The Plane Has Crashed Into The Mountain: Are Cars That Much Better Than They Used To Be?

In the world of automobiles this week there is only one three letter word that can sum up what exactly went down. It was bad.

Watching the snowballing Toyota mess continue to worsen and then Honda comes out with nearly 650,000 vehicle recall for the Fit/Jazz, things just seem to be mucked up pretty good.

The thing about these recalls is that they are for serious matters. If a car company messes up a bit of trim, that peels under heat, that is one thing. It is a total disaster if something as important as the brakes go and the car becomes a two ton metal battering ram. This is not medieval times.

To quote The Big Lebowski: "The goddamn plane has crashed into the mountain!"

It was not too long ago many in the biz were lauding over how cars have come so far and now most cars are reliable. Were we wrong? Cars are torching themselves and carelessly accelerating. This all begs a question...

Are cars really that much better than they used to be?

Originally, I believed that autos had come a long way but all this recall hubbub has me thinking otherwise. Don't get me wrong, there will ALWAYS be recalls. It just seems as of late, things have gotten very bad very fast.

What say you, Spies? We want to know.

Let us know in the comments below...


2011 BMW 335iS Photo Gallery

2011 BMW 5-Series Photo Gallery

2010 Detroit Auto Show Photo Gallery

AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries

If you want to see your photos running on our homepage photo ticker, be sure to upload your photos on the go by sending them to Mobile@AutoSpies.com

Share on Facebook
 

kuvakas1 - 1/29/2010 10:27:58 PM

+11 Boost

Cars ARE better than they used to be. They last longer and require less maintenance. Still, they are manufactured by makers that are trying to keep expenses down but reliability up and that is a dangerous balancing act to maintain particularly in a down world economy. The great irony here is that the worst recall have been announced by the two largest manufacturers who built their reputations on initial build quality.

Teh business is cyclical. This was bound to happen as Toyota and Honda grabbed for larger and larger shares of the market and greater and great diversity in their products. BMW would do well to pay close attention to what's happening.

Airliner - 1/30/2010 3:46:32 AM

0 Boost

You are not the easiest of clearest blogger to follow on this site. It seems however, that you have identified your reason for not visiting Autospies anymore. We'll keep our obsessions and you can keep your silly comments. Oh, yeah... Bye!!

BondMI6 - 1/30/2010 12:59:29 AM

+4 Boost

Agree with Kuvakis- Both Honda and Toyota quality (not dependability necessarily) has gone down to cut costs so that now many American cars have the same or very near the same quality (not dependablity though).

That being said, yes cars are generally better than they use to be. Case in point-remember the 1992 Ford Explorer Firestone tire disaster?
Nuff said.

upwards - 1/30/2010 1:48:51 AM

+3 Boost

Have to disagree here even in terms of dependabilty even a lowly Suzuki is not far from Toyota its not like auto technology from maker to maker is that far apart and many of them co developed cars together especialy with American brands and parts so Americans are doing something right here and have come a long way since the 90's.

XYZZ - 1/30/2010 9:12:40 AM

-1 Boost

haha! if you check the OWNER REPORTED repair records that CR publishes, you'll see a HUGE GAP between toyota and suzuki. the only brand that even comes close to toyota is honda. trailed by ford. then gm, with chrysler also far behind.

of course, with the recent hullabaloo about gas pedals, some would question whether toyotas are still the MOST reliable. but the fault here derived from RUNAWAY FLOORMATS, and bad american made pedal assemblies.
both were relativey RARE occurences, but compounded with idiot drivers who don't know how to shift to N, the publicity is WAY OVERblown.

XYZZ - 1/31/2010 2:57:39 AM

0 Boost

1uaw-

nope. there are actually several measures. and ALL show toyota FAR AHEAD of everyone else.

the more commonly known, lists 14 problem areas, and 8 model years. within that grid are red dots (good) and black dots (bad) and white (average). toyota and honda charts are full of red, with a few white, and almost NO blacks. even out to the OLDEST models.

fords rate best among domestics. gm and chryco charts are RIFE with black marks.

these charts are in just about all CR publications that rate cars. take a look. and the database covers 1.4 MILLION vehicles.

Joe_Limon - 1/30/2010 1:57:09 AM

0 Boost

I disagree, with a single kick you can pop off a corolla bumper, it's just clipped on. I much prefer the cars back in the days that used metal body panels everywhere. That and replacement parts were cheap without being flimsy!

rxh8me9000 - 1/30/2010 5:28:33 AM

0 Boost

I agree with Joe. I feel a lot more comfortable behind a thick metal body than i do in todays cars.Whether they are safe or not,they feel safe. They have less parts,less electrical,simple engines and simple transmissions which means less parts to go wrong and can hit a wall and not get a dent.Of course I prefer cars from today,but if im going to get a winter car or a beater ill take something like a old school corolla,civic or like a 88 Jeep that i use to have that was pretty bulletproof.

XYZZ - 1/30/2010 8:56:03 AM

+1 Boost

rxh8--

you make a common error in believing 'heavier is safer.' i live on a hill, and when it gets slick every winter, it is nearly ALWAYS the heavier vehicle (trucks, suvs, old school big sedans) which lose it on the curves. and even BETWEEN curvy sections.

lighter vehicles are far superior in ROADHOLDING and AVOIDING mishaps.
with modern crush zone designs and airbags, there is also NO LONGER any disadvantage that lighter vehicles would have in actual collisions.

Joe_Limon - 1/30/2010 12:00:47 PM

0 Boost

Those metal clad cars weren't necessarily heavier than the ones that are made today. My 1986 thunderbird was a boat! fully loaded with power everything and metal body panels, yet it still only weighed in at 3400lbs

Joe_Limon - 1/30/2010 12:02:23 PM

0 Boost

Also 1UAW, I don't really care about mileage, I'd much prefer an original 7mpg muscle car as a daily driver then a new 23mpg muscle car.

Joe_Limon - 1/31/2010 3:24:39 AM

+1 Boost

1. The Classic one looks better
2. They lack gizmos and modern driving inhibitors such as abs and traction control, giving the driver a better understanding of the car and forcing them to pay attention to the road.
3. They don't depreciate
4. They can be fixed in my garage
5. I don't need to worry about shattering my body panels if they get hit as is common with plastic body panels, especially during the winter.
6. I don't believe in global warming.

These are the only downsides I see to driving a classic vehicle.
1. Parts availability depends on the popularity of the vehicle.
2. Spending a bit more on gas
3. Depending on the vehicle, may not handle as good, this however is easily solved with modern suspension upgrades. And face it, if you are going to be spending the time restoring a classic car, you might as well give it independent suspension and sway bars.

XYZZ - 1/30/2010 9:02:30 AM

+2 Boost

cars ARE much better today. unquestionably.

however, they are also far more COMPLEX. so there is the small negative (more things can go wrong) along with the BIG plus (whole new areas of improved technology).

most notable improvement: more powerful engines that ALSO GET better mileage!

Joe_Limon - 1/30/2010 12:07:23 PM

+1 Boost

In 1984 you could order a 1.5L Honda CRX in Japan with 100hp that weighed less than 2000lbs and it got 34/50mpg.

downtoearth - 1/30/2010 1:30:24 PM

+2 Boost

— Joe_Limon:

> In 1984 you could order a 1.5L Honda CRX in Japan with 100hp that
> weighed less than 2000lbs and it got 34/50mpg.

Please, STOP! This CRX would FALL APART IN ANY CRASH TEST! Any car of its time would!

Have you ever heard about any safety requirements?? Frontal offset crash tests, side impact crash tests, rear impact crash tests, roof crush crash tests, pole impact side crash tests? Dude, please wake up and stop talking nonsense.

I'm honestly fed up with plaques of Internet people permanently repeating the canard of how cars of olden days were efficient. The cars:
- offered very little passive safety
- suffered from much higher NVH (noise, vibration, harshness)
- were noticeably slower, less responsive, had much less power in low rev band and were clunkier

Lemon, you apparently decided to repeat and spread every possible factoid about motoring.

dotuno - 1/30/2010 10:31:05 AM

+3 Boost

Cars today are more fuel-efficient, luxurious, sophisticated, refined, computerized (hence more complex, tiny parts), etc.

But (physically) more durable, they are not. Many components today are plastic, fiberglass, lighter metal, etc. It makes components cheaper and lighter (which itself contributes to better fuel efficiency), but sacrifices the ruggedness compared to older cars. Also, many cars today crumple MORE in collisions. Better protects the passengers no doubt, but the ruggedness of the body must be sacrificed for this.

Put in perspective: several cars from the 70s and 80s still run today (without any special restoration often done with older classics). What are the chances that a car today will still run in 2030?

It's not only cars, though: many TVs, radios, and general appliances still work from 10, 15, 20 years ago. Many today are considered durable that can run for 5 years.

To solve the question: ram a car from the 80s or early 90s against one from today of same size and type.

downtoearth - 1/30/2010 1:33:00 PM

+3 Boost

Please note that a lot of handling improvement in modern cars comes from much wider tires installed as standard.

Back in 80s 195 tires were considered enough for vehicles with sportier attitude. Now everything more powerful rides on some 225 if not more.

XYZZ - 1/31/2010 3:08:38 AM

+2 Boost

which also compromises mileage, altho' cornering improves. if one does NOT corner fast, skinny tires on today's econoboxes could yeild phenomenal mileage. the cars would also benefit much if put on a diet.
(but few would give up their modern a/c and electronic toys.)

the claims of high mileage with older cars were due to their being MUCH lighter. and having skinny tires.