Go for a new car or customize a classic car

**basti08** · May 19th, 2006 05:54 PM

yup, old cars tigas kaha...tayo ang absorb ng impact.

it is the other way around with new cars.

**Alpha_One** · May 19th, 2006 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by arif_moin

What if you had 5,00,000-6,00,000 bucks to spend? Would you rather go for a new car or get an old classic car and customize it? There are some things I just HATE about modern cars (mid segment cars at least).

1. The body is weak as hell. A bike collision can dent most modern cars pretty badly.

2. Realistically, no modern car (for that price range) can last more than 3 years.

3. The luxury components (ex: A/C, seats) are VERY sub standard.

4. McPherson suspension system sucks. It just saves the manufacturer costs and doesn't benefit the consumer in any way.

5. The leg room even in the Ford Fiesta/ Ikon is very poor (for South Asian standards at least).

6. Most modern cars can't take town/ village roads. The ride is just horrible.

I honestly feel that most "mid segment" cars are just over-marketed gimmicks rather than a comfort adding utility. Anyone else feel this way out there???

Classic drawbacks:

1. If you drive a modern car, you won't be decapitated if your neck hits the steering wheel like you would if you drive a "classic" car.

2. Realistically, a classic car's gas tank only lasts for five minutes in stop-go traffic.

3. Sure, modern "luxury" is rubbish, but classic luxury doesn't work (except for the 8-track player... not that it would be useful in a "modern" setting).

4. Even with McPherson struts, the steering on modern cars actually work.

5. Not to mention that modern brakes actually stop your car. The reason why classic cars' sheet metal is so thick is because they serve the purpose of modern-day brakes (the "brakes" only slow you down so your "stop" when you hit the bus in front will be gentle).

6. Modern cars can't take village back roads, but classic cars can't take multi-storey parking lots. The steering and brakes don't work and if they did the car simply won't fit.

7. A spare part would cost as much as a second hand "modern" car.

8. Let's not forget that if something does get broken, your car will be disabled for an average of three months.

9. Foliage and wildlife slowly turn gray as your "classic" car passes by.

...and so on. You seem to be overly biased against modern cars, so I made a post for contrast.

I appreciate classic cars, but they (in the strictest sense) have so many drawbacks that make them impractical in today's heavy traffic and fuel prices.

**OTEP** · May 20th, 2006 11:12 PM

I guess 'classic' should be defined. For me, a W123 Mercedes is already a classic, yet it is still modern enough to be used as a daily driver. It has:
*Crumple zones
*Seatbelts
*Halogen headlamps
*Foglamps
*Impact absorbing steering column
*Power steering
*Airconditioning
*Four wheel independent suspension
*Four wheel disc brakes
*Modern tires

ABS, EBD, SRS and a whole bunch of other acronyms aren't exactly available on entry level 'modern' cars, too.

**russpogi** · July 6th, 2006 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by OTEP

I guess 'classic' should be defined. For me, a W123 Mercedes is already a classic, yet it is still modern enough to be used as a daily driver. It has:
*Crumple zones
*Seatbelts
*Halogen headlamps
*Foglamps
*Impact absorbing steering column
*Power steering
*Airconditioning
*Four wheel independent suspension
*Four wheel disc brakes
*Modern tires

ABS, EBD, SRS and a whole bunch of other acronyms aren't exactly available on entry level 'modern' cars, too.

Agree! I am actually contemplating to get a W123 myself! That car is simply gorgeous! :inlove: