Old car VS new car

Every C-body my father bought, he would drive away from the showroom and never once have to go back to the dealer.
After 3 years and a 100k, they were handed down to me in 100% perfect working condition. Didn't even burn a drop of oil.
That's when everything started failing. :soapbox:
My father was smarter than I gave him credit for....
 
I wouldn't trade my 09 Challenger (metric) for a fleet of 70 Hemi Cudas.

I really did laugh at this post; sorry, but, it really sounds stupid; if you DID have the option to trade an o9 challenger for a "fleet" of 70 Hemi Cudas,,, you could sell or auction off each 70 cuda for 100,000 in one second, 1,000,000 in one day, or maybe more if you had a week to prepare (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1062590_1970-plymouth-hemi-cuda-for-sale-3200000) you could get 3,000,000!

How many 09 challengers could you turnaround and buy (if you really wanted another one) with 1,000,000? Wow,,, someone here is not up on modern car prices, OR doesn't understand the principles of basic economics - maybe you just don't want money. Who knows.
 
Last edited:
I really did laugh at this post; sorry, but, it really sounds stupid; if you DID have the option to trade an o9 challenger for a "fleet" of 70 Hemi Cudas,,, you could sell or auction off each 70 cuda for 100,000 in one second, 1,000,000 in one day, or maybe more if you had a week to prepare (http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1062590_1970-plymouth-hemi-cuda-for-sale-3200000) you could get 3,000,000!

How many 09 challengers could you turnaround and buy (if you really wanted another one) with 1,000,000? (That's just selling ONE 70 Hemi Cuda,,, not a "fleet"). Wow,,, someone here is not up on modern car prices, OR doesn't understand the principles of basic economics - maybe you just don't want money. Who knows.

I think someone took the post a little too literate. I'm sure he meant he prefers driving his '09 Challenger daily as opposed to a '70 HEMI 'cuda and wouldn't trade the '09 for that purpose for '70 HEMI 'cudas for the same purpose. This thread isn't about financial value, rather convenience and drivability on a daily basis.
 
Ya, I may have been a little agitated at the time, after reading all the different points of view on this thread, and seeing things from both sides,,, but it’s comments like this that people make that shows just how ignorant, or maybe more like stubborn some people can be. I believe that the majority of people these days are brainwashed into thinking that ‘todays’ cars are BETTER than yesteryears,,, (old vs new). I am also glad to know there are some people who do know better (Edison, MrMoparCHP, Marion, Patrick66…).
Now any of you can take this as face value,,, or take it as a grain of salt (for that’s what this really is) or, don’t take it at all. But I am a Mechanical Engineer with a long history of studying cars as a hobby. I have been a prototype designer in the automotive industry, and have also done military truck design including the framework of ‘new’ (brand new) heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks. I have heard it all; from corporate Engineers and CEO’s to back-woods hillbilly mechanics, about the pro’s & con’s of just about anything ‘modern’ to everything ‘old’. What every one of you is missing, is that “NEW” does not instantly mean “modern” OR in other words, the pieces of crap cars that they are manufacturing TODAY by all the BIG NAME auto makers.

EVERYTHING was ‘nice’ when it was “NEW”. When you buy a new car today, yes, it seems…….”nice”. Did everyone forget that the ‘old cars’ were “nice” when they were new? Sure, every new car BETTER feel nice; nice ride, handle nice, with no noises squeaks or rattles,,, no rust (besides being all cheap plastic these days). When things get old, it’s only natural that there is going to be something needing work, maintenance, or repair, sometimes even replaced. Same with “old cars” – you can NOT say that old cars are not as good because they need things, or aren’t as good as the newer ones because they don’t have modern crap like USB ports, cameras to see where you’re backing up instead of turning your body and looking back, or having 8 or more computers making constant changes instead of getting under the hood with a feeler gage once in a while to adjust the dwell yourself, or adjust the timing when you want to race someone (and again to put it back when you want to take a long road trip). If anyone here really wants to know what “modern technology” REALLY is, read on, otherwise stop reading right now.

Modern technology in auto manufacturing is this: “How can we make it more expensive to fix? How can we make it very hard for the owner to work on it? How can we make it so the parts can not be maintained but would rather have to be entirely replaced? How can we get more money for the parts that need to be replaced? How can we make sure that they do not last TOO long, but rather get people to have to buy another NEW car? How can we make certain items so hard to get to, that the cost of repairing it would be so high that it’s not even worth fixing (…so they would rather go buy another new car). How can we stop people from checking their own transmission fluid (so by the time it has a problem, it’s too late to save it)? How can we make it so complicated, or have to have special tools, that the owner would rather take it to the dealer to work on?

Todays cars HAVE changed since they found out that cars could last over a million miles; no lie – there are records of American cars and trucks getting that many miles. My cousin has a ’97 dodge caravan with over 400,000 miles on the clock and still runs strong. The auto manufactures want you to keep buying new cars, but if they last too long, people won’t buy as many, simple as that. Believe me, I know that there are teams of engineers dedicated to answering the questions I listed above in just about every auto company, and they get paid big bucks to come up with these ideas; let’s take the dip stick away so people would have to bring their ‘new’ Challengers into the dealer to get the fluid checked; lets install a plastic gear that rides on the shaft of the transmission to tell the computer to ‘run’ that is engineered to last only about ten years, so that after that time, it becomes brittle and breaks so that the computer detects it, and goes into ‘emergency mode’ and will only give the driver 1[SUP]st[/SUP] gear (enough to get off the freeway or at least be able to drive it to the dealer very slowly) and also lets put that little plastic gear deep inside the trans so that the transmission would have to be pulled out in order to disassemble the entire assembly to replace this $5 part, making the total charges of labor so ridiculously high, that it exceeds the blue book value; let’s also change the bearing assemblies to ball bearings so they wear out faster, and let us also press-fit these ball bearings together so that they cannot be repacked by anyone, but rather would have to be let go until they need to be replaced, and while we’re at it, we can design it so that the ENTIRE HUB has to be replaced when the bearings wear out, that way we can make MUCH MORE money selling hub assemblies for $80 to $120, instead of like the old cars, where if, Heaven forbids, someone failed to maintain their car by repacking the “old fashion” roller bearings (that can last more than 100,000,000 miles!) every few years, that actually only cost less than $10! We can also make suspensions so damn complicated and overly sophisticated that they actually work against itself and eventually wear out, and we can remove the grease zerks from the ball joints also so that no one can grease them and be assured they will wear out faster, and have to be replaced much sooner; And that’s not even the start of it! These engineers have started to design the suspensions so that the components are working at severe angles or cantilevered so bad to create more moment (torque) onto the friction bond ball bearings, bushings, and ball joints to make them all wear harder and faster yet. The age of making a product last as long as possible is gone!

People, they have thousands of tricks to make anything ‘new’ feel great to drive, reliable (up to a pre-determined amount of time; usually until the warranty runs out), and smell nice and new, and “entertain” the driver with all sorts of features that in MY opinion is dangerous, especially these touch screen radios that makes the driver remove their eyes from the road to change the channel etc. And I believe that if anyone can not park their own car, should NOT be driving! Computers that hit the brakes when it THINKS there is something in front of the car is NOT safe; every computer WILL fail, and every computer WILL malfunction eventually: just that no one knows when – will it be when someone is driving down the freeway at 75 miles an hour with car loads of human life behind then and it decides to slam on the brakes? What if a bird flies in front of the car and the computer slams on the brakes? Are the people behind that car driving a car that will do the same, or will they slam into the back of the “new car”, and cause a chain reaction of bent steal and death? I KNOW what is going on behind the walls of these “new” auto manufacturers! It’s scary to think that no one cares, or that they want all the new toys and be noticed in their “new” high-dollar expensive cars like they’re better than the guy driving an “OLD” car; they might be embarrassed when the sexy blond drives past them in her brand new Lexus – I think it’s a shame that people have to maintain their status rather than their pocket book.

People say, “old cars nickel and dime you to death!” YES! They are right! The cost of my parts are a dime compared to the new cars. I say, “I would much rather stick a nickel or dime into my old car once in a while than to pay $300 dollar car payments every month!” How can anyone justify paying that kind of money on a car, every month? Since this is a Mopar forum, most of you would have to agree that oldER cars share many of the same parts through many different years. I can interchange most engine parts and even drivetrain parts between my 68 Plymouth Satellite and my 90 Dodge Ramcharger 4X4!!! Yes, even the same u-joints in the drive shafts! Thirty years, and a 2 wheel drive car uses the same parts as a 4 wheel drive truck? THAT’S WHAT MAKES PARTS CHEAP, stocking less parts vs. a different one for every year makes a huge difference to. Water pumps, oil pumps master cylinders are CHEAP compared to ANYTHING “new”. I had to buy a new master cylinder for my 73 Polara, (41 years after she was built), and it only cost me $20 brand new from O’reilly’s! (I looked up for a 2009 Dodge Challenger= $120!!!).

I’m not sure if I got my point across or not yet, there’s so much I could say, but seriously, if they, or anyone, made the exact same car from the 70’s again today, it would be nice J and ****, you can have your USB port to! I have one in my 73 Polara! By the way, I have 400 cubic inches that makes 400+ HP and I can still get 32 miles to a gallon of gas, when I want to, because I know how to drive for mileage! It has so much power, that I practically IDLE around town! NO ONE needs to “floor it”, but if I do, I get about 6 miles to the gallon. I have a ’97 Mercury Grand Marquise (daily driver for $3,000) and I have “trained it” to give me 33 miles to the gallon by the way I drive, using as little throttle as I have to. The key to better gas mileage incase no one knows, is to keep your throttle plates as CLOSED as possible even during acceleration – if your car can do 55 at 1/16 throttle, it has enough power to get you up to that speed also at the same position! The only problem is that everyone is in WAY TOO BIG of a hurry to be patient and spend an extra minute or two to get up to speed. They would rather pay another dollar or two a gallon for gas. Supply and demand! Everyone is demanding more fuel by driving like raped-apes these days and now I have to pay more for a gallon of gas. I do what I can to conserve, (because I have to!!!) while everyone else is sucking it up faster and faster. I use to drive hard, and I love the feeling of 0-60 in 6 seconds, but I can’t afford to do that every time I take off, but other people who can afford $30,000 car payment can! Those people make it expensive for the rest of us. The need for speed! They DID have carburetor designs back in the 70’s that could get 70 to a 100 miles per gallon I hope you know (the oil companies & automakers bought the patents)! I also hope you all know that with todays ‘computers’ they could easily program them to get that also, but guess who owns most of the stock in the auto manufactures??? Could the big oil companies be investing in them? Would they? Why would a company invest in stock of a company that makes things that USE their product? Would it be to have say in the matter of what the fuel economy of these machines might get? Would they pull their money out if they decided to make a vehicle that hardly used ANY of their product? Would they put more money in their stock if they made products that used more of their product?

I’m almost done! My last point is this: conditions are different than they were 60 or even 40 years ago, roads are smother, no wash board gravel pot holed roads mean= lest wear n tear on a vehicles suspension, and body. Engine Oils are much better than ever, and gear lube/greases are way better than ‘back in the day’,,, the addition of oil filter and even air filters around the thirties helped a lot to get more mileage out of a car!!! Point is, if an old car could be manufactured again today with the MUCH better tooling and precise accuracy of the machining technology that we DO HAVE today,,, wow, could you imagine how long they would last? Now think about how long a new modern car (design) would last, if the tolerances on all the machined parts were as they were back then (not very good), made with plastic instead of steel where ever possible, and then drive them on these washboard gravel roads and running the poorest quality oils and lubes available; then think about how long a QUALITY built and designed car of the thirties would last if it was machined with all the latest hi-tech tooling that we have today, and synthetic oils, much better filters, better tires (and balancing) , and smooth as silk freeways like we have nowadays. Makes you think. Everything new IS better! That’s not to say the DESIGNS are better, or even that they will last longer, no, todays designs are getting worse and worse, not to mention more n more scary -they are deceiving all the rich people into thinking about buying a new car. You can take anything that is available today, and put it use on an “old car” if that would inflate your bubble.

THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ASK YOUR SELVES. Ford has been asking all of you lately, “Are you ready to get floored?” Ecoboost my ***!

Hope i didn't burst anyone's bubble, just stating the facts.
Bandit
 
Thank you for your post. Admittedly, I did not read the entire post so if my comments were addressed later in your post, I apologize. For the benefit of argument, I will use the modern HEMI engine and my '64 GTO as examples to my point. The generation of HEMI's that started appearing in Chrysler vehicles around 2006 is "modern" by your definition. It is amazing to m that engineers could design and build a 370hp, 395 ft lb of torque motor that gets 23 MPG on the highway and runs on 89 octane fuel. All the while, meeting today's tough emissions standards (especially tough here in CA). They are also built to last way past the 100,000 mark with lifetime powertrain and 100,000 mile warranties offered. That sir, is modern technology at work.

On to the next. You say that the car builders of today are building cars with one of the purposes being a predetermined shelf life. I hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure this is not a new way of thinking. Let's look at my '64 GTO. It's been common knowledge that when cars of this vintage reached the 100,000 mile mark, the motor was tired, needing a rebuild. Most people would trade their used car in on a new car. It's been the way of life ever since the car became mainstream. Mechanicals aside, the automakers of yesteryear did nothing to protect the sheet metal from the elements, thus the rust issues all us car guys deal with on our project cars. By contrast, I traded my '07 Charger with 120,000 miles of trouble free use for a '12 Charger because I wanted a new one. Someone got themselves a really good used car, I would wager, will go for another 120,000 without incident. It is my feeling that the new cars of today (for the most part) are built with a longer shelf life that those of the '60's or '70's.
 
Have to agree with rexus31. My 68 Mustang needed a rebuild by 117,000 miles at the latest. My 86 Mazda engine called it quits at 375,000 miles. That Mazda could run rings around the Mustang and get almost triple the gas mileage. My 2004 Focus can run rings around the Mazda and then some. Both are fun cars but the Mustang is for cruising while the Focus, as I said, takes 35 mph curves at 60 as though it were on tracks so naturally I love curves. Now these cars I remember for daily driving as I did that in 1969 with them. However, the roads were different, the traffic less, and all the cars the same. Today the cars are quicker in many respects so driving an old car is like taking brass knuckles to a gun fight.
 
I think some of you missed my point; what i was saying is that with the "advanced technology" of the tooling & machining capabilities that manufacturers have these days, it is logical that every single part produced BETTER be 'better' today than they 'could have' made them (mass producing) back in the 60's and 70's etc. The machines that made the parts back then, were not as good as they are today, and THAT'S why you see engines and cars getting more mileage on them; not because they are "designing the car" any better.

The entire thing some of you seem to be missing is that it's because of the lower costs of machining the material (engine parts or suspension or transmissions...) of the parts today, make it easier for them to be more ACCURATE to the engineered tolerance that make for a more smoother operating machine (or car), and the entire issue, or subject of disagreement, is in the modern capabilities vs the early capabilities that were available 40 plus years ago.

It's not the cars that are better, it's the machines that make them, that are better today. Do you understand now? A good machinist who knows what they are doing, can re-build that 68 mustang's motor, to the exact specs called out by the inventor, (this was not the case in 68 - they were Slammed together fast, by hand, with tolerance specs that were not even close to what was originally designed; but with a wide tolerance range) and the same motor would last as twice as long if not much more than the original equipment. TODAY, EVERYTHING 'can be' made better, because of the tooling and machining ability AND robotics are MUCH more consistent than human labor - that alone makes the cars of today work better for longer, it's not the design of the components that make them work better for longer.
 
By the way,,, my 73 Dodge Polara has buried many ford fucus's,,,, and many other 'turbo charged junk'. The speed AND handling of her at 160 mph is incredible! And smooth as silk, even with all the windows down, with 5 guys in it, and room for everyone's luggage in the truck, plus 10 cases of beer & full-length fishing poles and two tents... The 400 can cruise at 120 with 1/4 throttle all day and not even break a sweat, and when i floor it at 120, it actually sets everyone's heads back as she 'accelerates'. But even with all that, she still is not my most favorite car i ever had: that would have been my 68 Plymouth Fury 4 door that i got for free, and that i got running with all spare parts from around my garage - It only had a 318 and it still kicked as on the freeway and dropped many a smirks to slack-jaws as i past them by after they laughed at my rusty old car ( i miss that car-no worries in the world).
 
I'd like to find a totaled late-model challenger with a pentastar V6 and remove the complete suspension and drive train to put in my 62 Valiant...THAT would be my daily driver! Just dreaming, of course.
 
I think some of you missed my point; what i was saying is that with the "advanced technology" of the tooling & machining capabilities that manufacturers have these days, it is logical that every single part produced BETTER be 'better' today than they 'could have' made them (mass producing) back in the 60's and 70's etc. The machines that made the parts back then, were not as good as they are today, and THAT'S why you see engines and cars getting more mileage on them; not because they are "designing the car" any better.

The entire thing some of you seem to be missing is that it's because of the lower costs of machining the material (engine parts or suspension or transmissions...) of the parts today, make it easier for them to be more ACCURATE to the engineered tolerance that make for a more smoother operating machine (or car), and the entire issue, or subject of disagreement, is in the modern capabilities vs the early capabilities that were available 40 plus years ago.

It's not the cars that are better, it's the machines that make them, that are better today. Do you understand now? A good machinist who knows what they are doing, can re-build that 68 mustang's motor, to the exact specs called out by the inventor, (this was not the case in 68 - they were Slammed together fast, by hand, with tolerance specs that were not even close to what was originally designed; but with a wide tolerance range) and the same motor would last as twice as long if not much more than the original equipment. TODAY, EVERYTHING 'can be' made better, because of the tooling and machining ability AND robotics are MUCH more consistent than human labor - that alone makes the cars of today work better for longer, it's not the design of the components that make them work better for longer.

I understand your point but I will leave you with this. The MDS system in the 375hp, 395 ft lb of torque 5.7L HEMI, which makes 23-25 MPG possible on the highway, has nothing do do with better machining. That sir, is modern technology at work. You can't really argue that. I will agree, machining has gotten much, much better and the tools at the engineers hands are better as well. That is modern technology at as well. To refute your statement in your initial post, new cars simply aren't "new" cars. They are modern because of the modern technology behind their development and build.
 
I've never bought a new car and don't think I ever will. Why be the one to take that immediate depreciation hit? I've been so long without a car payment for a daily driver that I couldn't imagine having one again. The thought of driving something that I'm still paying for over these deplorable Michigan roads and through the long *** winters just doesn't make sense to me. Bandit? I'm totally picking up what you're laying down across the board but don't pick on Stormer for some of his one liners, most are delivered as kindling for his own entertainment and all have some sort of cryptic truth to them.
 
Expectations are different now than from back then.
The product has CHANGED regardless if it's for the worse or the better.
I don't believe for one second that with today's method of designing and building of automobiles was applied to a vehicle identical in every detail (without having to conform to government regulations) to a 1969 Imperial Coupe, that the automotive world wouldn't chit its pants over it.
Now vs. then is apples and pancakes.
 
A little late here, but my 68 seems more mechanically superior to the new crap I sit next to at stop lights. Sometimes I get scared because I'll start hearing a terrible noise coming from my car, when it's actually a newer car falling apart next to me.
 
A little late here, but my 68 seems more mechanically superior to the new crap I sit next to at stop lights. Sometimes I get scared because I'll start hearing a terrible noise coming from my car, when it's actually a newer car falling apart next to me.


Bwahahahahaha!
 
Ok a lot has been said about how the new cars today won't last for this, that or the other reason. Even been negative comments about some things that I believe are some of the reasons I believe in the current cars. Such as maintance free suspension parts as an example. We'll I have a news flash for those of you. Most of the classics that we love ( myself included) didn't make either. Only a handful are still around. You pretty much only see them at shows & such. I see more of then sitting in back yards or fields than I do at shows. Often told that it hasen't run in years. These cars as great as they were(are) where not perfect either.
 
Having had many older cars, mostly Chrysler products, over the years and a few new ones now, I can say this. The older cars had loose suspensions around 50K; a/c systems that went maybe 30K before losing all their charge, fan switches that didn't go that long, ATC systems that went even shorter intervals, and wiring that was overloaded and melted connectors along the way, heater/a-c water valves that cracked every two years, and push button switches that didn't work up to 100K and even then marginal comfort (GM Harrison systems an exception); steering systems that went 30K miles before getting a little loose and then leaking input shaft seals and lower output shaft seals at the same time, leaking power steering pump seals; radios that maybe went 75 K miles if you were lucky and didn't have a Phillips stereo that lasted even shorter intervals and speakers that cracked from the sun in a couple years; dashpads that cracked from the sun in a couple years outside; alternators and regulators that never made 100K; transmission leaks that were constant as well as valve covers that always leaked from day one, leaking axle shaft seals gave out well before 100K miles; power windows that worked maybe a few years before being constant problems, power window and power seat switches that always broke; engines that needed water pumps before 100K miles, rear main seals that leak, nylon timing chain gear teeth that broke, broken valve guide seals and carburetors that were always problematic, burned valves/seats, 30K mile tune ups, electronic ignition systems that were never reliable, weak cooling systems; - I could go on and on................. Those of you who really think that just tolerances are the main difference really need some reality checks. Todays cars are so much better designed with durability in mind, spurred in great part by superior Japanese reliability and competitiveness that taught the arrogant U.S. manufacturers a lesson the hard way, with better materials and perhaps most of all - much better seals materials and design, that to me there is no comparison to the older stuff no matter how you sugar coat it. I guess we are free to live in the past and assume everything was just better back then and no one is able to wake us up, but the reality is that progress in materials and engineering technology has built superior cars today that go 150K miles with very few problems. And 160 miles per hour and you feel secure in your old C body with 5 people in it - really!!?? Today's cars handle like they are slot cars on rails compared to the heaving, bounding, wallowing boats of the past. And even today's V-6s will blow away a 440 C body in 0 - 60 times. When I read some of the stuff like what is in this thread, glorifying the older cars, I wonder why I even waste the time to respond. Reading some of this stuff is like listening to FOX news for getting real world news and analysis (sorry, I couldn't resist).
 
Amen!!!! Saforwardlook!!!! I couldn't have said it any better. That so called "engineer" who went on that ridiculous rant had me boiling. I couldn't believe what I was reading. He even called modern technology "crap". My goodness.
 
Having had many older cars, mostly Chrysler products, over the years and a few new ones now, I can say this. The older cars had loose suspensions around 50K; a/c systems that went maybe 30K before losing all their charge, fan switches that didn't go that long, ATC systems that went even shorter intervals, and wiring that was overloaded and melted connectors along the way, heater/a-c water valves that cracked every two years, and push button switches that didn't work up to 100K and even then marginal comfort (GM Harrison systems an exception); steering systems that went 30K miles before getting a little loose and then leaking input shaft seals and lower output shaft seals at the same time, leaking power steering pump seals; radios that maybe went 75 K miles if you were lucky and didn't have a Phillips stereo that lasted even shorter intervals and speakers that cracked from the sun in a couple years; dashpads that cracked from the sun in a couple years outside; alternators and regulators that never made 100K; transmission leaks that were constant as well as valve covers that always leaked from day one, leaking axle shaft seals gave out well before 100K miles; power windows that worked maybe a few years before being constant problems, power window and power seat switches that always broke; engines that needed water pumps before 100K miles, rear main seals that leak, nylon timing chain gear teeth that broke, broken valve guide seals and carburetors that were always problematic, burned valves/seats, 30K mile tune ups, electronic ignition systems that were never reliable, weak cooling systems; - I could go on and on................. Those of you who really think that just tolerances are the main difference really need some reality checks. Todays cars are so much better designed with durability in mind, spurred in great part by superior Japanese reliability and competitiveness that taught the arrogant U.S. manufacturers a lesson the hard way, with better materials and perhaps most of all - much better seals materials and design, that to me there is no comparison to the older stuff no matter how you sugar coat it. I guess we are free to live in the past and assume everything was just better back then and no one is able to wake us up, but the reality is that progress in materials and engineering technology has built superior cars today that go 150K miles with very few problems. And 160 miles per hour and you feel secure in your old C body with 5 people in it - really!!?? Today's cars handle like they are slot cars on rails compared to the heaving, bounding, wallowing boats of the past. And even today's V-6s will blow away a 440 C body in 0 - 60 times. When I read some of the stuff like what is in this thread, glorifying the older cars, I wonder why I even waste the time to respond. Reading some of this stuff is like listening to FOX news for getting real world news and analysis (sorry, I couldn't resist).

Amen, Steve!!!! Well said!
 
A little late here, but my 68 seems more mechanically superior to the new crap I sit next to at stop lights. Sometimes I get scared because I'll start hearing a terrible noise coming from my car, when it's actually a newer car falling apart next to me.
:laughing4: I've had that happen to me so many times too. I'll be driving my Newport or my Mercury in traffic and start hearing some scary noise. I immediately think "oh,oh", but then realise it's not my car making the noise, it's some car beside me. :)
 
Back
Top