The General Car Thread.

[Patridam]

How rich is this single mother than she can afford these $4000 to $5000 cars?

Good point. She needs a Vega GT.

A Duster Twister or a Maverick Grabber would be better.

[Petrolheadia]

First, they are not used. The 2002 was that expensive.

Second, what about a base engine Cougar?

How rich is this single mother than she can afford these $4000 to $5000 cars?

Where did I say she is single?

[The Two Jerseys]

How rich is this single mother than she can afford these $4000 to $5000 cars?

Where did I say she is single?

You said she was a "young mother". It's implied that she's unmarried.

[Petrolheadia]

Where did I say she is single?

You said she was a "young mother". It's implied that she's unmarried.

That implication was accidental.

[Elwher]

Where did I say she is single?

You said she was a "young mother". It's implied that she's unmarried.

Believe it or not, some young females actually get married.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You said she was a "young mother". It's implied that she's unmarried.

Believe it or not, some young females actually get married.

And many do not. Also, not to mention, in 1972, the social more at the time in many places still was "if you're married, your man made the decisions for you about where to spend the household money, not you".

This is something we need context on, obviously she lives in the north of California, but you can still find many conservative areas in California, particularly in the suburbs. We don't know where she lives or if she has married someone from out of state who is more conservative (like someone from South Texas). And we definitely don't know what her preferences are for cars except what we are being told, which as someone who saw my parents buy family cars I can say I am not too confident on Petrolheadia's knowledge on family cars that were both sporty and practical in daily use at the time, considering she is a mother with a baby.

Maybe is just bias, but if I was a parent of a baby and I was looking for a car to drive for daily use and I had a kid with someone, I would primarily focus on the security features of a car, and then determine which cars I like best on the range of high security features, because of the baby. None of these cars seem confidently able to stand a car crash and the people inside it not get hurt, to me at least, so I would pick none of them.

[Patridam]

There's of course the factor that in 1972, a married couple with a child would not be looking to buy a new, unsafe, gas guzzling pony car with a joke of a rear seat. They'd be looking for a station wagon or seda, or at least a midsize/full-size coupe.

In other news, the 2018 Mustang has been revealed, with an uglier front. And, as I predicted and Petrolheadia argued, no V6 option.

[Auzkhia]

There's of course the factor that in 1972, a married couple with a child would not be looking to buy a new, unsafe, gas guzzling pony car with a joke of a rear seat. They'd be looking for a station wagon or seda, or at least a midsize/full-size coupe.

In other news, the 2018 Mustang has been revealed, with an uglier front. And, as I predicted and Petrolheadia argued, no V6 option.

I recall posting an article on the now confirmed rumor of no V6 option.

And it still looks like a Mustang (the 2005 retro one, at least), I guess Ford is taking the Porsche approach, stick with a design and mildly update it to match current design trends.

[Petrolheadia]

There's of course the factor that in 1972, a married couple with a child would not be looking to buy a new, unsafe, gas guzzling pony car with a joke of a rear seat. They'd be looking for a station wagon or seda, or at least a midsize/full-size coupe.

In other news, the 2018 Mustang has been revealed, with an uglier front. And, as I predicted and Petrolheadia argued, no V6 option.

That does not mean you cannot buy anything else than what you mentioned. People don't always buy the normal option.

Believe it or not, some young females actually get married.

And many do not. Also, not to mention, in 1972, the social more at the time in many places still was "if you're married, your man made the decisions for you about where to spend the household money, not you".

This is something we need context on, obviously she lives in the north of California, but you can still find many conservative areas in California, particularly in the suburbs. We don't know where she lives or if she has married someone from out of state who is more conservative (like someone from South Texas). And we definitely don't know what her preferences are for cars except what we are being told, which as someone who saw my parents buy family cars I can say I am not too confident on Petrolheadia's knowledge on family cars that were both sporty and practical in daily use at the time, considering she is a mother with a baby.

Maybe is just bias, but if I was a parent of a baby and I was looking for a car to drive for daily use and I had a kid with someone, I would primarily focus on the security features of a car, and then determine which cars I like best on the range of high security features, because of the baby. None of these cars seem confidently able to stand a car crash and the people inside it not get hurt, to me at least, so I would pick none of them.

Preferences: Sporty car with good enough hauling abilities and an automatic. Safety wasn't much of a deal back then. Believe me, I have vast car knowledge. If I were wrong about the car stuff, someone would probably correct me (and did, with the insurance thing).

Social values are also not taken by every member of the society. The fact that in most households the man bought all cars does not mean that this is the case in our hypothetical household. And the family would be living in a small-to-midsized town, in the more urbanized part.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Preferences: Sporty car with good enough hauling abilities and an automatic. Safety wasn't much of a deal back then. Believe me, I have vast car knowledge. If I were wrong about the car stuff, someone would probably correct me (and did, with the insurance thing).

Social values are also not taken by every member of the society. The fact that in most households the man bought all cars does not mean that this is the case in our hypothetical household. And the family would be living in a small-to-midsized town, in the more urbanized part.

You are painfully unaware of family life in 1972, or having kids at all, that's for sure and I don't need to debate it with you.

Safety has always been a big thing when you have kids you have to ensure they don't end up dying strangled on a seatbelt. One of those cars are obviously not what someone having a child in infancy would buy in the U.S. or anywhere in the Americas.

Also, see, you're going with the line of "The fact that in most households the man bought all cars does not mean that this is the case in our hypothetical household", but that's how things were. It was something that was, usually, not questioned that the man had the final decision in the financial decisions of the household because "they knew better" (which is a load of shit, but that's how people thought back in 1972).

You're trying to make your hypothetical family in California seem extremely hippy-like for their time, when small-to-midsize urban areas were incredibly stuck in their ways considering the political situation at the time with the Vietnam war and Nixon's campaign against the anti-war efforts and the hippy movement, which made urbanized areas at the time rather conservative, and not that liberal at all. Certainly not to the point where you had a trendy family where the man let the wife do everything she wanted with the household money.

I'm not saying you're wrong about your car knowledge. I am saying you are wrong about the social customs in 1972 and how this might impact people's car purchases, which is something rather obvious. In other words, while you may have vast car knowledge on the technical side, you certainly have no idea how different social factors impact people's purchases of cars across different time periods, which is a more nuanced conversation.

[Petrolheadia]

Preferences: Sporty car with good enough hauling abilities and an automatic. Safety wasn't much of a deal back then. Believe me, I have vast car knowledge. If I were wrong about the car stuff, someone would probably correct me (and did, with the insurance thing).

Social values are also not taken by every member of the society. The fact that in most households the man bought all cars does not mean that this is the case in our hypothetical household. And the family would be living in a small-to-midsized town, in the more urbanized part.

You are painfully unaware of family life in 1972, or having kids at all, that's for sure and I don't need to debate it with you.

Safety has always been a big thing when you have kids you have to ensure they don't end up dying strangled on a seatbelt. One of those cars are obviously not what someone having a child in infancy would buy in the U.S. or anywhere in the Americas.

Also, see, you're going with the line of "The fact that in most households the man bought all cars does not mean that this is the case in our hypothetical household", but that's how things were. It was something that was, usually, not questioned that the man had the final decision in the financial decisions of the household because "they knew better" (which is a load of shit, but that's how people thought back in 1972).

You're trying to make your hypothetical family in California seem extremely hippy-like for their time, when small-to-midsize urban areas were incredibly stuck in their ways considering the political situation at the time with the Vietnam war and Nixon's campaign against the anti-war efforts and the hippy movement, which made urbanized areas at the time rather conservative, and not that liberal at all. Certainly not to the point where you had a trendy family where the man let the wife do everything she wanted with the household money.

I'm not saying you're wrong about your car knowledge. I am saying you are wrong about the social customs in 1972 and how this might impact people's car purchases, which is something rather obvious. In other words, while you may have vast car knowledge on the technical side, you certainly have no idea how different social factors impact people's purchases of cars across different car periods.

Well, these towns were usually not conservative, but this does not mean there weren't any liberals.

There were - and I realize these peoole seem quite liberal for the time and place. This is about the intended effect. I might have made them more liberal than I thought, but it stays around my general idea.

Plus, safety in cars only became a large deal in the late 70s, AFAIK.

[Novus America]

You are painfully unaware of family life in 1972, or having kids at all, that's for sure and I don't need to debate it with you.

Safety has always been a big thing when you have kids you have to ensure they don't end up dying strangled on a seatbelt. One of those cars are obviously not what someone having a child in infancy would buy in the U.S. or anywhere in the Americas.

Also, see, you're going with the line of "The fact that in most households the man bought all cars does not mean that this is the case in our hypothetical household", but that's how things were. It was something that was, usually, not questioned that the man had the final decision in the financial decisions of the household because "they knew better" (which is a load of shit, but that's how people thought back in 1972).

You're trying to make your hypothetical family in California seem extremely hippy-like for their time, when small-to-midsize urban areas were incredibly stuck in their ways considering the political situation at the time with the Vietnam war and Nixon's campaign against the anti-war efforts and the hippy movement, which made urbanized areas at the time rather conservative, and not that liberal at all. Certainly not to the point where you had a trendy family where the man let the wife do everything she wanted with the household money.

I'm not saying you're wrong about your car knowledge. I am saying you are wrong about the social customs in 1972 and how this might impact people's car purchases, which is something rather obvious. In other words, while you may have vast car knowledge on the technical side, you certainly have no idea how different social factors impact people's purchases of cars across different car periods.

Well, these towns were usually not conservative, but this does not mean there weren't any liberals.

There were - and I realize these peoole seem quite liberal for the time and place. This is about the intended effect. I might have made them more liberal than I thought, but it stays around my general idea.

Plus, safety in cars only became a large deal in the late 70s, AFAIK.

Actually safety in cars was always a thing, and calls for increased safety became a big deal in the mid 60s.
"According to Sowell, Nader also did not note that motor vehicle death rates per 100 million passenger miles fell over the years from 17.9 in 1925 to 5.5 in 1965.[14]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed

The safety of cars massively increased between 1925 and 1965, and even so their was a huge push for increased safety and several new laws in the mid 60s.

Surely any liberal in 1972 would be aware of Nader's very influence polemic on the subject.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Well, these towns were usually not conservative, but this does not mean there weren't any liberals.

There were - and I realize these peoole seem quite liberal for the time and place. This is about the intended effect. I might have made them more liberal than I thought, but it stays around my general idea.

Plus, safety in cars only became a large deal in the late 70s, AFAIK.

Car Safety has been a thing for manufacturers since at least the 1930s in America, and in 1968 the Federal government started getting serious about car safety with the Department of Transportation's National Transportation Safety Board (now known as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

It was a while before standard security features like the ones we know today were passed into either state of federal law across the United States during the late 1970s and the 1980s. But they existed before then and the existent ones at any time period have usually been marketed to families or security conscientious folks.

And yes, there were liberals, but the liberals at the time are certainly not what you would call a "liberal" today. Liberals today would seem like communists to people in 1972.

[Petrolheadia]

Well, these towns were usually not conservative, but this does not mean there weren't any liberals.

There were - and I realize these peoole seem quite liberal for the time and place. This is about the intended effect. I might have made them more liberal than I thought, but it stays around my general idea.

Plus, safety in cars only became a large deal in the late 70s, AFAIK.

Car Safety has been a thing for manufacturers since at least the 1930s in America, and in 1968 the Federal government started getting serious about car safety with the Department of Transportation's National Transportation Safety Board (now known as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

It was a while before standard security features like the ones we know today were passed into either state of federal law across the United States during the late 1970s and the 1980s. But they existed before then and the existent ones at any time period have usually been marketed to families or security conscientious folks.

And yes, there were liberals, but the liberals at the time are certainly not what you would call a "liberal" today. Liberals today would seem like communists to people in 1972.

As I said, liberals by 1972 standards.

Plus, not everybody cared about safety. The family of one of our thread regulars, Elwher, had British roadsters when people already thought safety was important.

[Novus America]

Car Safety has been a thing for manufacturers since at least the 1930s in America, and in 1968 the Federal government started getting serious about car safety with the Department of Transportation's National Transportation Safety Board (now known as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration).

It was a while before standard security features like the ones we know today were passed into either state of federal law across the United States during the late 1970s and the 1980s. But they existed before then and the existent ones at any time period have usually been marketed to families or security conscientious folks.

And yes, there were liberals, but the liberals at the time are certainly not what you would call a "liberal" today. Liberals today would seem like communists to people in 1972.

As I said, liberals by 1972 standards.

Plus, not everybody cared about safety. The family of one of our thread regulars, Elwher, had British roadsters when people already thought safety was important.

While it is possible someone such as you described could have existed in 1972, they would be very unusual at the very least. Sure not everyone cared, but most people, especially mothers did.

[Petrolheadia]

As I said, liberals by 1972 standards.

Plus, not everybody cared about safety. The family of one of our thread regulars, Elwher, had British roadsters when people already thought safety was important.

While it is possible someone such as your described could have existed in 1972, the would be very unusual at the very least. Sure not everyone cared, but most people, especially mothers did.

As I said, I fully realize it is unusual and planned it that way.

[Petrolheadia]

Apparently, the main stategist of Renault, Bruno Ancelin, thinks that the car of the future is a subcompact.

In the interview for Motor, he says smaller families, tighter parkings and streets and stronger emission norms will put us all in such cars.

What so you think? Is he right?

Personally, I think he is wrong, and the future car will be just as big, or even bigger than the car of today. The emission problem will be solved by using EVs.

[The Two Jerseys]

There's of course the factor that in 1972, a married couple with a child would not be looking to buy a new, unsafe, gas guzzling pony car with a joke of a rear seat. They'd be looking for a station wagon or seda, or at least a midsize/full-size coupe.

In other news, the 2018 Mustang has been revealed, with an uglier front. And, as I predicted and Petrolheadia argued, no V6 option.

I recall posting an article on the now confirmed rumor of no V6 option.

And it still looks like a Mustang (the 2005 retro one, at least), I guess Ford is taking the Porsche approach, stick with a design and mildly update it to match current design trends.

Looks like they've gotten around to giving the '71 version the retro treatment...

[Petrolheadia]

I recall posting an article on the now confirmed rumor of no V6 option.

And it still looks like a Mustang (the 2005 retro one, at least), I guess Ford is taking the Porsche approach, stick with a design and mildly update it to match current design trends.

Looks like they've gotten around to giving the '71 version the retro treatment...

Wait 'til they get to the '74...

[Discretospia]

I'm about to purchase my first car in the coming months. I've gone back and forth between used and new car, but in the end I've decided to go for a new car because I do not plan on selling it. I'm driving this thing into the ground. I do not want to deal with the uncertainty of buying someone else's "problem car", even if it has very few miles (if anything, that would make it more suspicious).

I've always made reliability my number one priority when researching cars, and I'd like affordability. I've decided to pursue a (new) 2016 Toyota Corolla. I'll put down a significant down payment and pull out a small loan of a million dollars to finance the rest in under a year. I've heard Toyotas are renowned for reliability, the 2016 Corolla in particular I have read good things about on Consumer Reports. Plus it's very affordable at new, about $17k-$18k, and lower if you can negotiate a lower price.

[Petrolheadia]

I'm about to purchase my first car in the coming months. I've gone back and forth between used and new car, but in the end I've decided to go for a new car because I do not plan on selling it. I'm driving this thing into the ground. I do not want to deal with the uncertainty of buying someone else's "problem car", even if it has very few miles (if anything, that would make it more suspicious).

I've always made reliability my number one priority when researching cars, and I'd like affordability. I've decided to pursue a (new) 2016 Toyota Corolla. I'll put down a significant down payment and pull out a small loan of a million dollars to finance the rest in under a year. I've heard Toyotas are renowned for reliability, the 2016 Corolla in particular I have read good things about on Consumer Reports. Plus it's very affordable at new, about $17k-$18k, and lower if you can negotiate a lower price.

Well, the Corolla is a great car for the price, but I would not buy new.

Ever heard of Carmax? They are a dealer chain that resells used cars they inspect, and you can buy a 7-year (or so I remember) warranty from them for less than $4k. That's a much better deal than a new Corolla.

Tell me how little MPG can you accept and where you live, and I'll link you to offers.

[Auzkhia]

I'm about to purchase my first car in the coming months. I've gone back and forth between used and new car, but in the end I've decided to go for a new car because I do not plan on selling it. I'm driving this thing into the ground. I do not want to deal with the uncertainty of buying someone else's "problem car", even if it has very few miles (if anything, that would make it more suspicious).

I've always made reliability my number one priority when researching cars, and I'd like affordability. I've decided to pursue a (new) 2016 Toyota Corolla. I'll put down a significant down payment and pull out a small loan of a million dollars to finance the rest in under a year. I've heard Toyotas are renowned for reliability, the 2016 Corolla in particular I have read good things about on Consumer Reports. Plus it's very affordable at new, about $17k-$18k, and lower if you can negotiate a lower price.

I'd recommend the Mazda 3 instead, it's critically acclaimed, drives better, has a nice interior, skyactiv gives you good MPG, and in my opinion, the best new compact car you can buy; and can be in sedan or hatchback form.

[Petrolheadia]

I'm about to purchase my first car in the coming months. I've gone back and forth between used and new car, but in the end I've decided to go for a new car because I do not plan on selling it. I'm driving this thing into the ground. I do not want to deal with the uncertainty of buying someone else's "problem car", even if it has very few miles (if anything, that would make it more suspicious).

I've always made reliability my number one priority when researching cars, and I'd like affordability. I've decided to pursue a (new) 2016 Toyota Corolla. I'll put down a significant down payment and pull out a small loan of a million dollars to finance the rest in under a year. I've heard Toyotas are renowned for reliability, the 2016 Corolla in particular I have read good things about on Consumer Reports. Plus it's very affordable at new, about $17k-$18k, and lower if you can negotiate a lower price.

I'd recommend the Mazda 3 instead, it's critically acclaimed, drives better, has a nice interior, skyactiv gives you good MPG, and in my opinion, the best new compact car you can buy; and can be in sedan or hatchback form.

This person would be better off with a CarMax Camry Hybrid.

Or, if they are a bit more daring and want superior comfort, get a Ford Crown Victoria and save about $3-4k, but lose a bit over a dozen MPG.

[Auzkhia]

I'd recommend the Mazda 3 instead, it's critically acclaimed, drives better, has a nice interior, skyactiv gives you good MPG, and in my opinion, the best new compact car you can buy; and can be in sedan or hatchback form.

This person would be better off with a CarMax Camry Hybrid.

Or, if they are a bit more daring and want superior comfort, get a Ford Crown Victoria and save about $3-4k, but lose a bit over a dozen MPG.

I wouldn't wish boredom on some stranger. They were looking at new, but buying new is good for the industry, especially when Jalopnik urges to buy used.

A Ford Crown Vic is a good choice (if I needed a new-to-me car, I'd get a panther body), you'd have to trade mileage (handling if P71) for comfort, acceleration, and no highway jerks on you. Seriously, no one will dare cut you off in a Crown Vic

[Patridam]

While it is possible someone such as your described could have existed in 1972, the would be very unusual at the very least. Sure not everyone cared, but most people, especially mothers did.

As I said, I fully realize it is unusual and planned it that way.

I'm going to call bs on that. Most of your "choose a car" scenarios are unrealistic and totally disregard any knowledge of history or social norms, and I doubt you planned them to be so terrible. Even when your situations are somewhat realstic you leave out or ignore obvious contenders in your list.