On 06/06/2010 10:37 AM, wrote:
On Jun 6, 10:07�am, Steve wrote:
On 6/5/2010 9:06 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:





On 06/05/2010 09:37 PM, wrote:
On Jun 5, 3:53 pm, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 03:45 PM, wrote:

On Jun 5, 11:08 am, Nate wrote:
On 06/05/2010 09:23 AM, wrote:

On Jun 4, 10:42
That said, I'd still feel way safer in, say, an 80's
Mercedes-Benz or
Porsche than I would in a new tin can. There's a big difference in
quality...

nate

did you see the planned crash of a 60 bel air, and a 2009 malibu.

It was a '59, and yes. What a waste, I've driven cars that looked
worse
than the one they destroyed.

the malibu driver would of walked away the old belair driver would of
died several times over. building new vehiclews to crush and absorb
the impact is really great engineering

Sure, but a car only ten years newer would have had three point
belts, a
collapsible steering column, dual circuit brakes, side marker lights,
etc. etc. etc... and a '69 is way on the thin end of the bell curve as
far as cars that are likely to still be used as daily drivers today. A
'79, still on the thin end of the bell curve, would have side impact
door beams in addition to all the other stuff.

My personal vehicles are a '55, and '88, and a '93 and I don't feel
particularly unsafe in any of them, although the '55 does require a
certain amount of respect. Proper maintenance and repair at the first
sign of trouble is far more important than worrying about safety
features that God willing will never be used. Likewise, I'd consider
good tires, good shocks/struts, and properly maintained base brakes to
be more fundamental to safety than ABS or ESC, although a lot of
people
seem not to think of that.

remember any K&T install today is likely over a 100 years old. so it
missed all the advances along the way......

I'm not arguing the point that the best way to deal with K&T is to
replace it at the first sign of trouble. I'm just saying that buying a
"new car for increased safety" is likely a bad deal, unless you're
*planning* on wrecking.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Well a new car tends to be safer more conveient and more reliable.

I have not found this to be the case. If anything, when something goes
wrong with an older car I usually know exactly what it is, how to fix
it, and have the tools to do the job right. Not so much with a newer
car.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to
reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You ever tried getting parts for a 50 or 100 year old car?

Not the latter, but I do the former all the time.

Which is, of course, not what we're talking about. Most "old" cars still
in daily use are only 15-20 years old at most.

nate

Ihave a 50+ year old truck and i really don't remember the last time it
NEEDED a part. �Hmmmmm.....

steve

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

my best friend has a 66 jeep and 68 impala. he cant take either
vehicle more than 100 miles from home free towing because parts and
service arent easily available.

truly older vehicles broke more, but were far easier to fix

What model Jeep? I might be willing to take that old, unreliable POS
off his hands

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel