Do People Think That American Cars Were Better in the Past Than They Are Now?

I was born in 1946, making me 77 years old as I write this. The answer to the question is a resounding No.

Quality and Reliability

Some say that vehicles manufactured in the past were better because all manufacturing defects would be fixed by the time one reached 20,000 miles. This claim is no longer tenable. Modern cars offer unparalleled reliability and have advanced features that were not available in the past.

Personal Experience with Reliability Issues

My 1970 Toyota needed a new transmission at 50,000 miles, a tune-up every 6,000 miles, and the automatic transmission gear selector caused a fire due to rubbing wires.
My 1983 Chevy Caprice had a defective power seat at delivery. By 13,000 miles, the driver's side window fell into the window frame, the power steering pump failed, and other mechanical components went bad.
While the exhaust system components required almost routine maintenance, it was not uncommon to junk cars due to irreparable rusting of the car body.
Rainstorms led to many leaks in my cars.

These instances illustrate the less robust nature of vehicles from the past compared to today's standards.

Driveability and Maintenance

Rear-Drive vs. Front-Drive

When designing and manufacturing vehicles, the industry considers two key factors: cost and functionality. Rear-wheel-drive vehicles, like the 1971 Camaro that I drove for 13 years and raced for 8 years, offer pure driving enjoyment. In contrast, front-wheel-drive vehicles often come with more maintenance issues and higher costs.

Front-wheel-drive vehicles often require an overhead lift, which is costly for the mechanic to maintain. Modern induction systems are another way to drain the consumer's money. More expensive, unnecessary services can lead to frustration and financial strain. With my Mercury Villager, a transmission service was priced at $1,000 for induction, but I simply dropped the pan, cleaned, and refilled the transmission myself, achieving the desired results.

Clearly, rear-wheel-drive vehicles like the Camaro provide a more reliable and less expensive driving experience, aligning perfectly with the practicality of vehicle use.

Personal Preference: The Camaro vs. the Charger

The 1971 Camaro: This classic rear-wheel-drive vehicle never failed during 13 years of daily use and 8 years of racing. The Camaro needed no full electronic transmission service, and the check engine light never came on, nor did it enter limp mode, or have any traction control issues. Its reliability and longevity were unmatched. The 2006 Dodge Charger R/T with a 5.7 hemi engine: Despite its powerful engine, this car had multiple issues, including airbag malfunctions, shifting problems, and the failure of wheel bearings, tie rod ends, and sway bar links. Its high maintenance costs significantly outweighed its performance benefits.

Based on my experiences, the older Camaro clearly outperformed the newer Charger in every aspect, from driving enjoyment to long-term reliability and cost efficiency.

Conclusion

From personal experience, I can confidently assert that American cars of the past were not inherently better than those manufactured today. While some may argue that the past holds a special place in sentimental value, the practicality, performance, and reliability of today's cars far surpass those of the past. My preference for the Camaro over the Charger is not merely sentimental or nostalgic; it is grounded in a tangible comparison of performance and utility.