Is it really true that 'they don't make them like they used to'?

Yesterday at 10:00 PM

You’ve probably heard the saying ‘they don’t make them like they used to’ when it comes to the reliability and build quality of older vehicles.

RELATED: Old Volvo owner claims their car was unscathed after accident

It’s easy to see why people say this. Take a look at any used-car classified site, and you’ll see plenty of old Commodores, 1980s LandCruisers, and Ford Falcons with well over 300,000km on the odometer, still registered and going strong.

But, could it be that these vehicles are just old and have had more time to gain the amount of kilometres, or do they really not make them like they used to? We look into the differences between new cars and old ones.

Do they really not make them like they used to?

The truth is that they don’t make them like they used to, and that’s actually a really good thing.

There are many factors that contribute to the notion that cars are no longer as good as they used to be: engine construction, part construction, and overall strength of the vehicle.

All have become much safer and more efficient over the past three decades.

Are new vehicles safer?

Vehicle construction has changed over time, and a lot of it has to do with safety. Whereas new vehicles are constructed with something called ‘crumple zones’, old vehicles are not.

As reported previously, something like an old Volvo will appear to retain its shape in the event of an accident, while a more modern car might look like it has been smashed to pieces.

In the case of an accident, you’d much rather be inside a vehicle fitted with crumple zones than one without. Crumple zones help dissipate the force from an accident across the whole car rather than transferring it up through the cabin and straight to the driver.

While a new vehicle will come off second-best in the event of an accident, the occupants will not. You can read further about the safety standards in new vehicles here.  

Do new cars rust?

What a lot of people don’t consider when it comes to older vehicles is the rust they attract, which is another reason why it’s good they don’t make them like they used to.

Cars built pre-2000s love to rust. Vehicles used to be constructed with a steel body, painted, and then sent out. A few solutions were created, like spraying rubberised protection on the underbody, but moisture was still getting into the cars’ pockets.

In 1975, Porsche devised a solution by hot-dipping the entire shell of its cars in molten zinc to galvanise the steel. This was an incredibly expensive process, so only premium brands such as Porsche were able to do it.

By the late 1990s, almost every car was constructed with galvanised steel, meaning that it’s unlikely to see heavy rust on a modern car. Rust can still get into the metal through defective galvanising, paint scratches down to the metal, and damage, but the level of rust seen in cars over the past 20 years has greatly improved.

Not only this, but less of the vehicle is now constructed out of steel. Instead, we utilise plastics, fibreglass, and carbon fibre for some body panels.

Why do new vehicles have orange peel paint?

Where older vehicles might beat out modern cars is in the quality of their paint. Changes in the way paint is applied to vehicles has seen an increase in new vehicles having an ‘orange peel’ finish, referring to bumpy paint that looks like the skin of an orange.

Drive consulted an automotive painter from Sydney, NSW, who said that it comes down to cutting costs and using less material to paint the cars.  

“They used to paint cars by hand, but now use an automated machine for the entire process. With this, car makers are able to use less paint to cover the entire car, which means fewer microns [thickness] showing more of the imperfections in the metal,” he said.

“The trade-off is that machines can lay down paint on a car more precisely than a human, meaning an even thickness throughout, but at the trade-off of thinner paint. It’s all just a cost-saving exercise.

“Just look at the engine bay of most new cars; you’ll find plenty that either aren’t painted or very minimal.”

Depending on how you look at it, paint quality control across all vehicles is much higher, with less room for human error. Manufacturers are also using less paint, which means less pollution from chemicals.

However, on the flip side, you do have thinner paint, which means less protection from rock chips and other damage and a finish that isn’t as smooth.

Are old engines more reliable?

Then there are engines. Emissions and regulations have forced engines to become smaller and more fuel-efficient over time. This means that you will see engines with a tiny capacity that output more power than a 6.0-litre V8 from the 1980s.

Manufacturers achieve high power and torque outputs by having tight tolerances, high compression, and forced induction, such as turbochargers and superchargers. These things lead to added stresses and little room for error in the engine when things go wrong.

High-compression engines run at a higher temperature by extracting more energy from the air/fuel mixture within the engine. The problem is that these engines run at extremely close tolerances (meaning that the moving parts in the engine are much closer together), leaving them susceptible to more damage in the event of an overheat or lack of oil.

Comparatively speaking, an old engine that uses low compression, larger engine parts and looser tolerances can survive user error and part failure without completely compromising the entire engine.

Not only this, but older engines feature a fundamentally simpler design, leaving less to fail internally. The trade-off from a fundamentally simple engine is fuel economy and power, as they don’t feature the modern technology to run at their maximum potential for their engine size.

Another thing to consider is that modern engines are now made from aluminium. Compared to old engines made from iron, aluminium engine blocks and heads are much more susceptible to warping under heat. Iron is fundamentally stronger but extremely heavy, which eats into your overall fuel economy.

Just because your engine is smaller and more complex than before doesn’t mean it’s going to spontaneously combust once the kilometres begin to climb in your odometer. More efficient and accurate manufacturing means more quality control and the introduction of space-age technology to strengthen your engine internally.

Diamond-like coating (DLC) is a modern-day manufacturing technology that, in its simplest explanation, involves forcing pressure and heat onto carbon atoms to create a film around parts, a process similar to how diamonds are formed.

DLC reduces friction by approximately 40 per cent compared to non-DLC engine parts and adds a massive amount of strength. Lowered friction directly translates into less part failure and more fuel economy.

Are old cars better than new ones?

All things considered, they indeed ‘don’t make them like they used to’. But that’s predominantly a good thing. Better quality control, safer vehicles, more efficient engines, and lower emissions mean that more can be done with modern-day vehicles.

On the flip side, you do have more expensive manufacturing costs and more complex engine and electronic designs, which make for an overall more expensive car, but you’re getting much more for your money than you did 30 or 40 years ago.

The post Is it really true that ‘they don’t make them like they used to’? appeared first on Drive.