New Caterham

[11Budlite]

Just for reference here's a copy of the original sales receipt for my '64 MGB which was sold in 1965. Base price was $2531, optional equipment $186.85, under coat $25, and tax and tags $25. Total: $2742.85. Also of note is the $842.85 that the original owner got in trade for his 1957 Jag XK140 coupe. Bet he wishes he had that one back!

[jimrankin]

When I was looking for the original dealer cost on some of the older sports cars I was struck by just how high the current pricing had gone on ALL older sports cars. What I paid "way back" for three used MGA's, a Morgan, a Jag and a first year SS/RS Camaro wouldn't get me a good Bug Eye now.

Part of it could be that they represent the cars of us older folks youth and we can afford to own them now, even at the inflated pricing, but more so I think it's something else.

Anyone can get a used "modern" sports car that is a more powerful, safer and better performing counterpart to much older cars that are now in the same or even much higher price range. From a practical standpoint one would seem a fool to want to put up with leaky tops and side curtains, heaters and defrosters that are all but worthless and so much noise you don't need the radio it didn't have anyway.

It might just be me, but I think a lot of the appeal is that you can not only understand all of the components that make up the car (no magic computer systems and 22 page wiring diagrams with symbols and values that look like they are for the space shuttle) but actually figure out what's wrong with simple tools and then fix it yourself.

I have no desire to even lift the hood of my 2011 Silverado (actually don't think I have yet and it's a year old) where as the first thing I did when buying cars in the late 60's through the late 70's was drool over the motors. When was the last time you walked into a dealership and saw a car on the showroom floor with the hood up? WOW! look at all the pretty plastic covers! LOL.

Don't get me wrong, modern cars with cruise control, anti-everything driving assist, turn by turn direction and XM radio make going place more comfortable and safer but they have taken a good bit of the "fun" out of the "getting there'. Driving coast to coast does not seem the adventure it once was, or maybe it is and it's just me. '66 GMC van towing a '61 MGA with not much more than gas money in my pocket and no worries because anything short of blowing a rod I could fix with my packed in the van tools and a cheap locally sourced part. Kid's doing that now probably face "if it stops running I hope there is a dealer close by and my creit card limit can get upped". On the other hand, they will be more comfortable and probably more likely to get there without anything actually breaking.

[Kitcat]

Jim:

 

Chances are you new Silverado is faster than your old MGA, gets better mileage and corners as well:). Or, if not, it's not that far off. And it does all the other stuff you note new cars do so well, include never break down and if it does, the warranty is a bit longer than on the old MGA's. Sometimes we can get carried away with the good old days and to me, today is as good as it has ever been for us car guys.

 

Mike M.

[Automoda]

But my point was that it should be possible to build that MGA today, but better. A cheap car that is good at what it aims to do. It would corner like a dream because we're smarter about suspension these days. The suspension is still the same welded and stamped steel, but we put the pivots in the right place (starting from a blank slate) and presto, it handles. All the stuff that sucked about old cars can be done properly. We have half a century of materials science and electronics and engineering. Making a roof that does not leak is not that tough. I just think our modern tech is being applied in such a way that it creates cars I do not want.

 

I admit the Miata is the best car on the market for my niche. I like the car. But styling wise its still a yawn. Its just small and well engineered but its not raw. And its also not a cheap car. I say I want to see a truly cheap, exciting, simple, unique looking sports car. But its illegal to make that today in America due to regulations.

[jimrankin]

The truck is WAY faster but the 2500HD fuel milage and cornering are not up to the old MGA's.

Your right, todays cars are wildly better than cars from the 50's and 60's and I have no problem with all the things the MINI, BMW and Silverado do to make my life easier. But with the possible exception of the MINI with the electronics turned off I don't "enjoy" driving any of them anywhere near as much as I enjoyed the raw fun of an MGA on a twisty two lane back road. Yes, my friends with Z06's, 911's and a host of other fast new cars can do it much quicker than any MG/Healy/Jag from the 60's but to get to the same "driving at the limit" feeling and required constant corrections they have to get some serious speed going.

Maybe it was the non-power assisted steering and brake "feel" and the old tire compounds that squealed like a pig at almost any hard input that made it feel so fast (when it probably wasn't) and so good, don't know. Maybe it is that the cars are so good now that you do need to get to really dangerous speeds to have them reach their limit and bring your heart rate up.

[escondidoron]

About 25 years back one of the routes to/from my place of employment allowed for a very nice scenic and often times spirited drive of approximately 25 miles.

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=North+County+Fair+Shopping+Center,+Escondido,+CA&daddr=33.0423238,-117.1458689+to:32.97911,-117.20679+to:32.92433,-117.20942+to:Vista+Sorrento+Pkwy&hl=en&sll=32.9855,-117.12932&sspn=0.260335,0.463486&geocode=FeWe-AEdUbcF-SH88D8kbAPMuw%3BFZMv-AEd9H4E-SmJk31Nd_bbgDGWkKJZVCEDpQ%3BFaY49wEd-pAD-Smjxih3QwjcgDH6NJWKJwFCWg%3BFapi9gEdtIYD-Slpdft9ugfcgDHF53CAeWSe3Q%3BFTwT9gEdbFID-Q&mra=dvme&mrsp=2&sz=11&via=1,2,3&t=m&z=11

 

At the time I owned the following cars:

'62 Falcon Futura 170 6-cyl 4-speed

'67 MGB-GT

'65 Chevelle SS w/ a 350 4-speed

'80 Corolla wagon 4-speed

'70 Porsche 914 (1.7L)

'84 Dodge Caravan 2.2L 5-speed

 

All of the cars were in good condition and set up for enthusiatic driving (i.e the V8 cars weren't drag strip cars, had decent tires, brakes & shocks). At some point I decided to determine which one was the fastest, i.e. best handling. I typically went in to the office early in the morning, arriving by about 6:00 am, so traffic wasn't an issue on the drive. Over the course of a summer I recorded times for each on multiple occasions (about 5 time each as I recall) and made an average. I didn't keep the hand made spread sheet but I do remember the relative results.

 

Anyone care to guess which was the quickest?

Edited February 19, 2012 by escondidoron
corrected the map

[lucky dawg]

Anyone care to guess which was the quickest?

 

Tough call, but I'll go with the Chevelle for the acceleration or the Caravan for the braking.

[jimrankin]

"on paper" the 914 should win hands down. The small motor isn't going to be too much of a problem if the roads were as good for "spirited" driving as you say. The 914 might have been a "VW in a sardine can" as it's Porsche purist detractors called it but they didn't knock it's turn and stopping ability. If your getting off from a bunch of stop lights and too much straight road it's going to be too slow.

[escondidoron]

The ranking came in as follows, slowest to quickest:

'62 Falcon Futura 170 6-cyl 4-speed

'67 MGB-GT

'65 Chevelle SS w/ a 350 4-speed

'80 Corolla wagon 4-speed - tie

'84 Dodge Caravan 2.2L 5-speed - tie

'70 Porsche 914 (1.7L)

 

Note that the Corolla wagon and the Caravan were pretty much a dead heat. But the Caravan was actually more entertaining to drive than the Corolla (i.e. the Corolla was just boring while the Caravan required attention from the driver, not to mention a lot more body roll). In fact, from a fun to drive perspective, the Corolla came in last place. But from a practical automotive appliance point of view it was near the top and 2nd only to the Caravan because of it's greater utility.