Are there any modern cars with strong reliable bodies( built to last)?

G

gazaati

BANNED
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
412
What are modern cars trucks made of? is it the same material older more solid cars are made of? Is it same plate but thinner material?

I have a Toyota land cruiser and I can rip the body with my bare hands.

I think its ridiculous. I know that modern body work is supposed to be safer in accidents so they crumble easily to absorb the crash instead of the passengers. However, They look very disposable to me.

My uncle had an old land cruiser and the body is so strong its amazing.

Are there any modern cars are that are built to last?
 
In short, no.

In order to make the vehicles safer, more efficient, and less expensive, most cars and trucks are thin metal and/or plastic. The Jeep Wrangler used to have a metal front grill instead of plastic like on other cars, but I'm not sure any more. Maybe a full-sized Hummer?
 
Crown Vic?

A dinosaur in this day and age, but the body-on-frame design platform on a sedan can't be beat.
 
I'm sure some of the higher end cars still use better metal,especially German made cars,but then who can afford that.I do think the metal they use now is better than in the late 70s and early eighties,it's hard to find anything from those years that isn't solid rust up north here.
 
Not an easy question.

The first thing to ask, do you want a body on frame, like old crown vics and or pickups?

Or are you talking unitized body/frame like most modern cars?

The second thing you are asking is a totally different question, what cars are built to last? Last how? Length of time between major failures? length of time between minor failures? Initial quality?

We had a 98 buick that blew head gaskets and had rusted through parts by 2007.

We had a 91 jetta that lasted 213K miles before we gave it away to a teenager that drove it for another year with no major failures and no apreciable rust.

My suggeston, never by a car by a US car manufacturer.
 
bama_lou said:
Crown Vic?

A dinosaur in this day and age, but the body-on-frame design platform on a sedan can't be beat.
Click to expand...

If you're going for a Crown Vic, go for a 2003/2004 Mercury Marauder. Basically a Crown Vic police interceptor with leather and some go-fast parts.
 
The second thing you are asking is a totally different question, what cars are built to last? Last how? Length of time between major failures? length of time between minor failures? Initial quality?
Click to expand...
I'd like to emphasize that as well. Modern cars from every manufacturer are improving yearly with regards to reliability. And they last longer than they ever have before; the average car on the road is nearly 10 years old! Additionally, the reliability and quality ranking spreads between different brands is now very narrow.

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/articles/2007-Initial-Quality-Study-Results
 
I know about that Marauder too, it's a pretty sick ride (of that type).
In addition: the Impala from the early 2000's is nice.
 
BMWs are very well made, a pleasure to drive, and get pretty good gas mileage. They can be expensive, but you can save quite a bit if you don't demand the bigger engine, and buy used (like I do). If you get a "certified" used car from a dealer, you get a 100,000 mile warranty, and for a few bucks more, you can get a maintenance contract that also goes to 100,000 miles and includes things like brakes, lightbulbs, clutches and even wiper blades!

As you can tell, I'm a very happy customer. The only problem- you can't go back to regular cars!
 
Find an Checker Marathon, what a tank those things were and even had easy to work on chevy 350 engines...

ZapSnap_957.png
 
+1 on the Checker,your probably only going to get about 12mi/gallon though.I wonder if you can still find them,it doesn't seem like that long ago that I saw car carriers hauling them,I figured they were coming out of NYC.
 
Thanks for the comments guys.

For the fellow formite who said modern cars are more reliable. I beg to differ.

Modern cars are full of sensors and electronics and more and more things to go wrong.

Older cars were simpler, I think simpler is Superior by design. Something like your Casio that has a million and one functions and buttons. Is it better than an automatic watch? Even if the automatic watch looses five minutes a week?
Modern cars have no sole.

Sorry, I didn't mean to lecture. Just one thing led to another I guess. Thats my opinion anyway. :)
 
gazaati said:
Thanks for the comments guys.

For the fellow formite who said modern cars are more reliable. I beg to differ.

Modern cars are full of sensors and electronics and more and more things to go wrong.

Older cars were simpler, I think simpler is Superior by design. Something like your Casio that has a million and one functions and buttons. Is it better than an automatic watch? Even if the automatic watch looses five minutes a week?
Modern cars have no sole.

Sorry, I didn't mean to lecture. Just one thing led to another I guess. Thats my opinion anyway. :)
Click to expand...
The idea that old cars were more reliable is an absolute fiction. They were not more relaible. They were just easier to work on at home. The VW Beetle is a lemon compared to a modern Toyota, Honda or BMW. BUT, you could removed a Beetle engine with a floor jack and a couple of metric wrenches and buy a book at the bookstore that told you how to rebuild the entire thing in your garage. However, you did have to repair them. Contrast that with my 2001 BMW 325i, which has 137,000 miles on it and the only service it has ever had done othe than consumables (brakes, oil, tires, fanbelts, etc) is repair to the window regulators and the heat and humidity down her screws those up on every brand of car. The only "old" car that I have ever driven that was as maintenence free as the newer cars was my dads old 1973 Mercedes 220D, but it didn't have an engine electrical system per se, so there wasn't really anything to go wrong with it...lol. The only thing that the alternator had to do was charge the battery and run the lights and radio.
 
Subarus are actually really well made. The ABC pillars are a high strength steel of some sort wrapped with several more layers. Theres quite a few reports of rescue workers not being able to cut through them with extraction tools. Look around on the web. Though these days I doubt your gonna find anything made more solid than pre 70's american cars. They should be on tracks.
 
Modern cars are full of sensors and electronics and more and more things to go wrong. ..Older cars were simpler, I think simpler is Superior by design.
Click to expand...

No offense but you must be rather young and have never experienced cars made in the 70's and 80's. Certainly some were better then other's but cars of the last 15 years are light years better then the crap people had to put up with previously. (Except for Buick which still puts out utter crap)
 
The idea that old cars were more reliable is an absolute fiction. They were not more relaible.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. Not only do new cars require less maintenance and last longer, they look better longer. A ten-year-old car in 1975 would have been a rusted heap (I grew up near Chicago), but now the average car on the road is ten years old. Seems like modern cars are rust-proofed better, the paint lasts longer, and the interiors last longer.
 
Newer cars are far more reliable if you're talking about foreign cars. American cars have gone down in quality (respectively) since the 70's. American cars were king until brands like Toyota started making cheaper, more fuel efficient cars with better overall fit and finish. American cars today are what Japanese cars were in the 70's. A joke.
 
soccergod04 said:
Newer cars are far more reliable if you're talking about foreign cars. American cars have gone down in quality (respectively) since the 70's. American cars were king until brands like Toyota started making cheaper, more fuel efficient cars with better overall fit and finish. American cars today are what Japanese cars were in the 70's. A joke.
Click to expand...


You're right on the general principal, but your timeline is a bit off. Most of the American cars of the 60's were of very mediocre quality at best and lousy in general, and from the early 60's on thats why companies like Volkswagon and Datsun got the following they did. At one time in the mid to late 60's, the VW beattle was the most popular selling car in America.

By the 70's, American car quality had gone down so far, that the Japanese invaded full force with increased dealerships for Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and Suburu. To counter this invasion of small cars, Detroit came out with jokes like the Pinto and Vega. They just did not get it then, and they still don't. Today the Honda Accord and Toyota Camrey are the most popular cars in thier class sold. Detroit seems to be always behind the 8 ball.

But back to the original question; The british car show Top Gear had a show that they dedicated to trying to destroy a Toyota pickup truck. They hit it with a wrecking ball, flooded it, even put it on top of a building that was demolished by explosives. It still ran and moved under its own power. There must be a reason it's the choice of the afgan army and El Quida insurgent troops in that rugged terrain.

Get a Toyota truck. :thumbup:
 
Absintheur said:
Find an Checker Marathon, what a tank those things were and even had easy to work on chevy 350 engines...

ZapSnap_957.png
Click to expand...
Checker was an awesome car. Miss those yellow taxis. F250 has thick metal but the gas bill is going to kill you. 36 gal tank at 3.50/gal every two weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top