I was expecting you to show up. As soon as I saw that you were in this thread, I thought to myself, "yep, he isn't happy with me." Considering how many people I've seen agree that the Yugo is a terrible car, I wouldn't call it being priced under $9k decent. I'd rather spend that $9k on a used American, Japanese, Korean, or German car than on a Yugo, as I've seen plenty that look to be in very good condition priced for less than that, and I'd expect them to last for a decent amount of time. I wouldn't have the same expectations for the Yugo. I don't really know what all to say, since I live in the US, and undoubtedly Top Gear is a British show. All of the sources I've seen says that the Yugo doesn't have a very high speed. Umm, don't put words in my mouth? I said that I go by what I've read, and that is one thing that comes up sometimes. As I said, and I think you missed it. Never once did I say that it only happened with Yugos, I just said that is what happened, and I have no idea how much of an effect it had on the reputation of the Yugo as a whole. Typically when I see the car get criticized, I don't really see that get mentioned, just criticism for the car itself. Heheheheh, no. There's just way too much documentation that all comes to the same agreements. Also, a lot of what I talked about in that post came before the internet was even a household thing, so clickbait doesn't apply. Are we going to forget that even professionals can also be untrustworthy? Really all I see there is somebody attempting to defend Ford's near criminal actions with the Pinto, so I don't believe Schwartz in the slightest. Out of all of those cars mentioned, the Pinto is the only one that I know has been documented of having a shoddy defect with the fuel tank that the manufacturer was fully aware of and refused to fix because they were too lazy to spend a little more money to fix it, so, I've never heard of AMC Gremlins, Chevrolet Vegas, Datsun 510s, etc bursting into flames when rear ended like the Pinto did. It's probably possible, but nowhere near on the scale as the Pinto. All I've heard about the AMC Gremlin, is that a lot of people thinks its ugly (I don't BTW, I think its fine), the Chevrolet Vega being on a similar boat to the Yugo by having terrible build quality, as the car was said to wither away (I.E. easily succumbing to rust) on its owners very quickly, and pretty much nothing on the Datsun 510. And are we really going to defend Ford for what they did? Preferring to settle lawsuits over a defect in a cars design that will lead to be people being fried like chickens in a deep fryer, rather than not be lazy and spend a little more money to fix the aforementioned defect they're being sued for to begin with? A lot of the deaths associated with the Pinto could've been prevented if they had just fixed the gas defect before putting the car into production. It's like I said, it's a wonder how their actions with the Pinto didn't put Ford out of business. If I was in charge of Ford back then, after seeing the rear crash test with that 1972 Impala, I would've immediately wanted that defect to be fixed before the car entered production. Also, imagine what it would be like if Ford did that today. Nowadays, whenever a defect with a car is found, it gets immediately recalled. I'm sure that unlike 70's Ford, present day Ford would've recalled the Pinto before it became the huge scandal it was, and if they didn't, well, odds are they'd probably end up like Takata, where one example of shoddy craftsmanship brings the entire company down. That's why I said I didn't know how similar it actually was, and that it may or may not even be true. I've also heard it be compared to fiberglass. I'm willing to wager that there were far better engines than the Trabant's back then. Couldn't they actually put a little bit more effort into it and make a far better engine than what the car got? If Doug's video was anything to go by, then that car spews so much smoke from its exhaust, it looks as if it were on fire. I do think there is some truth to what he says when reviewing vehicles, though I do think he has more of a preference for the more fancier vehicles that average folk can only dream of being halfway able to afford it. A lot of the things he said about the Yugo and the Trabant lines up with what I see others say. But still, the first generation Rodius is still so confusing to look at. Was that really the best they could do? And I think you're wrong there about something not meant to be bought on looks. A car's looks can actually have an effect on sales. If I'm not mistaken, the Pontiac Aztek's controversial design did in fact play a part in its discontinuation due to how it sold, because so many people found it to be such a repulsively designed vehicle. Pretty sure even the non green types would agree that its MPG is dreadful. There were also other SUVs out at the time that had way better MPG, so its downright laughable that the Hummer's was so bad while other SUVs like the Jeep Wrangler had more competent MPG. Here's an example of results I got for the year 2009, the last year the H2 was produced for. Hummer H2: 8-9 MPG (not actually sure how its ranked when it comes to city/highway, this was all I got) Jeep Wrangler: 15/20 MPG (15 city/20 highway) Right there, the Wrangler sounds like it has much better MPG than the H2.
This is an issue with all cheap cars, no matter their nationality. You're expecting the Yugo to be some mythical super-durable cheap car. No car of its class had a high top speed. You're just showing an isolated piece of data, with no mention of how the Yugo stacks against other cars. This is a problem. So we have a typical case of "if the facts disagree with my thesis, it's bad for the facts?" You've got a professional against internet and paper scribblers, and you're going with the scribblers. So why do you comment on it? No, they couldn't. They had to build a very cheap car, and the Trabant was quite good at being one. People buy cars on the basis of many reasons. Doesn't change that many of them aren't really valid. The H2 is a much bigger and more spacious car than the Wrangler.
I personally like new cars (like 2020 roadster and gtr). Old cars don't appeal to me that much even though old sport car designer are moving on to crappy SUVs and minivans.
My favorite cars are from 1970s onwards. Before that period there are only models I like. Many classic car fans say that modern cars are bad, because of electronics, etc. Also, some people say that now all cars look the same, and that before you could distinguish two model easily, thinking on models before WWII. TBH, I distinguish two badge engineered modern models easier than two pre war cars. Though, I don't like some things about modern cars. First is inability to fiddle around them. Even changing light bulbs is tricky. Not to mention something harder. It comes down that you need to bring your car to service every time when something it's wrong. Second, alternative propulsion, only electric. IMO cars should only run on petrol, diesel, LPG, CNG and be hybrid. IMO car can't a car if it doesn't have an engine. Electric vehicles are closer to blenders and toasters. Engine in car is IMO like a heart of a man. If it doesn't have it, what would it be?
The reason why pre-war cars looked so similar is because back then most manufacturers didn't really have a styling department. The only exception was the American brands in the 30s, which started separate styling departments (starting with GM's 1927 Art and Colour department) to make their cars more attractive to buyers, and therefore made the rest of the world try to catch up by starting their own studios and making distinctive designs - especially when the post-WWII economic boom caused strong competition.
No I am not. There can be no such thing as a "mythical super-durable cheap car." My expectations for a Yugo is so low because there is so much criticism against it. For every praise I hear for the Yugo, there is a lot more criticism for the Yugo to follow. The reason I mention it is because the information is there for the entire world to see. AFAIK, I don't think that information was meant to compare the Yugo to other cars. At the end of the day, there's nothing else I can add to that. You're really going to pull that card? Please remember that the Pinto case came in the 70's - 80's, the internet wasn't a thing like it is today. Let's also not forget that Ford was slammed with 117 lawsuits, and they were all for the same exact reason, the two most notable ones being Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Company and Indiana vs. Ford Motor Company. The former ended with the largest jury award in US product liability and personal injury cases and the largest against a vehicle manufacturer at the time, and the latter ended with three indictments of reckless homicide by a grand jury, though in 1980 the indictments were reversed with a "not guilty" verdict. Ford was let off the hook, but the case was still a punch in the gut for them. They still recalled a large number of Pintos, they ultimately discontinued the car, and their reputation took a hit because of their actions. In the end, I think Ford got lucky. I'll say it again, that Pinto bursting into flames during its rear crash test should've raised red flags, but instead Ford produced the Pinto with the defect still there, and in the end they got hit with 117 lawsuits, and a lot of attention from the media and even the Government. Everything that transpired could've been prevented had they just fixed the Pinto's fuel tank issue before selling it to the public. Same reason as what I said about the Yugo in one of the first sentences in this post, because it's information that's out there for the entire world to see. I'm just a messenger that's offering my own thoughts on it, and because its so inconclusive, there's not really much to add. Is that really an excuse? The Chevrolet Suburban of that time could get similar MPG to the Wrangler, and its a pretty big SUV itself. Not to mention both Chevrolet and Hummer are products of General Motors.
Uh, you do realize that his name is MrAnnoyingDude for a reason, right? Anyways, you two can respond to eachother's posts on this thread all you want to
As "old" is a much broader spectrum than "new", there is likely going to be more "older" cars that people like. for me in particular, I've got a special fondness for 1900s-1920s sports cars recently. something about the raw mechanical simplicity of them is special, and the lack of any thought given to comfort. perhaps it's also the freedom of what you could do with one, given the lack of safety laws at the time that you would have to comply with. I've been toying with the idea of importing a rolling chassis of an austin seven from britain, or maybe finding one in australia, then restoring it, and building a speedster-esque body on it. at the same time though, modern cars are much more comfortable, practical, and faster than these. as far as long-term reliability goes, however, I wouldn't be surprised if cars post 2015-ish seem to disappear more than cars from a bit before, as they have way too much integrated electronics. if you'll allow me to go on a bit of a rant, what was LR thinking with the new defender? I get going to independent suspension and a unibody construction (because that's not entirely necessary), but instead of otherwise making a nice simple, robust, vehicle, they took all of the electronics, and jammed them all together in one big brain. that way, when your infotainment craps out, you lose all control for your 4wd, your climate control system, and maybe even your engine. if they'd at least separated the electronics into modules, you could, in 30 years time, rip the dodgy infotainment out, and maybe run the engine on a typical standalone ECU. all they've done now is handed the market over to the wrangler and jimny.
Most of which is a circlejerk, or judging a car far above its price range. And I brought up statistics that showed that the Pinto was no more dangerous than its contemporary competitors. The Pinto's discontinuation had less to do with that and more to do with the model being nearly a decade old. Are you sure you aren't comparing real-life MPG to the rather optimistic EPA figures?
Except a lot of it wasn't. Several people who bought the car later reported that it had issues. And are you saying it was actually worth less than $3990? And I don't believe those statistics are entirely true. Maybe for how it fairs in front and side collisions, but those statistics are definitely not true when considering how dangerous rear end collisions were. The last part is just wrong. It did have plenty to do with the cars reputation. Being a decade old is hardly an issue, considering how there are other car models that are produced for a similar amount of time, if not longer than the Pinto ever was. That's what I got about the MPG in a search. The results I got put the Suburban's MPG similar to a Wrangler, and had both above the Hummer's MPG.
Exactly, the fact that the rear end of the Pinto caught fire is really dangerous and unsafe. I totally agree with that statement =)
For daily driving, I prefer newer cars for a variety of reasons. If I were to mod one though, an older one for sure.
I honestly think that the Pinto is a very dangerous car. @MrAnnoyingDude, You can disagree with me all you want =/
Not to mention that the Pinto was extremely unsafe. You also make a really good point about the decade stuff.
New, old cars just don't seem appealing and I like to keep up to date with all of the new cars, from the Toyota Yaris to the McLaren Speedtail. I like seeing all the new technology on cars, albeit some can be... concerning. I recently learned my car (Subaru Outback) can be equipped with a device to allow automated freeway driving.
