB FI system), FWD, electronic ignition, and (not positive on this one) 3-point seatbelts in the back. The base transmission was now a 5-speed. I would bet that an AM/FM radio was standard by that time. I'd bet that the '87 would be at least a few hundred pounds heavier (and correspondingly safer).

 

[zorobabel]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Perhaps they've settled into a pattern that, from market feedback, works and there's not a lot of incentive to invest more in improving or "updating" something that's already performing its intended mission quite well.

There is a strange tendency for named car models to grow over the years. Current Civics and Corollas are essentially the size, inside and out, of the Accords and Camrys of twenty-plus years ago. So what happens? We get Fits and Yarises to "refill" the small and inexpensive tier of the market.

One thing I'd like to see is the return of the truly very basic, but larger car. Many makers are close, but still drifting away (and up market). I bought a 2002 Camry this way (it's only option as I recall was side-curtain airbags; I added dealer installed alloy wheels). That was a great car for the brief time I had it (until some ------- totaled it for me...). It was solid, light and clean feeling. A really enjoyable car. But today, you can't even get a Camry with a manual trans. I guess the market has spoken, but I believe there are some out there who'd like a "bare-ish" car, but in some of the larger models.

What I'd like is a basic car, not necesarily larger, without all the gizmos and soft touch materials (aka disintegrate after 10 years) but with very good soundproofing.

 

[NDL]

Originally Posted by addyguy
In the late 1980's, my family bought a new 1989 Toyota Tercel. Totally basic 3-door; 4-speed standard, and NO options except a rear wiper. Had a carbureted 1.5L SOHC 4-cylinder with 76HP. Dark grey and black all-vinyl interior.
A couple of years later I took drivers ed on a 1991 Mazda 323 equipped the same way, basic 3-door, 5-speed with few options. FI 1.6L SOHC engine with 82HP, black and dark grey all-vinyl interior.

Today, if you want a totally basic car, you can buy a Nissan Micra. It is a 5-door hatch back with few options. It has a 1.6L DOHC engine with 106HP, and it has an all-vinyl interior in dark grey and black. I have driven both of these vehicles, and it stuns me just how similar in specifications, features, power level, and 'feel' they are.

Now, I am aware that back in the late 1980's/early 1990's, the above vehicles weren't the bottom-rung economy cars, that would have been a Hyundai Excel or Chevy Sprint. Today, the Nissan Micra is basically as cheap as it gets. But the Micra and 323 or Tercel are very similar in size and equipment level, and still 'Feel' the same - the vinyl seats are very similar, the dash/console/shifter look and feel very similar.

It just surprises me that after 30 years these two vehicles are SO similar, like there has been no real progress in basic Asian compacts in 30 years. If in 1988 you had gone back even 10 years, there was huge differences between cars - a 1978 Mazda GLC and a 1989 323 were not even comparable.

Thoughts?


The 323 was a great little car. As for the Micra, it isn't sold here in the US, although I wish that it were.

As for continuation of technology, I don't find it surprising; they use the most basic setup to meet that price point. I am not being snarky in saying this, but did you expect for Nissan to offer a double wishbone suspension/fully independent rear suspension, at that price point? I am glad that they offer a bare bones car; I think that the escalation of car payments/prices is a ridiculous trend. If the Micra is a durable and reliable car, I am perfectly content with it's low cost.

A fair comparison would be a 1989 Civic versus a 2019 Civic, as there's quite a bit of price differentiation.

 

[Lolvoguy]

Originally Posted by Number_35
Originally Posted by Lolvoguy
Originally Posted by addyguy
If in 1988 you had gone back even 10 years, there was huge differences between cars - a 1978 Mazda GLC and a 1989 323 were not even comparable.

What are the "huge differences" between the above cars?

Aside from fuel delivery systems, they seem pretty identical to me.

The '78 would have been carbureted, RWD, had ignition points, and only lap belts in the back. The base transmission was a 4-speed manual. An AM radio was an option.

The '87 would have had a sophisticated variable-venturi carburetor (that is, with feedback from an O2 sensor, so effectively a TB FI system), FWD, electronic ignition, and (not positive on this one) 3-point seatbelts in the back. The base transmission was now a 5-speed. I would bet that an AM/FM radio was standard by that time. I'd bet that the '87 would be at least a few hundred pounds heavier (and correspondingly safer).

Aside from the RWD vs FWD layout, everything else could essentially be "swapped over"

That's like telling a Volvo fan that a US market 1979 245DL is substantially different than a US 1989 Volvo 240DL wagon.
Doesn't seem that drastic of a change. Certainly not enough that I (or many others) would consider them "huge differences"

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by SeaJay
I don't think the Micra is sold in the US.

The Versa is the closest thing to it in the US. But Nissan's Datsun cars sold in India/Russia and some 3rd world countries is closer to the Micra. But no airbags, ABS and infotainment.

 

[Dave9]

Don't see the point, the basics of how to put a person in a thing on wheels and power it by an ICE has just been slowly refined over years with a few leaps along the way if needed to make the next step (like RWD to FWD or fuel economy and emissions) and the more years in, the less there is left to do besides adding more electronics.

It's a good thing. People are still about the same shape, maybe a little heavier but still two arms and legs, and a head on top (lol). Roads are about the same, still flat and go from point A to B. Round wheels still work better than square ones and gravity still works well for non-flying cars.

 

[Andrew1972]

You leave out that crash worthiness has drastically improved in vehicles over time.

 

[das_peikko]

- Variable Valve Timing
- Direct Fuel Injection
- Multiple Cylinder Deactivation

The above has ruined the reliability of passenger car engines.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by madRiver
You leave out that crash worthiness has drastically improved in vehicles over time.

That's a huge, and to me, vitally important point. About twenty years ago, I was involved with investigating a case in which a Geo Metro had gone "beek to beek" with an massive old Jeep Wagoneer on a country two-lane, both vehicles doing 60-70 mph. The Metro was unrecognizable as an automobile. The entire car was essentially smashed into its trunk. A family of four, Mom, Dad and two kids -- all dead. I'd pay a fair amount of money to erase the pictures of that from my mind. Body parts sticking out, severed heads, body fluids ooozing from improbable places on the ball of wreckage. And so on. Even the safest cars have ultimate limits, but they're so much better now. Check out the 2016 Prius wreck I highlighted in the on-going thread in this sub-forum. It's pretty remarkable how well the cars can now confine the crumpling/energy absorption to the parts of the structure NOT occupied by the humans.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by das_peikko
- Variable Valve Timing
- Direct Fuel Injection
- Multiple Cylinder Deactivation

The above has ruined the reliability of passenger car engines.




Has it?

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted by das_peikko
- Variable Valve Timing
- Direct Fuel Injection
- Multiple Cylinder Deactivation

The above has ruined the reliability of passenger car engines.

Personally, I'd leave VVT off that list. Sure, it may be more vulnerable if the owner fails to keep the oil changed, but I do, and haven't had the slightest problem with VVT. Between my several cars and my wife's Avalon, we've put 400k miles on VVT equipped cars. And the benefit VVT provides is substantial. I actually owned one of the first Toyota VVt V-6 cars, a 2003.5 Camry V-6. I had driven (not owned) several cars with the pre-VVt version of that V-6 (the 1MZ-FE), and the difference was HUGE. The non-VVt car was seriously, noticeably torque-deficient at low rpms, and that issue simply went away once they added VVt to the 1MZ. FWIW.

 

[xxch4osxx]

Originally Posted by ekpolk
Originally Posted by das_peikko
- Variable Valve Timing
- Direct Fuel Injection
- Multiple Cylinder Deactivation

The above has ruined the reliability of passenger car engines.

Personally, I'd leave VVT off that list. Sure, it may be more vulnerable if the owner fails to keep the oil changed, but I do, and haven't had the slightest problem with VVT. Between my several cars and my wife's Avalon, we've put 400k miles on VVT equipped cars. And the benefit VVT provides is substantial. I actually owned one of the first Toyota VVt V-6 cars, a 2003.5 Camry V-6. I had driven (not owned) several cars with the pre-VVt version of that V-6 (the 1MZ-FE), and the difference was HUGE. The non-VVt car was seriously, noticeably torque-deficient at low rpms, and that issue simply went away once they added VVt to the 1MZ. FWIW.


Definitely agree here.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted by NDL

A fair comparison would be a 1989 Civic versus a 2019 Civic, as there's quite a bit of price differentiation.


I'd leave this for the Honda fans but the 89 Civic had a better front suspension (wishbones vs struts) and rod-activated transmission that was a blast to drive. And it was smaller, lighter, and had a better glass greenhouse.

It was probably a little louder and a bunch less safe.

Back then they didn't have a full line of SUVs and trucks and had their engineers pay attention to the details of their smaller cars. The saturn s-series was cool because it was the only car they sold for 10 years and got all the love.

Go look inside a 1995 subaru legacy for example-- tons of nice touches, as it was their top of the line car then.

We are too rich now (or have access to too much credit) and the new cars now are totally stupid.