They can’t be this dumb, can they?

[Foiled Again]

Originally Posted by panamerican

I saw this one a couple of years ago. I absolutely love it. When I was younger and dumber, I used to think all that steel around you was a benefit, and although it would barrel through most cars of today like a sherman tank, the reality is all the collision energy has to go somewhere and without crumple zones and modern tech, the entire car is the absorption passing it full onto the occupants.

Amazing how hindsight is 20/20.

I was alive and 11 years old in 1959, and spent a lot of time listening - unobserved - to adults in social situations. Trying to keep a car longer than 3 years? Really? There was a BIG after-market business in undercoating and rustproofing... to give the body a chance of surviving up to 5 years. Road salt plus acidic pollution from steel factories, paper factories, etc. just destroyed car bodies. I remember one year where half a dozen people had failures in their manual transmissions - and automatics? Jeez, I got 13 MPG when I had the manual, now I am lucky when I get 10 MPG! Oil was mostly just oil, and was black sludge at 3000 miles. STP additive was first produced on 1954 (Scientifically Treated Petroleum) "the racer's edge". Most people thought it was too expensive - and anyone who aspired to be solidly middle class would have been horrified to have to drive an OLD junky car. The teenager might get it and be grateful for worn upholstery and poor compression... and the parents would be happy that the old buggy couldn't go over 50 MPH. The 3 year car loan was about the only flavor available. 7 years? You gotta be joking! No one's car lasted more than 5 years. (The Bakers, accross the street did have a DeSoto they bought after WWII ended, but they literally drove it to church when the weather was bad, and to the grocery store once a week.)

[jondrew55]

I still have the sticker for my dad's 1966 Volkswagon Beetle; $1800. He added $75 for the sun roof.

My new truck is 4 times what their first house cost.

Originally Posted by Foiled Again

I was alive and 11 years old in 1959, and spent a lot of time listening - unobserved - to adults in social situations. Trying to keep a car longer than 3 years? Really? There was a BIG after-market business in undercoating and rustproofing... to give the body a chance of surviving up to 5 years. Road salt plus acidic pollution from steel factories, paper factories, etc. just destroyed car bodies. I remember one year where half a dozen people had failures in their manual transmissions - and automatics? Jeez, I got 13 MPG when I had the manual, now I am lucky when I get 10 MPG! Oil was mostly just oil, and was black sludge at 3000 miles. STP additive was first produced on 1954 (Scientifically Treated Petroleum) "the racer's edge". Most people thought it was too expensive - and anyone who aspired to be solidly middle class would have been horrified to have to drive an OLD junky car. The teenager might get it and be grateful for worn upholstery and poor compression... and the parents would be happy that the old buggy couldn't go over 50 MPH. The 3 year car loan was about the only flavor available. 7 years? You gotta be joking! No one's car lasted more than 5 years. (The Bakers, accross the street did have a DeSoto they bought after WWII ended, but they literally drove it to church when the weather was bad, and to the grocery store once a week.)

[uncle_bob]

Originally Posted by jondrew55

I still have the sticker for my dad's 1966 Volkswagon Beetle; $1800. He added $75 for the sun roof.

My new truck is 4 times what their first house cost.

Hi

That was after VW went insane on their pricing. They spent a *lot* of years holding the base price below $1,000 .....

These days, about 13 times a year, folks bring all sorts of absolutely beautiful examples of those old cars to town here. They put a *lot* of hard work into it and it shows. Many of them look better today than they did on the dealer's floor. I think that's great and more power to them.

Don't look at those lovingly rebuilt cars as examples of what actually was on the road back then .... I made good money over several summers patching rust and repainting folks cars back in the 60's. They all were "new cars" by today's standards.

Bob

[Fungus]

A couple of observations:

Young people today will become middle-aged and then old people. I drove a 1966 VW bug (already used up), a 1964 Chevy Biscayne (beautiful car, and used up at 60k miles), Datsun 210, itty-bitty truck. Then went "big" when I finally started making real money and bought one of the first mini-vans (Lee Iacocca's Caravan). There were years when we owned one small family car and I either rode a bicycle to work or a small motorcycle.

As we aged we moved from the those small vehicles to something bigger but it was really the income that drove the buying. I just bought my first AS after years of a pop-up camper, then tent camping with backpacking, then traveling without a camper. I can afford one now. When I was the age of my children, I couldn't. Wait for them to get old, if they can build wealth...

You could say that there could be a difference in generations in that today's young buy experiences whereas we buy assets for value. My administrative assistant made decent money and lived in a trailer-house hovel that they owned. A depreciating asset, so a poor financial decision. She spent her money on family trips to Disney World, something we never did and never would even have considered. We went the cheap route with backpacking trips and saved when we could. Now that we have a small amount of wealth, we travel when we want and, yes, bought an Airstream.

Maybe much of the difference lies in the fact that many X, Y, and mills came of age after their parents acquired the means to either buy the gear, take the trip, or maybe both. They aren't willing to wait for the wealth-building to occur before the experiences start.

Is one way better than the other? I don't know.

Another thing is that we can't compare the cost of things then to now. Gasoline is nearly the cheapest it's been in my memory when adjusted for inflation, and I go back to the 1960s.

[jondrew55]

My cars starting around 1970 sumpthin
1959 Jeep CJ5
1948 Jeep CJ 2A
1970 Ford Maverick
2 different 1968 Mustangs
1966 Chevy Chevelle
1970 Beetle
1980 VW Rabbit
And then a bunch of other stuff. All fun cars. Death traps by today’s standards. The mustangs, Jeep’s and Chevelle would be the only ones worth restoring. That CJ2A restored would bring a pretty penny.

Originally Posted by uncle_bob

Hi

That was after VW went insane on their pricing. They spent a *lot* of years holding the base price below $1,000 .....

These days, about 13 times a year, folks bring all sorts of absolutely beautiful examples of those old cars to town here. They put a *lot* of hard work into it and it shows. Many of them look better today than they did on the dealer's floor. I think that's great and more power to them.

Don't look at those lovingly rebuilt cars as examples of what actually was on the road back then .... I made good money over several summers patching rust and repainting folks cars back in the 60's. They all were "new cars" by today's standards.

Bob

[Fungus]

Originally Posted by jondrew55

My cars starting around 1970 sumpthin
1959 Jeep CJ5
1948 Jeep CJ 2A
1970 Ford Maverick
2 different 1968 Mustangs
1966 Chevy Chevelle
1970 Beetle
1980 VW Rabbit
And then a bunch of other stuff. All fun cars. Death traps by today’s standards. The mustangs, Jeep’s and Chevelle would be the only ones worth restoring. That CJ2A restored would bring a pretty penny.

The CJ2A would be fun to restore. Simple engine. Well, simple everything. Our 1966 VW was six volt. Big PITA. Required constant attention to the grounding and even then the headlights were good for about 100 feet. Rain? Stay home. But working on the VW was a breeze. It was 11 years old when I acquired it. Just sold the 11-year-old Lexus LS. Huge difference in quality between the VW and the Lexus at the same age. Gas mileage was about the same.

I own my dad’s 1951 Chevy truck. Wish I had the garage space to restore it.

[wayne b]

Originally Posted by mickeyme

For that matter, going lighter weight is also a good way to carry the brand forward as we head into the age of electric tow vehicles. We aren’t there yet, but it would be great if Airstream were already producing a trailer that was ready when we are.

Apologies for a potentially newbie question here: Why are contemporary Airstreams so much heavier than they were in the past?

In this 1970 brochure, you have 27 foot trailer with 450lb tongue weight / 4500lbs. The layouts seem very similar to contemporary versions...
https://www.airstream.com/wp-content...ayouts-247.pdf

[jondrew55]

The ‘59 Willys was easy to work on. First motor I ever rebuilt “L” head. Did a limited frame up restoration of the 2A. Scraped all the rust off whatever frame I could access without removing the body. Painted it a horrendous metallic blue color. The ‘70 bottle was a huge improvement over the ‘66 my dad had. Electric wipers, 12V system pretty sure it actually had some sort of heater/defroster fans. I got the Maverick for $500 from a lady who said it had a cracked head. Turned out it was just a ticking noise from carbon tracking on the distributor cap. I felt bad and went back to tell her she’d sold it for much less than it was worth. She said to forget it because the car was ugly as hell and she hated it and when her husband thought there was something wrong with the engine it was a perfect excuse to get rid of it.

Originally Posted by Fungus

The CJ2A would be fun to restore. Simple engine. Well, simple everything. Our 1966 VW was six volt. Big PITA. Required constant attention to the grounding and even then the headlights were good for about 100 feet. Rain? Stay home. But working on the VW was a breeze. It was 11 years old when I acquired it. Just sold the 11-year-old Lexus LS. Huge difference in quality between the VW and the Lexus at the same age. Gas mileage was about the same.

I own my dad’s 1951 Chevy truck. Wish I had the garage space to restore it.

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by panamerican

I saw this one a couple of years ago. I absolutely love it. When I was younger and dumber, I used to think all that steel around you was a benefit, and although it would barrel through most cars of today like a sherman tank, the reality is all the collision energy has to go somewhere and without crumple zones and modern tech, the entire car is the absorption passing it full onto the occupants.

Amazing how hindsight is 20/20.

Yes...but we were/are smarter...Dad & Mom, (and I still) stayed well behind and 50mph was tops on most all roads.

POI...did you know Packard developed auto park in 1933.

Bob
🇺🇸

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMsRJrlbyMI

[uncle_bob]

Originally Posted by jondrew55

My cars starting around 1970 sumpthin
1959 Jeep CJ5
1948 Jeep CJ 2A
1970 Ford Maverick
2 different 1968 Mustangs
1966 Chevy Chevelle
1970 Beetle
1980 VW Rabbit
And then a bunch of other stuff. All fun cars. Death traps by today’s standards. The mustangs, Jeep’s and Chevelle would be the only ones worth restoring. That CJ2A restored would bring a pretty penny.

Hi

If it was anything like the one I had, that Maverick was "less than the best" to put it very politely .....

Early on, I would burn through a beater used car in about a year. They never cost a lot, but they never lasted either. First new car was after a summer of putting in 80+ hour weeks all summer long. Didn't spend a dime on anything all summer. Taught me to get a bit less excited about new cars ...

Bob

[geodazed]

Originally Posted by mickeyme

Here’s the thing - by building a quality product (recent issues notwithstanding), Airstream is limiting their market. With so many trailers still on the road years after they were built, they need to look at ways to get into new markets and give people reasons to buy new trailers if they want to survive as a business.



So I see the “madness.”



Personally, I think they need to look at a different demographic - those of us with families who want a trailer that can hold all of us and still be able to use a tow vehicle that can comfortably do the same. Use lighter materials - lots of innovations in that area. Get rid of the extras - we really don’t need a single tv, let alone 3.



For that matter, going lighter weight is also a good way to carry the brand forward as we head into the age of electric tow vehicles. We aren’t there yet, but it would be great if Airstream were already producing a trailer that was ready when we are.

I agree with lighter is better. My restored 1966 24 ft tradewind only weighs 4,000 lbs.

[jondrew55]

Originally Posted by uncle_bob

Hi

If it was anything like the one I had, that Maverick was "less than the best" to put it very politely .....


Bob

That’s putting it mildly. I forgot to mention it was a manual 3-on-the-tree shifter. I was going from first to 2nd and the shifter literally broke off the steering column. Gave me the opportunity to put floor shifter on it. Added at least 10 MPH to the top end.

[uncle_bob]

Originally Posted by jondrew55

That’s putting it mildly. I forgot to mention it was a manual 3-on-the-tree shifter. I was going from first to 2nd and the shifter literally broke off the steering column. Gave me the opportunity to put floor shifter on it. Added at least 10 MPH to the top end.

Hi

So with another 10 MPH at the top end, you could actualy make it to 45 MPH ?

The engine on mine overheated very easily, along with a number of more minor issues.

Bob

[skyguyscott]

Originally Posted by wayne b

Apologies for a potentially newbie question here: Why are contemporary Airstreams so much heavier than they were in the past?

In this 1970 brochure, you have 27 foot trailer with 450lb tongue weight / 4500lbs. The layouts seem very similar to contemporary versions...
https://www.airstream.com/wp-content...ayouts-247.pdf

Short answer: because that's what the market wants.

Longer answer: The cabinetry in the '69-80s models was made of an ingenious, light weight cardboard-honeycomb core material with 1/4" plywood veneer. But the market wanted "solid hard wood" which is much heavier - ditto on the countertops.

The so-called engineers in the 70's drilled "lightening holes" willy nilly in the frame, without any structural analysis to guide them. This resulted in weight reduction, but also "rear end separation" and premature frame failure, common in the 70s trailers.

The Argosy line introduced the heavier wrap around corner windows, which migrated to the Airstream line in the 80s, increasing weight. Airstream also added stainless steel rock guards to the front end.

By the 80s, the era of the V-8 sedans and oil embargoes was over and everyone started towing with trucks and SUVs, allowing for heavier trailers.

[Foiled Again]

Good analysis, and very succinct. Two televisions in a 25 foot trailer, plus DVD player, stereo, and on and on. Too bad Jackson Center only sells empty shells to a few select outfitters.

I toured a handicap remodeling contractor recently. They have an upper cabinet adaptor that I would love, simply because I am short. You pull each door.forward and DOWN. The internal sliding rack moves forward and down. I could see every dish, cup and saucer inside.... customizing for an Airstream. $5000+ per cabinet, and I have 3. (Choking sounds) So... folding step stools, eh?