This has been one of the most hotly debated subjects in the automotive world for decades. Naturally, I felt compelled to take a swing at it myself.
It wasn’t going to be a simple task, especially since I don’t usually take hard sides. So, I approached it with logic and context in mind, removing as much bias and emotion from the process as possible.
So let’s try to arrive at an answer: What’s better overall Old Cars or New Cars? For this comparison, we’ll include classic and antique cars under the “old” umbrella, defining them as anything 20 years or older for fairness.
Electric and hybrid vehicles are excluded from this discussion, as they introduce an entirely separate conversation.
While my personal view leans toward older cars being better, I recognize that’s a view rooted in emotion and experience not something that should weigh heavily on this kind of objective discussion.
So, how do we figure out which type of car is truly better overall? I did some research and looked into various opinions. For this article, a newer car is anything under 20 years old, while anything older falls into the “old” category.
Sure, some may consider 10 to 15 years old already dated, but 20 years seems like a solid middle ground for most people. With that in mind, let’s dive into 10 common arguments from each side and see how they hold up.
The “Emissions” Argument:
That new cars emit less pollution and are made with more environmentally friendly materials. This is largely accurate, as modern cars are engineered to meet ever-tightening EPA regulations.
However, there’s a flaw in this comparison: vehicles from 20 or more years ago were subject to very different standards and expectations. So, judging them by today’s benchmarks isn’t entirely fair.
Still, if your goal is to minimize carbon emissions, purchasing a new car is likely the better choice – even if manufacturing and disposing of vehicles come with their own environmental costs.
The idea that older cars are more affordable due to depreciation. In most cases, this holds true. But older vehicles may require repairs, and in periods of economic inflation, used car prices can soar, diminishing the advantage.
The benefit only really applies if you avoid overpaying, dodge significant immediate issues, and can keep the vehicle as long as you would a new one. That said, this argument mostly matters if a new car isn’t in your budget or you simply prefer not to buy one.
The “Reliability” Argument:
The belief that newer cars are more dependable. While this seems obvious of course a brand-new car should be more reliable than a 30-year-old one with 200k miles the comparison isn’t entirely fair.
A new car’s reliability should be judged after it has stood the test of time. Getting 100k miles and 10 years without major issues should be the baseline for calling something “reliable.” Yet, some new vehicles today still fall short of that, just as some older ones once did.
That older cars are easier to fix due to their simpler construction. This is true, but only up to a point. Simplicity often means more manual work, and older cars still require regular maintenance, which can be both time-consuming and costly.
Meanwhile, most new cars won’t need major repairs for several years. So while old cars might be easier to understand and work on, that doesn’t automatically mean they’ll be less of a hassle overall.
If you’re keeping one, it’s wise to learn how to maintain it and that should be easier thanks to their simpler designs, right?
The “Safety” Argument:
That new cars offer superior crash protection and driver aids. This is clearly true. Modern vehicles are built to meet updated safety regulations and crash tests from the NHTSA. While some features existed 20 years ago, they weren’t nearly as advanced.
Cars from 30–40 years back often lacked airbags, traction control, and ABS. Go back 50–60 years, and you’d be lucky to find anything more than a lap belt. Still, reckless driving existed back then and persists today.
While new safety systems help, they don’t stop poor driving behavior though with looming speed limiters and kill switches, that might change soon.
The “Car Payment and Registration Fees” Argument:
That owning older cars typically means no car payments and often cheaper registration and insurance. This is generally accurate. Insurance rates for older cars tend to be lower, particularly if the car is inexpensive to replace or repair.
Depreciation also reduces the insurance company’s liability in a total loss. You can further lower costs by dropping coverages like comprehensive or collision. That said, some insurance companies might still overcharge, especially if your vehicle’s value increases.
That newer cars boast the latest gadgets and tech. That’s certainly true, but it’s a double-edged sword. How long will that tech last? What happens when it breaks? Do you even need it all? How often will you use these features?
Will they require updates? Additionally, there’s the question of personal comfort is everything on the dashboard where you want it? Hopefully it is, because you’re stuck with it for the life of the car.
Also Read: 10 Ford’s Best V8 Engines Ranked by Real-World Longevity and Proven Reliability
The “Design” Argument:
That older cars are more visually appealing than modern ones. Personally, I agree but design is subjective. As the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some genuinely prefer modern car aesthetics.
One of the great things about this argument is that anyone can compare two cars and decide for themselves. However, context matters: it’s hardly fair to compare a 1970 Mercury Cyclone to a 2003 Honda Fit and expect them to compete on looks.
That newer cars are typically faster. This is mostly true, thanks to accessible horsepower and advanced engine tech like direct injection and turbocharging. Horsepower ratings were also inflated before 1972.
That’s not to say fast cars didn’t exist in earlier decades, but performance today is easier to achieve. One thing that hasn’t changed, though: speed still comes at a price. So the question remains – how fast do you want to go?
That older vehicles have more character. I tend to agree. Many modern cars either look overly aggressive or bland, with little room in between. Meanwhile, older cars had more variety in appearance, often making them easier to distinguish.
That began to fade when manufacturers started engaging in badge engineering and shared engine platforms. But in the end, whether a car has “personality” is up to the individual.
The “Customization” Argument:
That new cars allow buyers to select factory options at purchase. While true and convenient, the aftermarket makes it possible to customize nearly any car post-purchase.
Factory options come built-in, which some people prefer to piecemeal upgrades. Sometimes, factory equipment even offers features that the aftermarket can’t match though that’s debatable depending on what you’re after.
That classic and vintage cars provide social benefits like joining clubs, attending shows, or simply sparking conversation. This becomes increasingly true as cars age and fewer remain on the road.
Many people appreciate seeing well-preserved older vehicles. It’s amusing that cars from the 1990s are now entering classic territory, and even funnier to imagine that cars from the 2020s might someday earn the same status assuming they survive that long.
That modern cars offer better handling. Generally accurate, though the aftermarket offers solutions for older cars too. Upgrades to suspension, tires, and shocks can significantly improve handling.
While older sports cars and race models handled well, large sedans and trucks didn’t. Modern versions of both categories handle better, but I still wouldn’t recommend racing a stock F-250.
The “Driver Engagement” Argument:
That older cars are more engaging to drive. This is mostly true, especially since they lack many driver aids. That said, the modern era has produced some engaging vehicles too, like the Dodge Viper or Toyota GR86 both of which are offered with manual transmissions.
And yes, the argument that manuals are more engaging than automatics still stands, as they require more from the driver. But this can apply to older cars broadly as well.
That newer vehicles have better rust protection. This seems accurate, though climate plays a huge role. Some 1960s and ’70s cars rusted away in under a decade, while others survived 50+ years.
Modern vehicles generally resist rust better, but older rust-free examples do exist usually from dry regions where corrosion wasn’t a major issue.
That older cars make better project vehicles. This is often opinion-based, but can hold true depending on ease of modification and available options.
Older cars may offer more potential for projects if you’re working on a tight budget or want customization freedom. Still, what works best varies by person, circumstances, and taste – not necessarily by vehicle age or performance.
Also Read: 13 Engines That Made Japanese Cars Unstoppable and Changed Performance Culture Forever
The “Nostalgia” Argument:
That we favor older cars out of nostalgia rather than objectivity. I don’t find this argument convincing. I drive older cars than the ones I grew up with, and they perform just as well when properly maintained.
I didn’t grow up with 1960s or 1970s cars I bought them later to experience them firsthand. But maybe others do feel it’s all about nostalgia and have tales of how “meeting your heroes” can disappoint.
That older cars weren’t designed to fail as quickly as new ones. I think this is only partially true. Even in the 1960s, budget cars were sometimes poorly built.
The 1970s had plenty of economy models like the Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega that suffered from low build quality. Cost-cutting has always existed. Today’s cars still follow that trend particularly base models.
While some newer cars seem to break down just after the warranty expires, planned obsolescence isn’t a new phenomenon.
After considering all 18 points (nine in favor of each side), I came to a conclusion but only after looking at it from a broader perspective.
The truth is simple: the best car is the one that genuinely makes you happy or satisfied, regardless of its age. That might sound anticlimactic, but here’s why it’s valid: the old versus new debate doesn’t always provide practical value.
Think about all the times someone asked for your opinion on what car they should buy. Did they actually follow your advice? Probably not.
I’ve been asked many times, but I can’t remember anyone actually doing what I suggested. What I do remember are the times they bought what they wanted anyway and didn’t want to hear “I told you so” when problems came up.
Ultimately, they didn’t buy what they needed they bought what they wanted. They were simply looking for validation. And if that car brings them joy, no matter how impractical or costly it may be, who am I to judge?
Every car has its issues and strengths. Every driver has different needs, values, and preferences.
In terms of real-world performance, a 90-year-old car engine is unlikely to provide the smooth, efficient driving experience of a modern daily driver. The older engines were noisy, less refined, and often plagued with vibration and sluggish acceleration.
They were designed more for simple, utilitarian driving than the smooth, quiet ride that modern cars provide today. The performance gap between an early 20th-century engine and a modern one is vast, particularly when it comes to acceleration, fuel efficiency, and emission control.
However, the mechanical simplicity of older engines means they can be easier to repair and rebuild. While modern engines are far more efficient and powerful, they rely on complex technology that can be difficult or expensive to repair without specialized tools or training.
In the end, the difference between a 90-year-old car engine and a modern daily driver comes down to advances in technology, materials, and engineering.
While old engines can be surprisingly durable with the right maintenance, modern engines are far superior when it comes to reliability, efficiency, and longevity.
he modern car benefits from decades of innovation and refinement, and as a result, it can easily outlast its predecessor with fewer issues and less maintenance.
Yet, there’s something timeless about a vintage engine that can still be kept running after almost a century, proving that while engineering has evolved, some old-school designs still have a place in today’s world.