Anyone dreading the day when there will be no good sedans in existence?

There will always be good Sedans. Cadillac, Lexus, BMW, and Mercedes are making the best now a days and I don't think any of them are going to follow Ford and Chevy's roadmap.

I just want something safe, easy to park, and good for someone who knows and cares very little about cars and driving. I've had two cars in my life: a used 1990 Mazda Protege, which I bought because it was simple and cheap, and a new 2000 Jaguar S-Type, because my Mazda had been declared unfit for driving and the Jaguar had a cool leaping cat as a hood ornament and an interesting-looking grill on the front. (It was also much easier to park than Jaguar's longer sedans.) I've driven my Jaguar less than 80,000 miles over the last 21 years. I've put off another car purchase until someone shows me something that basically drives itself, especially in treacherous conditions. Until then, I'll use my Jaguar for short, easy rides and Lyft and Uber in more difficult circumstances. The only entertainment I want in my Jaguar is a radio connection to the local NPR station. The Lyft and Uber rides give me the opportunity to learn about fascinating people from all over the world.

In regard to #2, it seems like you must have never locked your keys in the car or trunk.

llort_vbo wrote:

I want my car to be really good at being a car. I don’t need it to be a computer as well.

Lol, you guys crack me up. All this fetishizing the 'build quality' of old cars and complaining about new-fangled contraptions in your car.

Newer cars are:

1) Much safer in an accident and greatly increase the odds for any passengers.

2) More reliable and have much longer periods between service.

3) Faster and more high-performing than virtually all old cars when comparing within class.

People used to get all quivery about doing 0-60 in less than 6s. Now my soccer-mom baby SUV does that. And it's diesel so it can tow 6000 lbs. That car just doesn't really exist before 2000.

This. Old cars are cool, but cars today are so much better. And by 'car', we mostly mean midsize SUVs, which is the default car. I have three of them.

I am old and it took me awhile to understand that just because all the electronics are there doesn't mean I have to use them. I use what I want/need and it's okay if I don't know what 80% of the stuff in the car does.

When I was a kid people talked like 100,000 miles is end of life for a car. I put over 300,000 rode hard put away wet miles on my Honda Pilot and pretty much everything still worked. Don't think I ever got any electronics repaired.

I'd like to get a 1960s MG or Healey, which spend more time in repairs than on the road, but I'm not going to pretend that it's actually a better car than a Miata.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Then there is a market niche waiting to be filled. Some new company will enter the market making cheapo basic sedans. That's how Hyundai started out.

So did Subaru and Volkswagen and eventually they scrapped the basic cheap market and went for bigger and fancier cars with bigger profit margins. Daewoo and Suzuki tried selling fairly basic and simple cars and didn't last here. Hyundai. Kia, and Mitsubishi still have some basic cars but even those are not what they market.

No.

Van Life for life for me. Never going back. Don't blame me for pollution until there is a sick hybrid 4 wheel drive van that doesn't cost twice as much as used gas or diesel model.

I'm planning to look at new cars tomorrow. Will let you what I find, jamin.

llort_vbo wrote:

I want my car to be really good at being a car. I don’t need it to be a computer as well.

Lol, you guys crack me up. All this fetishizing the 'build quality' of old cars and complaining about new-fangled contraptions in your car.

Newer cars are:

1) Much safer in an accident and greatly increase the odds for any passengers.

2) More reliable and have much longer periods between service.

3) Faster and more high-performing than virtually all old cars when comparing within class.

People used to get all quivery about doing 0-60 in less than 6s. Now my soccer-mom baby SUV does that. And it's diesel so it can tow 6000 lbs. That car just doesn't really exist before 2000.

I was comparing my 2000 RX300 to newer models in the same line. I don't really think an early 2000s Lexus falls short of newer cars in the areas you mention in any significant way.

Safety of the early RXs was fine (I got rear ended once. The car that hit me was totaled. I needed nothing more than a paint touchup). Reliability was great. I'd had the car 16 years before I opened the hood myself for any reason. I'm perfectly happy with getting 18 years out of a car with no major mechanical issues. I guess the new RX has a bit more horsepower, but 220 was plenty for anything I ever wanted to do. I can't really see how my commute through Philly traffic would be appreciably improved by having 295 instead.

Also, I did not complain about the new-fangled contraptions in my new car. In fact, I didn't say anything about my new car aside from mentioning its make and model. Are you sure you actually meant to respond to me?

llort_vbo wrote:

I want my car to be really good at being a car. I don’t need it to be a computer as well.

Lol, you guys crack me up. All this fetishizing the 'build quality' of old cars and complaining about new-fangled contraptions in your car.

Newer cars are:

1) Much safer in an accident and greatly increase the odds for any passengers.

2) More reliable and have much longer periods between service.

3) Faster and more high-performing than virtually all old cars when comparing within class.

People used to get all quivery about doing 0-60 in less than 6s. Now my soccer-mom baby SUV does that. And it's diesel so it can tow 6000 lbs. That car just doesn't really exist before 2000.

But I don't WANT that car. I don't care how long it takes to get from 0-60 as long as it happens. I don't want to tow anything. I don't want satellite radio or On Star. I don't want a car that has to go to the dealer for repairs. I don't want or need a back up camera.

I do want a stick shift, AC and cruise control and something that I can take to the foreign guys across the bridge from my house when it needs repaired. And the car I want is getting harder and harder to find.

Boomer Nation wrote:

I hear ya Jamin. These new fangled cars are neat and all but they forgot to put in a cassette and CD player.

I bought a new car last year.

It came down to two cars and I went with the one with the CD player.

It was basically the deciding factor.

I'm not saying that you should want my car. I'm just saying that the advances in electronics, safety, and amenities make modern cars much superior to what has existed even in the recent past.

You might not care about 0-60, but you would where I live. There are some places where short ramps launch into heavy traffic. If you wind up under the grill of a truck because you can't get on the highway, I do believe you'll care about acceleration.

The towing is nice for me, but I wasn't saying you should want that. The point was that you wouldn't find that type of car in the past for a reasonable price or one that would be comfortable to drive with those capabilities.

Also, you seem like a bit of a d!ck talking about foreign guys across the bridge who are just waiting around to fix your car. Do you realize how easy it is to change your oil now?

Here's what I can do with my SUV:

1) Drive around in reasonable comfort - AC, seat warmers etc.

2) Carry bicycles on my rear hitch mount.

3) Cart children and dogs (at the same time!)

4) Go to strange and unfamiliar places while navigating with my phone through the BT connection without much preparation.

5) Tow a Haul carrier.

6) Accelerate quickly to join highway traffic.

7) Utilize AWD for weather, etc.

I'm happy that I can do that with one car. I bought it with 114k miles on it and I can reasonably expect to get 300k as long as I maintain it

There's nothing wrong with you just admitting you're not a car guy. But what you're saying is largely nonsense.

1). The fact that a car got totaled by rear-ending you is not material to the discussion here. Virtually any car built since the 90s will get totaled by rear-ending a car. The front crumple zones in a car are much larger than the rear. They did exactly what they were supposed to do in this car and likely prevented serious injury.

2) 220 hp is fine, but you don't seem to understand that a 4 speed transmission limits you. Modern cars will typically have 5-8 speed transmissions. This makes the cars much more responsive and comfortable to drive.

3) That era of RX models had issues with braking despite having ABS. From 60 mph, I can come to a full stop in 104 ft. You're probably double that. A modern LX comes in around 120ft. That makes a huge difference, especially driving through city traffic.

I didn't say you were complaining about contraptions etc, I was responding to the general tenor of the thread. But you do seem to be a bit out of touch if you try to say that a 2000 RX compares in any way to a 2020 RX. They are completely different cars.

I can envision it now! Jamin finally scores a date with a real live woman and she is immediately turned of by his 1990s Toyota Corolla with 200,000+ miles of wear and a faded Let's Run sticker on the bumper cover.

I'm glad you have a car you like that does what you want it to do. But I am, to use much of the thread's title, dreading the day when I have no choice in buying a new car other than paying for one that does all of those things that you want but I don't. I have lived in plenty of places where the on ramps are short and the freeways are busy and I have never felt the need for a car with big time acceleration and you sound like a bit of a dick for presuming to know what someone you don't know would want.

Changing oil is no longer easy for me. Nothing that involves getting down on the ground is easy for me these days, but changing oil, which I have done plenty of in younger years, is not a repair. I may be a dick for having the foreign guys who work across the bridge from my house work on my cars but I really like them and would be very unhappy if I had to stop giving them my business because the car I have required a dealership when something went wrong.

HRE wrote:

...sound like a bit of a dick for presuming to know what someone you don't know would want.

...I may be a dick for having the foreign guys ...

The post was about how cars have improved in the last 20-30 years and nowhere did I say you should want what I want. As a matter of fact, I'm sure we have different needs because you sound a bit older and are probably a retiree or something. So because I called you out on your classism and xenophobic you needed to retaliate.

Once again, you're the one talking about foreign guys across the bridge from you. Are you that unaware of what you say? Maybe you shouldn't be driving if that's the case.

Here's a less offensive way to refer to people who do repairs on the side; 'Shady Tree Mechanic.' That way you won't sound like an old codger.

Nope, I'm not.

The guys across the bridge are foreign. Of course I'm aware of what I'm saying. If they weren't foreign I wouldn't say that they are and I have no idea what giving an accurate description of someone has to do with not driving. I actually do not know the name of their garage so when I tell people where and who fixes my car I tell them it's the foreign guys who are immediately across the bridge on the right. If calling them foreign offends you that's your problem. I don't care if it does and I actually enjoy being an old codger. I've spent decades working up to it.

I do not agree that cars have improved in the past 20-30 years because I do not like them as well no matter how much people say they've improved. The near disappearance of manual transmissions is a terrible regression as far as I'm concerned. I do like that AC is nearly universal now.

llort_vbo wrote:

Once again, you're the one talking about foreign guys across the bridge from you.

Here's a less offensive way to refer to people who do repairs on the side; 'Shady Tree Mechanic.' That way you won't sound like an old codger.

Is "foreign" offensive? I've lived in other countries and have been called "foreign". It never occurred to me to be offended by it. Seriously, I'm curious if and why this is offensive.

I actually thought he was talking about a shop that works on foreign autos, but his follow-up showed he's talking about the guys. I remember such shops being called "foreign auto" or something similar. It's been years though. I think a Toyota now is more American made than a Chevy and there isn't really such a distinction anymore.

HRE wrote: The near disappearance of manual transmissions is a terrible regression as far as I'm concerned. .

Two of my cars have the "manual" shifters you can use with the automatic, one has paddle shifters the other on the gear shift.

But it's funny because they're both CVT, so they don't actually have gears, it's just simulating manual shifting. They're just letting you pretend you're shifting it and the computer will override it if you try to push it to a really inappropriate "gear".

Must admit I do use it sometimes. It's kinda fun. One car is tuned somewhat sluggish unless you use the paddles or just use more pedal than is normal. The other has a "sport mode" that makes the automatic a bit snappier.