Value and quality of products from the past???

[JD Seller]

The post below about the cost of household appliances started me thinking about value and quality.

A new car in 1956 would have been around $1000-1200 with few features and no way you would get 100,000 miles of use without major repairs. That $1000-1200 would be $8750-10,500 in today's money.

So on the surface it would seem that the 1956 car was "better" value. You have to consider that todays car will have the following things that the 1956 car would not have:
1) Expectations to last in the 150K mile range with no major maintenance.
2) Air Conditioning
3) Power steering
4) Fuel injection and better fuel economy.
5) Many safety features that have made car fatalities be much lower per 1000 miles driven.

So if you figure these things about double the value of a car today then the value is about the same.

Now on common appliances the figures would be different depending on whether you want to add in energy consumption. My brother has a IH refrigerator that was built in the late 1950s. It still works well. It is a energy hog compared to a new one but it is also 60 plus years old. I don't think that a refrigerator bought today will last 60 years. I have trouble getting 10 years out of them.

Now lets look at equipment. There are tractors in general use that where made in the 1950-1960s. There are many JD 4020 and IH 706s on feeder wagons around here. I mean on serious farms not a guy playing with farm equipment with a city job.

I am pretty sure that todays tractors with so many computer components will not be running in 50-60 years. I wonder if 25 years might not catch some of them.

Corporate American will push to quit providing parts on older models as they will say it "costs" too much. When in reality the equipment built to day has built in obsolescence. They do not build the "best they can. They build the most they can for this amount of money. Bean counters control production today as much as the engineers.

Have you noticed that just about all of the normal consumer goods you buy are not repairable. You just replace the whole unit. You don't have your cell phone "repaired" you just get a new one.

The culture has changed too. Most people under 40 do not even think of fixing most common things. They just throw it away and buy "new". So I am not sure that even if the manufactures built better stuff that people would give anymore for "good" quality stuff anymore.

Walmart sells the cheaper products not the "best" products. Too many shoppers/consumers today look at price only. Not total cost/value. My wife does this on a lot of stuff. I really have to watch what she does this on. My kids do that on things too.

An example. Her sweeper broke the beater. She was just going to get a new one. The old one was just a little over 18 months old. A new one was going to be around $150. I replaced the beater for around $30. She would not have even tried to fix it.

My Grand daughters "have to" have a hair dryer. Life would end if they can't dry their hair. LOL Their dryers do not last very long. When they moved last year they had a box of 6-8 dryers that would not work. I know a new dryer is under $20. So I took that box of dryers. I was able to fix about half of them. Some just had a broken wire or bad switch. So I gave them the working ones back as spares. Now they bring me the non working stuff and "we" try to fix it. They all know how to solder and replace a switch on things.

So I think that the value of things varies just like it did 50-60 years ago.

The one major thing that has improved almost beyond belief is medical care. Things are treatable today that would have killed us just 25-30 years ago. I am not talking about cost jut the ability to "cure" things.

So while I think that I was lucky growing up when I did, and kids today are missing out on that, I would rather be getting old today over then. How many of you fellow posters would have sub pare lives if we where 50 years in the past on heath care???

 

[Greg K]

Minor 2¢ on my part. If you look at a chart of energy efficient refrigerators you will see that the ones built before the 1970's are more energy efficient than those built until recently. This is due to the larger amount of insulation not efficient compressors. I do like your analogy of the autos and would like to add that most people didn't drive as many miles as they do now, at least on the farm that is. The planned obsolescence is for sure not a "green" thing bit as long as people want the newest thing it will prevail.

 

[pete 23]

Kind of difficult to arrive at price of a car in 1956 as I don't have a book to go by but I know I paid 1250 for a 55 Plymouth in Oct, 1957 when I got back from overseas. I looked long and hard for a car I could afford. Was thinking about a 52 or 53 chev but they wanted that much for them at that time and they were not nearly as nice. I also priced a new 58 chev just before I got out of the army in may 58 and it listed over 3000 so I quickly gave up that idea. I also remember dad paying 150 dollars for a new refrigerator in 1945. He had saved up that amount and a little more in half dollars. When he went in to pay for it with the half dollars in a bag , they thought he had chains when he said he had some change. I bought a used Frigidaire refrigerator in 1961 shortly after our daughter was born. Wife could not nurse her so we needed to keep her formula cool when the weather warmed up and the window sill would not do the job anymore. We still have that fridge in our kitchen. Get lot of remarks about it but it still does the job.

 

[NCWayne]

I"ve got to agree with everything but the part about the automobiles. I say that for several reasons. One is that the extended life of the newer vehicles comes as much from the advances in both oil quality as well as filtration as anything else. Think how many vehicles made before about 1955 had no oil filter at all, and to the best of my knowledge synthetic oil wasn"t even invented at the time. I"ve seen an older diesel engine (3306 CAT to be exact)that was run nearly every day for close to 12 years, running a good quality oil, that checked standard on both the rods, and mains when torn down to repair a pinhole in one liner. I"ve also seen an excavator pump with nearly 10,000 hours on it before it needed repair. That, according to my pump guys, is about twice what they normally run before needing a rebuild. It"s all due to running good oil, and keeping it clean)

While the newer vehicles may go for 150,000 miles that"s only the powertrain. Usually the plastic trim and things like that are shot and either not repairable or not available to be replaced. With the older vehicles, many had metal trim that could easily be repainted, and reused. Too, back then there was a limited amount of parts available, like points, caps, etc, etc, so most mfgs used the same parts across many of their lines of vehicles. Now days it"s like they invent something new all the time just to keep it proprietary and keep the price up as much as possible. that usually means that even though they make a dozen other needed parts that cross lines, it only takes one "special" part that"s not available, and the whole car is junk. That rarely ever happens with the older vehicles unless it"s something extremely rare.

Talking about the cost, think about it like this. I can easily go down to most parts houses and get everything to tune up an older vehicle, and do it myself, for less than $200. Many of the newer vehicles have one part of their ignition system that will cost that much, or more. I know some of them have individual coil packs, and those alone cost nearly $100 each. Then between the special tools, and computers needed, and the cost of each, it becomes something that you can"t do yourself. In other words by the time you pay for parts, and pay for someone to do the work, you easily double, or triple the ongoing cost of a new vehicle -vs- an older one. Between that, and the planned obsolescence, I"ll take an older car any day of the week.

Last, to address the fuel economy aspect of the older vehicles -vs- the new ones. When my "55 Chevy wagon was on the road, I was getting about 23 MPG out of it. That was with a 283 that had a decent cam, solid lifters, and a 450 spread bore Holley carb. It was backed by a 4 speed Saginaw transmission and a 3.08 geared rear. I"ve got no idea how many HP it was pushing, but it would easily spin the tires in at least 2 gears, and I"ve topped it out around 150 MPH with that particular gear setup. With the original 3 speed, and a 3.73 gear, I could spin tires in all three gears, and do it until I got off the gas. Find a new car with that kind of HP, and getting that kind of MPG, and it won"t be the average grocery getter. That being said, back then most folks weren"t as worried about the cost of fuel either, so it wasn"t that uncommon to see a V8 in the "grocery getter", where the engines in most average cars now are V6 or inline 4, unless you get into the sportier models. In any case it"s those 4 and 6 cylinder engines that are getting the the really high MPG, and the new V8"s with all the fancy fuel injection, electronic ignition, etc, are still getting about the same MPG my 55 did, with an old school carb. I will admit that I did have a strobe ignition -vs- a set of points because I was getting too much point chatter at high RPMs)Even then that was 20 year old plus technology, not the latest and greatest.

In the end, when you take everything into account, the "lower" cost of a new vehicle -vs- an older one is more than offset by the high maintenance cost for the newer ones, and the need to completely replace it with yet another new car, within the same amount of time the older one can be repaired, and reused...and continue to be repaired and reused long after the newer ones are scrapped and made into the next new one. Sadly the same seems to hold true for both construction and farm equipment.

 

[jimg.allentown]

Gotta contradict you here....
First, the quality of the oil may have some bearing on the longevity of an engine, BUT....more importantly, look at the difference in times. Back in the '60s, roads were mostly 2 lanes. Not a lot of expressways. That was tough on a powertrain. Also, at reasonable "highway" speeds, the engines were running at 3500 rpm. Nowadays, we are running on relatively smooth expressways, at 65 mph or so, and turning 1700 to 1900 rpm. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!! Thank overdrives and locking converters for a lot of that.

And a side note.... spinning your wheels on a REAR WHEEL DRIVE car with a V8 engine was nothing to brag about. Between lack of traction in the rear, bias ply tires, and a grabby clutch, I could do the same with my 170 cubic inch Mercury Comet with a 4-speed trans. I just didn't because I had to pay for my own tires. That also made for treacherous driving on slippery roads.

 

[CenTex Farmall]

Agree.

Once you get the basic efficiency up to a certain level it takes X amount of fuel to move X amount of vehicle down the road whether old or new.

The day-to-day reliability of the new stuff is better, i.e. no manual choke, starts easy in winter, ease of operation, etc. But the _ultimate_ reliability of the old stuff is better because it will run even if things are not quite right and roadside repairs are quite do-able.

I put about 200k on one of my old Camaros driving back and forth to work at DFW, 106 miles one way. I always made it to work and always made it home.
Used a 400 for a while and then tested a 292 and then a 350. The 292 actually got really good mileage.

 

[CenTex Farmall]

I think they made some low end junk back in the old days. It just didn't survive and now all that's left is the good stuff.

Agree that now pretty much everything is built to a price point and planned obsolescence is the norm.

 

[NCWayne]

I'm talking about a '55 Chevy 2 door, 210 series wagon that I had on the road between 1986 and 1990. It had radial tires on all four corners (wider than factory on the rear) and traction/slapper bars on the rear. In other words I had to try if I wanted to get them to really spin. Heck I could actually run down the road at 100 in fourth, drop back to third, and stomp it, and still get a good chirp out of them. That took a lot of the fire out of quite a few guys that thought they wanted to race.

That aside, I understand what your saying, and it's basically the same thing I am saying. Whether you look at it as highway miles -vs- back road miles, or in the sense of the RPM's the engine turned under normal conditions, it all eventually comes down to the way things are geared. It's a given that the lower the RPMs an engine runs the longer it will ultimately last.

 

[ShadetreeRet]

As the old saying goes, "Times they are a changing". and not necessarily for the better, either. Refrigerators may not have been as effective as now,but the cost of electricity was not nearly as much. Other appliances were more durable than now. Speaking of "planned obsolescence" sometime about the mid eighties, I had to call the engineering dept. of Poulan-Weedeater concerning a problem and the gentleman with whom I spoke was quite talkative. In the course of conversation he made the statement, "You can't sell quality anymore!" He said, "You might have the best widget in the world, but if Joe Blow down the street sells one for a dollar or two less, people will buy it and not question quality." Due to today's advertising, everyone thinks that they must have the "latest and greatest" with no concern about durability.
I must agree with NC Wayne on vehicles also, Sure, we get better fuel mileage today, but we are paying for it through the nose. It costs a fortune to own and maintain a vehicle today, and there is no incentive for a young man today to become a mechanic, because you can't work on them in your back yard! I was born with a love of machinery. My Dad was a fair backyard mechanic and I followed in his footsteps. I learned basic automotive fundamentals from Hot Rod Magazine and Motors Repair manuals. When repairs were needed we had a large oak tree in the back yard with a limb large enough to support an engine on a chain hoist. (Where did you think "shadetree" came from?) Sure, tune ups were required a little more frequently, but they were not nearly as expensive, and you became quite proficient at it. I guess that's why we "more experienced" ones call them the good old days. (I hate the term "older people"! LOL

 

[notjustair]

Can you imagine what the tier 4 diesel tractors will be like? Some are already going back for fixes. There will likely be lots of "barn find, low hour" tractors 20 years from now. They will also need $25,000 worth of repairs to run.

I figure once warranties run out someone will figure out how to strip all of that off to make the tractor run. Many people did the same with fuel injected VWs in states without smog testing.

I will farm with my 4440, 8430, 4020, and Farmalls for as long as I can see fit. When the engines need it I will rebuild. I treat them like family so they will last as long as I do. I don't care what the neighbors think. My field work gets done in the same amount of time as theirs.

 

[Cas]

I would have been a dead duck. Have some health problems that the drugs to deal with them came out starting in the early 1980s.

 

[Cas]

The wrenches, tools, anything made in Japan in the 1950s is all gone around my place. It was far worse than the Chinese junk of today.

 

[wisbaker]

Some manufacturers do or have made quality products in recent times. Honda was one, in the early 90's a New Accord cost about the same as a Taurus Dynasty or Celebrity. You could buy a 4 cylinder Honda or for the same money you could get a six cylinder Ford, Dodge or Chevy and a power seat and a few other features. Honda still sold the heck out of their Accord, a lot of that was simple reputation, people believed Accords didn't break as much, handled better and lasted longer. In reality the scheduled maintenance costs for an Accord were about twice of what a Taurus would cost.

 

[oldtanker]

First place Germany was making both synthetic oil and fuel during WWII. So it's not new.

Back in the good old days you did a tune up every 12K or so. Plugs, points condenser with the cap, rotor and wires as New car national average for most cars, 200 plus k. So 2 rebuilds at 1K or more each. Clutch every 60 or 80K at 300 needed. Well today quality plugs point and condenser are 30 bucks or so. In 100 K that's 180 bucks worth of parts. New car, set of pugs at 100 k. Old car 80-100K for rings and bearings. bucks anymore or an auto tranny at 100-120. that today is 1000-1500 if you install it yourself. New auto tranny vehicles are averaging over 200 K on a tranny. I've driven the last 5-6 cars/trucks with fuel injection all over 200K each and have only replaced one fuel pump that was well over 200K. Old car 2 maybe more fuel pumps in 100 K plus at least one carb kit. At todays cost fist 100K's one tune up and oil changes. Old car 8 tune ups, rings and bearing & a valve job, plus a tranny. The lets say one fuel pump and one carb rebuild at today prices! never mind that the car today is most likely going to get better mileage.

As far as todays tractors, I think at the cost that parts will be available both OM and aftermarket for a long time. Heck I watched a CaseIH tractor sell at auction, in todays farm environment, for 119,000 dollars and it's 9 years old with 3560 hour on it. Maybe not 60 years. But go to IH, not CaseIH/NH of Ford and buy a tractor part. So with the value of these new ones I think parts may be available a lot long than people think.

Rick

 

[davpal]

About the only people I see going to the doctor are on medicare. That's no bullchit. The regular people out there who have jobs and so called "medical insurance" won't go within a country mile of a doctors office unless they want to get socked with a $10,000 dollar medical bill from the hospital. I work with several guys that have gotten billed like that and we are supposed to have medical insurance where I work. So all the medical technology in the world can't save you if you can't afford to go to the doctor. This is the biggest problem in this country right now. I have a relative that works in admitting in a large area hospital and she said almost nobody comes in there with health insurance. She said there must be 100 medicaid users that come in with a sore back or a toothache so they can get a prescription for some painkillers courtesy of the taxpayers. She said if anybody comes in with an actual insurance card they were either in a bad car accident or are having a life death situation with a heart attack. I know I don't go for anything anymore.

 

[FBH44]

I still have a wife because of all the side air bags in her van.
I do not have Pop, because hhis 1960's heart attack was his one and only. No medical help at all.
I can do everyting, after my triple bypass years ago.
I have a wall hung with Pop's and Grandpa's old broken cast iron wrenches, not worth a dern, one I found in the old pond after Grandpa tossed it there, I'm sure, no comparison to Craftsman / Snap-On last-forever.
Electricity is NOT more costly.

 

[Geo-TH,In]

Things form the past that didn't last:
Points and condensors,
Generators and regulators
Drum brakes
Paint jobs and cars rusted out.
Mufflers and tail pipes
TV with vacuum tubes
Carburators with automatic chokes,problems
Cars, trucks
Tires
Flat head engines
My young healthy body didn't last.
The list is endless.


SO MUCH FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS.

 

[gene bender]

Where did you come up with the 1956 price on a new car better double that and some more. A new 54 Ford convert was 2465.

 

[rustyfarmall]

(quoted from post at 19:26:29 09/06/14) I"ve got to agree with everything but the part about the automobiles. I say that for several reasons. One is that the extended life of the newer vehicles comes as much from the advances in both oil quality as well as filtration as anything else. Think how many vehicles made before about 1955 had no oil filter at all, and to the best of my knowledge synthetic oil wasn"t even invented at the time. I"ve seen an older diesel engine (3306 CAT to be exact)that was run nearly every day for close to 12 years, running a good quality oil, that checked standard on both the rods, and mains when torn down to repair a pinhole in one liner. I"ve also seen an excavator pump with nearly 10,000 hours on it before it needed repair. That, according to my pump guys, is about twice what they normally run before needing a rebuild. It"s all due to running good oil, and keeping it clean)

While the newer vehicles may go for 150,000 miles that"s only the powertrain. Usually the plastic trim and things like that are shot and either not repairable or not available to be replaced. With the older vehicles, many had metal trim that could easily be repainted, and reused. Too, back then there was a limited amount of parts available, like points, caps, etc, etc, so most mfgs used the same parts across many of their lines of vehicles. Now days it"s like they invent something new all the time just to keep it proprietary and keep the price up as much as possible. that usually means that even though they make a dozen other needed parts that cross lines, it only takes one "special" part that"s not available, and the whole car is junk. That rarely ever happens with the older vehicles unless it"s something extremely rare.

Talking about the cost, think about it like this. I can easily go down to most parts houses and get everything to tune up an older vehicle, and do it myself, for less than $200. Many of the newer vehicles have one part of their ignition system that will cost that much, or more. I know some of them have individual coil packs, and those alone cost nearly $100 each. Then between the special tools, and computers needed, and the cost of each, it becomes something that you can"t do yourself. In other words by the time you pay for parts, and pay for someone to do the work, you easily double, or triple the ongoing cost of a new vehicle -vs- an older one. Between that, and the planned obsolescence, I"ll take an older car any day of the week.

Last, to address the fuel economy aspect of the older vehicles -vs- the new ones. When my "55 Chevy wagon was on the road, I was getting about 23 MPG out of it. That was with a 283 that had a decent cam, solid lifters, and a 450 spread bore Holley carb. It was backed by a 4 speed Saginaw transmission and a 3.08 geared rear. I"ve got no idea how many HP it was pushing, but it would easily spin the tires in at least 2 gears, and I"ve topped it out around 150 MPH with that particular gear setup. With the original 3 speed, and a 3.73 gear, I could spin tires in all three gears, and do it until I got off the gas. Find a new car with that kind of HP, and getting that kind of MPG, and it won"t be the average grocery getter. That being said, back then most folks weren"t as worried about the cost of fuel either, so it wasn"t that uncommon to see a V8 in the "grocery getter", where the engines in most average cars now are V6 or inline 4, unless you get into the sportier models. In any case it"s those 4 and 6 cylinder engines that are getting the the really high MPG, and the new V8"s with all the fancy fuel injection, electronic ignition, etc, are still getting about the same MPG my 55 did, with an old school carb. I will admit that I did have a strobe ignition -vs- a set of points because I was getting too much point chatter at high RPMs)Even then that was 20 year old plus technology, not the latest and greatest.

In the end, when you take everything into account, the "lower" cost of a new vehicle -vs- an older one is more than offset by the high maintenance cost for the newer ones, and the need to completely replace it with yet another new car, within the same amount of time the older one can be repaired, and reused...and continue to be repaired and reused long after the newer ones are scrapped and made into the next new one. Sadly the same seems to hold true for both construction and farm equipment.

Thank you for clarifying the fuel mileage of the older cars. I owned a 1960 Chevy BelAir 4 door with the 283 and 2 speed powerglide trans. I was 17 years old at the time, so miles per gallon was not all that important to me, but that car would still get 18 to 20 mpg easily.

 

[rrlund]

I remember Duffy telling not long ago that he found an owners manual for a 49 Ford. Seems like the warranty was 90 days or 3000 miles or something close to that. That should tell you how much better cars are now days. We have 281,000 on the wife's 2002 Ford.
It's like Paul Harvey used to say,sure cars are more expensive now,but they're worth it.

 

[Goose]

My wife has survived quadruple bypass surgery and walked away from a head on collision, and is still perfectly healthy.

Without air bags or modern surgical technology she wouldn"t be here.

 

[Dr. Walt]

Shadetree:

You ain't old, we're Antiques, and Antiques are VALUABLE.

LOL!

:>)

 

[JD Seller]

MY Grand father and uncle both bought Chevy cars in the mid 1950s and they where in that range. The one was a two door coupe and it was right at a $1000. My Uncle said the world was going crazy because a new car was over a $1000. HE complained about it for years. My Grand fathers car was a four door and he had to give a little more for it.

My Father bought a new Ford F150 pickup in 1973. It was a plain Jane but had a 302 an automatic. AM radio and manual steering. HE gave $2300.

The convertible you talked about would have been a higher priced car.. Also was that $2465 LIST????

 

[buickanddeere]

I have some other prices and will post them soon. homes, musical organs and vehicles

 

[pete 23]

Be 78 this week. Sure I have medicare, and VA care. It is good but not FREE. Costs wife and me a little over 500 a month with supplement. If you don't have supplement you get the big bills same as someone not on medicare. Drugs, another average of 250 a month after insurance. I go to Dr. twice a year for check up at VA. Wife goes when deathly sick.

 

[GordoSD]

I paid $1550 for a 57 BA 2D Hard top, power pack, PS, PB, Positraction. In June of 1960. Had 22k miles on it.