this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
85 points (97.8% liked)

Cars - For Car Enthusiasts

3984 readers
4 users here now

About Community

c/Cars is the largest automotive enthusiast community on Lemmy and the fediverse. We're your central hub for vehicle-related discussion, industry news, reviews, projects, DIY guides, advice, stories, and more.


Rules





founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Wow, for $830 bucks you get a brand new car back in the days. They'll be saying something similar 70 years from now.

[–] CptOblivius 23 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That comes to about $17500 today using an inflation calculator.

[–] Anticorp 17 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Which is far lower than a new car costs today.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If you hunt you can still find them in the 18-20k range. But you get cheap shit like a Nissan Versa, tiny compacts with bad drivetrains. Not a higher trim boat like that 1941 is.

[–] CaptainPedantic 17 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Sure, the Versa is a crummy, low trim model. But look at what you get in the Versa compared to the Pontiac despite that:

  • Fuel injection
  • Front disc brakes
  • Power brakes
  • Automatic transmission
  • FM radio
  • Bluetooth
  • Backup camera
  • A damn rear view mirror (Wikipedia says this was optional on the Pontiac)
  • Air conditioning
  • Power steering
  • Airbags
  • Crumple zones
  • Seat belts
  • Traction control
  • Anti-lock brakes
  • Same power, but vastly improved fuel economy
  • 1,000 lbs of weight savings
  • Radial tires
  • Halogen headlights
  • Reverse lights

The list goes on I'm sure. It costs more because you get so much more stuff, a lot of which is for safety.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah, these older cars went slower and were death traps. The passenger cabin was the "crumple zone". People went flying through the windshield in a crash that would be easily survivable by the 80s.

[–] agent_flounder 3 points 10 months ago

At least it was safety glass (mandated in 1937). Yeah old cars are terrifying. Cool but terrifying.

[–] Pirky 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

On top of that, the odometer only went to 99,999 before resetting. Implying they didn't intend the vehicles to last much longer than 100k miles.

[–] agent_flounder 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

And you had to do more service more often such as tune ups for adjusting points ignition. And I think in some engines, adjusting valve lash since hydraulic lifters didn't become ubiquitous until later?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yup, and king pins, suspension joints and pretty much every other moving part needed greasing constantly since sealed rubber boots, and tough plastics hadn’t been invented yet (let alone ball/spherical joints).

On the plus side, if you or kept up maintenance the joints would last a longer time, but back then the engines weren’t usually as reliable, and relied on leased gas to prevent detonation and valve wear. Now if a ball joint or wheel bearings fail, you just realize the whole assembly. So more waste, but less maintenance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And I think in some engines, adjusting valve lash since hydraulic lifters didn’t become ubiquitous until later?

Many engines even up to the mid 2000's also needed valve adjustments. Honda F-series engines are notorious for it. The only difference is improvements in metallurgy mean the valve seats no longer recess nearly as much, and thing like the Honda F22's only need the adjustment every 60k or so rather than every 10.

[–] agent_flounder 1 points 9 months ago

Interesting. I thought I vaguely recalled some modern vehicle needing it. Every 60k isn't too bad though. I think my 60s Datsun needed it more often.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

The Nissan is indeed an objectively "Better" car, but compared to it's market (as the Pontiac is comparing itself to it's own market) it is still a crummy car.
The fact is that all those (legally mandated) improvements do make them more expensive overall.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

And certainly not something you can upgrade to a V8 for an extra $25.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And its made entirely of steel!

[–] Anticorp 3 points 10 months ago

Good ol American union steel!

[–] doubletwist 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Another way to look at it. The median household/family annual income in 1945 (the year I can find data on) was a whopping $2379.

So that car was almost 35% (34.88%) of a household's income.

In 2022 median household income was $76330. That same percent gives you $26623 to spend on a car.

It's not the fanciest thing in the world but you can get a new Versa stick shift starting at $16390, that compared to the Pontiac in 1941 will be a million times more reliable, safer, easier to drive, easier to park, and more efficient. Plus it's a 4-door. Not too mention AC, better radio, handsfree calling, etc.

The main area where that comparison falls apart is that these days most households need 2 cars.

[–] mojofrododojo 3 points 10 months ago

taking america by storm in 41, 42, 43, 44, 45... lots of the automotive industrial base was making tanks by the end of the year and the styles didn't update much of anything until after the war.