In 1960 a Ford Falcon ("first Compact Car with mass appeal") cost $1975[1]. In 2016 dollars, that's $15,890[2]. A 2016 Ford Fiesta starts at $14,090 MSRP[3].
I defy you to declare the 1960 Falcon better than the 2016 Fiesta on even a single reasonably objective metric.
EDIT: @marincounty, your comment is dead. And yes, if I actually needed a car to drive around for practical purposes (and not a collectors object) I'd take the Fiesta.
Fair. However, the Fiesta does 0-60 (a little) faster, and has a (slightly) higher top speed, so at the end of the day, it's not doing the Falcon much good?
I bet this is because due to better technology, the current Fiesta engine produces a much flatter curve of torque, meaning that it is both easier to drive and it accelerates faster.
And don't even start with the fuel economy or emissions.... (but of course, this also means that current cars would choke on the fuel of 1962, and not just because of lead.)
I think it's mostly weight, the newer one seems to be 300kg lighter which is a big deal. But that fact sheet was for the sedan so I don't know if it's apples to apples comparison. The worst modern model is 1.25 Studio (11/12-) 3d @ 16.4 seconds vs. 13 seconds from the 1975 model.
I'd say it's to do a lot with advances in turbos. Most small engine cars have turbos now that rival anything even a decade a go. This means you can get by with much smaller engines and get similar performance.
True, turbos (even dual compressors as in the case of VAG's TSI) have much impact, but even non-compressed engines (in lower end models) are vastly better-behaved than old car engines.
I once had a Sunbeam Avenger which was horrible in very many ways (not least because of the build quality in English unionized car plants) and an uneven torque curve (with a peak and a not that high peak as such) was one of its problems.
If you dial back on the compression and timing, modern cars would run just fine on 1962 gasoline--probably better than 1962 cars, since electronic direct fuel injection assures even fuel distribution among the cylinders and cools the air in the cylinder, making it less vulnerable to predetonation.
This may depend on geographical area and standards and so on, but at least here in northern Europe, much of the gasoline was made of Russian crude oil and before modern emission standards, it contained lots of sulphur and other impurities. I believe modern cars would start flagging errors with even 1980's gasoline (again, even assuming that the lead would be taken away and replaced by modern additives).
Someone offered you a mint 1960 ford falcon, with 0 miles, and someone else offered you a new 2016 Ford Fiesta.
You would take the Fiesta?
A few reasonable metrics;
A better looking vechicle(Falcon), with a minimum of plastic. Subjective. Sorry.
Ease of repair. Objective. Win, by a long shot. Engine--easier to repair. Transmission--easier to rebuild. Electrical--bone dead simple. There's a reason you still see them on the road--50 plus years later.
There's objective reasons guys of differing demographics/tastes hunt for old Falcons. They are collector cars. They were simple. They were less complicated. In my eyes, they were miniminslistic cool.
I don't think in 56 years we will have Fiesta clubs, or guys scouring the Internet looking for restorable Fiesta's, or maybe they will? I don't know.
(In terms of emmissions you win hands down. Maybe I missing your point? If that's the case--sorry. If I had a huge garage, and some capital, I would be, right now, buying up collector cars, and keeping them for retirement. The only stumbling block I see is the federal government making older vechicles so hard to smog, they will become impractical to pass emmissions. Even, if that happens, I have a feeling guys will retrofit some of these older desirable classics with electric engines? )