No I'm not talking about wives lol.

I dislike old automobiles. I feel bad for people that are stuck with them. I disagree with people that describe old vehicles as superior to newer ones. Older vehicles are "Gremlin-laden dinosaurs", as one wise man stated.

I'm starting this thread to start a conversation with everyone regarding aged vans.

How old is too old? At what point does time vs money become the deciding factor? Which of you values your time more than your money? Who values their money more than their time?

I drive my van 1,000 miles per week for my job. Downtime is expensive. It costs money to fix any problems, plus I'm not making money during downtime: it's double-dipping-expensive. Reliability is obviously very important to me. Some people maybe just stay in town and it wouldn't be a big deal to get stranded or have a big repair.

Everybody is different, but facts are facts. Parts wear out. Vans have lots of parts. That's lots of stuff to wear out. I'm not saying there's some magic number like, "at 12years old they're junk"... But at some point the gremlins are scratching their way out.

What do you all think?

 

I love old cars. And I believe new cars are better in most ways.

For me the cutoff age is roughly late 80s early 90s when OD transmission, decent electronic fuel injection, and AC became commonplace on domestics.

Downside for most newer cars is skating the fine line between efficient and tough. Transmissions are a great example. How can the same company that brought us the Powerglide, TH350, and TH400 also give us the TH700R4 and TH2004R crapboxes? (I'm a converted GM guy - I guess the C4/C6 vs AOD is similar). In the quest to make them as efficient as possible, the left out reliability and it had to be built back in either over time by the OEM or through the aftermarket.

And I absolutely hate flipping a switch asking a computer to turn on my headlights like most new cars...

My DD is a 90 Civic. The newest thing I drive regularly is the 97 van although we have an 05 minivan for my wife.

Since I drive cheaper cars, it's nice to have options/backups. If one is down for some reason, I don't have to fix it RIGHT NOW. Although I don't work out of them either so I just have to get to work. Using one for work changes the equation.

On the other hand, my dad worked out of his 67 Chevelle wagon for 25 years and 600000 miles. But he usually had a backup of some sort.

Used vans are cheap - maybe have a 2nd for a backup?

 

There is something to having one fuel line to the carb and one wire to the distributer
Especially if something breaks.

 

I think you are confusing people who cannot afford late model transportation and are "stuck" with older vehicles, with people who like vintage cars and trucks.

In fact, the more simple a vehicle is, it's easier and cheaper to get parts and make repairs, especially for the folks "stuck" with something older. Amortized over time, a vintage truck is cheap to buy, cheap to operate, cheap to insure.

Speaking of facts are facts:

Fact: "cash for clunkers" destroyed a huge number of good quality, affordable used cars. Notice the program was limited to vehicles 12 years old or newer (or something like that) Did that help any poor people? Hell no!

Modern cars with air bags alone represent a huge expenditure to have replaced and may total the car. ABS is another "gremlin prone" advancement that, while nice, is hardly a necessity to zip around town.

There's so much crap stuffed under the hood now it's just a nightmare. The labor charges for simple tasks like replacing a water pump or starter are off the chart now. The fact is personal transportation is rapidly moving out of reach for many young people.

 

I'll take a late model Super Duty E anytime, you trade guys not snapping up those white SD 350s from the big rental fleets for $18-22,000 are going to be sorry when their all gone................

 

That crap pi$$ed me off too.

 

My E250 was a Sears Fleet van. I wonder if it was a super duty?
How can you tell?

 

One dimension of the discussion is ability to repair on a DIY basis. To me old or new is less relevant than can I repair it. One, because it's a hobby; two, because I don't see the point in paying someone to do what I can. I have alternative vehicles and I can go a day or three without wheels and not starve. Older OBD is getting to be a pain now that I've gotten used to OBD II. Our next van will definitely have OBD II. There's no love lost on carbs and points Windsor vs modular is a coin toss to me at this stage so a '96 is as good as a '12.

Sixto
93 E150 Chateau 5.8 191K miles

 

The difference is, I bet a new econobox could be driven for what, 50,000 miles without ever raising the hood? Maybe more, so long as it wasn't an oil burner. People complain they can't work on their car anymore, but the good part is, they don't need to. The problem is, if you do, then you're boned.

Some of the advancements over the years were driven not so much because people couldn't perform basic maintenance, i would wager to say, but because they wouldn't. Brakes, for example. They used to require - get this - manual adjustment - every so often to stay in good working order. Poor brakes contributed to enough accidents that industry and NHTSA made improvements in systems so safety wasn't compromised in the case of neglect, or at least minimized.

Ignition points needed adjustment, spark plugs did not last too long either - tire blowouts were a regular fixture of driving, generator brushes needed replacing. Carburetors needed adjustment, etc I'm surprised anybody had time for driving. There's a reason there were auto repair shops on every corner back in the day. Today, not so much.

People today will still drive around without any brakes to speak of, it just takes longer. They can't do the work themselves, they can't come up with a few hundred bucks for rotors and pads and labor, I guess sometimes. Drive careful!

 

The EPA and the need for specialized, expensive tech had a large influence on that.

 

The increase in electronic control does pose an additional challenge for those thinking about maintaining their own vehicle. Perhaps I've had the good fortune to have seen the evolution from mechanical systems to electronic systems and so I have an advantage over someone just now considering maintaining their car and facing an electronic jungle, but all in all I do think the new systems are vastly superior to the old stuff. I think it just takes more effort to learn about the electronic systems and more abstract thinking to diagnose problems. It's a good thing to push the envelope .

As for the OP question of running new vs old, yeah we'll be running new stuff. The only question for business operators is the fact that vehicles drop so much value out the door. So running a vehicle maybe 2 years old might make sense since you can get into them for a lot less money and there isn't a big technology cost.

But going back further for instance - I can't imagine trying to deal with carburetors and distributors, Eff that trash. Electronic ignition COPS and multi-port/direct fuel injection are where it's at.

When it's a hobby and you want to roll some vintage, god bless ya. You can run that for your personal ride all day long. The reliability and economy isn't there for business operators though. Not to mention the tax incentives and the customer appeal of new.

 

i got the same 13 mpg in my 1972 chevy 1/2 ton truck as i did in my 1997 chevy 1/2 ton truck.

 

Actually business and fleet owners, government all maintain tens of thousands of ancient vehicles and vintage equipment. There are still multi-fuel deuce and a halfs from the 1950s in (some) the National guard units, Huey and Cobra choppers, and the B52 is still in service today, though the last one delivered was in 1962. Fire Departments maintain vintage Fords from decades ago. They might not be the primary fire truck, but they are still called upon to perform.

There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with a 50 or 75 year old truck. It just needs regular and preventive maintenance from competent mechanics. Just like - surprise! The new stuff! it remains to be seen moreover, whether today's wonder trucks will still be in service 50 or 60 years from today.

I detect a hint of some kind of "issue", noticeable even over the internet for someone to get all spooled up about this.

 

heres a test i challange you to do. take a old truck carburated version, and a new truck fuel injected version, get them in 100 percent functional operation. park them in a farmers field for 2 years.

now go to them same vehicles with a battery and a can of gas and see what one will start and drive out of that field.

simplicity = reliability.

 

Interesting points here but just to be clear my intent on the thread is for daily driven vehicles that are commonly seen on our roads today. That excludes most carburetors/points ignitions/ fire trucks/ aircraft/ military trucks.

I say if it's 10years old: time to cringe and look for something better. 15years- no way, not for me or my family.

And the only "issue" is that this conversation started on another thread and it seems interesting enough to make a thread. Besides that everyone there was disagreeing and name calling me, and the next level was probably to report me to moderators for hijacking a thread.

That aside, would you buy a 1998 model of your truck/van choice? With low mileage? I wouldn't touch it. 17years of heat, cold, heat cold heat cold heat cold, rain snow dirt dust, depreciation, abuse, poor maintenance, sun damage, oil leaks, probably overheating, low oil..... You get the idea. Same reason I buy DeWalt instead of Harbor Freight.

What about you guys ?