@SW-User Mass production, means cheaper materials and lower build quality. Also Aerodynamics, speed and fuel efficiency. Things they didn't know of back then that are morphing the cars shape so you can no longer tell the difference between car makes.
My current everyday driver has over 309000 miles My last truck was hit and totaled at 260000 miles so I'm not sure what your blabbering about
SW-User
I mean like, weren’t cars built better back then? I mean like, they had a nicer look and they actually had style to them, do you know what I mean? @pdockal
Up until about the late 1960's then things started to decline very quickly, early 70's Fords would rust away long before they wore out and GM and Chrysler weren't far behind. The 70's and 80's really were the worst for crappy American cars 😖
We really propped up Japan after WW2 and told them to get producing . Their cars were shit until about 1990. Our quality didn’t decline , their quality got better .
SW-User
What exactly does "better" mean to you, specifically? Is it just a matter of visual styling and nothing else? In that case, in the 1950s Italian cars were light years ahead of US cars in terms of visual aesthetic beauty.
[image/video deleted]
(1953 Maserati A6GCS/53 Berlinetta)
American cars were horrible gas hog land yachts without seat belts in the 1950s.
Apart from looking gorgeous, even Italian cars from seven decades ago had similar faults. 1950s cars are part of why the planet is going to sh-t today. Beauty is skin deep.
If anything, maybe Americans are slowly, finally learning how to make a reliable, safe and efficient car now.
@SW-User That's not even a fair comparison, you can't compare hand built super cars costing up to 10 times what mass produced American cars cost at that time and only a couple of thousand of them at best were built every year so of course they were more stylish but had many problems too. A more apt comparison would be Fiat, how often do you see Fiat's from the 50's, 60's, 70's on the road these days?