Vintage Car Thread - Discussion and Parts Requests

[Fading Fast]

The top of the line Gaz was built as a limousine, intended for official use, but civilians could rent them for special occasions. There were more middle-brow Gazzes which were available to the public, which were about the equivalent of a Buick or a DeSoto, but styled more sporty, sort of along the lines of a Studebaker.

I never saw a Cadillac in my neighborhood until 1972, when a neighbor traded in a 1952 DeSoto toward a new Sedan DeVille. The only time I ever rode in it I threw up in the back seat, and I've never been in any Cadillac since.

They were rare, but a few popped up here and there - but as my dad's comment implied, if you were living in our neighborhood and had one, you were stretching hard.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Here in small town Canada there were a few Cadillacs, all owned by small business owners and shop keepers, all bought second hand. Except the local GM dealer bought his mother a new Cadillac every year, and an old farmer drove a 1966 Fleetwood limousine for years. The other Cadillac owners were proprietors of the local butcher shop, the bowling alley, and a gas station and furnace oil business.

The middle class and rich people drove Buicks and Chrysler New Yorkers.

 

[Stanley Doble]

In the heyday of the Soviet Union private ownership of cars was practically unknown. They were pretty much all official cars or "company cars" belonging to government agencies and government owned enterprises. You would be assigned a car if your status and job required one.

It was theoretically possible to buy a car for private use but you had to save up an amount of money no ordinary person could save up in a lifetime, pay full price in cash, then wait 5 - 10 years for delivery. Needless to say, few new cars were sold this way.

 

[Fading Fast]

In the heyday of the Soviet Union private ownership of cars was practically unknown. They were pretty much all official cars or "company cars" belonging to government agencies and government owned enterprises. You would be assigned a car if your status and job required one.

It was theoretically possible to buy a car for private use but you had to save up an amount of money no ordinary person could save up in a lifetime, pay full price in cash, then wait 5 - 10 years for delivery. Needless to say, few new cars were sold this way.

Wow, that is incredible. I do not have a positive view of the old USSR, but was it really that bad? So, unless connected to your job - no car? Any idea what percentage of the population owned cars (or had a gov't provided one as you describe) in the USSR say in, oh, 1965 versus what percentage in the US? You seem to have a good handle on this.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The main difference between the Soviet Union and the US on car ownership was a cultural one. In the USSR far greater emphasis was placed on public transportation --and because of that, most Soviet citizens had little interest in owning cars, according to historian Lewis H. Siegelbaum, in his book "Cars For Comrades: The Life of the Soviet Automobile." There was no "car culture" in the Soviet Union and car ownership was actually frowned upon by most ordinary people as being a wasteful use of available resources. This attitude reached its peak during the Khruschev era, where a strong emphasis was being placed on improving the quality of and ease of access to public transport systems.

Siegelbaum states on page 84 that according to Soviet figures, there was one private car for every 238 citizens in the mid-sixties. However, this doesn't take into account the system of car rentals, which were priced for the average citizen, and took away the cost of daily upkeep. If a Soviet citizen *needed* a car for some purpose, he could get access to one, even if he didn't actually own it.

 

[Fading Fast]

The main difference between the Soviet Union and the US on car ownership was a cultural one. In the USSR far greater emphasis was placed on public transportation --and because of that, most Soviet citizens had little interest in owning cars, according to historian Lewis H. Siegelbaum, in his book "Cars For Comrades: The Life of the Soviet Automobile." There was no "car culture" in the Soviet Union and car ownership was actually frowned upon by most ordinary people as being a wasteful use of available resources. This attitude reached its peak during the Khruschev era, where a strong emphasis was being placed on improving the quality of and ease of access to public transport systems.

Siegelbaum states on page 84 that according to Soviet figures, there was one private car for every 238 citizens in the mid-sixties. However, this doesn't take into account the system of car rentals, which were priced for the average citizen, and took away the cost of daily upkeep. If a Soviet citizen *needed* a car for some purpose, he could get access to one, even if he didn't actually own it.

Awesome info, thank you. I know it is heresy in this country, but I wish we had diverted some of our highway spending in the '50s to building out high-speed trains as I think, today, especially with the not-car-loving millennials, it would be a popular means of transport. It just seems an impossible undertaking today, but I've witness its one success with the Northeast build out of the Acela (which is only a somewhat high-speed train, but it is still hugely popular).

Okay, so cars were not out of reach of the average Soviet if you consider the different approach (more trains and car rentals when needed), were all the reports about the average Soviet citizen standing on line for all his/her essentials (versus American stores stuffed full of goods - e.g., Robin Williams in "Moscow on the Hudson") true or Western propaganda?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Depends on the point in time -- remember that it took the USSR a very long time to rebuild from the devastation of the war, and rationing of goods was still going on long after as rebuiilding took priority. (This wasn't entirely a Soviet phenomenon, either. The UK wasn't fully off the ration until 1954.) There were also issues with distribution -- consumer goods were much easier to get in the metropolitan areas, compared to the rurals, in part due to the need to rebuild infrastructure which had been lost during the war.

Basic foodstuffs were available either at state-run stores or independent farmers' markets, although prices at the latter were substantially higher. While there was less variety and stores were less densely packed -- you didn't have ten different brands of essentially identical goods filling up shelf space -- basic needs were met. The emphasis was on the production of necessities as opposed to luxury goods.

The Gorbachev-era late eighties were probably the most difficult time since the end of the war for the average Soviet citizen so far as shortages were concerned -- the Cold War had bled the country white, and Gorbachev's reforms coming on top of that led to the severest shortages of the postwar era. And of course, matters aren't all that much better in modern oligarchic Russia, where nostalgia for the "good old days" of the USSR is on the increase. Anyone for the Ushanka Lounge?

As for public transportation in the US, that's a sore point of mine. I live in an area where there is *no* public transportation at all -- there was a very fine system of interurban trolleys serving much of the state a hundred years ago, but it was abolished in the twenties, and since then we've had nothing outside of bus systems in Bangor and Portland. This creates an absolute traffic nightmare in the summer, when the tourist traffic combines with the locals who have to drive into town to work or to do business.

 

[ingineer]

Russia
So many stories, people taking off the wipers their Lada so they would not be stolen.
Years ago when BIC pen was a great tip.
The lose of the rule of law , when all hooligans jump in front of cars
all drivers with dash cams

http://www.wired.com/2013/02/russian-dash-cams/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itMdLTd1l4E
They made great trucks though

 

[dh66]

I lived in Ukraine for a brief period a few years ago. There were plenty of privately owned vehicles, but by and large most people still relied on public transportation, buses and rail, which was very efficient. There were also plenty of mopeds, a couple of tractors, and on several occasions I witnessed folks on horse or donkeyback, and this was in a metropolitan area with a population of about a million and a half.

As to the dash cams - the western concept of automobile insurance hasn't really caught on there yet. Everyone drives around with their dash can on in case they get in an accident, so there will be some kind of evidence as to who's at fault, because it's fairly easy to bribe a traffic cop or judge if it's just a matter of one drivers word against another.

 

[Stanley Doble]

It's the same in every socialist country. There is a long standing prejudice against cars as being a plaything of the rich. Maybe in 1905 you had to be a millionaire to afford a car but by 1920 they were a tool of the farmer and small businessman, at least in the US.

In Europe and around the world, cars were restricted, heavily taxed, and discouraged as much as possible for political reasons. So of course the stigma never went away - you actually did have to be rich to afford a car, at least up to the fifties.

In the Soviet Union the car for the private owner was the Trabant, a 2 cylinder 2 stroke plastic car. Or in the seventies a Lada, a copy of an obsolete Fiat. Or in the 80s a Dacia, a copy of an obsolete Renault.

 

[tonyb]

If there could be any one thing that defines 20th century America (there couldn't be, of course, but humor me, please) it would be the automobile. And it still is, a decade and a half into the 21st century. We have built our lives around the things.

I recall a cranky old activist type I interviewed going on 20 years ago, who in response to those advocating for more public transportation said that we have an extensive public transportation system already. It's called roads.

I wasn't there to argue with the old guy (I've heard that he since passed on), but he had a valid point, for good or for ill.

 

[Stanley Doble]

For those who advocate better rail transportation. You already have in the US the most complete airline transport system in the world. I don't think you could get most air passengers to switch to a slower, more expensive railroad ride no matter how much safer or more comfy. I like trains too but let's face it, the airplane is here to stay for trips over 400 miles. For trips less than 400 miles you can't beat a car.

Those who advocate public transportation don't seem to realize what it costs to have all those buses and trains running around EMPTY. I know in rush hour, in the city center you can't get a seat. But hang around the suburbs at night and count the busese going by empty, or with 1 or 2 passengers. And reflect that you can't run a proper bus service unless you have a bus cover every route every 15 minutes, whether there happen to be passengers waiting or not.

Half the time on most routes it would be cheaper and more fuel efficient to send a taxicab.

 

[tonyb]

I can see high-speed rail finding a ready ridership between major population centers.

As to your point about buses, Stanley ... Pity the poor transit planner trying to make efficient use of equipment and manpower in a locale built around the personal vehicle, aka the automobile.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The problem here is that we're still driving our 20th and 21st Century cars on a road system that was, by and large, laid out in the 19th Century. I live fifty miles from the nearest modern "highway," and all we have are two-lane roads which were put into their current form when the state speed limit was 45mph. And our towns and cities were laid out in Colonial times and the arrangement of streets and roads still shows it.

In this town, in particular, the arrangement of roads is byzantine if you're a tourist -- to try and control the tourist traffic flow, we've got an arrangement of one-way streets that's hopelessly confusing if you've never been here before, and only two public parking lots, both of which are usually filled by people who actually work in town. So the tourists drive around in circles looking for somewhere to park, and then end up taking it out on me when they come to the show and there's nowhere to put their car. "WHY DON'T YOU HAVE PARKING????" they yell. And all I can tell them is "WE WERE BUILT WHEN PEOPLE CAME TO THE SHOW ON THE TROLLEY!"

And as far as building modern roads goes, forget it. They've been trying for forty years to build a bypass around Wiscasset, the most notorious bottleneck on Route 1, and it'll never, ever happen because it'll "ruin the scenery."

And meanwhile, hundreds of cars with one person inside just sit there not moving.

 

[tonyb]

I would think that the city fathers and mothers would address that problem, seeing how tourism is the lifeblood of the community. (It is, isn't it?) What obstacles are there to putting in more parking? Lack of space? Is it a problem only a few days per year?

That line from "Shoeless Joe" and its film adaptation "Field of Dreams," "If you build it they will come," is almost always true of roads and other large public infrastructure projects. Denver's "new" airport, which opened 20 years ago, was thought to be located clear to hell and gone when its site was first proposed. Of course development has followed. The time-capsule mountain town of Roslyn, Wash. (which served as the set for a fictitious Alaskan town on the TV series "Northern Exposure") was made much more readily accessible to the population center of greater Seattle, 80-some miles away, by the mega-expansion of Interstate 90 over Snoqualmie Pass. Sure enough, along came the condos and the golf courses.

The lesson is to be careful of what one wishes for. The tourists who come for the old-timey New England small-town charm might find that charm greatly diminished by limited access highways and multi-story parking garages and fast food emporia.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Space is the biggest problem. In the seventies, entire downtown neighborhoods were demolished for business parking, but the resulting lots are jealously guarded by the businesses that control them, with permit-only parking, two-hour limits or tow-away threats. The only two lots available for general public use are always full by 10 am from May to October. And really, there's nothing left to demolish for new parking unless you start taking out a few art galieries -- which I, for one, would be entirely happy to do.

At the theatre, we have no parking of our own, not even for staff. I park in the fire lane in an alley between our building and the bank next door. Said bank refuses to allow any theatre parking in its own lot, but that lot only holds fifteen cars or so anyway. The situation is being made even worse by the construction of a modern-art museum behind us, with no provision for additional parking.

What we desperately need here is a five-story parking garage, but there'll never, ever be one because, as you say, all the people from Connecticut and New Jersey don't come up here to look at five-story parking garages. So they keep driving in circles and bitching at the locals because we won't do anything about the problem. And the world spins on in its course...

 

[tonyb]

The challenge to rail for medium-distance travel (a couple hundred to, say, 500 miles) in a country with car-centric infrastructure is how to accommodate the travelers once they've arrived at their destinations. Unless that destination is among the few in the U.S. where operating a car is more trouble than it is worth, most of those passengers will be wanting a set of wheels under them.

A person can travel by rail between Seattle and Spokane (a distance of roughly 300 miles via I-90), and a person can fly. But once that person arrives he or she is almost certainly dependent on a car. It's about a five-hour drive (less time than that in the summer, typically), so most people opt to take their own wheels.

It's an even greater challenge to get people aboard trains and planes for covering shorter distances -- Seattle to Portland, Ore., for instance, or Vancouver, B.C. Amtrak runs between those cities, and there are numerous daily flights, so some people do indeed leave the car behind. But I'd wager that a whole lot more do the driving themselves. Consider the time and expense of getting oneself to the airport, the time spent ahead of the flight departure time to clear security, etc., the time in the air, and then the time and expense of procuring a rental car or some other form of ground transportation to get that person to his or her ultimate destination. In light of that, the three or four hours of driving along I-5 doesn't seem so bad.

 

[tonyb]

Of course, things were much different back in "the Era," before jet planes and the Interstate Highway System and two- and three-car households.

 

[LizzieMaine]

If you go back and look at the "Futurama" exhibit General Motors put on for the 1939 World's Fair, you'll see exactly what the Robert Moses-type view of the future was going to be -- entirely car-oriented. Obviously, GM had good reason for promoting that particular future, but one thing you'll notice from examining the Futurama is that it assumed that in the future none of the infrastructure from 1939 would remain to gob things up. Obviously, and especially in the Northeast, they greatly miscalculated.

 

[tonyb]

I'm surprised that that new art museum to which you allude wasn't required to include sufficient parking to meet the demand for parking it will create.

A few decades ago the city of Seattle tried to make its downtown less car-friendly. The result was not good. About a decade ago a HUGE parking garage was built, in the midst of a revitalizing retail district, with the assistance of various pots of government money.