I recently found a treasure trove of old MotorWeek reviews from the 1980s and 1990s. It's kind of amazing to see how truly pathetic cars got as a whole in the post OPEC Embargo era. This would be the era of 0-60 times of 12 seconds for regular old cars being acceptable along with 85 MPH speedometers and boxy styling. It's strange to see diamonds in the rough like the Buick GNX, the Shelby K Cars, the Turbo TA among others. The weirdest thing is that some of the higher end cars in the 80s even had primitive touch screens, it's even stranger to hear them discussed how they would be the future and all. Anyways this is the playlist link, it's worth hours of fuhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMsXLYFU0pUn if you are interested in cars in general:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8HILNMicoi6frBzfDro05x0W-44D1ZWz
But this that said I had to link the most pathetic one that I can find; the Pontiac 1000. First off....the Chevette rebadged as a Pontiac...if you know anything about how terrible those cars really were it is truly mind blowing they sold so well. This thing rumbled to 60 MPH in 30 seconds and even has a "made in USA" sticker to show that red, white and blue pride. :-D
My '84 Ford Mustang (bought new) was a piece of shit.
No shit, final tally after I traded it off was it cost over $0.90/mile to drive.
And I didn't have to pay for the new motor it needed at 75,000 miles since I got rid of it when I found out it needed one.
Not kidding, a friend of mine bought a Pontiac T-1000 not realizing under the Pontiac label was a piece of shit Chevette.
He almost died when Jim and I started giving him shit for buying a goddamn Chevette. He paid the loan down as fast as possible and traded it as soon as he could.
Afterwards it was a forbidden subject.
Chicago area posters here:
Remember the Long Chevrolet commercials on tv, "Chevettes ! Chevettes ! Chevettes!" ?? That dealership went out of business and I gotta think selling shitty cars was a big part of their failure.
At 3:19 you can see the test driver shaking his head in total disgust. :-D I remember my Grandma bought a new Chevette from the dealer in Detroit in 1980. For some reason she thought that piece of crap was wonderful despite it being a total piece of garbage and completely useless in the winter. If I remember right my Dad tried to convince her to buy something else that was front wheel drive and did find body rust on it (the grand legend of show room Chevettes) shortly after it was purchased. She hung on to that piece of crap until 1989 when her and my Grandpa got a new Lumina. For some reason they were completely loyal to GM despite never have worked for the company themselves. I think that it had something to do with my Mom being an accountant at GM rather than anything logical...people really blindly followed brand loyalty back then.
This is a real ad, not a parody, from 1988, and it's the most 1980s thing I've ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPycGGQoxrw
Quote from: kurumi on April 30, 2016, 12:43:13 PM
This is a real ad, not a parody, from 1988, and it's the most 1980s thing I've ever seen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPycGGQoxrw
The 6000 SUX isn't far off these commercials:
Incidentally, does excitement include jumping over the passenger door of a Pontiac Sunbird? :-D That poor little Fiero could have been something special too if it was saddled with crappy engines like the 2.5 Iron Duke and 2.8 L44. The L44 should have been standard equipment with something like the 3.8 Buick as an option.
Actually I forgot the ZX completely. My Dad picked up an 82 turbo used in 1984 and got rid of a couple years later for a Plymouth Laser. Funny to think that 180hp and a 7 second 0-60 time as really good nowadays:
God that test track is terrible, why the hell would they try to test cars with all that ice on the ground. lol
Before the Pontiac 1000, there was the Acadian who was a rebadged Chevette for Canadian Pontiac dealers.
http://www.oldcaradvertising.com/GM%20Canada%20Ads/1970s/1978%20Acadian%20Ad-01.html
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule/cc-capsule-the-cold-canadian-chevette-pontiac-acadian/
The Chevette seem to be more solid than its predecessor the Vega or some other rivals like the Renault Alliance.
And we got late the Sprint/Firefly aka Geo Metro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcaY_DVQYHE
Every once in awhile I would see an Acadian that would wander over from Ontario. I don't really know about all that with the Vega to Chevette comparison, both were pretty poorly built cars. The Vega has two things going for it over the Chevette; it's much better looking and at the very least the Cosworth variants were decent performers for their time. Even the Metro was a much better car than the Chevette was, especially at being an economical basic transportation piece. During the last gas crisis in the U.S. there were a lot of people buying up old Metros because of the fuel economy rating. My neighbor had a red 1989 model, I never did get around to asking him if it was the 3 or 4 banger.
Incidentally found this video on Youtube, competitive three cylinder Geo Metro drag racing:
And nobody is laughing at this Metro with the 3.8 turbo out of a GNX in it:
Still, I seen worse, I remember a time when we got Lada cars in Canada. These was our Yugos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3m823FVY3Q
And the Brazilian version of the Chevette (based on the same chassis, the T-body) have other variations like a 2-door sedan, 4-door sedan and a pick-up truck "El Camino" style. http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2009/05/13/the-coolest-brazilian-chevettes-ever/
http://vauxpedianet.uk2sitebuilder.com/vauxhall-t-car---aka-chevrolet-chevette-brazil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90djCq0sC8c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4MfkN4T0b8
This is in no small part why the Asian-based companies (Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, etc etc) rose as considerably as they did during that time period. They built cars that, by comparison, were smaller than the average American car, but also held together much better.
Only '80s era car we had was an '85 Caprice Classic, and that was only because we inherited it from my grandfather when he passed in '87. Otherwise, our main car from my childhood was a '78 Dodge Magnum.
Really about the Lada that I remember that was worth about anything was the Niva 4x4s.
It's funny for the longest time the domestic automakers would sell some of their best stuff outside the U.S. market. Aside from the Chevette some more recent examples were the European Focus and the all the rear-drive Holden platform cars that would never seem to make it over this way. It's something that has only really changed since GM and Chrysler have gone bankrupt.
It was a lot of things that led to the domestic automakers losing so much of their market share. The biggest one was a failure to adapt to market changes post OPEC Embargo which led to all those Japanese and Korean companies to exploit the void with quality smaller cars. There was a ton of things like corporate arrogance in assuming people would continue to buy American despite build qualities and designs falling far behind the competition. Although platform sharing was a thing before OPEC it got way out of control in the 70s and 80s which led to cars like the Pontiac 1000 in addition to Cadillac Cimmaron. It's not like any of the bigger or sportier cars were better, I remember my Dad's 82 Corvette was a told dog on the 15 year old C3 platform which had ballooned in weight over it's life span.
The weird thing is now you started to see the reverse trend in the late 2000s. Once Toyota started to close in on GM for highest volume of cars sold their quality dropped off the map. For what it's worth the playing field seems to be a lot more competitive across the board and there aren't very many blatantly terrible cars like there was in the 70s and 80s. Even recent designs like the Vibe, PT Cruiser and Aztec were still infinitely better than say a Chevette, Yugo or Pinto of yesteryear.
I forget whose vans they were, but in the 80s, I remember a lot of people installing rear bumpers made out of wood, because the old metal ones tended to fall off.
Or the rear bumpers on certain cars that were originally molded in yellow and then (poorly) painted black -- it didn't take long for those bumpers to fade or scratch, revealing that ugly mustard coloring. How hard was it to mold them out of black-colored plastic?
The time is often referred to as "The Malaise Era" by Jalopnik (I believe the term was coined by Murilee Martin, former Jalopnik writer.)
The first brand new car that I bought on my own was...a 1984 Chevette. Base as can be, only option was an automatic. Went to install a radio and speakers and found the door panels were not much more than vinyl-coated cardboard.
Went out with some friends and came back to find my father standing up through the hole he had just cut in the Chevette's roof. He was going to surprise me and install an aftermarket sunroof. Realize that at this time I had only made THREE payments on the car. Surprise, indeed.
All that said - it wasn't a bad car all around. It was cheap, didn't use much gas, and served it's purpose as basic transportation.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
Really about the Lada that I remember that was worth about anything was the Niva 4x4s.
It's funny for the longest time the domestic automakers would sell some of their best stuff outside the U.S. market. Aside from the Chevette some more recent examples were the European Focus and the all the rear-drive Holden platform cars that would never seem to make it over this way. It's something that has only really changed since GM and Chrysler have gone bankrupt.
It was a lot of things that led to the domestic automakers losing so much of their market share. The biggest one was a failure to adapt to market changes post OPEC Embargo which led to all those Japanese and Korean companies to exploit the void with quality smaller cars. There was a ton of things like corporate arrogance in assuming people would continue to buy American despite build qualities and designs falling far behind the competition. Although platform sharing was a thing before OPEC it got way out of control in the 70s and 80s which led to cars like the Pontiac 1000 in addition to Cadillac Cimmaron. It's not like any of the bigger or sportier cars were better, I remember my Dad's 82 Corvette was a told dog on the 15 year old C3 platform which had ballooned in weight over it's life span.
The "downsized" 1977 full-size GM cars, was beginned to be studied as early as 1972 with some earlier clay models popping up in 1973.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1977-chevrolet-caprice-downsized-by-design/
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/vintage-ads-and-brochures/vintage-ad-general-motors-announces-its-1977-full-size-cars/
The "plucked chicken" 1962 Dodge and Plymouth ironically was around the same size as the 1977 GM. Bit their controversal design got a cold reception, they was originally planned to be bigger but William Newberg who was Chrysler president had heard of rumors then Ford and GM plan smaller cars who was in reality, the mid-size intermediate Fairlane and the Chevy II http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/chrysler-downsizing-disaster-1962/ There some photos of clay models of how they should had originally look. http://www.allpar.com/history/plymouth/1962.html There was also some plans for a 1962 DeSoto http://bangshift.com/general-news/car-features/check-rare-photos-1962-desoto-mockup/ A bit extreme compared to that clay model and design made by Don Kopka http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960s-chrysler-concept-cars1.htm If the first oil crisis happened in 1962 instead of 1973, Chrysler would had been more lucky.
The US wasn't the only one who got a "malaise era", the UK had faced the same music as well as Jeremy Clarkson noted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ztUlve9jc
Funny how 60s cars that were in the ball park of 180 to 190 inches in length like the Nova, Dart, Falcon, Camaro, Firebird, Mustang, Cougar, Barracuda, Challenger, Duster and Corvair were all considered "compacts" by the standards of the time. By today's standard the class usually falls into the 175 to 180 inch category which is a tick up from the standards of the 80s which were anywhere from 165 inches to usually 175 in non-hatch back form. It's funny since it seems like the compacts of the 80s largely have evolved into what we would have considered a mid-sized 30 years ago and sub-compacts have taken over the void....incidentally my sedan Sonic is 173 inches and falls into said category. By comparison my rather large by modern standards Challenger which is 198 inches which would have roughly put it on the low end of the mid-size category of the 1960s. It seems as gas prices decline weight and length always decrease in the American market. That's probably why trucks skyrocketed in popularity in the late 90s and early 2000s since there was a huge void in the car market given that gas prices tanked.
The thing that I always like about cars like the Nova and Dart was that even though they were small you could basically get almost any engine you wanted in it. Sadly with almost all the compact and sub-compact cars today being FWD it doesn't allow much in the way for drive train variation. It's too bad concepts like the RWD 2004 Nomad concept really never took off. I would love to see a 175 to 180 inch RWD drive car that you could configure from a I4 all the way up a V8.
In regards to the vans with wood bumpers I think that was the Ford Aerostar. I seem to remember a ton of them had missing bumpers or had poor quality black ones. Thankfully nobody is doing that painted black over yellow plastic thing that they used to do back then. I seem to remember cars like the Cavalier used have a painted bumper delete option where you could get a credit for taking the non-painted version.
And those sound like some serious upgrades to a Chevette. lol It's probably unfathomable to people buying cars today that things like radios, power windows and even an AC were once debated optional equipment much less a sun roof. Incidentally my uncle and I have been debating the merits of the Vega, Chevette and Monza all afternoon, he sent me this piece of handy work the Chevette:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F27%2Fb9%2Fc2%2F27b9c25c93aebc5f388f3273c806af1e.jpg&hash=2565476adb55a6544b386364efc6c8714cb0bea3)
Those days were suck city. It all was started in 1971 when compression started coming down because of low to no lead. Then in 1973 the looks went away with the 5 mph bumper, then 1975 the catalytic converters started putting the nails in the coffin. From there with only a few exceptions it was all down hill compounded by the oil embargo. A lot of the cars then became performance cars by just adding some paint, letters, and/or numbers. Almost all were dogs and fell apart.
Talking about rebadged cars. Remember Cadillac rebadged Chevys.
My wife had a high end Plymouth Acclaim with the V-6. It really was not a bad car. For the day it handled pretty good, not too slow, and it was comfortable. My wife and three daughters took a cross country trip in it. We had to dump it at 200,000 + miles. Transmission went out at 77,000 and replaced under partial warranty, we paid half.
I had a 95 Dodge full size van it was good. Had the 360 with the old 727 auto with OD, whatever they numbered it with OD. I got over 200,000 mi out of it then my daughter drove the s*** out of it for another year, but hey, it was really a truck. I now have a 1993 Dodge Dakota with the V-6 and 216,000 miles on it, the AC still works. But once again, it is a truck.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 02:48:09 PM
Actually I forgot the ZX completely. My Dad picked up an 82 turbo used in 1984 and got rid of a couple years later for a Plymouth Laser. Funny to think that 180hp and a 7 second 0-60 time as really good nowadays:
God that test track is terrible, why the hell would they try to test cars with all that ice on the ground. lol
I used to own a 1983 Datsun (last year for the name) 280ZX Turbo 2+2 with T-tops. In my eyes it was a Japanese equivalent of a Buick Riviera. If you mashed the gas at 25 MPH, the turbo made for great get up and go. 55+ MPH? Then you saw a typical gutless wonder 6-cylinder result. As for comfort and style, the 280ZX was a fine machine.
This would be the only import I ever bought. Cadillacs suited me better...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 30, 2016, 09:26:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 02:48:09 PM
Actually I forgot the ZX completely. My Dad picked up an 82 turbo used in 1984 and got rid of a couple years later for a Plymouth Laser. Funny to think that 180hp and a 7 second 0-60 time as really good nowadays:
God that test track is terrible, why the hell would they try to test cars with all that ice on the ground. lol
I used to own a 1983 Datsun (last year for the name) 280ZX Turbo 2+2 with T-tops. In my eyes it was a Japanese equivalent of a Buick Riviera. If you mashed the gas at 25 MPH, the turbo made for great get up and go. 55+ MPH? Then you saw a typical gutless wonder 6-cylinder result. As for comfort and style, the 280ZX was a fine machine.
This would be the only import I ever bought. Cadillacs suited me better...LOL!
Rick
Yeah my Dad got his as a replacement for his 82 Corvette. He was all ticked off about how much better the 84 Corvette was and dumped it for the ZX because he got a good deal on it. For what it's worth he loved the frigging thing and I have huge 18x18 photo of him with it. At the time he was doing some computer work for GM and he got a ton of $$&# from some of the co-workers and my Grandpa who was a long time Chevy Exec. Funny thing was we hung onto the ZX even after my sister was born but dumped the 69 Camaro SS that was collecting dust in the garage...it was the only non-American car he bought and the one of two non-GM cars for him. On the flip side my Mom had a Vista Cruiser at the time which was adequate for shuttling me around but she wanted the new Caravan in the garage which is probably the real reason the Camaro went away.
My '91 Prelude Si gets a lot of love from people who remember those days. While 140 HP, 135 lbft, and a 0-60 of 8.7 seconds isn't much today, it was respectable (for a 4-pot, at least) back then.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/xkalnxabxllpgvl3rzdw.jpg)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/jjp5bhxgdwmgxxc44eow.jpg)
I recently did a write-up about it over on Jalopnik offshoot Oppositelock. (http://oppositelock.kinja.com/1991-honda-prelude-si-alb-the-oppositelock-review-1772999057)
Quote from: leroys73 on April 30, 2016, 09:23:59 PM
Those days were suck city. It all was started in 1971 when compression started coming down because of low to no lead. Then in 1973 the looks went away with the 5 mph bumper, then 1975 the catalytic converters started putting the nails in the coffin. From there with only a few exceptions it was all down hill compounded by the oil embargo. A lot of the cars then became performance cars by just adding some paint, letters, and/or numbers. Almost all were dogs and fell apart.
Talking about rebadged cars. Remember Cadillac rebadged Chevys.
My wife had a high end Plymouth Acclaim with the V-6. It really was not a bad car. For the day it handled pretty good, not too slow, and it was comfortable. My wife and three daughters took a cross country trip in it. We had to dump it at 200,000 + miles. Transmission went out at 77,000 and replaced under partial warranty, we paid half.
I had a 95 Dodge full size van it was good. Had the 360 with the old 727 auto with OD, whatever they numbered it with OD. I got over 200,000 mi out of it then my daughter drove the s*** out of it for another year, but hey, it was really a truck. I now have a 1993 Dodge Dakota with the V-6 and 216,000 miles on it, the AC still works. But once again, it is a truck.
Not only that there was a huge issue with California emissions regulations dictating a lot of lackluster low compression drive trains. Some common examples you would see in California and in high elevations were the Chevy 262 small block V8 in favor of the 350 or 305 in addition to the Pontiac 400 being subbed out for Oldsmobile 403s. Basically even today high end cars are designed to run on 91 octane as opposed to 93 like most the country simply due to the fact that it's more cost effective to build from the strictest emissions regulation.
Not to mention safety standards or lack thereof played a huge part as well. You mentioned the 5 MPH bumpers and all the extra weight they caused. But things like leaf springs, drum brakes on mid-size plus cars, lack of shoulder harness belts in each seat, lack of air bags and even incredibly thin crappy tires all made cars of the 60s or muscle car era incredibly dangerous by the standards we consider today. There was a huge insurance company push in the late 60s to push the premiums of most muscle cars through the roof which led to a lot of buyers being discouraged.
Out of all the cars I've had (and don't presently own) only one of them I've driven less than 100,000 miles and that was a 2012 Camaro SS I sold when it was apparent the value would take with the 2016 model looked so much better from an engineering perspective when the ATS came out. I had a Silverado that I bought all the way back in high school that had 9,000 miles on it and ran it into the ground at about 200,000 when it became my desert off-roader over the course of 15 something years. I also had a 2011 Ford Focus that I put 150,000 miles on in 2.5 years on a job that had me on the road half the year. Basically cars will last if you maintain them how it says to do so in the service manual but I'll save that rant for thread I already elaborated on in the Road Trip board.
Quote from: Takumi on April 30, 2016, 10:01:44 PM
My '91 Prelude Si gets a lot of love from people who remember those days. While 140 HP, 135 lbft, and a 0-60 of 8.7 seconds isn't much today, it was respectable (for a 4-pot, at least) back then.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/xkalnxabxllpgvl3rzdw.jpg)
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/jjp5bhxgdwmgxxc44eow.jpg)
I recently did a write-up about it over on Jalopnik offshoot Oppositelock. (http://oppositelock.kinja.com/1991-honda-prelude-si-alb-the-oppositelock-review-1772999057)
Found this for you:
That 0-60 and quarter mile time out of that VTEC is still pretty good for compacts by modern standards. I'm actually surprised more car companies don't offer performance compacts the only ones I can think of are the Civic Si and the Focus ST right now.
Yeah, the 4th gen VTEC was ahead of its time in a lot of ways. With the refresh in '94, it gained an updated speedo/tach cluster that lit up when the car turned on, similar to the fuel/temp gauge, as well as standard leather. It was pretty expensive though, over $40k in today's money. A 2015 Civic Si, by comparison, cost about half that. Still, the Si feels a lot more sterile.
Yeah it's interesting to look back at the mid-90s and see a lot of really good preforming cars that were just plain not popular. Those were the years when performance started to rebound but you sure wouldn't know it by the habits of car buyers. Hell it's basically inconceivable nowadays how cars like the Supra, Camaro, Firebird and even the Prelude would just disappear over the next decade. The Prelude might not have been a bargain but there sure was a lot of them during the era, it seemed like most people wanted to jump to trucks and boxed SUVs.
I think your definition of the "dark days" is about a decade too late. The American auto industry arguably hit its nadir in the mid to late '70s. The Malaise Era is typically defined as running from about 1973-1983.
At least by the mid '80s, American cars had regained a sense of purpose–fuel-efficient, space-efficient transportation with improving build quality. If you think 0-60 times are the be-all and end-all of automobilia, that proposition might not excite you, but at least it's something of
value.
Contrast that with about a decade earlier. Performance fans were frustrated by newly emissions-strangled V8s that wheezed out horsepower numbers we see in economy cars today, and these emasculated whales struggled to crack 15-second 0-60 times. But economy-minded drivers were no happier, facing real-world mileage numbers barely reaching the teens. And while design is largely a matter of personal taste, I think few people would argue that the ungainly, overwrought baroque auto styling prevalent in the mid to late '70s will ever be considered timeless.
But perhaps most egregious of all, quality was abysmal. Assembly line workers would show up drunk or hungover–or they wouldn't show up at all. Workers who did come in would be lax in their jobs or even actively sabotage the cars in protest. Consider these actual road tests from 1978 (below; reviews begin at 18:28). Here are just a few highlights of the faults in these
brand new cars. I'd be embarrassed to drive around a ten-year-old used car with these problems:
AMC Spirit - Clock lost 30 minutes in a week; fuel and temperature gauges jammed during most of the test period.
Ford Mustang - Loose, rattling dash trim. Carpet hanging loosely from center console. Engine stalled after cold starts and hesitated on acceleration. Cruise control rarely worked. Electrical system would die during rain.
Chrysler New Yorker - A/C ceased working during test. Brake lights failed–and when brakes were applied, the internal clock cut out and an interior light flickered on. Several-inch paint run on rear door. Front doors stuck intermittently. Hazard lights would not stay on. Leaking window soaked rear carpet.
Sort of unrelated, but I remember watching a video in driver's ed (in 1995!) showing boxy early 80s/late 70s cars and discussing how "Airbags will be standard safety equipment on all vehicles by 1984." That got a laugh out of all of us kids. (But they actually showed such a car with driver and passenger airbags and how they deployed. To which I say... why was that delayed by 10-15 years before they became standard equipment, if the technology was available way back then?) Then again my driver's ed teacher was at least 500 years old, so that video likely seemed recent to him.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 10:05:34 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on April 30, 2016, 09:23:59 PM
Those days were suck city. It all was started in 1971 when compression started coming down because of low to no lead. Then in 1973 the looks went away with the 5 mph bumper, then 1975 the catalytic converters started putting the nails in the coffin. From there with only a few exceptions it was all down hill compounded by the oil embargo. A lot of the cars then became performance cars by just adding some paint, letters, and/or numbers. Almost all were dogs and fell apart.
Talking about rebadged cars. Remember Cadillac rebadged Chevys.
My wife had a high end Plymouth Acclaim with the V-6. It really was not a bad car. For the day it handled pretty good, not too slow, and it was comfortable. My wife and three daughters took a cross country trip in it. We had to dump it at 200,000 + miles. Transmission went out at 77,000 and replaced under partial warranty, we paid half.
I had a 95 Dodge full size van it was good. Had the 360 with the old 727 auto with OD, whatever they numbered it with OD. I got over 200,000 mi out of it then my daughter drove the s*** out of it for another year, but hey, it was really a truck. I now have a 1993 Dodge Dakota with the V-6 and 216,000 miles on it, the AC still works. But once again, it is a truck.
Not only that there was a huge issue with California emissions regulations dictating a lot of lackluster low compression drive trains. Some common examples you would see in California and in high elevations were the Chevy 262 small block V8 in favor of the 350 or 305 in addition to the Pontiac 400 being subbed out for Oldsmobile 403s. Basically even today high end cars are designed to run on 91 octane as opposed to 93 like most the country simply due to the fact that it's more cost effective to build from the strictest emissions regulation.
Not to mention safety standards or lack thereof played a huge part as well. You mentioned the 5 MPH bumpers and all the extra weight they caused. But things like leaf springs, drum brakes on mid-size plus cars, lack of shoulder harness belts in each seat, lack of air bags and even incredibly thin crappy tires all made cars of the 60s or muscle car era incredibly dangerous by the standards we consider today. There was a huge insurance company push in the late 60s to push the premiums of most muscle cars through the roof which led to a lot of buyers being discouraged.
Out of all the cars I've had (and don't presently own) only one of them I've driven less than 100,000 miles and that was a 2012 Camaro SS I sold when it was apparent the value would take with the 2016 model looked so much better from an engineering perspective when the ATS came out. I had a Silverado that I bought all the way back in high school that had 9,000 miles on it and ran it into the ground at about 200,000 when it became my desert off-roader over the course of 15 something years. I also had a 2011 Ford Focus that I put 150,000 miles on in 2.5 years on a job that had me on the road half the year. Basically cars will last if you maintain them how it says to do so in the service manual but I'll save that rant for thread I already elaborated on in the Road Trip board.
I was commenting on the looks and performance, not safety, compared to later in the century. There is no comparison between today's ride, handling, safety, and comfort to the years I mentioned. Not long ago I was riding with my cousin in his totally original 67 Impala that has maybe 35,000 miles on it. It was pretty much state of the are back when he and I were in HS. We joke about ... remember when we went over 100 mph on bias tires, drum brakes, no seat belts being used, handling was not in the vocabulary ... but now we expect not only disc brakes and radial tires but anti lock brakes and we always use our seat belts, not to mention air bags.
Yep, the good ol' days. At least the cars were easier to work on back then, but they had to be with points, leaded gasoline (hard on spark plugs), and carburetors, tires that might last 20,000 miles, oil change at about 2,000 miles, repack bearings at 10,000, and brakes might last a couple of years. Oh, and after 50,000 (on some even less) on the engine you better carry a quart of oil with you.
I have to say it was a lot of fun being young in those days. I never had any money to really enjoy the high performance cars. Probably that is why I am still alive.
Quote from: tckma on May 05, 2016, 05:08:41 PM
Sort of unrelated, but I remember watching a video in driver's ed (in 1995!) showing boxy early 80s/late 70s cars and discussing how "Airbags will be standard safety equipment on all vehicles by 1984." That got a laugh out of all of us kids. (But they actually showed such a car with driver and passenger airbags and how they deployed. To which I say... why was that delayed by 10-15 years before they became standard equipment, if the technology was available way back then?) Then again my driver's ed teacher was at least 500 years old, so that video likely seemed recent to him.
Actually, some of GM's large cars (back when they were
really large) offered airbags as an option circa 1975-1976.
1975 Buick Electra 225 with optional airbag
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flotpro.com%2Fblogphotos%2FVehicle%2520Part%2520Images%2Ftn_1975%2520Buick%2520Electra.jpg&hash=9e78bf85072dd463f6042e158f36e24c8be153b9)
The reason(s) why the delay in equipping (i.e. mandating) other vehicles to have them were:
1. Cost. Given the tsunami of regulations and associated cost to implement them that seemed to be hitting the auto industry left and right at the time; airbags simply got put on the back burner. Note: airbags were initially proposed
prior to the oil price shock and related CAFE standards that followed.
2. Related to #1; the recession that the country was going through, which triggered a slowdown in overall vehicle sales (Chrysler, at the time, had a near-death experience) , and, hence, contributed to the delay in equipping vehicles with airbags.
During the years that Ford offered the much-criticized and hated turn-signal stalk-mounted horn (1978-1984) on their cars & small trucks (Ranger); their
supposed reason/excuse for not placing the horn controls on the steering wheel (where it belongs) was due to the eventual offering of an airbag (placed in the center hub). Ironically, when Ford did start installing airbags in cars; they wound up changing/redoing (vs. retrofitting) their steering wheels anyway.
Incidentally, the above-2 reasons were probably why the auto industry, as a whole, was indeed at a
low point during the late 70s/early 80s.
Once gas prices started stabilizing (& even dropping), an improving economy, and (yes politics did play a role here) the anti-regulation tone that existed in Washington at the time (following the 1980 elections) allowed to auto industry time to both adapt and offer more
exciting & performance-oriented cars (revival of the Mustang GT midway through 1982). Production of traditional RWD full-sizes, which were originally planned to be dropped after 1985, wound up lasting into 1996 (for GM) and 2011 (for Ford).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 04, 2016, 11:04:28 PM
The Prelude might not have been a bargain but there sure was a lot of them during the era, it seemed like most people wanted to jump to trucks and boxed SUVs.
I remember hitting the junkyards in the mid-late '90s and seeing tons of rolled-over SUVs with like 4,000 miles on them as the general public who had driven Celicas, Accords, Camaros, Oldsmobiles etc. all their lives got talked into buying those things. Everybody there from the staff to muscle and sports car fans knew what was going on: people were trying to drive them like they were regular cars or even sports cars and got killed or severely injured. Nowadays, people who buy them don't expect them to handle well despite their improved performance and are more respectful of their limitations but there was a lot of death and sorrow associated with the switch. Somehow Ralph Nader didn't get involved with the car companies' push to upsell people a bunch of empty metal for $20,000 more than a regular car.
Quote from: leroys73 on May 05, 2016, 05:11:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 10:05:34 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on April 30, 2016, 09:23:59 PM
Those days were suck city. It all was started in 1971 when compression started coming down because of low to no lead. Then in 1973 the looks went away with the 5 mph bumper, then 1975 the catalytic converters started putting the nails in the coffin. From there with only a few exceptions it was all down hill compounded by the oil embargo. A lot of the cars then became performance cars by just adding some paint, letters, and/or numbers. Almost all were dogs and fell apart.
Talking about rebadged cars. Remember Cadillac rebadged Chevys.
My wife had a high end Plymouth Acclaim with the V-6. It really was not a bad car. For the day it handled pretty good, not too slow, and it was comfortable. My wife and three daughters took a cross country trip in it. We had to dump it at 200,000 + miles. Transmission went out at 77,000 and replaced under partial warranty, we paid half.
I had a 95 Dodge full size van it was good. Had the 360 with the old 727 auto with OD, whatever they numbered it with OD. I got over 200,000 mi out of it then my daughter drove the s*** out of it for another year, but hey, it was really a truck. I now have a 1993 Dodge Dakota with the V-6 and 216,000 miles on it, the AC still works. But once again, it is a truck.
Not only that there was a huge issue with California emissions regulations dictating a lot of lackluster low compression drive trains. Some common examples you would see in California and in high elevations were the Chevy 262 small block V8 in favor of the 350 or 305 in addition to the Pontiac 400 being subbed out for Oldsmobile 403s. Basically even today high end cars are designed to run on 91 octane as opposed to 93 like most the country simply due to the fact that it's more cost effective to build from the strictest emissions regulation.
Not to mention safety standards or lack thereof played a huge part as well. You mentioned the 5 MPH bumpers and all the extra weight they caused. But things like leaf springs, drum brakes on mid-size plus cars, lack of shoulder harness belts in each seat, lack of air bags and even incredibly thin crappy tires all made cars of the 60s or muscle car era incredibly dangerous by the standards we consider today. There was a huge insurance company push in the late 60s to push the premiums of most muscle cars through the roof which led to a lot of buyers being discouraged.
Out of all the cars I've had (and don't presently own) only one of them I've driven less than 100,000 miles and that was a 2012 Camaro SS I sold when it was apparent the value would take with the 2016 model looked so much better from an engineering perspective when the ATS came out. I had a Silverado that I bought all the way back in high school that had 9,000 miles on it and ran it into the ground at about 200,000 when it became my desert off-roader over the course of 15 something years. I also had a 2011 Ford Focus that I put 150,000 miles on in 2.5 years on a job that had me on the road half the year. Basically cars will last if you maintain them how it says to do so in the service manual but I'll save that rant for thread I already elaborated on in the Road Trip board.
I was commenting on the looks and performance, not safety, compared to later in the century. There is no comparison between today's ride, handling, safety, and comfort to the years I mentioned. Not long ago I was riding with my cousin in his totally original 67 Impala that has maybe 35,000 miles on it. It was pretty much state of the are back when he and I were in HS. We joke about ... remember when we went over 100 mph on bias tires, drum brakes, no seat belts being used, handling was not in the vocabulary ... but now we expect not only disc brakes and radial tires but anti lock brakes and we always use our seat belts, not to mention air bags.
Yep, the good ol' days. At least the cars were easier to work on back then, but they had to be with points, leaded gasoline (hard on spark plugs), and carburetors, tires that might last 20,000 miles, oil change at about 2,000 miles, repack bearings at 10,000, and brakes might last a couple of years. Oh, and after 50,000 (on some even less) on the engine you better carry a quart of oil with you.
I have to say it was a lot of fun being young in those days. I never had any money to really enjoy the high performance cars. Probably that is why I am still alive.
That's why my Dad kept the 69 Camaro around so long, it was something he could work on and enjoy in his spare time. The only problem was once he got married, had kids and got an ever increasingly higher stature job it wasn't really realistic to try to maintain a car like that. Granted back in the mid-80s we're talking about what was considered an old used up muscle car..more akin to a floor rusted clunker and not the vacuum sealed restorations you see today at Barret Jackson. Truth be told I think he was always much more happen with the 280ZX more than anything else, that was the one that upset him to get rid of.
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 05, 2016, 10:46:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 04, 2016, 11:04:28 PM
The Prelude might not have been a bargain but there sure was a lot of them during the era, it seemed like most people wanted to jump to trucks and boxed SUVs.
I remember hitting the junkyards in the mid-late '90s and seeing tons of rolled-over SUVs with like 4,000 miles on them as the general public who had driven Celicas, Accords, Camaros, Oldsmobiles etc. all their lives got talked into buying those things. Everybody there from the staff to muscle and sports car fans knew what was going on: people were trying to drive them like they were regular cars or even sports cars and got killed or severely injured. Nowadays, people who buy them don't expect them to handle well despite their improved performance and are more respectful of their limitations but there was a lot of death and sorrow associated with the switch. Somehow Ralph Nader didn't get involved with the car companies' push to upsell people a bunch of empty metal for $20,000 more than a regular car.
Hence the birth of the crossover an the demise of both the station wagon and mini-van. It seems like the good old truck and boxed SUVs have largely gone back to their previous niche while the crossovers filled the void of people wanted an SUV...but wanted it to act like a car at the same time. Couple that up with the actual return of RWD performance cars and I don't think we'll see something like the SUV mega tank era ever again.
I found two reviews that kind of fit the tone and history of the mainstream SUV and crossover segments:
It's almost funny to hear how semi-sarcastic some of the comments on the CUV segment being the future are in the Vibe review.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 05, 2016, 05:44:52 PM
Quote from: tckma on May 05, 2016, 05:08:41 PM
Sort of unrelated, but I remember watching a video in driver's ed (in 1995!) showing boxy early 80s/late 70s cars and discussing how "Airbags will be standard safety equipment on all vehicles by 1984." That got a laugh out of all of us kids. (But they actually showed such a car with driver and passenger airbags and how they deployed. To which I say... why was that delayed by 10-15 years before they became standard equipment, if the technology was available way back then?) Then again my driver's ed teacher was at least 500 years old, so that video likely seemed recent to him.
Actually, some of GM's large cars (back when they were really large) offered airbags as an option circa 1975-1976.
1975 Buick Electra 225 with optional airbag
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flotpro.com%2Fblogphotos%2FVehicle%2520Part%2520Images%2Ftn_1975%2520Buick%2520Electra.jpg&hash=9e78bf85072dd463f6042e158f36e24c8be153b9)
The reason(s) why the delay in equipping (i.e. mandating) other vehicles to have them were:
1. Cost. Given the tsunami of regulations and associated cost to implement them that seemed to be hitting the auto industry left and right at the time; airbags simply got put on the back burner. Note: airbags were initially proposed prior to the oil price shock and related CAFE standards that followed.
2. Related to #1; the recession that the country was going through, which triggered a slowdown in overall vehicle sales (Chrysler, at the time, had a near-death experience) , and, hence, contributed to the delay in equipping vehicles with airbags.
During the years that Ford offered the much-criticized and hated turn-signal stalk-mounted horn (1978-1984) on their cars & small trucks (Ranger); their supposed reason/excuse for not placing the horn controls on the steering wheel (where it belongs) was due to the eventual offering of an airbag (placed in the center hub). Ironically, when Ford did start installing airbags in cars; they wound up changing/redoing (vs. retrofitting) their steering wheels anyway.
Incidentally, the above-2 reasons were probably why the auto industry, as a whole, was indeed at a low point during the late 70s/early 80s.
Once gas prices started stabilizing (& even dropping), an improving economy, and (yes politics did play a role here) the anti-regulation tone that existed in Washington at the time (following the 1980 elections) allowed to auto industry time to both adapt and offer more exciting & performance-oriented cars (revival of the Mustang GT midway through 1982). Production of traditional RWD full-sizes, which were originally planned to be dropped after 1985, wound up lasting into 1996 (for GM) and 2011 (for Ford).
Speaking of gas pricing lowering coupled up with the slow clamber of performance and safety increasing....
It's amazing to see how close the EV1 really came out compared to something like the Nissan Leaf. It's even more amazing considering that the EV1 had lead-acid batteries as opposed to the much more efficient lithium-ion. The thing even had the charger plug for home and the power station all ready to go like the modern electrics. Basically it was the price of the technology and super low gas prices hitting together which really conspired to kill off the need for the EV1. I remember gas being $0.79 for regular somewhere between 1997-1999, hard to believe they even made it out of the factory at all competing with that.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2016, 10:58:59 PMIt's amazing to see how close the EV1 really came out compared to something like the Nissan Leaf. It's even more amazing considering that the EV1 had lead-acid batteries as opposed to the much more efficient lithium-ion. The thing even had the charger plug for home and the power station all ready to go like the modern electrics. Basically it was the price of the technology and super low gas prices hitting together which really conspired to kill off the need for the EV1. I remember gas being $0.79 for regular somewhere between 1997-1999, hard to believe they even made it out of the factory at all competing with that.
Even if gas was $4/gallon; the EV1 was a 2-seater and 2-seaters, in general, do not sell in large numbers. Part of the reason being is that many insurance companies treat nearly every 2-seater as if it's an exotic sports car and charge accordingly.
That's one reason why many cars that, in the real world, are considered 2-seaters have an extra pair of seats (though small) in the rear.
I had a 1981 Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID (4.9L) straight six with carburetor.
I also had a 1990 Ford Bronco, same motor, with fuel injection.
The difference between a carburetor and fuel injection was dramatic - the injection provided more power and better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, Ford stopped building that 4.9L motor, which was stout in terms of torque and bulletproof in terms of reliability.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 06, 2016, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2016, 10:58:59 PMIt's amazing to see how close the EV1 really came out compared to something like the Nissan Leaf. It's even more amazing considering that the EV1 had lead-acid batteries as opposed to the much more efficient lithium-ion. The thing even had the charger plug for home and the power station all ready to go like the modern electrics. Basically it was the price of the technology and super low gas prices hitting together which really conspired to kill off the need for the EV1. I remember gas being $0.79 for regular somewhere between 1997-1999, hard to believe they even made it out of the factory at all competing with that.
Even if gas was $4/gallon; the EV1 was a 2-seater and 2-seaters, in general, do not sell in large numbers. Part of the reason being is that many insurance companies treat nearly every 2-seater as if it's an exotic sports car and charge accordingly.
That's one reason why many cars that, in the real world, are considered 2-seaters have an extra pair of seats (though small) in the rear.
With those lead-acids anything beyond a two-seater was going to weigh way too much. It was just amazing that a company like GM which had fallen so far behind the rest of the industry would really go out of their way to do all that R&D then bring something like that to production...even on that small of scale. Really when you look at the lease terms on those EV1s and high of a price they were the last thing those people were worried about was what the insurance company was going to say on the premium. Oddly it sort of all came full circle to extent just a couple years back with the Volt. That was a flawed and way over priced car too but it had a market for which people were willing to pay...and it's finally starting to drive the price down of (granted I know the Volt is more hybrid than electric) of electrics alone with the Telsa brand in addition to the Leaf. It's just interesting to wonder how much further along the segment would be and how much of it GM would control if they didn't throw in the towel so early.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2016, 10:55:27 AM
I had a 1981 Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID (4.9L) straight six with carburetor.
I also had a 1990 Ford Bronco, same motor, with fuel injection.
The difference between a carburetor and fuel injection was dramatic - the injection provided more power and better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, Ford stopped building that 4.9L motor, which was stout in terms of torque and bulletproof in terms of reliability.
Speaking of hybrids...I saw a 4.9L Bronco the other day with a bumper sticker that said something along of the lines of "my hybrid burns gas and oil." Got a good laugh out of it.
When the new Dodge Challenger debuted, they noted that it was also a hybrid - it burned gas and rubber.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on May 06, 2016, 10:27:36 PM
When the new Dodge Challenger debuted, they noted that it was also a hybrid - it burned gas and rubber.
Yes....yes it does....apparently 2mm off the rear tires trying to crank out best 0-60 times with 485hp. :-D
I remember wanting a Monte Carlo SS so badly in high school but never being able to find one.
\\
But geeze....that Grand National was really about the only glimmer of hope for performance outside Corvette or an exotic back in the late 80s, no wonder they are so collectable.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2016, 01:04:36 AM
I remember wanting a Monte Carlo SS so badly in high school but never being able to find one.
\\
But geeze....that Grand National was really about the only glimmer of hope for performance outside Corvette or an exotic back in the late 80s, no wonder they are so collectable.
I had a friend with the 3.8 Turbo in a 1987 Regal. He added all sorts of performance items to it. When done, the 231 cubic inches performed like a 455 from the premium leaded days. Boy did that engine scream!
The bad news? The engine was still in a Buick Regal...LOL! That car was not built for great handling. Today a CTS-V outclasses anything from those times across the board. Imagine that, Cadillac went from a boat to a performance car. Somehow it worked!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 07, 2016, 10:25:36 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2016, 01:04:36 AM
I remember wanting a Monte Carlo SS so badly in high school but never being able to find one.
\\
But geeze....that Grand National was really about the only glimmer of hope for performance outside Corvette or an exotic back in the late 80s, no wonder they are so collectable.
I had a friend with the 3.8 Turbo in a 1987 Regal. He added all sorts of performance items to it. When done, the 231 cubic inches performed like a 455 from the premium leaded days. Boy did that engine scream!
The bad news? The engine was still in a Buick Regal...LOL! That car was not built for great handling. Today a CTS-V outclasses anything from those times across the board. Imagine that, Cadillac went from a boat to a performance car. Somehow it worked!
Rick
Yeah and it all started with the CTS-V...go figure. Cadillac was basically Buick plus back in those days, the turn around has actually been pretty impressive with cars like the ATS, CTS, CT6 and XTS all having a pretty damn good level of performance in them. I don't think with the way things stand that Buick will get a real chance at a performance car in the near future, the brand seems to be doing well enough coming back from the brink with all the entry level luxury cars they are cranking out.
Incidentally most dyno pulls I've seen on stock GNs show it having much closer to 300hp and 350ftlb of torque. GM was full of crap saying that turbo 3.8 had only 245hp. Basically they did the same thing with the LS1 F-bodies all the way into the early 2000s for some reason. The dyno figures on the LS engines showed they had just as much power as they did in the Corvette. The best I could figure is that GM was hanging onto the Corvette had to have the most power for some reason all the way back in the 80s.
Here's something totally different. I imagine they were going after the same market that would eventually gravitate towards Hummers...but geeze an emergency hand crank?
And begs for this....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ec0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F12%2F7c%2Fb2%2F127cb21f564d582809afdc5eb175659d.jpg&hash=741c5c1c94d7a3b840c5a57176769eb20f1d0096)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2016, 10:55:27 AM
I had a 1981 Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID (4.9L) straight six with carburetor.
I also had a 1990 Ford Bronco, same motor, with fuel injection.
The difference between a carburetor and fuel injection was dramatic - the injection provided more power and better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, Ford stopped building that 4.9L motor, which was stout in terms of torque and bulletproof in terms of reliability.
That was one tough, reliable engine. I think they ran forever. Probably emissions killed it along with weight.
The old Chrysler slant 6 paired with the 727 transmission was another tough combination. Back then we used to always say Chrysler had 200,000 mile power trains in 50,000 mile bodies.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 06, 2016, 09:52:01 PM
To clarify, my earlier comment regarding insurance companies profiling 2-seaters wasn't exclusively directed towards GM's EV1; but
all 2-seaters in general regardless of how it was powered. You're right that the EV1 had issues of its own; but there was already
proven evidence that so-called 2-seat commuter cars never caught on saleswise prior to the EV1 and lower gas prices.
Before the Pontiac Fiero which launched in 1984, Ford & Mercury had their own versions of the 2-seat commuter car (the Escort/Lynx based EXP & LN7) in early 1982 when gas prices were still high. Sales of those didn't do as hot as their 4-seater brethren and both were dropped after 1985. Ford did briefly revived its EXP (then called Escort EXP) in 1987 with a new nose but sales were still flat and the EXP was gone for good after 1988 (supposedly to make room for the 4-seater 1989 Probe, a car that
almost replaced the Fox-bodied Mustang).
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 09, 2016, 10:15:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 06, 2016, 09:52:01 PM
To clarify, my earlier comment regarding insurance companies profiling 2-seaters wasn't exclusively directed towards GM's EV1; but all 2-seaters in general regardless of how it was powered. You're right that the EV1 had issues of its own; but there was already proven evidence that so-called 2-seat commuter cars never caught on saleswise prior to the EV1 and lower gas prices.
Before the Pontiac Fiero which launched in 1984, Ford & Mercury had their own versions of the 2-seat commuter car (the Escort/Lynx based EXP & LN7) in early 1982 when gas prices were still high. Sales of those didn't do as hot as their 4-seater brethren and both were dropped after 1985. Ford did briefly revived its EXP (then called Escort EXP) in 1987 with a new nose but sales were still flat and the EXP was gone for good after 1988 (supposedly to make room for the 4-seater 1989 Probe, a car that almost replaced the Fox-bodied Mustang).
The biggest issue with the Fiero was that the 2.5L I4 Iron Duke was the base engine when the 2.8L V6 should have been. Funny thing about that car is that it really sold well for the first model year with 136,000 something units but that tailed off quick 26,000 by the last model year. But then again...those numbers could be chalked up to the American Automakers holding much more of the market back in those days.
The main difference between two seat conventional combustion engine vehicles and something electric like the EV1 was that there a market that would buy them regardless because they were considered "green." Granted that part of the car buying community was MUCH smaller back in the 1990s and didn't really exist at all in the early to mid-80s. Even the Volt and Leaf...hell even the entire Tesla brand as over priced as they are have a market because they are simply what certain people want in a car from an environmental standpoint. I don't think GM was willing to take that bet back in the 1990s, entering new markets was a huge struggle for any of the big three Post OPEC embargo and really took GM in addition to Chrysler going bankrupt to change it.
Quote from: leroys73 on May 09, 2016, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2016, 10:55:27 AM
I had a 1981 Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID (4.9L) straight six with carburetor.
I also had a 1990 Ford Bronco, same motor, with fuel injection.
The difference between a carburetor and fuel injection was dramatic - the injection provided more power and better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, Ford stopped building that 4.9L motor, which was stout in terms of torque and bulletproof in terms of reliability.
That was one tough, reliable engine. I think they ran forever. Probably emissions killed it along with weight.
The old Chrysler slant 6 paired with the 727 transmission was another tough combination. Back then we used to always say Chrysler had 200,000 mile power trains in 50,000 mile bodies.
The main problem I think with the inline-6s is packaging concerns. I really like inline-6s, but they force a "long hood" vehicle. These days the car companies want to be able to put the same engines in both cars and trucks. With a 6 they want to be able to put it in smaller cars and crossovers. Look at how short and high the hoods on today's cars are. I've always drove "long hood" vehicles, but a lot of people today are scared to pull out into city traffic with a long hood.
Car companies are having a hard enough time selling cars to urban Millennials, and a long hood can be a dealbreaker when having to pull out past cars parked on the street. Today's vehicles are so incredibly tall and parking restrictions near street corners haven't moved farther down the streets since everybody stopped driving low Citations, Camaros, Pulsars, Sentras and Impalas with clear windows. SUVs and crossovers have those dark tinted rear windows that you can't see through.
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 09, 2016, 10:35:09 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on May 09, 2016, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2016, 10:55:27 AM
I had a 1981 Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID (4.9L) straight six with carburetor.
I also had a 1990 Ford Bronco, same motor, with fuel injection.
The difference between a carburetor and fuel injection was dramatic - the injection provided more power and better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, Ford stopped building that 4.9L motor, which was stout in terms of torque and bulletproof in terms of reliability.
That was one tough, reliable engine. I think they ran forever. Probably emissions killed it along with weight.
The old Chrysler slant 6 paired with the 727 transmission was another tough combination. Back then we used to always say Chrysler had 200,000 mile power trains in 50,000 mile bodies.
The main problem I think with the inline-6s is packaging concerns. I really like inline-6s, but they force a "long hood" vehicle. These days the car companies want to be able to put the same engines in both cars and trucks. With a 6 they want to be able to put it in smaller cars and crossovers. Look at how short and high the hoods on today's cars are. I've always drove "long hood" vehicles, but a lot of people today are scared to pull out into city traffic with a long hood.
Car companies are having a hard enough time selling cars to urban Millennials, and a long hood can be a dealbreaker when having to pull out past cars parked on the street. Today's vehicles are so incredibly tall and parking restrictions near street corners haven't moved farther down the streets since everybody stopped driving low Citations, Camaros, Pulsars, Sentras and Impalas with clear windows. SUVs and crossovers have those dark tinted rear windows that you can't see through.
Pretty much all the emissions regs coming almost all at once was a complete disaster for the auto industry. Catalytic converters, lack of leaded gas and California emissions regulations pretty much sealed the coffin on performance even after gas prices rebounded.
But they can be packed much more efficiently, just look at the the history of the BMW 3 series with I6 engines.
The problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what even people my age (Gen Xers) and what all these kids growing like. I've met a lot of people in college who don't even have a driver's license and have zero desire to travel anywhere in a car. There has been a gradual downhill slide in the popularity of cars with young folks ever since the baby boomer generation. For me, I just don't plain get it. I've lived in and worked in six of the ten largest cities in the country and I consider them all urbanized versions of hell. I'd much rather travel to work and travel out of town...it's completely different for people growing up today. Kids today by and large...granted I know there are exceptions...are much more connected socially because of technology and in turn largely remain near home. For people like me when we were growing up we kept few friends, wanted to move from home and see the country...culture among youth has done a complete 180. For the most part the income levels of young people today will likely progress slower since they are staying home longer which begs the question....is designing city cars with low profit margins really worth the investment to cater to a group that has little interest and little money. For the kids growing up today that seem to like cars they seem to like the ones everyone else does; muscle cars, trucks and affordable sports compacts.
Max, you are right on.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 11:10:23 PM
But they can be packed much more efficiently, just look at the the history of the BMW 3 series with I6 engines.
The problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what even people my age (Gen Xers) and what all these kids growing like. I've met a lot of people in college who don't even have a driver's license and have zero desire to travel anywhere in a car. There has been a gradual downhill slide in the popularity of cars with young folks ever since the baby boomer generation. For me, I just don't plain get it. I've lived in and worked in six of the ten largest cities in the country and I consider them all urbanized versions of hell. I'd much rather travel to work and travel out of town...it's completely different for people growing up today. Kids today by and large...granted I know there are exceptions...are much more connected socially because of technology and in turn largely remain near home. For people like me when we were growing up we kept few friends, wanted to move from home and see the country...culture among youth has done a complete 180. For the most part the income levels of young people today will likely progress slower since they are staying home longer which begs the question....is designing city cars with low profit margins really worth the investment to cater to a group that has little interest and little money. For the kids growing up today that seem to like cars they seem to like the ones everyone else does; muscle cars, trucks and affordable sports compacts.
Besides straight 6 aka Inline 6, there was a time where straight 8 aka inline 8 was also available but after WWII, the V8 replaced the I8, Pontiac and Packard was the last ones who used a I8 althought Chrysler did made a concept car, the 1995 Atlantic who showed a I8 formed with 2 I4 engines from the Neon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhG-IACLMI
https://youtu.be/Jx6sYpbL8mM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XIEUWsXlEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCDAfRkq2aE
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 09:25:48 PMThe biggest issue with the Fiero was that the 2.5L I4 Iron Duke was the base engine when the 2.8L V6 should have been.
Agree regarding the Iron Duke; but, again, the Fiero's
original mission was to be an economical 2-seat commuter car with sporty styling. With such in mind, coupled with the CAFE figure increasing from 22 mpg in 1981 (when the Fiero was initially being designed & planned) to 27.5 mpg for 1985; 4-cylinder engines as either the sole or base engine was the obvious choice... at least on paper.
The performance renaissance along with lower gas prices (which nobody predicted would happen back then, most predicted $3-$5/gallon gasoline by 1985-1990) that started during the 80s caused Pontiac to reconsider offer the V6 engine as an option.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 09:25:48 PMFunny thing about that car is that it really sold well for the first model year with 136,000 something units but that tailed off quick 26,000 by the last model year. But then again...those numbers could be chalked up to the American Automakers holding much more of the market back in those days.
Another reason why 1st-year sales of the Fiero were high was likely due to it being a bit different (it was also mid-engined) to whatever else was available. Once the newness novelty wore off along with some competition (IIRC, Toyota's MR2 (one direct rival to the Fiero) first rolled for 1986); sales started dropping.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 09:25:48 PMThe main difference between two seat conventional combustion engine vehicles and something electric like the EV1 was that there a market that would buy them regardless because they were considered "green." Granted that part of the car buying community was MUCH smaller back in the 1990s and didn't really exist at all in the early to mid-80s. Even the Volt and Leaf...hell even the entire Tesla brand as over priced as they are have a market because they are simply what certain people want in a car from an environmental standpoint. I don't think GM was willing to take that bet back in the 1990s, entering new markets was a huge struggle for any of the big three Post OPEC embargo and really took GM in addition to Chrysler going bankrupt to change it.
As mentioned earlier, while people back then would try 2-seaters; many wouldn't stay with them long-term... especially if a 4-seat compact or subcompact got similar fuel economy. Not to mention insurance companies equated
any 2-seater as if it were a Corvette and charged higher rates than they would for a conventional 4-seat econobox probably caused some cost-conscious would-be buyers to pause.
Long story short, 2-seaters have always a very limited market, regardless of their mission (sports car or economy/commuter car). GM's EV1 and the original Honda Insight (also a 2-seater) that rolled out around the same time as the EV1 were no exceptions to such market trends.
The issues with electrics back then were/are actually the same as they are now; in addition to initial costs, range and recharge times are still an issue with these vehicles. Adding insult to injury, most economy cars back then had less power equipment than they do today. Such vehicles of the era had no A/C (floor vents were used instead), no power windows, no power seats, no fancy entertainment systems beyond a radio; all of which rely on the car's battery power. An electric vehicle version of an economy car today would require much more battery power in order to operate both equipment & propulsion than one would a generation ago (minor makes of electrics did indeed exist during the late 70s and 1980s but such was a very limited market).
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 09, 2016, 10:35:09 PMThe main problem I think with the inline-6s is packaging concerns. I really like inline-6s, but they force a "long hood" vehicle. These days the car companies want to be able to put the same engines in both cars and trucks. With a 6 they want to be able to put it in smaller cars and crossovers. Look at how short and high the hoods on today's cars are. I've always drove "long hood" vehicles, but a lot of people today are scared to pull out into city traffic with a long hood.
Most cars today are FWD with transverse-mounted engines (engine block is mounted cross-wise rather than longitudinal), so a transverse-mounted inline-6 in a car would actually create more of a
width issue rather than hood length. Such an application (transverse-mounted I-6) would only be practical for larger cars, CUVs, SUVs.
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 09, 2016, 10:35:09 PMCar companies are having a hard enough time selling cars to urban Millennials, and a long hood can be a dealbreaker when having to pull out past cars parked on the street. Today's vehicles are so incredibly tall and parking restrictions near street corners haven't moved farther down the streets since everybody stopped driving low Citations, Camaros, Pulsars, Sentras and Impalas with clear windows. SUVs and crossovers have those dark tinted rear windows that you can't see through.
IIRC, dark-tinted windows still allow those inside to see out the windows. The visibility issue w/many of today's vehicles is due to higher beltlines, smaller rear-side windows and oversized head restraints (that can't be folded down when not in use).
In contrast, I recently drove an old 1987 Ford LTD Crown Victoria sedan and (after driving newer cars for nearly a generation) I was completely blown away by the high level of visibility one had with that car (i.e. one can actually
see out of it). Sure the car had a long (by today's standards) hood but it's boxy shape and creased corners allowed the driver to actually see and judge the corners of the car.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 11:10:23 PMThe problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what even people my age (Gen Xers) and what all these kids growing like. I've met a lot of people in college who don't even have a driver's license and have zero desire to travel anywhere in a car. There has been a gradual downhill slide in the popularity of cars with young folks ever since the baby boomer generation. For me, I just don't plain get it. I've lived in and worked in six of the ten largest cities in the country and I consider them all urbanized versions of hell. I'd much rather travel to work and travel out of town...it's completely different for people growing up today. Kids today by and large...granted I know there are exceptions...are much more connected socially because of technology and in turn largely remain near home. For people like me when we were growing up we kept few friends, wanted to move from home and see the country...culture among youth has done a complete 180. For the most part the income levels of young people today will likely progress slower since they are staying home longer which begs the question....is designing city cars with low profit margins really worth the investment to cater to a group that has little interest and little money.
Not to get political but what you described can be largely blamed on roughly 20 years of ideological brainwashing (i.e.
the car is evil mantra) that's permeated throughout the (mostly public) educational system. Such is now coming to roost.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 10, 2016, 10:21:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 09:25:48 PMThe biggest issue with the Fiero was that the 2.5L I4 Iron Duke was the base engine when the 2.8L V6 should have been.
Agree regarding the Iron Duke; but, again, the Fiero's original mission was to be an economical 2-seat commuter car with sporty styling. With such in mind, coupled with the CAFE figure increasing from 22 mpg in 1981 (when the Fiero was initially being designed & planned) to 27.5 mpg for 1985; 4-cylinder engines as either the sole or base engine was the obvious choice... at least on paper.
The performance renaissance along with lower gas prices (which nobody predicted would happen back then, most predicted $3-$5/gallon gasoline by 1985-1990) that started during the 80s caused Pontiac to reconsider offer the V6 engine as an option.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 09:25:48 PMFunny thing about that car is that it really sold well for the first model year with 136,000 something units but that tailed off quick 26,000 by the last model year. But then again...those numbers could be chalked up to the American Automakers holding much more of the market back in those days.
Another reason why 1st-year sales of the Fiero were high was likely due to it being a bit different (it was also mid-engined) to whatever else was available. Once the newness novelty wore off along with some competition (IIRC, Toyota's MR2 (one direct rival to the Fiero) first rolled for 1986); sales started dropping.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 09:25:48 PMThe main difference between two seat conventional combustion engine vehicles and something electric like the EV1 was that there a market that would buy them regardless because they were considered "green." Granted that part of the car buying community was MUCH smaller back in the 1990s and didn't really exist at all in the early to mid-80s. Even the Volt and Leaf...hell even the entire Tesla brand as over priced as they are have a market because they are simply what certain people want in a car from an environmental standpoint. I don't think GM was willing to take that bet back in the 1990s, entering new markets was a huge struggle for any of the big three Post OPEC embargo and really took GM in addition to Chrysler going bankrupt to change it.
As mentioned earlier, while people back then would try 2-seaters; many wouldn't stay with them long-term... especially if a 4-seat compact or subcompact got similar fuel economy. Not to mention insurance companies equated any 2-seater as if it were a Corvette and charged higher rates than they would for a conventional 4-seat econobox probably caused some cost-conscious would-be buyers to pause.
Long story short, 2-seaters have always a very limited market, regardless of their mission (sports car or economy/commuter car). GM's EV1 and the original Honda Insight (also a 2-seater) that rolled out around the same time as the EV1 were no exceptions to such market trends.
The issues with electrics back then were/are actually the same as they are now; in addition to initial costs, range and recharge times are still an issue with these vehicles. Adding insult to injury, most economy cars back then had less power equipment than they do today. Such vehicles of the era had no A/C (floor vents were used instead), no power windows, no power seats, no fancy entertainment systems beyond a radio; all of which rely on the car's battery power. An electric vehicle version of an economy car today would require much more battery power in order to operate both equipment & propulsion than one would a generation ago (minor makes of electrics did indeed exist during the late 70s and 1980s but such was a very limited market).
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 09, 2016, 10:35:09 PMThe main problem I think with the inline-6s is packaging concerns. I really like inline-6s, but they force a "long hood" vehicle. These days the car companies want to be able to put the same engines in both cars and trucks. With a 6 they want to be able to put it in smaller cars and crossovers. Look at how short and high the hoods on today's cars are. I've always drove "long hood" vehicles, but a lot of people today are scared to pull out into city traffic with a long hood.
Most cars today are FWD with transverse-mounted engines (engine block is mounted cross-wise rather than longitudinal), so a transverse-mounted inline-6 in a car would actually create more of a width issue rather than hood length. Such an application (transverse-mounted I-6) would only be practical for larger cars, CUVs, SUVs.
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 09, 2016, 10:35:09 PMCar companies are having a hard enough time selling cars to urban Millennials, and a long hood can be a dealbreaker when having to pull out past cars parked on the street. Today's vehicles are so incredibly tall and parking restrictions near street corners haven't moved farther down the streets since everybody stopped driving low Citations, Camaros, Pulsars, Sentras and Impalas with clear windows. SUVs and crossovers have those dark tinted rear windows that you can't see through.
IIRC, dark-tinted windows still allow those inside to see out the windows. The visibility issue w/many of today's vehicles is due to higher beltlines, smaller rear-side windows and oversized head restraints (that can't be folded down when not in use).
In contrast, I recently drove an old 1987 Ford LTD Crown Victoria sedan and (after driving newer cars for nearly a generation) I was completely blown away by the high level of visibility one had with that car (i.e. one can actually see out of it). Sure the car had a long (by today's standards) hood but it's boxy shape and creased corners allowed the driver to actually see and judge the corners of the car.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 11:10:23 PMThe problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what even people my age (Gen Xers) and what all these kids growing like. I've met a lot of people in college who don't even have a driver's license and have zero desire to travel anywhere in a car. There has been a gradual downhill slide in the popularity of cars with young folks ever since the baby boomer generation. For me, I just don't plain get it. I've lived in and worked in six of the ten largest cities in the country and I consider them all urbanized versions of hell. I'd much rather travel to work and travel out of town...it's completely different for people growing up today. Kids today by and large...granted I know there are exceptions...are much more connected socially because of technology and in turn largely remain near home. For people like me when we were growing up we kept few friends, wanted to move from home and see the country...culture among youth has done a complete 180. For the most part the income levels of young people today will likely progress slower since they are staying home longer which begs the question....is designing city cars with low profit margins really worth the investment to cater to a group that has little interest and little money.
Not to get political but what you described can be largely blamed on roughly 20 years of ideological brainwashing (i.e. the car is evil mantra) that's permeated throughout the (mostly public) educational system. Such is now coming to roost.
The real travesty with the 2.5L Iron Duke was when it found it's way into the initial run of 3rd generation F-Bodies. I remember those cars being despised with a passion and some of the most hated Camaros/Firebirds ever built. The Fiero was a really strange car with a very mixed message; sporty and economical don't usually go hand in hand. For what it's worth I always felt like GM got it much more right with the Kappa platform Solstice and Sky. They had a base four cylinder that would offer Miata level performance with the Turbo Eco-Tech as an option. But to your point the Solstice never sold more than 20,000 units a year and had a low profit margin due to how the body was built. But at the very least the Kappa cars were clearly meant from the get-go to be a performance model which made them much better for what they were. Damn shame too, almost bought a GXP Solstice back in 2007 but I got stupid and bought a house instead. Worse financial decision of my life considering what happened to the housing market a couple years later.....let my wife talk me into it. :-/
True but it's interesting to see GM waste so much money on the EV1 only to bring into production as a lease only car. The social movement on "green" anything wasn't in full swing and it probably would have been a total disaster...but then again the program turned out to be one anyways in the end. I don't think a four seater was realistic given the weight limitations imposed by the heavy lead-acid batteries of the time. The funny thing that I don't understand about modern electrics and hybrids is how much money people are really willing to waste on them vs a conventional combustion engine car. I actually broke down the math on a Yaris vs a Prius with annual mileage at something like 10,500 a year and it showed a base ROI of 15 years for the Prius to pay you back for the money you could have saved on the Yaris. The funny thing is that you mention politically ingrained culture....holy crap is that beaten into some people, especially people who tend to buy hybrids or electrics. I've heard so much environmental misinformation from buyers of those vehicles to make your head spin....one thing is clear though, they buy them because they like them. Now....I'm reminded of the Smug Emissions episode from South Park. :-D
Funny how gas always seems to come and go as a problem. I remember there was a broken pipeline in Arizona I want to see back in 2002. It basically led to gas prices escalating to $2 dollars a gallon for a weekend while the pipeline was repaired. People lost their frigging minds and were lining up at gas stations just like they were in the 1970s. There were even some people going around and puncturing fuel tanks for the gas inside. Now people readily accept and expect $3-$4 a gallon gas but complain about it readily all the time. I just tell people gas was $1.50 on average on 1980...when they tell me that's good I point out the fact that that roughly translates into $4.50 factoring inflation. I guess as they would say, the more things change the more they stay the same.
Well except for kids driving cars. I honestly don't get it, I don't know if it's a forced political message or something that social scientists would have to break down to explain. I have a bunch of younger cousins in their early 20s and they seems like they are socially under-developed. They all still live at home, have near minimum wage jobs and spend all their time on the computer talking to friends or with a smart phone. I don't really see much drive or ambition out of any of them which is really strange considering I saved up a bunch of money in high school so I could bail out of the house for warmer climates the week I graduated high school. As people are approaching their late 20s I'm tending to notice things are normalizing....or what I would consider normal including an interest in cars. Maybe 25 is the new 18 for kids growing up today? Hell at least it's not 14 or 16 and you're the man of the house like my grandpa had to be back in his time.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 10, 2016, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 11:10:23 PM
But they can be packed much more efficiently, just look at the the history of the BMW 3 series with I6 engines.
The problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what even people my age (Gen Xers) and what all these kids growing like. I've met a lot of people in college who don't even have a driver's license and have zero desire to travel anywhere in a car. There has been a gradual downhill slide in the popularity of cars with young folks ever since the baby boomer generation. For me, I just don't plain get it. I've lived in and worked in six of the ten largest cities in the country and I consider them all urbanized versions of hell. I'd much rather travel to work and travel out of town...it's completely different for people growing up today. Kids today by and large...granted I know there are exceptions...are much more connected socially because of technology and in turn largely remain near home. For people like me when we were growing up we kept few friends, wanted to move from home and see the country...culture among youth has done a complete 180. For the most part the income levels of young people today will likely progress slower since they are staying home longer which begs the question....is designing city cars with low profit margins really worth the investment to cater to a group that has little interest and little money. For the kids growing up today that seem to like cars they seem to like the ones everyone else does; muscle cars, trucks and affordable sports compacts.
Besides straight 6 aka Inline 6, there was a time where straight 8 aka inline 8 was also available but after WWII, the V8 replaced the I8, Pontiac and Packard was the last ones who used a I8 althought Chrysler did made a concept car, the 1995 Atlantic who showed a I8 formed with 2 I4 engines from the Neon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhG-IACLMI
https://youtu.be/Jx6sYpbL8mM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XIEUWsXlEo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCDAfRkq2aE
Not only the I8 but you had Cadillacs and other high end cars with V16s which had similar lengths back in their time. Reminds me of the awesome Cadillac 16 Concept...I would have loved to see something this crazy enter limited production:
Ironically I think that we got a progression of this idea with the W16 Veyron.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 11:06:36 AMThe real travesty with the 2.5L Iron Duke was when it found it's way into the initial run of 3rd generation F-Bodies. I remember those cars being despised with a passion and some of the most hated Camaros/Firebirds ever built.
Again, such was offered due to rising CAFE standards and years of seeing the successful sales of 4-cylinder Mustangs (both Fox-bodies and the earlier Pinto-based Mustang IIs).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 11:06:36 AMThe Fiero was a really strange car with a very mixed message; sporty and economical don't usually go hand in hand.
One item that can make or break sales of a vehicle is
timing. The Fiero was designed in
anticipation of a market where economy takes precedence over performance. However, lower gas prices, a stabilizing economy and a government that wasn't so regulation-happy as its immediate predecessors were tilted the market emphasis back towards performance.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 11:06:36 AMFor what it's worth I always felt like GM got it much more right with the Kappa platform Solstice and Sky. They had a base four cylinder that would offer Miata level performance with the Turbo Eco-Tech as an option. But to your point the Solstice never sold more than 20,000 units a year and had a low profit margin due to how the body was built. But at the very least the Kappa cars were clearly meant from the get-go to be a performance model which made them much better for what they were.
What did those cars in was that both the Pontiac and Saturn brands were discontinued. Had that not happened, at least one of those Kappa cars might be still in production. Chevy wasn't interested in adopting the car/platform (they viewed that one 2-seater (the Corvette) was enough for them) and Buick (their present existence is largely because that brand is very popular in the Chinese market now) wasn't interested either (they had their 2-seater fling with the luxury-oriented Reatta 20 years earlier). Cadillac also had and discontinued their Corvette-based XLR 2-seater as well. As a result, those orphans had nowhere to go.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 11:06:36 AM
I actually broke down the math on a Yaris vs a Prius with annual mileage at something like 10,500 a year and it showed a base ROI of 15 years for the Prius to pay you back for the money you could have saved on the Yaris. The funny thing is that you mention politically ingrained culture....holy crap is that beaten into some people, especially people who tend to buy hybrids or electrics. I've heard so much environmental misinformation from buyers of those vehicles to make your head spin....one thing is clear though, they buy them because they like them.
Of course, it's worth noting that Prius is a larger vehicle than the Yaris; (playing devil's advocate for a moment) so somebody could choose a Prius over a Yaris for better fuel economy and added interior/cargo room.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 11:06:36 AMFunny how gas always seems to come and go as a problem. I remember there was a broken pipeline in Arizona I want to see back in 2002. It basically led to gas prices escalating to $2 dollars a gallon for a weekend while the pipeline was repaired. People lost their frigging minds and were lining up at gas stations just like they were in the 1970s. There were even some people going around and puncturing fuel tanks for the gas inside. Now people readily accept and expect $3-$4 a gallon gas but complain about it readily all the time. I just tell people gas was $1.50 on average on 1980...when they tell me that's good I point out the fact that that roughly translates into $4.50 factoring inflation. I guess as they would say, the more things change the more they stay the same.
Very true and some of the
challenges we're seeing in the auto industry today, in
principle haven't really changed all that much since the 70s.
The sad thing for the Fiero, there was some plans for a 1989 Fiero. It didn't go further then the prototype stage and clay models.
http://www.gt.ppdictionary.com/prototype_photos_3.html http://www.midengine-motorsports.com/Prototype/Pontiac/Fiero/Fiero.htm
http://www.oocities.org/fierolisa/89a.html
There was some other variants studied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4uxk7oJMlI
I remember that Fiero prototype, it's too bad it never saw production. A lot of GM's best designs were just left in clay models or on the drawing board. The one I really liked was the early 2000's Chevy SS which was rumored to be called the Chevelle if it met production.
Speaking concepts around the same time as the SS, GM had the Kappa platform Nomad which was a four seater. I would loved to see one of those make production with a turbo eco-tech but Chevy already had the Cobalt SS and Camaro by the time Pontiac/Saturn were shuttered. The Kappa platform had a big issue with expensive hydroformed steel body pieces and which ate into the profit margins. In turn that made the platform useless for Chevy and GM when the company declared bankruptcy.
The funny thing about CAFE is that it climbed from 18 MPG in 1978 to 27.5 MPG by 1985. From 1986 to 1989 CAFE actually lowered slightly before stagnating at 27.5 MPG from 1990 all the way to the 2010s. It's actually ironic watching all those old Motorweek videos that the automakers actually still made more efficient cars...certainly not trucks during the 90s when gas prices fell through the floor. The original Fiero was a victim of several things; CAFE being among them but also the assumption by domestic automakers that a model needed to crank out well of 100,000 units if not 200,000 to be a profitable success. Outside the Corvette GM could never make a low production car profitable back in those days and it was doubtful either Chrysler or Ford could as well.
The one other big factor with hybrids that would affect ROI even with costs coming down on hybrids is replacing the battery after it expires in about 100,000 miles or 8 years. The Prius battery is still a very expensive part to replace and costs several thousand dollars. A full-electric like the Tesla line was actually selling the replacement batteries during purchase with a discount from the $40,000 dollar price at something like 25% off....at least it was that way with the model S. So factor that into something more comparable like a say...Corolla vs Prius and it would be interesting to see what the difference would be and if the investment could be recouped at all? But that's not to say as time marches on and more cars use electric or hybrid power trains that the prices won't come down closer to conventional gasoline. The Chevy Volt is actually finally starting to decline in price in the current generation and probably be a lot more attractive even with the possible lack of tax credits.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 10:40:09 PMThe funny thing about CAFE is that it climbed from 18 MPG in 1978 to 27.5 MPG by 1985. From 1986 to 1989 CAFE actually lowered slightly before stagnating at 27.5 MPG from 1990 all the way to the 2010s.
Short one-word answer for the above (not to sound like a broken record):
Politics.
IIRC, then-President Reagan requested Congress to relax the 27.5 standard to 26 mpg (he likely wanted to get rid of it totally but such (like the NSL) required an act of Congress to do so). At the time, many police departments' vehicles were now getting socked with gas guzzler taxes because their cars fuel economy fell short of the guzzler tax threshold.
The increase back to 27.5 occurred shortly after Bush 41 come into office; such was right around the time the term
global warming was being touted.
A few here are not going to like me for stating such but had it not been for the GOP sweep into Congress following the 1994 elections; the CAFE standard would have increased beyond 27.5 much sooner.
With the CAFE standard for cars remaining at 27.5 mpg while gas prices remained steady & low; automakers (and not just the Big Three) started marketing and emphasizing SUVs (which were subject to the lower truck CAFE standard of 20.7 mpg) more because marketing & selling more larger cars would yield more financial penalties (fines).
When the Democrats regained control of both the House & Senate following the 2006 elections and gas prices started rising again; they saw an opportunity to increase CAFE standards, voted on and passed legislation in 2007. It is rumored that the bill was sent to the White House in a Prius. As a means of having Bush 43 agree to sign such; a provision was placed in the bill that allowed the President (present & future) to make changes to the CAFE figures as needed. Such would, in the eyes of car enthusiasts, turned out to be a big mistake. While the originally signed bill called for the CAFE figure for cars to increase to 35 mpg by 2020 (the first increase would take effect for the 2011 model year), President Obama modified the future standards to be more stringent and sooner (35.5 mpg standard by 2016).
Later on, President Obama signed on a CAFE mandate for cars & light trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. Needless to say, the only way to achieve such would be greater emphasis on hybrids & electrics.
The above is something to think about, especially if one's a car enthusiast, this coming election year (and I'm not just referring to the Presidential race). If the above goes as planned, we could very well see a return of the days of doldrum performance in the coming years that the OP was referring to.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 11:06:36 AM
The real travesty with the 2.5L Iron Duke was when it found it's way into the initial run of 3rd generation F-Bodies. I remember those cars being despised with a passion and some of the most hated Camaros/Firebirds ever built.
See, I was too young to remember that. The first 3rd gens I noticed were the 350 IROCs (well, besides K.I.T.T.) I didn't know anything about 95hp Iron Dukes or 155hp non-HO 305s from 1982 at the time. So 3rdgens looked really bad ass to me. I've had a 350 IROC for 21 years now. 155hp had to be a real bummer after the 220hp Pontiac 400 Trans Ams.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 11, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 10:40:09 PMThe funny thing about CAFE is that it climbed from 18 MPG in 1978 to 27.5 MPG by 1985. From 1986 to 1989 CAFE actually lowered slightly before stagnating at 27.5 MPG from 1990 all the way to the 2010s.
Short one-word answer for the above (not to sound like a broken record): Politics.
IIRC, then-President Reagan requested Congress to relax the 27.5 standard to 26 mpg (he likely wanted to get rid of it totally but such (like the NSL) required an act of Congress to do so). At the time, many police departments' vehicles were now getting socked with gas guzzler taxes because their cars fuel economy fell short of the guzzler tax threshold.
The increase back to 27.5 occurred shortly after Bush 41 come into office; such was right around the time the term global warming was being touted.
A few here are not going to like me for stating such but had it not been for the GOP sweep into Congress following the 1994 elections; the CAFE standard would have increased beyond 27.5 much sooner.
With the CAFE standard for cars remaining at 27.5 mpg while gas prices remained steady & low; automakers (and not just the Big Three) started marketing and emphasizing SUVs (which were subject to the lower truck CAFE standard of 20.7 mpg) more because marketing & selling more larger cars would yield more financial penalties (fines).
When the Democrats regained control of both the House & Senate following the 2006 elections and gas prices started rising again; they saw an opportunity to increase CAFE standards, voted on and passed legislation in 2007. It is rumored that the bill was sent to the White House in a Prius. As a means of having Bush 43 agree to sign such; a provision was placed in the bill that allowed the President (present & future) to make changes to the CAFE figures as needed. Such would, in the eyes of car enthusiasts, turned out to be a big mistake. While the originally signed bill called for the CAFE figure for cars to increase to 35 mpg by 2020 (the first increase would take effect for the 2011 model year), President Obama modified the future standards to be more stringent and sooner (35.5 mpg standard by 2016).
Later on, President Obama signed on a CAFE mandate for cars & light trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. Needless to say, the only way to achieve such would be greater emphasis on hybrids & electrics.
The above is something to think about, especially if one's a car enthusiast, this coming election year (and I'm not just referring to the Presidential race). If the above goes as planned, we could very well see a return of the days of doldrum performance in the coming years that the OP was referring to.
All the more reason why I got my Challenger this past year instead of waiting. I had an SS Camaro and Mustang GT prior to that Challenger and only saw an escalation in horsepower. First 300hp was a lot....then it was 400hp....now it's 500hp...that isn't sustainable for a lot of reasons beyond just fuel economy. Granted I feel like the gravitation to performance cars and away from SUVs as the big engined vehicle is at least putting things in a more proper place. Most of the people who wanted the SUVs for utility have long since gone to CUVs which are more a Mini-Van/Station Wagon combo.
This is actually a debate that I've had with a lot of friends in the car hobby over the years....when will it all end and crash like the 70s? Granted I don't think we're in for something as drastic as the decline of the 1970s with the OPEC crunch with all the new technologies and computer controls onboard cars these days but I do think at some point in the next 10 years that we'll see a cap of something like 400hp for the every man once CAFE goes to the 40s or even 50s in terms of MPG. I'd say if you want an affordable fast car that now is the time to do it because you might not have many options or they'll be watered down compared to what is available today. I just wonder if this era is going to be remembered as fondly as the muscle car era 30 years from now, I guess it's just a wait and see. One thing is for sure though, I still drive a really heavy duty fuel efficient car around every day and likely will stick with that formula in the future.
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 11, 2016, 08:53:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 10, 2016, 11:06:36 AM
The real travesty with the 2.5L Iron Duke was when it found it's way into the initial run of 3rd generation F-Bodies. I remember those cars being despised with a passion and some of the most hated Camaros/Firebirds ever built.
See, I was too young to remember that. The first 3rd gens I noticed were the 350 IROCs (well, besides K.I.T.T.) I didn't know anything about 95hp Iron Dukes or 155hp non-HO 305s from 1982 at the time. So 3rdgens looked really bad ass to me. I've had a 350 IROC for 21 years now. 155hp had to be a real bummer after the 220hp Pontiac 400 Trans Ams.
Those T/As of the late 70s were about the only thing that was really worth having or really worth collecting in today's market. The 400 still maintained a fair level of performance and made the Firebird and T/A much more desirable than the Camaro was in the model years. The real shame is if you got stuck with a California Emissions or High Elevation T/A which got you a Oldsmobile 403 which was a complete dog. It's largely because of cars like the T/A and the 400 that all cars are designed around California emissions which includes high end performance operating at 91 octane instead of 93.
The real damper is that you can't even really do too much with a 305. There was never much of a performance aftermarket for that engine and typically they get swapped out with a ZZ4 GM Small Block crate engine. The latter 3rd Gen Camaro IROCs were definitely nice car, my personal preference is for the Turbo T/A. If I could find a good solid and fair priced example of either I would probably snatch one up in a minute. The same would apply for any 98-02 F-body since they had the LS1 instead of the LT1 that was in the 93-97 cars. The LS1 wasn't really detuned out of the Corvette and those cars are performance bargains.
And those late Pontiac 400s can get right back too 1hp/CI with a heads/cam/intake swap. The automatic also forced the Olds 403. I had a 10th Anniversary '79 T/A with the 403 until 2011 that had sat since 1999. The guy I sold it to was sure happy to get it for $1100! I needed money at the time.
Frankly, I don't feel I can use more than 350hp on the street unless the car weighs over 4000 pounds. Today's cars have "Torque Management" in the computer to make transmissions last, so they dial out torque unless someone has disabled it with a tune. Still, how long do you have in a Hellcat before you have to let off? 2 seconds? I've been autocrossing for almost 10 years and have done track stuff, yet still the party is over in seconds with my IROC on the street since it makes about 300hp now and I don't street race. There's always some reason you have to let off -- at least in Ohio. Too many people. I saw a Challenger and a S550 Mustang trying to go at it on the freeway section of 104 in Columbus and I could have caught them easily in my 4cyl Colorado I was driving since they had to let off so much due to traffic and whatnot.
I'm pretty sure the jig is up on the '89 Turbo T/As. If there's one with less than 75k miles it's going to be $20k minimum. Most people babied them since they were so expensive and rare. They were definitely not an '89 305 that got driven daily on snowy dirt roads in West Virginia before having subwoofers drilled into the gas tank and drip tint applied.
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 11, 2016, 09:50:59 PM
And those late Pontiac 400s can get right back too 1hp/CI with a heads/cam/intake swap. The automatic also forced the Olds 403. I had a 10th Anniversary '79 T/A with the 403 until 2011 that had sat since 1999. The guy I sold it to was sure happy to get it for $1100! I needed money at the time.
Frankly, I don't feel I can use more than 350hp on the street unless the car weighs over 4000 pounds. Today's cars have "Torque Management" in the computer to make transmissions last, so they dial out torque unless someone has disabled it with a tune. Still, how long do you have in a Hellcat before you have to let off? 2 seconds? I've been autocrossing for almost 10 years and have done track stuff, yet still the party is over in seconds with my IROC on the street since it makes about 300hp now and I don't street race. There's always some reason you have to let off -- at least in Ohio. Too many people. I saw a Challenger and a S550 Mustang trying to go at it on the freeway section of 104 in Columbus and I could have caught them easily in my 4cyl Colorado I was driving since they had to let off so much due to traffic and whatnot.
I'm pretty sure the jig is up on the '89 Turbo T/As. If there's one with less than 75k miles it's going to be $20k minimum. Most people babied them since they were so expensive and rare. They were definitely not an '89 305 that got driven daily on snowy dirt roads in West Virginia before having subwoofers drilled into the gas tank and drip tint applied.
Ah...you hit on a major change in the last 20 years. Progressively the automatic has become the more efficient and faster option than even the manuals of old. Hell almost every automatic comes with some form of multimatic if not paddle shifters like my Challenger...not to mention many exotics don't even offer a stick anymore. That's a shame to hear about your T/A though...at least it sounds like a project car from your description.
Yes...I really think the cat is out of the box with the 3.8 Turbo T/A. I think a lot of Grand National fans caught on that might be a cheaper option to look for the T/A. That's the problem with most 3rd Gen F-bodies, they were used and abused because they were daily drivers. They generally aren't worth the money to restore but could be worth it for a cheap racing modification platform.
See the thing with the Hell Cat is that it's basically TOO much for the streets and day to day use. Most people I know who own a Hell Cat would never drive it daily, 707hp isn't streetable in the slightest. Funny thing is though that it does come with two keys; one for the full 707hp and another for something like 500hp. For me it wasn't worth double the price of an SRT8 and Scat Pack so I went with the Scat Pack with the 6.4L. Even 485hp and 470ftlb of torque isn't something that can be used or managed daily in commute form. The 1st gear on mine is so friggin tall that I often paddle shift it into second so I don't spin my tires at every traffic light. Not to mention at least in Scat Pack form the tires are too hard of a compound and are too narrow on the rear for decent traction. It's definitely not a car that is good in the rain and will spin like crazy even at half throttle.
Funny how the Challenger can be so unruly in daily use while something like my Camaro SS that had 426 hp could be the total inverse. I never found that Camaro to be anything that couldn't be managed in day-to-day driving. The one problem I always had...which was more of an annoyance was that driving it every day chewed through tire sets every 20,000 miles since I was using a 220TW compound....that and every dent/ding/scratch became nightmare fuel. But I digress....that Camaro only got 1 out of 5 years in daily driver status while the Challenger never will. The Mustang GT was an SN95 and wasn't really anything that I thought was too special, it actually made a decent daily driver but I did buy it with pre-existing body damage which I repaired. Basically the conclusion I've come to is that it is much more comfortable driving a compact or sub-compact that I get new for cheap, drive for 150,000-200,000 miles and throw in the trash only to get another. Dents, dings, dirt, scratches....wear....none bother me on a lower end car and it's strangely comforting. I don't think I'll drive a muscle car or sports car in daily driver duty again, it's not fun, uncomfortable and generally not worth it financially. Besides who wouldn't want a cool car to take out on a day off for the mountain roads or a good car show?
Really what I'm clamoring now is to try to find an older CJ Jeep, GMC Jimmy or even a Chevy Blazer equipped with 4wd. There is a lot of off-roading and mild towing that I want to do out in the Mojave that I need to get rental equipment for now.
Slightly off-topic, Nissan just acquired 35% of Mitsubishi motors.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160512/OEM/160519957/nissan-will-take-34-controlling-stake-in-mitsubishi-motors
We might see the beginning of acquisitions or mergers of some Japanese automakers. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/12/heavy-consolidation-ahead-for-japan-autos-amid-scandals-slowing-earnings.html
^That's almost the opposite of the topic; Mitsubishi was way less sad as an automaker in the '90s than they are now. :biggrin:
Yeah kind of sad to see but if Mitsubishi wants to survive in the American market they need a partner. Reminds me of what happened to Isuzu and Suzuki:
Alternate fuel source if I've ever seen one....
I'm actually fairly surprised that some yahoo or car company at least hasn't tried a steam concept for $%*%s and giggles.
Quote from: nexus73 on May 07, 2016, 10:25:36 AM
I had a friend with the 3.8 Turbo in a 1987 Regal. He added all sorts of performance items to it. When done, the 231 cubic inches performed like a 455 from the premium leaded days. Boy did that engine scream!
Speaking of Buicks with 455's, I actually know someone from a car show near me who used to work in a Buick factory, and built a 1980's Regal as a GS Stage 1 with a 455 engine in it. I've actually got pictures of the thing.
Quote from: froggie on April 30, 2016, 05:45:36 PM
Only '80s era car we had was an '85 Caprice Classic, and that was only because we inherited it from my grandfather when he passed in '87.
I actually had an '85 Caprice at the turn of the millennium. I bought the thing from a St. Vincent DePaul Thrift Store between Coram and Gordon Heights, New York. At the time it was one of the better cars I've ever driven, despite the fact that the adjustable front seat was broken. The thing was stuck all the way back, which was no problem for me.
My parents bought a lot of '80's cars brand new though (Hey, they were working class adults and they could afford them). 1980 Datsun 310 Hatchback, a 1980 Buick LeSabre with the infamous 5.7L Diesel engine, a 1985 Nissan King Cab pickup just before the "Hardbody" era, and a 1988 Honda Accord. In spite of the 1977 downsizing of full-size GM's I liked the Buicks, but the Chevy's were pretty nice too. I once took it to a charity car wash off of NY 112, and overheard the kids talking about how huge the thing was. These kids didn't know what huge is.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 12:31:37 AMIn spite of the 1977 downsizing of full-size GM's I liked the Buicks, but the Chevy's were pretty nice too.
One reason IMHO why those downsized cars
clicked with the public was that despite their smallish size; the basic character of those cars didn't really change in the process, they were
still roomy, durable cars (with a full-perimeter frame). For the '77-'79 model years, one could still get a 400+ cubic inch engine with any of the downsized B & C body cars except for the Chevy. Which was one reason why it was not uncommon to see a Buick LeSabre, Olds Delta 88 or Pontiac Catalina back then in police forces. Police packages weren't just restricted to Chevys among GM vehicles in those days.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 12:31:37 AMI once took it to a charity car wash off of NY 112, and overheard the kids talking about how huge the thing was. These kids didn't know what huge is.
I've gotten similar responses with the '89 Caprice I owned as well the various Panther-platformed cars I've owned & own ('85 Grand Marquis, '97 Crown Victoria and now a 2011 Crown Victoria) and not just among kids. Some people from my generation (& even older) have stated such, and I just want to smack them across the back of their heads because, unlike the younger folk; my generation and those before, grew up and rode in the largest of the full-size cars of the 70s.
IMHO, the 1980s were the most boring decade ever, because every car seemed to look the same with its boxy look. The 1990s looked better because of their more rounded shape, but they still couldn't hold a candle to the 1960s and 1970s styles that had lots more variety among them.
FWIW, I would've loved to see that 1989 Fiero actually being built. And I also like to pretend that Pontiac still exists as a replacement for Cadillac, given that the latter make is now made up of mostly high-performance sedans that are aimed at the import market (BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc.).
Quote from: Henry on May 13, 2016, 11:05:58 AM
IMHO, the 1980s were the most boring decade ever, because every car seemed to look the same with its boxy look.
I guess you forgot about the aero/jellybean-styled Fords that started hitting the scene during the early-to-mid 80s:
1983 Thunderbird
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1.cdn.autoevolution.com%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2FFORDThunderbird-2490_7.jpg&hash=f0f069d6f9fcbd9a4f83d8816714fc909c0a322f)
For better or worse, the 1984 Tempo
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zuza.com%2F3%2Fe%2F3e11f743-e2bc-4d3b-a652-4fe0cf7d29be%2FNEW_1984_Ford_Tempo___Gallery.jpg&hash=6f582fa67be2157dd933fa7e516486eb9b6d4124)
And, of course, the original Ford Taurus that first rolled out as an early 1986 model
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Henry_Ford_Museum_August_2012_74_(1986_Ford_Taurus).jpg)
I wouldn't exactly call those
boxy vehicles.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 13, 2016, 03:54:25 PM
I guess you forgot about the aero/jellybean-styled Fords that started hitting the scene during the early-to-mid 80s:
I sure as hell didn't forget. That's when this whole aerodynamic trend of the past 30+ years started. My old neighbors used to own a 1984, T-Bird, and I used to urge them to preserve it as a collectible car all the time. They should've listened to me.
BTW, your Taurus pic isn't showing up.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 06:13:01 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 13, 2016, 03:54:25 PM
I guess you forgot about the aero/jellybean-styled Fords that started hitting the scene during the early-to-mid 80s:
I sure as hell didn't forget. That's when this whole aerodynamic trend of the past 30+ years started. My old neighbors used to own a 1984, T-Bird, and I used to urge them to preserve it as a collectible car all the time. They should've listened to me.
BTW, your Taurus pic isn't showing up.
GM had their aero car models too with the Monte Carlo SS Aero Coupe and Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 which both had the huge rear window. It's funny to think that car companies were still going out of the way to make special production bodies back then to use in racing...in this case NASCAR...god has that changed. I remember thinking the Monte Carlo SS was the coolest thing out there when I was a kid....nothing quite 80s like the burgundy interior on this one:
Hard to believe that 400hp was unbelievable just back a quarter century ago:
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 06:13:01 PMBTW, your Taurus pic isn't showing up.
I've since replaced the pic. with another one. Does it show up now?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 13, 2016, 08:36:23 PMGM had their aero car models too with the Monte Carlo SS Aero Coupe and Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 which both had the huge rear window.
Those were nowhere near as radical as the aero Ford's. The doors and the front ends were identical to the standard version coupes. Not to mention that the G-body coupes were still pillared-hardtops (no frames around the door windows).
The downside of GM's G-body aero-coupe design was that such made the trunk lid opening way too small for a car that size. Such was probably why that particular body style sold in small numbers.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2016, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 06:13:01 PMBTW, your Taurus pic isn't showing up.
I've since replaced the pic. with another one. Does it show up now?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 13, 2016, 08:36:23 PMGM had their aero car models too with the Monte Carlo SS Aero Coupe and Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 which both had the huge rear window.
Those were nowhere near as radical as the aero Ford's. The doors and the front ends were identical to the standard version coupes. Not to mention that the G-body coupes were still pillared-hardtops (no frames around the door windows).
The downside of GM's G-body aero-coupe design was that such made the trunk lid opening way too small for a car that size. Such was probably why that particular body style sold in small numbers.
It's still interesting to see GM go out of the way to add aero pieces to production cars just so they could skirt by NASCAR body rules of the time. If I recall correctly the rule for models in NASCAR at the time was that there had to be 200 units sold to the public which spot on for 1986 production before GM sold rougly 6,000 in 1987. The Thunderbird was killing everyone else back in those days especially on super speedways before restrictor plates were a thing. It's just funny to look back now and realize that there was actually a production input into racing back then as far as body work went. You'd think that would have all died out with the Daytona and Superbird.
Funny to think that a car that large selling 100,000 units a year back then was a failure. You'd never see something RWD and of that size selling anywhere close to that mark today:
http://www.montecarloss.com/SS_FAQ_2.html
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 11:08:23 AMFunny to think that a car that large selling 100,000 units a year back then was a failure. You'd never see something RWD and of that size selling anywhere close to that mark today
One needs to remember that the vehicle market then wasn't as fragmented (in terms of vehicle types) back then as it is now. SUVs were only starting to get noticed and most pick-up trucks came one-way... single-cab. The term, crossover (aka CUV), wasn't yet even a term in the automotive sense.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2016, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 11:08:23 AMFunny to think that a car that large selling 100,000 units a year back then was a failure. You'd never see something RWD and of that size selling anywhere close to that mark today
One needs to remember that the vehicle market then wasn't as fragmented (in terms of vehicle types) back then as it is now. SUVs were only starting to get noticed and most pick-up trucks came one-way... single-cab. The term, crossover (aka CUV), wasn't yet even a term in the automotive sense.
True...lineups are far more diverse then they used to be. Market share probably plays a huge part of all this too, way more than people think it does. Back in those days GM had market shares near the 40 range while today it's in the ball park of slightly under 20%.
Funny thing about the CUV is that it basically took market share from three segments; boxed SUVs, mini-vans and station wagons. The boxed-SUV managed to survive the best out of the three while the Mini-Van and Station Wagon basically are close to extinct. I would find it greatly amusing to rename the CUV segment the Station Van class. :-D
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2016, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 06:13:01 PMBTW, your Taurus pic isn't showing up.
I've since replaced the pic. with another one. Does it show up now?
Nope. Just an "Image hosted by Tripod" panel.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 20, 2016, 01:59:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2016, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 06:13:01 PMBTW, your Taurus pic isn't showing up.
I've since replaced the pic. with another one. Does it show up now?
Nope. Just an "Image hosted by Tripod" panel.
I've since replaced
that Tripod photo with one from Wikipedia taken at the Henry Ford Museum. Hopefully, that one will remain viewable. That's the 2nd time I've had to redirect/replace a photo of the 1986 Taurus.
Documentary on the AMC Pacer:
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2016, 09:42:32 AM
I've since replaced
that Tripod photo with one from Wikipedia taken at the Henry Ford Museum. Hopefully, that one will remain viewable. That's the 2nd time I've had to redirect/replace a photo of the 1986 Taurus.
[/quote]
I blame Robocop.
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 20, 2016, 10:26:04 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2016, 09:42:32 AM
I've since replaced that Tripod photo with one from Wikipedia taken at the Henry Ford Museum. Hopefully, that one will remain viewable. That's the 2nd time I've had to redirect/replace a photo of the 1986 Taurus.
I blame Robocop.
[/quote]
This is the commercial for the Taurus we should have gotten:
Came out better than the 6000 SUX Commercial did:
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2016, 09:42:32 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 20, 2016, 01:59:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2016, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 06:13:01 PMBTW, your Taurus pic isn't showing up.
I've since replaced the pic. with another one. Does it show up now?
Nope. Just an "Image hosted by Tripod" panel.
I've since replaced that Tripod photo with one from Wikipedia taken at the Henry Ford Museum. Hopefully, that one will remain viewable. That's the 2nd time I've had to redirect/replace a photo of the 1986 Taurus.
Thanks. Wow, that thing is in really nice shape!
I used to like the Taurus until they changed over to the bug-faced model in 1996. Bleagh! After this, I started to appreciate the 1991-96 Chevy Caprice. And I thought there wouldn't be anything uglier until the 2002-2005 Hyundai Sonata! I'd rather drive a Pontiac Aztek than either of those.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 22, 2016, 10:10:12 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 20, 2016, 09:42:32 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 20, 2016, 01:59:34 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2016, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 13, 2016, 06:13:01 PMBTW, your Taurus pic isn't showing up.
I've since replaced the pic. with another one. Does it show up now?
Nope. Just an "Image hosted by Tripod" panel.
I've since replaced that Tripod photo with one from Wikipedia taken at the Henry Ford Museum. Hopefully, that one will remain viewable. That's the 2nd time I've had to redirect/replace a photo of the 1986 Taurus.
Thanks. Wow, that thing is in really nice shape!
I used to like the Taurus until they changed over to the bug-faced model in 1996. Bleagh! After this, I started to appreciate the 1991-96 Chevy Caprice. And I thought there wouldn't be anything uglier until the 2002-2005 Hyundai Sonata! I'd rather drive a Pontiac Aztek than either of those.
I believe the analogy you are looking for with the post 96 Taurus is "jelly bean" styling. I seem to recall that term for late 90s styling started to catch on as time went by.
Pontiac Aztek you say?
I remember visiting my sister up at MSU in East Lansing and saw a GM tester Aztek in the parking lot at Meijer. I think my commentary on it at the time was that it looked like someone took a pick axe to the front clip. Got to love that nasty hard plastic grey body moldings for an extra tinge of ugliness....even harder to believe that made it over the Chevy Avalanche years later.
Quote from: leroys73 on May 09, 2016, 07:35:06 AM
That was one tough, reliable engine. I think they ran forever. Probably emissions killed it along with weight.
The old Chrysler slant 6 paired with the 727 transmission was another tough combination. Back then we used to always say Chrysler had 200,000 mile power trains in 50,000 mile bodies.
Quote from: leroys73 on May 09, 2016, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2016, 10:55:27 AM
I had a 1981 Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID (4.9L) straight six with carburetor.
I also had a 1990 Ford Bronco, same motor, with fuel injection.
The difference between a carburetor and fuel injection was dramatic - the injection provided more power and better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, Ford stopped building that 4.9L motor, which was stout in terms of torque and bulletproof in terms of reliability.
That was one tough, reliable engine. I think they ran forever. Probably emissions killed it along with weight.
The old Chrysler slant 6 paired with the 727 transmission was another tough combination. Back then we used to always say Chrysler had 200,000 mile power trains in 50,000 mile bodies.
Yes, I think emissions reduction requirements killed the Ford 300 CID (4.9L) I-6 and the Mopar 225 CID (3.7 L) Slant Six, though the Ford motor held on into the 1990's before it was discontinued.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 22, 2016, 03:04:30 PM
Yes, I think emissions reduction requirements killed the Ford 300 CID (4.9L) I-6 and the Mopar 225 CID (3.7 L) Slant Six, though the Ford motor held on into the 1990's before it was discontinued.
The Ford straight six menaged to get a longer lifespan in Australia who was even available in turbo-charged version. http://fordsix.com/archive/OZsixes.php http://www.classicinlines.com/history.asp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_straight-six_engine
This has to be by far the worst car I've driven in the last ten years:
I had one in a rental trip to San Diego back in 2010. The driver's door latch actually broke and I couldn't get the door closed without a lot of trying. I spent the whole weekend climbing out the passenger door and looking like an idiot.
Documentary on the Chrysler Turbine cars:
Love the bits about the "hybrid" powertrain in the beginning, the Highway of Tomorrow and nuclear powered cars leading a meltdown on Main Street. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 22, 2016, 02:43:08 PM
I believe the analogy you are looking for with the post 96 Taurus is "jelly bean" styling. I seem to recall that term for late 90s styling started to catch on as time went by.
No, I meant "Bug-faced."
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/96-97_Ford_Taurus.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3203%2F2662424794_d14cf29b4b.jpg&hash=a147730deae217027bb273b19d49241c45ab128c)
I wish I had a better example.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 22, 2016, 02:43:08 PM
Pontiac Aztek you say?
I stand by my previous statement.
It just dawned on me looking at the Aztek still shot that it doesn't have a fuel cap lid...what's up with that? Yeah now I see the bug face look, extra classy with the ovid styling on the rest of the Taurus. I seem to recall people were upset about the conservative styling and review falling way the Accord in addition to Camry.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 22, 2016, 10:10:12 AMI used to like the Taurus until they changed over to the bug-faced model in 1996. Bleagh!
You're not the only one. Prior to the '96 redesign, the Taurus
was the best selling new car for a few years. Midway through the '96 model year; many at Ford realized that what worked for '86 (making a daring, bold move with styling) backfired when they tried it again a decade later.
If you're interested in Taurii (I'm not, particularly, but I enjoy a good business drama), check out the book Car by Mary Walton (http://www.amazon.com/Car-American-Workplace-Mary-Walton/dp/0393318613). The author was "embedded" with the 1996 Taurus team for its two-year development cycle, and her account goes into incredible detail on the benchmarks, decisions, and personalities that made the ovoid Taurus–for better or worse–what it is.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 23, 2016, 12:49:16 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 22, 2016, 10:10:12 AMI used to like the Taurus until they changed over to the bug-faced model in 1996. Bleagh!
You're not the only one. Prior to the '96 redesign, the Taurus was the best selling new car for a few years. Midway through the '96 model year; many at Ford realized that what worked for '86 (making a daring, bold move with styling) backfired when they tried it again a decade later.
I had a friend who drove one of those. She called it the "Clitaurus" since it had so many bean shapes.
Some new Motorweek Retro reviews came out today.
1990 Corvette ZR1
- Holy crap 4.3 to 60mph and 12.8 1/4 mile time is fantastic for 1990 standards.
1990 GM W-bodies
Still would have beat the Pontiac 1000/Chevy Chevette in a drag race:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
1990 GM W-bodies
They sold a trillion of those. Almost none are left on the road -- maybe a Lumina or two. A major difference between the '80s and up and say the '60s is that there are some mainstream cars that you'll never see again once they are 20-25 years old.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 16, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
1990 GM W-bodies
They sold a trillion of those. Almost none are left on the road -- maybe a Lumina or two. A major difference between the '80s and up and say the '60s is that there are some mainstream cars that you'll never see again once they are 20-25 years old.
I'm not exactly sure if they're still in production, but 2014 and 2015 W-body Impalas still roam the rental car lots. And that's the nicest thing I can say about them.
Reading through this thread, it seems that so many of these excrescences are American cars. That said, its easy to pick on these old vehicles, of which probably 90% of them aren't running any longer (save the ZR-1 Corvettes, other sporty specials) and declare them crap against today's best. That's what we had, and it's today's hulking masses which have improved technology and power, but increased mass and limited gains in fuel economy because of that imbalance.
The automotive press usually has very little nice to say about any vehicle once the next model appears, unless they totally miss the boat on everything with the newest iteration.
Quote from: formulanone on June 16, 2016, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 16, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
1990 GM W-bodies
They sold a trillion of those. Almost none are left on the road -- maybe a Lumina or two. A major difference between the '80s and up and say the '60s is that there are some mainstream cars that you'll never see again once they are 20-25 years old.
I'm not exactly sure if they're still in production, but 2014 and 2015 W-body Impalas still roam the rental car lots. And that's the nicest thing I can say about them.
Oh, I was referring to the '89-'96 generation.
Here's something different:
I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater. That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it. That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south. Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around. I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market. About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.
Quote from: formulanone on June 16, 2016, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 16, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
1990 GM W-bodies
They sold a trillion of those. Almost none are left on the road -- maybe a Lumina or two. A major difference between the '80s and up and say the '60s is that there are some mainstream cars that you'll never see again once they are 20-25 years old.
I'm not exactly sure if they're still in production, but 2014 and 2015 W-body Impalas still roam the rental car lots. And that's the nicest thing I can say about them.
Reading through this thread, it seems that so many of these excrescences are American cars. That said, its easy to pick on these old vehicles, of which probably 90% of them aren't running any longer (save the ZR-1 Corvettes, other sporty specials) and declare them crap against today's best. That's what we had, and it's today's hulking masses which have improved technology and power, but increased mass and limited gains in fuel economy because of that imbalance.
The automotive press usually has very little nice to say about any vehicle once the next model appears, unless they totally miss the boat on everything with the newest iteration.
The W-Body Impala Limited is still available through fleet sales until the end of the 2016 model year and then it's done. Safe to say that GM really got it's money's worth out of the platform with almost 30 years of production runs on it. It actually had some diamonds in the rough like the LS3 Grand Prix/Impala/Monte Carlo and the Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. My sister actually had a 97 GTP in college and for the time it was pretty damn fast being a 14.5 car with the 240hp on top of 3,400 pounds of curb weight.
Personally I actually find the 70s, 80s and 90s cars more fascinating because they are less known in addition to all the compromises that were made for safety, economy or emissions. Every once in awhile you really find a true diamond in the rough that was way ahead of it's time and would probably make an intriguing collector's piece on the cheap. The real disparity in reputation is with the muscle car era cars...at least in the form they existed in stock. Those were cars that were built before the change in 72 to net horsepower so the numbers they present in gross don't stack up to a lot modern mundane vehicles. Not to mention they were absolutely terrible in regards to economy, emissions and worst of all safety. There are so many of those cars that had rear drum setups trying whoa down big blocks or high output small blocks.
That's not to say that the muscle cars are junk or worthless because they aren't. The one thing they have that the 70s, 80s and 90s cars won't for most part is style and feel that you were in something powerful...whether that was actually true or not. The 70s, 80s and 90s cars with some exceptions like say the Grand National, Corvette in addition to some other rare models always felt like a compromise. Automakers had so many things working against them in the post OPEC era...whether it be escalating gas prices or ever increasing federal standards for safety. The great irony is that a lot of the weight increases you see today are from federally mandated increases in safety standards....air bags ain't light on curb weight... It really begs the question with increased CAFE standards around the corner...is the end of the second muscle car era around the corner? How can automakers sustain 400-500hp cars in such numbers with 54.5MPG CAFE looming? I don't think any amount of low volume models, hybrids, trickery or engineering advances in the next decade can compete with that number...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2016, 11:30:26 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 16, 2016, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 16, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
1990 GM W-bodies
They sold a trillion of those. Almost none are left on the road -- maybe a Lumina or two. A major difference between the '80s and up and say the '60s is that there are some mainstream cars that you'll never see again once they are 20-25 years old.
I'm not exactly sure if they're still in production, but 2014 and 2015 W-body Impalas still roam the rental car lots. And that's the nicest thing I can say about them.
Reading through this thread, it seems that so many of these excrescences are American cars. That said, its easy to pick on these old vehicles, of which probably 90% of them aren't running any longer (save the ZR-1 Corvettes, other sporty specials) and declare them crap against today's best. That's what we had, and it's today's hulking masses which have improved technology and power, but increased mass and limited gains in fuel economy because of that imbalance.
The automotive press usually has very little nice to say about any vehicle once the next model appears, unless they totally miss the boat on everything with the newest iteration.
The W-Body Impala Limited is still available through fleet sales until the end of the 2016 model year and then it's done. Safe to say that GM really got it's money's worth out of the platform with almost 30 years of production runs on it. It actually had some diamonds in the rough like the LS3 Grand Prix/Impala/Monte Carlo and the Pontiac Grand Prix GTP. My sister actually had a 97 GTP in college and for the time it was pretty damn fast being a 14.5 car with the 240hp on top of 3,400 pounds of curb weight.
Personally I actually find the 70s, 80s and 90s cars more fascinating because they are less known in addition to all the compromises that were made for safety, economy or emissions. Every once in awhile you really find a true diamond in the rough that was way ahead of it's time and would probably make an intriguing collector's piece on the cheap. The real disparity in reputation is with the muscle car era cars...at least in the form they existed in stock. Those were cars that were built before the change in 72 to net horsepower so the numbers they present in gross don't stack up to a lot modern mundane vehicles. Not to mention they were absolutely terrible in regards to economy, emissions and worst of all safety. There are so many of those cars that had rear drum setups trying whoa down big blocks or high output small blocks.
That's not to say that the muscle cars are junk or worthless because they aren't. The one thing they have that the 70s, 80s and 90s cars won't for most part is style and feel that you were in something powerful...whether that was actually true or not. The 70s, 80s and 90s cars with some exceptions like say the Grand National, Corvette in addition to some other rare models always felt like a compromise. Automakers had so many things working against them in the post OPEC era...whether it be escalating gas prices or ever increasing federal standards for safety. The great irony is that a lot of the weight increases you see today are from federally mandated increases in safety standards....air bags ain't light on curb weight... It really begs the question with increased CAFE standards around the corner...is the end of the second muscle car era around the corner? How can automakers sustain 400-500hp cars in such numbers with 54.5MPG CAFE looming? I don't think any amount of low volume models, hybrids, trickery or engineering advances in the next decade can compete with that number...
I would like more diesels here in the USA but with while vw emissions scandal it's not gonna happen. They can get 45 50 mpg.
Speaking of VW i really likes the Eurovan looked really manly to me but they were overpriced. The routan is just a friggin caravan.
I saw a Eurovan in New York on eBay motors that gave me a boner, it was a Eurovan weekender(the semi camper) with a TDI and a 5 speed.. apparently it was imported from Germany by original owner, even had km/h speedometer. The ad said it was street legal etc
Quote from: leroys73 on April 30, 2016, 09:23:59 PM
Those days were suck city. It all was started in 1971 when compression started coming down because of low to no lead. Then in 1973 the looks went away with the 5 mph bumper, then 1975 the catalytic converters started putting the nails in the coffin. From there with only a few exceptions it was all down hill compounded by the oil embargo. A lot of the cars then became performance cars by just adding some paint, letters, and/or numbers. Almost all were dogs and fell apart.
What I remember is that GM/Ford/Mopar's only trick was throwing more cubes at an engine to make power instead of actually doing some R&D. And now I still hear people talking about how all those restrictions somehow were the reason they were so down on power - even though the europeans and the japanese had no problem at all making power with these very same restrictions.
The restrictions weren't at fault, the Big-3 were.
Well a lot of corporate arrogance came into play during the 70s and 80s with the American automakers. Basically they didn't want to build small cars or invest in them because they were low on the profit margins. So basically they did so many cost cutting measures, hardly did any really R&D and worst of all let platforms last way past their expiration date. I mean hell...could anyone really imagine an F-body lasting for 11 years or a Corvette platform for 15?...that's what was happening post OPEC. So basically you had overweight, under-powered and outdated cars that opened the door for Japanese/European to exploit the small car markets. The leg up the Europeans and Japanese had was that they had a lot of engineering already done with smaller cars in their home markets.
The real amazing thing is to listen to some of the sales numbers thrown out during those Motorweek videos as the years press on. I want to say it was the 1991 Toyota line where they talk about them possibly going past one million sales for the first time and having 6% market share. Basically the Big Three....even AMC kept turning out the same crap that people didn't want through the 70s and were below the standard in the newer markets they tried to crack into by the 80s then 90s. About the only real success that any of the Big Three had in making something small like compact or a new class was Chrysler with the K Car in addition to Mini-Van. The Big Three thought people would stay loyal no matter what...no matter how much quality really fell behind hey finally lost enough market share to drive GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy. The good news is that you have American, European and Asian automakers all playing on a much more level field. That's nothing but a win for the consumer because it drives competition for improvements...that atmosphere didn't exist in the 1970s.
That Eurovan sounds like a rare bird, out of curiosity what were they asking? Despite the VW scandal I really think that diesel has finally found a small niche in the States. Even the emissions scandal were not talking anything near the debacle of some early American diesel attempts....the Olds diesel comes to mind.. A lot of small truck and SUV buyers swear by diesel already...I would imagine it will continue to translate over to people who are particularly interested in European cars in the short term. Besides the way I see the Volkswagen Diesel scandal is kind of similar to the GM Ignition Recalls, Ford and Hyndai fudging mileage numbers and some of the other recent scandals....completely overblown in comparison things like exploding Pintos of yesteryear.
Quote from: 8.Lug on June 16, 2016, 11:56:22 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on April 30, 2016, 09:23:59 PM
Those days were suck city. It all was started in 1971 when compression started coming down because of low to no lead. Then in 1973 the looks went away with the 5 mph bumper, then 1975 the catalytic converters started putting the nails in the coffin. From there with only a few exceptions it was all down hill compounded by the oil embargo. A lot of the cars then became performance cars by just adding some paint, letters, and/or numbers. Almost all were dogs and fell apart.
What I remember is that GM/Ford/Mopar's only trick was throwing more cubes at an engine to make power instead of actually doing some R&D. And now I still hear people talking about how all those restrictions somehow were the reason they were so down on power - even though the europeans and the japanese had no problem at all making power with these very same restrictions.
The restrictions weren't at fault, the Big-3 were.
Whoa there; I believe a few facts need to be presented for a better perspective:
1. Back in the 70s; most if not all imported brands sold in the US came in only one or two available sizes: compact & subcompact. The largest import-branded sedan sold in the U.S. back (IIRC was the Toyota Cressida and/or the Volvo 240) then was
still smaller than most domestic-branded compacts (Chevy Nova, Ford Maverick & Plymouth Valiant). As a result, when the CAFE standards first took effect (at 18 mpg for 1978); the import brands weren't impacted as much as the domestic brands. I.e. no downsizing of their models was needed; Honda capitalized on such in its advertising when it launched its first Accord model (then a compact) for 1977 (they offer upsizing while their competitors offer downsizing).
2. Catalytic Converters were mandated for all domestic branded cars for the 1975 model year.
Imports got a pass on such until the 1980 model year (due to then-lower overall sales volumes, little did they know). I remember seeing several ads. on print & on TV from VW, Honda, Nissan (then Datsun) and even for the imported Plymouth Arrow touting that they ran on
good ol' Regular (leaded) gas; especially during the 1978 model year, which was a record sales year across the board for all brands. Such triggered
temporary shortages of unleaded gas (which was only available in one grade, at 89 octane).
3. Most if not all of the
mainstream imports sold in the US were back then
not performance-oriented vehicles. Comparing the performance of a 70s Toyota Celica to a '64.5-'73 Mustang or to a Camaro/Firebird/Trans Am was completely laughable. So when manufacturers were
forced to detune their engines during the early 70s; again, the mainstream imports weren't effected.
Long story short; many of the regulations that were implemented back then impacted the domestic automakers (let's not forget about American Motors (aka AMC) that still existed back then) moreso than the imported brands.
Had such regulations initially took effect
today; the import brands (yes Virginia, Toyota now makes gas-guzzlers) would have been more equally impacted.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 16, 2016, 02:03:09 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 16, 2016, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 16, 2016, 01:40:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 13, 2016, 11:14:43 PM
1990 GM W-bodies
They sold a trillion of those. Almost none are left on the road -- maybe a Lumina or two. A major difference between the '80s and up and say the '60s is that there are some mainstream cars that you'll never see again once they are 20-25 years old.
I'm not exactly sure if they're still in production, but 2014 and 2015 W-body Impalas still roam the rental car lots. And that's the nicest thing I can say about them.
Oh, I was referring to the '89-'96 generation.
Actually, the platform itself debuted in 1988, back when you could still order a RWD G-body, though at that time it was limited to the Monte Carlo and Cutlass Supreme Classic (the latter of which was to differentiate itself from the new FWD offering). The best-looking ones of the bunch were the Grand Prix and Cutlass Supreme 2-doors that had six headlights, as opposed to the two that appeared on the rest of the line. That generation was actually extended to 1997, mainly because the next generation debuted in stages: Lumina/Monte Carlo appeared first in 1995, then Grand Prix in '96, Regal/Century (which was carried over from the discontinued A-body) in '97, and finally, Intrigue in '98. I also find it surprising that the Impala was put on the W-body when it returned in 2000, despite looking a lot like the larger H-body Bonneville that was also redesigned that year.
You're right, it wasn't a hard cutoff at either end. I remember that and the "Classics".
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 17, 2016, 08:50:24 AM
Had such regulations initially took effect today; the import brands (yes Virginia, Toyota now makes gas-guzzlers) would have been more equally impacted.
The Land Cruiser springs to mind immediately. In US trim, you can only get one fully loaded with a V8 that gets something like 13/18.
Quote from: Takumi on June 17, 2016, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 17, 2016, 08:50:24 AM
Had such regulations initially took effect today; the import brands (yes Virginia, Toyota now makes gas-guzzlers) would have been more equally impacted.
The Land Cruiser springs to mind immediately. In US trim, you can only get one fully loaded with a V8 that gets something like 13/18.
The Tundra-based Sequoia SUV is similar.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 17, 2016, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 17, 2016, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 17, 2016, 08:50:24 AM
Had such regulations initially took effect today; the import brands (yes Virginia, Toyota now makes gas-guzzlers) would have been more equally impacted.
The Land Cruiser springs to mind immediately. In US trim, you can only get one fully loaded with a V8 that gets something like 13/18.
The Tundra-based Sequoia SUV is similar.
They sell many more Priuses to offset the present CAFE limit.
Quote from: formulanone on June 17, 2016, 05:26:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 17, 2016, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 17, 2016, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 17, 2016, 08:50:24 AM
Had such regulations initially took effect today; the import brands (yes Virginia, Toyota now makes gas-guzzlers) would have been more equally impacted.
The Land Cruiser springs to mind immediately. In US trim, you can only get one fully loaded with a V8 that gets something like 13/18.
The Tundra-based Sequoia SUV is similar.
They sell many more Priuses to offset the present CAFE limit.
Real question is how many Prius...Priui...Priuses...will it take to offset Sequoia like vehicles at 54.5?...or how few Sequoias? Interesting question for any automaker with a performance or big time truck line.
Looks like the safety brigade is still trying to make this a story....last I checked acceptable and good were still better than poor:
But I digress...it just seems odd that a lot of mainstream automotive press is expecting Volvo levels of crash impact scores out of muscle cars. And really they had to wreck a Plum Crazy Challenger?
Now back to something 1970s and 80s:
I can't for the life of me find the parity of this they did in Deadpool...
And here's one of Ford's all time odd moves this side of an Edsel with Merkur:
But XR4tis/Sierras are cool except for the T9 transmission.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 17, 2016, 09:44:33 PM
But XR4tis/Sierras are cool except for the T9 transmission.
A lot cooler than the Scorpio was... I always thought it was weird that they called the division the German word for Mercury when Ford could have just rolled the cars into the Mercury line proper...I mean hell those dealers were the ones who sold the things. It's amazing how long Ford Europe really went having better cars than the American side, thankfully that all changed recently. GM used to do the same thing with RWD cars from Holden...that didn't stop until the GTO and Camaro.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 06:42:49 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 17, 2016, 05:26:50 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 17, 2016, 01:34:00 PM
Quote from: Takumi on June 17, 2016, 01:02:17 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 17, 2016, 08:50:24 AM
Had such regulations initially took effect today; the import brands (yes Virginia, Toyota now makes gas-guzzlers) would have been more equally impacted.
The Land Cruiser springs to mind immediately. In US trim, you can only get one fully loaded with a V8 that gets something like 13/18.
The Tundra-based Sequoia SUV is similar.
They sell many more Priuses to offset the present CAFE limit.
Real question is how many Prius...Priui...Priuses...will it take to offset Sequoia like vehicles at 54.5?...or how few Sequoias? Interesting question for any automaker with a performance or big time truck line.
To my knowledge, the Land Cruiser is a very low-volume seller. Not sure about the Sequoia.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 12:11:31 AM
Well a lot of corporate arrogance came into play during the 70s and 80s with the American automakers. Basically they didn't want to build small cars or invest in them because they were low on the profit margins. So basically they did so many cost cutting measures, hardly did any really R&D and worst of all let platforms last way past their expiration date. I mean hell...could anyone really imagine an F-body lasting for 11 years or a Corvette platform for 15?...that's what was happening post OPEC. So basically you had overweight, under-powered and outdated cars that opened the door for Japanese/European to exploit the small car markets. The leg up the Europeans and Japanese had was that they had a lot of engineering already done with smaller cars in their home markets.
The real amazing thing is to listen to some of the sales numbers thrown out during those Motorweek videos as the years press on. I want to say it was the 1991 Toyota line where they talk about them possibly going past one million sales for the first time and having 6% market share. Basically the Big Three....even AMC kept turning out the same crap that people didn't want through the 70s and were below the standard in the newer markets they tried to crack into by the 80s then 90s. About the only real success that any of the Big Three had in making something small like compact or a new class was Chrysler with the K Car in addition to Mini-Van. The Big Three thought people would stay loyal no matter what...no matter how much quality really fell behind hey finally lost enough market share to drive GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy. The good news is that you have American, European and Asian automakers all playing on a much more level field. That's nothing but a win for the consumer because it drives competition for improvements...that atmosphere didn't exist in the 1970s.
That Eurovan sounds like a rare bird, out of curiosity what were they asking? Despite the VW scandal I really think that diesel has finally found a small niche in the States. Even the emissions scandal were not talking anything near the debacle of some early American diesel attempts....the Olds diesel comes to mind.. A lot of small truck and SUV buyers swear by diesel already...I would imagine it will continue to translate over to people who are particularly interested in European cars in the short term. Besides the way I see the Volkswagen Diesel scandal is kind of similar to the GM Ignition Recalls, Ford and Hyndai fudging mileage numbers and some of the other recent scandals....completely overblown in comparison things like exploding Pintos of yesteryear.
Eurovan was asking something crazy like $21000 for a 2005. I agree the emissions was blown way out of proportion. I a really surprised that GM has offered a suburban with a diesel, i have seen a company out of Colorado that swaps out a Silverado diesel. That would be a great marketing ploy.. suburban with much better mpg..same with Ford f150
Quote from: jwolfer on June 17, 2016, 10:57:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 12:11:31 AM
Well a lot of corporate arrogance came into play during the 70s and 80s with the American automakers. Basically they didn't want to build small cars or invest in them because they were low on the profit margins. So basically they did so many cost cutting measures, hardly did any really R&D and worst of all let platforms last way past their expiration date. I mean hell...could anyone really imagine an F-body lasting for 11 years or a Corvette platform for 15?...that's what was happening post OPEC. So basically you had overweight, under-powered and outdated cars that opened the door for Japanese/European to exploit the small car markets. The leg up the Europeans and Japanese had was that they had a lot of engineering already done with smaller cars in their home markets.
The real amazing thing is to listen to some of the sales numbers thrown out during those Motorweek videos as the years press on. I want to say it was the 1991 Toyota line where they talk about them possibly going past one million sales for the first time and having 6% market share. Basically the Big Three....even AMC kept turning out the same crap that people didn't want through the 70s and were below the standard in the newer markets they tried to crack into by the 80s then 90s. About the only real success that any of the Big Three had in making something small like compact or a new class was Chrysler with the K Car in addition to Mini-Van. The Big Three thought people would stay loyal no matter what...no matter how much quality really fell behind hey finally lost enough market share to drive GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy. The good news is that you have American, European and Asian automakers all playing on a much more level field. That's nothing but a win for the consumer because it drives competition for improvements...that atmosphere didn't exist in the 1970s.
That Eurovan sounds like a rare bird, out of curiosity what were they asking? Despite the VW scandal I really think that diesel has finally found a small niche in the States. Even the emissions scandal were not talking anything near the debacle of some early American diesel attempts....the Olds diesel comes to mind.. A lot of small truck and SUV buyers swear by diesel already...I would imagine it will continue to translate over to people who are particularly interested in European cars in the short term. Besides the way I see the Volkswagen Diesel scandal is kind of similar to the GM Ignition Recalls, Ford and Hyndai fudging mileage numbers and some of the other recent scandals....completely overblown in comparison things like exploding Pintos of yesteryear.
Eurovan was asking something crazy like $21000 for a 2005. I agree the emissions was blown way out of proportion. I a really surprised that GM has offered a suburban with a diesel, i have seen a company out of Colorado that swaps out a Silverado diesel. That would be a great marketing ploy.. suburban with much better mpg..same with Ford f150
Pretty much all the automakers are paranoid about recall anything these days. I had a recall on my Sonic not too long ago for some super specific situation where the emergency brake might warning chime might not work if I leave the car in accessory mode for 20 plus minutes, put the key off and then exit....really I needed a software update that? Granted Im not saying the VW diesel emissions thing was good but a lot of automotive press was acting like it was either on the level of the Ford Pinto gas tank or it would put the final nail in diesel for good. The technology is a lot more efficient and a lot less cumbersome to use for passenger vehicle segment than it ever has...that's not just going to change suddenly, so it will have it's niche. Granted it will never be as popular as it is in Europe but the commercial side is dominated by diesel completely.
Is 21k steep for a Eurovan? I want to say it is but I don't know the market value or the condition level the thing was in.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 06:42:49 PMReal question is how many Prius...Priui...Priuses...will it take to offset Sequoia like vehicles at 54.5?...or how few Sequoias? Interesting question for any automaker with a performance or big time truck line.
A 54.5 mpg CAFE figure would make even gasoline-powered subcompacts look like gas-guzzlers in comparision. Note that particular future figure can be altered if one or two elections (and I'm not just referring to this fall's Presidential campaign) go a certain way. Historical note: the results of the 2006 congressional & senatorial elections set the stage for
higher than 27.5 mpg future CAFE figures.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 17, 2016, 09:44:33 PM
But XR4tis/Sierras are cool except for the T9 transmission.
A lot cooler than the Scorpio was... I always thought it was weird that they called the division the German word for Mercury when Ford could have just rolled the cars into the Mercury line proper...I mean hell those dealers were the ones who sold the things.
Since the Sierra nameplate already existed for GMC trucks in the North American market; Ford couldn't use the Sierra badge over here. The reasoning for using the
Merkur branding were:
1. To attract potential customers that had preconceived negative (in terms of taste or style) opinions of Mercury automobiles that were hard to break.
2. To somewhat dilute the potential for internal competition
within one brand (Scorpio vs. Sable for example).
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 20, 2016, 09:18:18 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 06:42:49 PMReal question is how many Prius...Priui...Priuses...will it take to offset Sequoia like vehicles at 54.5?...or how few Sequoias? Interesting question for any automaker with a performance or big time truck line.
A 54.5 mpg CAFE figure would make even gasoline-powered subcompacts look like gas-guzzlers in comparision. Note that particular future figure can be altered if one or two elections (and I'm not just referring to this fall's Presidential campaign) go a certain way. Historical note: the results of the 2006 congressional & senatorial elections set the stage for higher than 27.5 mpg future CAFE figures.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 10:06:42 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 17, 2016, 09:44:33 PM
But XR4tis/Sierras are cool except for the T9 transmission.
A lot cooler than the Scorpio was... I always thought it was weird that they called the division the German word for Mercury when Ford could have just rolled the cars into the Mercury line proper...I mean hell those dealers were the ones who sold the things.
Since the Sierra nameplate already existed for GMC trucks in the North American market; Ford couldn't use the Sierra badge over here. The reasoning for using the Merkur branding were:
1. To attract potential customers that had preconceived negative (in terms of taste or style) opinions of Mercury automobiles that were hard to break.
2. To somewhat dilute the potential for internal competition within one brand (Scorpio vs. Sable for example).
Yeah but that was just plain silly to call the brand "Merkur" when it literally is a translation of Mercury from German. It wasn't like anyone was going to cross shop something like a Taurus which was on the same platform as the Sable with one of the Merkur cars. That basically just shows how watered down Mercury was even by the 1980s with the badge engineering.
Yes it would just take a couple acts of Congress and a President to sign a change into law, but the way CAFE is set to increase is going to be a disaster for the auto industry and the consumer. If someone said 54.5 by 2040 or 2050 I'd be way more inclined to believe it, but the way it is set up now I'm not sure how it can be achieved. Basically even the most efficient combustion engines don't achieve 50 MPG already and alternate power train options still have a huge price premium. Personally I think something like 37.5 by 2025 is more realistic with the progression of technology in the automotive sector. Now things are in the hands of politicians who can't agree on anything.
But I digress...if I really correctly 54.5 means 45 MPG in real world economy if the CAFE rating standards are the same as I remember them. I'm not familiar enough with the newer rules...are the old loop holes still in place? If that's the case that 45 MPG real world isn't quite the disaster as 54.5 but it's going to change things big time regardless. If remember correctly the CAFE test cycle was based on the federal mandated 55 MPH drive cycle.
Yes, I always felt that Merkur was a weird choice of name when Mercury already existed, but I could see why Sierra couldn't be used here because of GMC.
Speaking of badge engineering, that is still going on, though not as common as it was 30 years ago. For example, how can you tell a Charger from a (Chrysler) 300? Or a Cruze from a Verano?
Quote from: Henry on June 20, 2016, 10:48:41 AMSpeaking of badge engineering, that is still going on, though not as common as it was 30 years ago. For example, how can you tell a Charger from a (Chrysler) 300? Or a Cruze from a Verano?
Hyundai/Kia, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti and Honda/Acura; many of their models share the same platform, engines, etc.
BTW; the Chargers have a slicker, for better or worse, roofline than the Chrysler 300.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 20, 2016, 09:28:38 AMif I really correctly 54.5 means 45 MPG in real world economy if the CAFE rating standards are the same as I remember them. I'm not familiar enough with the newer rules...are the old loop holes still in place? If that's the case that 45 MPG real world isn't quite the disaster as 54.5 but it's going to change things big time regardless. If remember correctly the CAFE test cycle was based on the federal mandated 55 MPH drive cycle.
Originally, the CAFE number for a specific vehicle was
not based on the posted EPA highway estimates but rather either the average of the EPA city/highway rating or the now-posted combined rating.
However, how those posted ratings are calibrated have changed at least once with the most major change taking place (which resulted in lower posted ratings on most vehicles) circa 2007 but the CAFE number was never adjusted to reflect the newer (& lower) EPA ratings.
Additionally, if the EPA highway ratings are obtained still using 45-55 mph as an average speed; that in and of itself is misleading when testing newer vehicles equipped with multi-speed and/or overdrive transmissions. In addition to the 55 NSL; transmissions back then were typically 3-speed automatics (GM's 2-speed Powerglide still existed back then), 3, 4 & maybe 5-speed (if one was lucky) manuals and no overdrive gear. Today, even a 4-speed overdrive automatic is considered archaic by today's standards.
My 2011 Crown Vic w/a 4-speed auto overdrive averaged 27 mpg (higher than the posted EPA highway estimate) at about 72 mph. My 2007 Mustang with the 5-speed auto overdrive averaged 28 mpg while averaging 72 mph.
Bottom line: despite some changes, some of the testing standards/criteria for both the EPA mileage testing and the CAFE standards are
still stuck in the 70s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2016, 06:14:38 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on June 17, 2016, 10:57:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 17, 2016, 12:11:31 AM
Well a lot of corporate arrogance came into play during the 70s and 80s with the American automakers. Basically they didn't want to build small cars or invest in them because they were low on the profit margins. So basically they did so many cost cutting measures, hardly did any really R&D and worst of all let platforms last way past their expiration date. I mean hell...could anyone really imagine an F-body lasting for 11 years or a Corvette platform for 15?...that's what was happening post OPEC. So basically you had overweight, under-powered and outdated cars that opened the door for Japanese/European to exploit the small car markets. The leg up the Europeans and Japanese had was that they had a lot of engineering already done with smaller cars in their home markets.
The real amazing thing is to listen to some of the sales numbers thrown out during those Motorweek videos as the years press on. I want to say it was the 1991 Toyota line where they talk about them possibly going past one million sales for the first time and having 6% market share. Basically the Big Three....even AMC kept turning out the same crap that people didn't want through the 70s and were below the standard in the newer markets they tried to crack into by the 80s then 90s. About the only real success that any of the Big Three had in making something small like compact or a new class was Chrysler with the K Car in addition to Mini-Van. The Big Three thought people would stay loyal no matter what...no matter how much quality really fell behind hey finally lost enough market share to drive GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy. The good news is that you have American, European and Asian automakers all playing on a much more level field. That's nothing but a win for the consumer because it drives competition for improvements...that atmosphere didn't exist in the 1970s.
That Eurovan sounds like a rare bird, out of curiosity what were they asking? Despite the VW scandal I really think that diesel has finally found a small niche in the States. Even the emissions scandal were not talking anything near the debacle of some early American diesel attempts....the Olds diesel comes to mind.. A lot of small truck and SUV buyers swear by diesel already...I would imagine it will continue to translate over to people who are particularly interested in European cars in the short term. Besides the way I see the Volkswagen Diesel scandal is kind of similar to the GM Ignition Recalls, Ford and Hyndai fudging mileage numbers and some of the other recent scandals....completely overblown in comparison things like exploding Pintos of yesteryear.
Eurovan was asking something crazy like $21000 for a 2005. I agree the emissions was blown way out of proportion. I a really surprised that GM has offered a suburban with a diesel, i have seen a company out of Colorado that swaps out a Silverado diesel. That would be a great marketing ploy.. suburban with much better mpg..same with Ford f150
Pretty much all the automakers are paranoid about recall anything these days. I had a recall on my Sonic not too long ago for some super specific situation where the emergency brake might warning chime might not work if I leave the car in accessory mode for 20 plus minutes, put the key off and then exit....really I needed a software update that? Granted Im not saying the VW diesel emissions thing was good but a lot of automotive press was acting like it was either on the level of the Ford Pinto gas tank or it would put the final nail in diesel for good. The technology is a lot more efficient and a lot less cumbersome to use for passenger vehicle segment than it ever has...that's not just going to change suddenly, so it will have it's niche. Granted it will never be as popular as it is in Europe but the commercial side is dominated by diesel completely.
Is 21k steep for a Eurovan? I want to say it is but I don't know the market value or the condition level the thing was in.
21k is steep for a 15 year old car
Frankly, I don't mind if the new CAFE requirements make the average car lighter, lower and slower. A lot of these dolts out there on the road don't need 200-300 horsepower since today's engines make people petty, impatient and think that the gas pedal is some kind of "NOW button" that makes traffic volume and traffic control disappear. Great, you beat me to the red light, stop sign or next slower vehicle. Now what are you going to do? I'm still right by you since I know how flow and control works and you don't -- yet you've pissed everyone off.
And the taller and larger a vehicle is the slower it feels like you're going. Someone in a tall vehicle feels like they're going 50 when they're really going 80. On a go-kart 20 feels like 60.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 20, 2016, 09:51:00 PMFrankly, I don't mind if the new CAFE requirements make the average car lighter, lower and slower.
That's fine for you but the past & current CAFE standards (on cars) actually contributed to the proliferation of SUVs and, more recently, 4-door pick-up trucks out on the road (especially when gas prices remain either steady and relatively low) that typically get lower mileage ratings than that of a large car.
Had the CAFE standards not existed; the automakers would've instead focused on upgrading & modernizing larger
cars rather than expanding truck & SUV lines during the more economically prosperous times.
The SUV basically became the de-facto station wagon and the 4-door (Crew Cab style) pick-up trucks are now becoming the de-facto full-size sedans.
Law of unintended consequences at work here.
As far as performance was concerned, and the nature of this thread; it sounds like you would've loved the late 70s/early 80s when the average 0 to 60 times, for most vehicles, were in the double-digits. Sure a vehicle that could get 30-35 mpg could be had back then; but such was usually a subcompact that couldn't get out of its own way.
I agree that it was silly to exempt trucks and SUVs from CAFE standards. Bigass trucks and SUVs would still be available, but only people who actually need them would buy them.
With today's tech the car companies could still make 9 second 0-60 cars that get 40 mpg easy. Honda and Chevy both make non-hybrids that do so. One thing that a lot of people forget about is the presence of slow-accelerating commercial traffic on roads anywhere close to a populated area. If you're just commuting and running errands like most people do, it doesn't matter how fast your car does 0-60 with all this commercial traffic lumbering about. Commercial traffic and traffic controls are the real limiters.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 21, 2016, 10:42:55 AM
I agree that it was silly to exempt trucks and SUVs from CAFE standards. Bigass trucks and SUVs would still be available, but only people who actually need them would buy them.
It should be noted that there is a CAFE standard for
light (1/2 ton) trucks out there; it's just set at a lower figure due to the vehicle-type dynamics..
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 21, 2016, 10:42:55 AMWith today's tech the car companies could still make 9 second 0-60 cars that get 40 mpg easy. Honda and Chevy both make non-hybrids that do so.
For the benefit of those seeing this thread, but may not follow cars as much, care to name a few of those models that do 40 mpg on the highway w/9 second 0-60 times? How about those that
average 40 mpg and still have the same (9 second) 0-60 time?
Another thing to consider is that not every car buyer is looking for just basic/commuter transportation; reasons for purchasing a larger vehicle (that gets lower mileage) include:
1. Carrying of passengers (especially adults) on a frequent basis. Sadly, the sloped rooflines (for better aerodynamics) on many cars today cut into headroom for the rear-seat occupants. Today's so-called full-size sedans do not off as much hip & shoulder room as the now-gone old-school full-sizes like Ford's Panther platformed cars and GM's old RWD B & C bodies (last available for the 1996 model year). Such is another reason why people are opting for SUVs and CUVs. It was recently reported that the small SUV/CUV has now bumped the mid-size sedan for the best-selling new vehicle
type among new models. The interior space & cargo capacities no doubt played a role for such.
2. The need to tow a boat or a trailer (such was the reason why FWD-based minivans were largely passed over for RWD & Truck-based SUVs a while back). The last
cars that were rated to pull a 5000 lb. (7000 lb. for GM) trailer were the 1996 full-size cars from GM and Ford equipped with the optional (Class III) tow package. While Ford continued its Panther-platformed full-sizes through 2011; the Class III tow package was no longer offered; at the time they were just launching its then-new Expedition SUV.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 21, 2016, 10:42:55 AM
One thing that a lot of people forget about is the presence of slow-accelerating commercial traffic on roads anywhere close to a populated area. If you're just commuting and running errands like most people do, it doesn't matter how fast your car does 0-60 with all this commercial traffic lumbering about. Commercial traffic and traffic controls are the real limiters.
A real-world application of 0-to-60 usage would be at older & tighter onramps to a highway that have not too much of an acceleration/deceleration lanes. The MA 128/Lowell St. interchange in Peabody (southbound ramps in particular) (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5337449,-70.9496317,274m/data=!3m1!1e3) would be an example of such.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 21, 2016, 12:46:17 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 21, 2016, 10:42:55 AM
I agree that it was silly to exempt trucks and SUVs from CAFE standards. Bigass trucks and SUVs would still be available, but only people who actually need them would buy them.
It should be noted that there is a CAFE standard for light (1/2 ton) trucks out there; it's just set at a lower figure due to the vehicle-type dynamics..
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 21, 2016, 10:42:55 AMWith today's tech the car companies could still make 9 second 0-60 cars that get 40 mpg easy. Honda and Chevy both make non-hybrids that do so.
For the benefit of those seeing this thread, but may not follow cars as much, care to name a few of those models that do 40 mpg on the highway w/9 second 0-60 times? How about those that average 40 mpg and still have the same (9 second) 0-60 time?
Here's an article about 6 sedans that did
8-second 0-60s and averaged 40 mpg on a varying driving conditions test loop (note leadfoot tester Martinez):
http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/ (http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/)
my 1996 4.6L V8 equipped 3,800 lb coupe can do 0-60 in 7.9 stock. I am not sure what it has now, since i put on a better flowing intake manifold, and a better shifting valve body that reduces the time between gears, stiffening the shifting, and reducing the heat. The car is extremely aerodynamic and returns 27mpg on the interstate doing 70.
My car is one of those cars that makes you go "really, ford tried this" look under the tail of any 1989-1997 Thunderbird or Cougar. Or 1993-1998 Continental Mark VIII. you will see an Independent rear setup. Something that at that time only the Corvette had for a rear wheel drive car. Up front you got coilovers. All in the name of ride and handling. It's having your cake and eating it too. You get the supple ride of a crown vic, but the handling of a much sportier car. Much improved over the Fox Body 1983-1988 models. I would say the late 80s is when it started to turn around for the united states. You had the Taurus in 1986 showing that we can make an aerodynamic car that doesn't harken back to a prior era of american cars with gaudy chrome grills, huge metal bumpers, and so on. 1989 we got the taurus SHO, which showed that america can make a car that size fun. Yes it has a Yamaha V6 in it, but the rest was all ford. 1989 Supercoupe. 3.8L Supercharged V6, only thing holding that back was the mandate that the mustang be faster.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 21, 2016, 12:46:17 PM
Sadly, the sloped rooflines (for better aerodynamics) on many cars today cut into headroom for the rear-seat occupants.
Unless someone is 400 pounds, over 6'6", and/or has a need to wear a cowboy hat everywhere, there's enough room in most four-door sedans. It's not a living room, it's a car...but marketing makes people think they need a shortened train cabin. But to each their own...that's why there's all sorts of vehicles for sale.
I think it's perception rather than reality - who's using that rear parcel shelf, anyhow? And why do I see S-cargos on full-size SUVs? I guess I'm answering my own question...no vehicle ever big enough because people like carrying lots of crap.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 21, 2016, 01:58:31 PMHere's an article about 6 sedans that did 8-second 0-60s and averaged 40 mpg on a varying driving conditions test loop (note leadfoot tester Martinez):
http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/ (http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/)
I do remember reading that article in the print version when it came out. Of course, even
MT commented at the beginning of the article on whether or not these cars could actually obtain 40+ mpg on the highway.
Worth noting: one reason why those vehicles can do sub-9 0-60 times is the high compression ratios (9.5:1 and higher) of those engines. Which makes the
recommended use of unleaded regular for fuel somewhat suspect. Although Ford doesn't require it; it does mention for its Ecoboost engines that its posted results (horsepower, performance) were done using premium unleaded fuel. It makes one wonder whether
MT used the higher octane gasolines (except for the VW Jetta TDI obviously) when it did its tests.
Back in the late 70s/early 80s, the average compression ratio on car engines were 8:1 and even 7:1 in a couple of cases. These lower compression engines were dogs in terms of acceleration but could run on lower octane (87) gas with no issues.
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2016, 02:39:54 PMIt's not a living room, it's a car.
You obviously don't remember (or forgot about) the seats offered on many 70s large domestic luxury cars.
1975 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
(https://notoriousluxury.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1975-talisman-ii.jpg)
1978 Lincoln Town Car
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lincolnversailles.com%2FDorian%2FFront%2520Seat%25202.jpg&hash=a357dab1edaf501d39caaec8962bd246a231faed)
1975 Imperial (Chrysler) LeBaron
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fautomotivemileposts.com%2Fimperial%2Fimages%2F1975%2Fimperial1975velourgold.jpg&hash=a8105e4a5a83f949bc571098a1e0ddbbabf376c0)
Those seats certainly could pass for
sofas on wheels to me.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 21, 2016, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2016, 02:39:54 PMIt's not a living room, it's a car.
You obviously don't remember (or forgot about) the seats offered on many 70s large domestic luxury cars.
1975 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham
(https://notoriousluxury.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/1975-talisman-ii.jpg)
Those seats certainly could pass for sofas on wheels to me.
Ack! The five-year-old me recalls sitting in Chrysler Cordova with door-to-door velour in a Florida summer. I'm sweating just
thinking about it.
I also remember the clock didn't work...gotta love those 12/12,000 warranties.
As an aside: What were those pull handles on the back of the front seats for?
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 21, 2016, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 21, 2016, 01:58:31 PMHere's an article about 6 sedans that did 8-second 0-60s and averaged 40 mpg on a varying driving conditions test loop (note leadfoot tester Martinez):
http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/ (http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/)
I do remember reading that article in the print version when it came out. Of course, even MT commented at the beginning of the article on whether or not these cars could actually obtain 40+ mpg on the highway.
Worth noting: one reason why those vehicles can do sub-9 0-60 times is the high compression ratios (9.5:1 and higher) of those engines. Which makes the recommended use of unleaded regular for fuel somewhat suspect. Although Ford doesn't require it; it does mention for its Ecoboost engines that its posted results (horsepower, performance) were done using premium unleaded fuel. It makes one wonder whether MT used the higher octane gasolines (except for the VW Jetta TDI obviously) when it did its tests.
You can usually get away with 9.5+ comp ratios on 87 if the engine is all aluminum. My 944 had 10.5-1 and I got away with 87 daily with no audible spark knock ever. And the cam in it was fairly mild to give it that smooth German tick-tock. I run 87 in my 9.5-1 IROC-Z with an iron block and heads, but it has an aftermarket cam with enough overlap that I believe it is reliving compression during overlap. Now that I have a datalogging cable and software for it I can go back and see if the knock sensor has been pulling out timing.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 21, 2016, 07:11:41 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 21, 2016, 01:58:31 PMHere's an article about 6 sedans that did 8-second 0-60s and averaged 40 mpg on a varying driving conditions test loop (note leadfoot tester Martinez):
http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/ (http://www.motortrend.com/news/40-mpg-compact-sedan-comparison/)
I do remember reading that article in the print version when it came out. Of course, even MT commented at the beginning of the article on whether or not these cars could actually obtain 40+ mpg on the highway.
Worth noting: one reason why those vehicles can do sub-9 0-60 times is the high compression ratios (9.5:1 and higher) of those engines. Which makes the recommended use of unleaded regular for fuel somewhat suspect. Although Ford doesn't require it; it does mention for its Ecoboost engines that its posted results (horsepower, performance) were done using premium unleaded fuel. It makes one wonder whether MT used the higher octane gasolines (except for the VW Jetta TDI obviously) when it did its tests.
I've had most of those as rental cars, and unless you're doing an absolutely steady 55-60mph, you're not getting 40mpg.
If you have that near-magic cool weather that allows for continual driving without needing to use A/C, heat, nor putting the windows down (and hopefully not stuck behind vehicles with a foul exhaust nor near operational paper mills), you might get it.
Hitting on some of the topics that I missed while I was out today. The last two sub-compacts I've owned with a 2011 Ford Fiesta and a 2014 Sonic both had runs over 40 MPG and both had 0-60 times at 9 seconds or better. The Fiesta was a beast with the dual clutch automatic and I actually averaged 42.4 MPG over the life of the car due to me having 150 plus days overnight on the road. The 2014 Sonic has had a couple decent runs over 40 MPG but it's more a 34 MPG daily driver due to it being urbanized more than the Fiesta was...damn local commutes. The Fiesta was a better handler, more efficient but the Sonic is faster at about 8.2-8.5 to 60 and more comfortable. Regardless I don't know buy a daily driver with luxury in mind, to me that's just the car you rack up 150,000 to 200,000 miles on and throw in the garbage when you're done. I'm a 6'1 person and I fit pretty damn comfortably into the Sonic, so does the wife...but the best part is that the kid fits into the back just jim dandy. I don't understand why people need a tank like SUV to transport small children in. But I'll say that I do like the seats in the Sonic...that Fiesta gave me sore shoulders. Never got knock in either of the cars on 87 octane and the Sonic is even a turbo. I did get some knocking once in that Fiesta when I accidentally filled up with 85 Octane in Utah but I was able to clear the issue with some 89 Octane added to the tank about 150 miles into the fuel run.
In regards to CAFE I'm all for cars losing more and more weight. The Sonic that I own is way too heavy as is and probably should be tipping the scale at 2,500-2,600 pounds in curb weight. What I'm not willing to accept as a consumer is cars that go 0-60 in under 10 seconds and have a hard time reaching 100 MPH with 80-85 MPH Interstates out there these days. 40, 45, 50 or 55 MPG combined it still has to be able to handle getting up to speed for and running at highway speed efficiently. 110-120 HP/ftlb should be able to fit that bill no matter what CAFE entails in the future.
The SHO V6 from 1989 runs great on 87, reccomends 91 to allow for a little more agressive torque curve. Cast iron block, aluminum head. 9.8:1 versus the 3.0L Vulcan OHV cast iron block/head at 9.3:1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PMI'm a 6'1 person and I fit pretty damn comfortably into the Sonic, so does the wife...but the best part is that the kid fits into the back just jim dandy.
Regarding the kids in the back seat; are they old & large enough
not to require supplemental car seats? Back in the early 90s, a friend of my brother's had twin newborn daughters and released that two required supplemental seats (for the babies) could not fit too well in the Ford Escort he was driving at the time. He had no choice but to upsize; he replaced the Escort with an older ('81-'82) Granada.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PMIn regards to CAFE I'm all for cars losing more and more weight.
One main problem with that is that many of the additional safety requirements & standards (those additional airbags
do add weight to a vehicle) that have come about in the past decade are the primary reasons that vehicles of the same size have gotten heavier. So on one hand, newer & additional safety regulations are making vehicles heavier but on the other, higher CAFE standards encourage & require lighter vehicles. One basically has a
robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PMWhat I'm not willing to accept as a consumer is cars that go 0-60 in under 10 seconds and have a hard time reaching 100 MPH with 80-85 MPH Interstates out there these days.
You would've hated the vehicles of the 1970s & 1980s then. It should be noted that those posted 80-85 mph speed limits only exist on a relatively small handful of Interstates nationwide. Most have a posted maximum of 65-75 mph.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PM
40, 45, 50 or 55 MPG combined it still has to be able to handle getting up to speed for and running at highway speed efficiently. 110-120 HP/ftlb should be able to fit that bill no matter what CAFE entails in the future.
As previously stated, a gasoline-powered vehicle that gets a
combined fuel economy of 40 to 55 mpg does not presently exist in the marketplace.
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2016, 09:20:44 PMI've had most of those as rental cars, and unless you're doing an absolutely steady 55-60mph, you're not getting 40mpg.
If you have that near-magic cool weather that allows for continual driving without needing to use A/C, heat, nor putting the windows down (and hopefully not stuck behind vehicles with a foul exhaust nor near operational paper mills), you might get it.
So, you're basically proving my earlier point regarding even today's gasoline-powered subcompacts would have trouble
averaging 40+ mpg in mixed-driving situations.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 22, 2016, 08:39:38 AM
One main problem with that is that many of the additional safety requirements & standards (those additional airbags do add weight to a vehicle) that have come about in the past decade are the primary reasons that vehicles of the same size have gotten heavier. So on one hand, newer & additional safety regulations are making vehicles heavier but on the other, higher CAFE standards encourage & require lighter vehicles. One basically has a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.
There is a triangle between weight, safety and emissions whose corners can be pulled in different directions to make one or two of the things better while making one or two of the others worse. Cars would undoubtedly be lighter if you eliminated emissions equipment and things like airbags, door beams and bumper supports. Emissions would then begin to drop again since the engine wouldn't work as hard moving the lighter vehicle around. Add mileage and horsepower to the triangle to make a hexagon.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 22, 2016, 08:39:38 AM
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2016, 09:20:44 PMI've had most of those as rental cars, and unless you're doing an absolutely steady 55-60mph, you're not getting 40mpg.
If you have that near-magic cool weather that allows for continual driving without needing to use A/C, heat, nor putting the windows down (and hopefully not stuck behind vehicles with a foul exhaust nor near operational paper mills), you might get it.
So, you're basically proving my earlier point regarding even today's gasoline-powered subcompacts would have trouble averaging 40+ mpg in mixed-driving situations.
I don't recall denying it. :)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PM
40, 45, 50 or 55 MPG combined it still has to be able to handle getting up to speed for and running at highway speed efficiently. 110-120 HP/ftlb should be able to fit that bill no matter what CAFE entails in the future.
Getting "up to speed" varying on conditions; many compacts can scoot up to speed limits [or even Speed Limit + 5mph] when floored. If one live, commutes, shops, and is entertained around streets which do not have high speed limits, have an adequate number of lanes of travel, do not have too much traffic during those moments, then you could do it. Does one travel out of the city for work, and return to it afterwards? Work and play times off-peaks? Is the driver relaxed, too relaxed, too hyperactive, carrying other occupants or lots of other stuff? How many times does one have to merge with fast-flowing traffic? How many stop lights? ...Many, many variables.
The thing is, only a few hybrids or some really gentle driving. A Prius could do it, an Insight, a few diesels, a Geo Metro, maybe a few more. I could (but rarely do) get 38 (it was listed at 33 mpg highway) from my Scion; hardly the pinnacle of technology, but it's 2500 pounds at $15-18K...really driving it gently without A/C. Whereas 20-30 years ago, one spent less money to get better fuel economy from the low-priced offerings, now the mid-priced offerings are the fuel-sippers.
To be honest, a typical road-going car really doesn't need to go over 100 mph. I think 90 might be as much as most folks will ever need to achieve, and even then, there's a near-immediate back-pedaling when I hit that (because of law enforcement, high-ticket prices, and safety...those around you going slower and road-going conditions). Sure, you could shorten the gears to permit slower terminal velocities, but you then get poorer fuel economy due to faster acceleration. And vice versa with taller gearing.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 22, 2016, 08:58:02 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 22, 2016, 08:39:38 AM
One main problem with that is that many of the additional safety requirements & standards (those additional airbags do add weight to a vehicle) that have come about in the past decade are the primary reasons that vehicles of the same size have gotten heavier. So on one hand, newer & additional safety regulations are making vehicles heavier but on the other, higher CAFE standards encourage & require lighter vehicles. One basically has a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.
There is a triangle between weight, safety and emissions whose corners can be pulled in different directions to make one or two of the things better while making one or two of the others worse. Cars would undoubtedly be lighter if you eliminated emissions equipment and things like airbags, door beams and bumper supports. Emissions would then begin to drop again since the engine wouldn't work as hard moving the lighter vehicle around. Add mileage and horsepower to the triangle to make a hexagon.
I don't think we're going to see those devices and structural components leave typical new vehicles any time soon, unless replaced with even more complicated, heavier, and labyrinthine components. Not unless a lot more creature comforts are deleted and/or exotic (and expensive) composites fall into use. Automakers tout more features, and they help sell it...if people didn't want it, we'd see more spartan vehicles with far less excess. Save a few economy models, tiny vehicles, and limited spec-racer products, the trend has gotten away from this for decades. With Ford's choice to use aluminum bodies on their F150s, I think we might see more of that technology spread towards more of their lineup, although insurance will probably jump up a bit to cover the higher potential repair costs.
Quote from: formulanone on June 22, 2016, 11:50:18 AMWhereas 20-30 years ago, one spent less money to get better fuel economy from the low-priced offerings, now the mid-priced offerings are the fuel-sippers.
Jumping the gun on
Throwback Thursday by about 7 hours, here's an old 1981 Plymouth line-up ad that was posted on
Collectible Automobile's Facebook page:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/08/70/db/0870db0d5a440dde22a322fb7a6f6092.jpg)
Got great mileage but were dogs in terms of acceleration. Note: many of these vehicles had a lot less standard equipment than today's models.
Anyone who heard or remember the 4-door hardtop sedan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAYyx2_jBOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBpL8gyeBNA
I miss that kind of body. There was even a time when Toyota and Datsun(Nissan) even offered them in Japan until the 1990s killed by the SUV craze. http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/japanese-four-door-hardtops/
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on June 22, 2016, 06:44:51 PM
Domestic brands offered the hardtop sedan (aka the 4-door hardtop) from 1955 through 1978 with the '78 Chrysler New Yorker & Newport being the final 4-door hardtops. Ford & Mercury's last 4-door hardtops were offered in 1974 (on its full-sizes) and GM's final ones were offered in 1976 (on its full-sizes).
Pillared hardtops 4-doors, OTOH, still exist but are somewhat rare or in a very limited number of models. The last domestic 4-door pillared hardtop was the 1985 Cadillac Seville. Subaru continued offering the pillared hardtop designs on its vehicles (including wagons) through 2009 with its Legacy & Outback models being the final ones.
The VW CC still offers a pillared hardtop design on its sedan for 2016 along with some Mercedes models and even Tesla.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 22, 2016, 05:36:54 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 22, 2016, 11:50:18 AMWhereas 20-30 years ago, one spent less money to get better fuel economy from the low-priced offerings, now the mid-priced offerings are the fuel-sippers.
Jumping the gun on Throwback Thursday by about 7 hours, here's an old 1981 Plymouth line-up ad that was posted on Collectible Automobile's Facebook page:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/08/70/db/0870db0d5a440dde22a322fb7a6f6092.jpg)
Got great mileage but were dogs in terms of acceleration. Note: many of these vehicles had a lot less standard equipment than today's models.
I'm surprised "Collectible" and "K-Car" in the same sentence didn't cause some sort of type mismatch error.
I have serious reservations that many folks got 40-50 mpg on those vehicles on any sort of regular basis, except for a few hypermilers. No car magazine from those times was able to reproduce the EPA numbers consistent with the manufacturers' on
anything in production, so it's not just a slight on Chrysler.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2016, 11:10:23 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 09, 2016, 10:35:09 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on May 09, 2016, 07:35:06 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 06, 2016, 10:55:27 AM
I had a 1981 Ford pickup truck with the 300 CID (4.9L) straight six with carburetor.
I also had a 1990 Ford Bronco, same motor, with fuel injection.
The difference between a carburetor and fuel injection was dramatic - the injection provided more power and better fuel economy.
Unfortunately, Ford stopped building that 4.9L motor, which was stout in terms of torque and bulletproof in terms of reliability.
That was one tough, reliable engine. I think they ran forever. Probably emissions killed it along with weight.
The old Chrysler slant 6 paired with the 727 transmission was another tough combination. Back then we used to always say Chrysler had 200,000 mile power trains in 50,000 mile bodies.
The main problem I think with the inline-6s is packaging concerns. I really like inline-6s, but they force a "long hood" vehicle. These days the car companies want to be able to put the same engines in both cars and trucks. With a 6 they want to be able to put it in smaller cars and crossovers. Look at how short and high the hoods on today's cars are. I've always drove "long hood" vehicles, but a lot of people today are scared to pull out into city traffic with a long hood.
Car companies are having a hard enough time selling cars to urban Millennials, and a long hood can be a dealbreaker when having to pull out past cars parked on the street. Today's vehicles are so incredibly tall and parking restrictions near street corners haven't moved farther down the streets since everybody stopped driving low Citations, Camaros, Pulsars, Sentras and Impalas with clear windows. SUVs and crossovers have those dark tinted rear windows that you can't see through.
Pretty much all the emissions regs coming almost all at once was a complete disaster for the auto industry. Catalytic converters, lack of leaded gas and California emissions regulations pretty much sealed the coffin on performance even after gas prices rebounded.
But they can be packed much more efficiently, just look at the the history of the BMW 3 series with I6 engines.
The problem is that there is a huge disconnect between what even people my age (Gen Xers) and what all these kids growing like. I've met a lot of people in college who don't even have a driver's license and have zero desire to travel anywhere in a car. There has been a gradual downhill slide in the popularity of cars with young folks ever since the baby boomer generation. For me, I just don't plain get it. I've lived in and worked in six of the ten largest cities in the country and I consider them all urbanized versions of hell. I'd much rather travel to work and travel out of town...it's completely different for people growing up today. Kids today by and large...granted I know there are exceptions...are much more connected socially because of technology and in turn largely remain near home. For people like me when we were growing up we kept few friends, wanted to move from home and see the country...culture among youth has done a complete 180. For the most part the income levels of young people today will likely progress slower since they are staying home longer which begs the question....is designing city cars with low profit margins really worth the investment to cater to a group that has little interest and little money. For the kids growing up today that seem to like cars they seem to like the ones everyone else does; muscle cars, trucks and affordable sports compacts.
I just don't get it either. I know the minute that I turned 15 I went and got my permit. The minute I turned 16 I got my license. I had saved up for a car even before I had my permit and was ready to go.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 22, 2016, 08:39:38 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PMI'm a 6'1 person and I fit pretty damn comfortably into the Sonic, so does the wife...but the best part is that the kid fits into the back just jim dandy.
Regarding the kids in the back seat; are they old & large enough not to require supplemental car seats? Back in the early 90s, a friend of my brother's had twin newborn daughters and released that two required supplemental seats (for the babies) could not fit too well in the Ford Escort he was driving at the time. He had no choice but to upsize; he replaced the Escort with an older ('81-'82) Granada.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PMIn regards to CAFE I'm all for cars losing more and more weight.
One main problem with that is that many of the additional safety requirements & standards (those additional airbags do add weight to a vehicle) that have come about in the past decade are the primary reasons that vehicles of the same size have gotten heavier. So on one hand, newer & additional safety regulations are making vehicles heavier but on the other, higher CAFE standards encourage & require lighter vehicles. One basically has a robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PMWhat I'm not willing to accept as a consumer is cars that go 0-60 in under 10 seconds and have a hard time reaching 100 MPH with 80-85 MPH Interstates out there these days.
You would've hated the vehicles of the 1970s & 1980s then. It should be noted that those posted 80-85 mph speed limits only exist on a relatively small handful of Interstates nationwide. Most have a posted maximum of 65-75 mph.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2016, 09:25:25 PM
40, 45, 50 or 55 MPG combined it still has to be able to handle getting up to speed for and running at highway speed efficiently. 110-120 HP/ftlb should be able to fit that bill no matter what CAFE entails in the future.
As previously stated, a gasoline-powered vehicle that gets a combined fuel economy of 40 to 55 mpg does not presently exist in the marketplace.
Quote from: formulanone on June 21, 2016, 09:20:44 PMI've had most of those as rental cars, and unless you're doing an absolutely steady 55-60mph, you're not getting 40mpg.
If you have that near-magic cool weather that allows for continual driving without needing to use A/C, heat, nor putting the windows down (and hopefully not stuck behind vehicles with a foul exhaust nor near operational paper mills), you might get it.
So, you're basically proving my earlier point regarding even today's gasoline-powered subcompacts would have trouble averaging 40+ mpg in mixed-driving situations.
Yes we had a car seat for a long time but it fit just fine. Even the wife fits just in the back and I suppose that I wouldn't be too uncomfortable given a short sprint. I still don't understand how post Mini-Van era we morphed into tank SUVs and now faux Mini-Van/Station Wagons we call "Cross-overs or CUVs." It just seems like a total waste of space and money, bu then again we made due with the Vista Cruiser until affordable vans came around in the 1980s...so really at the end of the day it was the game changer that everyone thought it was...especially the Chrysler stuff back then. Another thing, why do most people insist on carrying a small arsenal around for a kid? I swear that a lot of people are packing more crap on them than I had in my pack in the military. I mean hell I know that I'm talking one kid for me but it never seemed that crazy to get them to fit into a sedan.
The safety equipment adds a crap ton of weight. I'm surprised there isn't more of push by automakers to get their safety equipment lighter but sustain the same level of standards. A lot of people assume that cars from the 60s weighed a lot more than they do today when in fact they often were substantially lighter despite being bigger. Just goes to show how much of an empty void of steel those things really were...no wonder they crumpled on impact.
Actually that Fiesta I averaged 49 MPH over the life of the car and 36 MPH with the Sonic thus far. So yes I was right the sweet spot with how my driving was done with the former given a large chunk were one in the boondoggles. The Sonic unfortunately gets stuck in slow traffic zones...stop and go, ect which kill the mileage in any car. But at the time I was living in Phoenix and it was 110 F or higher pretty frequently and 90F in higher elevations, the AC doesn't pull anywhere near as big of a drag on the mileage as it used to. Actually I was agreeing with you in that regard that it takes some pretty extreme circumstances to get that 40 MPG consistently...hell the 35 MPG in the Sonic combined is better than I expected.
Quote from: formulanone on June 22, 2016, 10:19:43 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 22, 2016, 05:36:54 PM
Quote from: formulanone on June 22, 2016, 11:50:18 AMWhereas 20-30 years ago, one spent less money to get better fuel economy from the low-priced offerings, now the mid-priced offerings are the fuel-sippers.
Jumping the gun on Throwback Thursday by about 7 hours, here's an old 1981 Plymouth line-up ad that was posted on Collectible Automobile's Facebook page:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/08/70/db/0870db0d5a440dde22a322fb7a6f6092.jpg)
Got great mileage but were dogs in terms of acceleration. Note: many of these vehicles had a lot less standard equipment than today's models.
I'm surprised "Collectible" and "K-Car" in the same sentence didn't cause some sort of type mismatch error.
I have serious reservations that many folks got 40-50 mpg on those vehicles on any sort of regular basis, except for a few hypermilers. No car magazine from those times was able to reproduce the EPA numbers consistent with the manufacturers' on anything in production, so it's not just a slight on Chrysler.
Hell a turbo Shelby anything in K-Car form is worth a look assuming it's not beat to hell and the price is low. I don't foresee them ever becoming mainstream collectibles but it might be worth something to the niche collector looking for something cheap and different. Hell my Uncle used to collect off-shoot Pontiacs. His prize possession with his Can-Am, even though he was the only one that wanted it. He even had a 74 GTO of all things.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on June 22, 2016, 06:44:51 PM
Anyone who heard or remember the 4-door hardtop sedan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAYyx2_jBOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBpL8gyeBNA
I miss that kind of body. There was even a time when Toyota and Datsun(Nissan) even offered them in Japan until the 1990s killed by the SUV craze. http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/japanese-four-door-hardtops/
But hasn't that come full circle with cars like the CLS, Charger and SS just to name a few? Back in those days everyone had to have a coupe since the sedan was considered the "boring" version of the car. Man have attitudes changed on that since the 60s and 70s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 10:50:36 PMI still don't understand how post Mini-Van era we morphed into tank SUVs and now faux Mini-Van/Station Wagons we call "Cross-overs or CUVs."
Part of the reasoning for such was that FWD-based vehicles (which most minivans were) is that while such could hold passengers and/or cargo; are not known for heavy-duty towing. Since most cars at the time either weren't able or no longer had an available heavy-duty (Ford called theirs Class III) tow package offering; buyers flocked to RWD & truck-based SUVs... at least until gas prices skyrocketed about a decade later.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 10:50:36 PM
It just seems like a total waste of space and money, but then again we made due with the Vista Cruiser until affordable vans came around in the 1980s...so really at the end of the day it was the game changer that everyone thought it was...especially the Chrysler stuff back then.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The CAFE standards that existed back then made it very hard for automakers to promote & upgrade large station wagons. GM finally did such circa 1991 (revamp its wagons) but oddly Ford bowed out of the full-size station wagon market when it redid its Panther-based Crown Victorias & Grand Marquis' for 1992.
Many predicted that those platforms were on borrowed time and thought such would be gone prior to the end of the 80s; so why invest the money & time to redevelop/revamp the vehicles more frequently if such was going to be discontinued?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 10:50:36 PMQuote from: Stephane Dumas on June 22, 2016, 06:44:51 PMAnyone who heard or remember the 4-door hardtop sedan?
...
I miss that kind of body.
But hasn't that come full circle with cars like the CLS, Charger and SS just to name a few Back in those days everyone had to have a coupe since the sedan was considered the "boring" version of the car. Man have attitudes changed on that since the 60s and 70s.
I believe that Stephanie Dumas was referring to the 4-door hardtop body style in her earlier post; a type that disappeared from the North American market after 1978. As earlier mentioned, 4-door
pillared hardtops are still around but only offered in a handful of models & manufacturers.
As far as performance sedans being offered instead of coupes; one reason why manufacturers dropped their coupes (the last domestic full-size coupes were from 1987) from their line-ups was due to sluggish sales. If one wanted a sporty or luxury coupe, they simply opted for coupe-only offerings like a Mustang, Camaro or T-Bird rather than a 2-door version of the Crown Vic or Caprice. Child-safety locks for the rear doors that would become standard equipment also contributed to the sales decline of 2-door models; in the old days, if one was concerned about young kids grabbing the rear-door handle & accidentally opening the door, a 2-door model was the only solution readily available at the time.
What percentage of private vehicle owners actually tow? And what percentage of those are towing more than 1500-2000 pounds? Aluminum fishing boats, 3-bike dirt bike trailers with bikes, jet skis and even some campers don't hit 1500-2000 pounds. A Corolla can do 1500 pounds. A Syclone should do 0 on the other hand.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 23, 2016, 11:36:09 AMWhat percentage of private vehicle owners actually tow?
Do keep in mind that if someone tows a boat, trailer or camper
at least once a year and doesn't have the space for a 2nd, more economical vehicle at their home; they'll buy the larger vehicle and use it for their daily driver
in addition to using it for towing.
I don't believe that a Corolla could tow 25-30 foot sailboats (something that's a common sight in towns that abut a body of water during this time of year).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 10:12:46 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2016, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 11:08:23 AMFunny to think that a car that large selling 100,000 units a year back then was a failure. You'd never see something RWD and of that size selling anywhere close to that mark today
One needs to remember that the vehicle market then wasn't as fragmented (in terms of vehicle types) back then as it is now. SUVs were only starting to get noticed and most pick-up trucks came one-way... single-cab. The term, crossover (aka CUV), wasn't yet even a term in the automotive sense.
True...lineups are far more diverse then they used to be. Market share probably plays a huge part of all this too, way more than people think it does. Back in those days GM had market shares near the 40 range while today it's in the ball park of slightly under 20%.
Funny thing about the CUV is that it basically took market share from three segments; boxed SUVs, mini-vans and station wagons. The boxed-SUV managed to survive the best out of the three while the Mini-Van and Station Wagon basically are close to extinct. I would find it greatly amusing to rename the CUV segment the Station Van class. :-D
Color and trim notwithstanding. Nowdays you are lucky if you get a choice of interior color. There used to be so many different choices for interior trim back then.
Whilst there may now be far more items in an automoblie these days they are far less custom. No longer can you get a list of options and choose. These days you have to pick a trim level and/or package.
Quote from: formulanone on June 22, 2016, 10:19:43 PM
I have serious reservations that many folks got 40-50 mpg on those vehicles on any sort of regular basis, except for a few hypermilers. No car magazine from those times was able to reproduce the EPA numbers consistent with the manufacturers' on anything in production, so it's not just a slight on Chrysler.
I can confirm it. We routinely saw 38-42 mpg for highway driving with our 1981 Dodge Aries (2 door, 2.2L engine, manual transmission, no A/C). It was rather nice to go at least 400 miles between gas stops on the open highway (13.5 gallon fuel tank we'd usually fill up at 10-11.5 gallons).
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 22, 2016, 05:36:54 PM(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/08/70/db/0870db0d5a440dde22a322fb7a6f6092.jpg)
I miss seeing those Plymouths on the road. IIRC, these were their Dodge counterparts:
Reliant=Aries
TC=Charger
Horizon=Omni
Champ=Colt
Caravelle=400/600
Gran Fury=Diplomat
Arrow=Ram 50 (predecessor to the Dakota)
Voyager=Ram Van (as Caravan didn't exist until 1983 or '84)
Quote from: Henry on June 23, 2016, 02:52:42 PMI miss seeing those Plymouths on the road. IIRC, these were their Dodge counterparts:
...
Caravelle=400/600
The Dodge 600 was cousin to the FWD E-body Caravelle.
Quote from: Henry on June 23, 2016, 02:52:42 PMGran Fury=Diplomat
True for '82-'89 models. Plymouth's M-body counterpart to the Diplomat through '81 was the Canadian market only Caravelle. The '80-'81 Gran Fury (R-body) was Plymouth's version of the Dodge St. Regis.
Quote from: Henry on June 23, 2016, 02:52:42 PMArrow=Ram 50 (predecessor to the Dakota)
The Plymouth Arrow I remember was a subcompact car offered from '76-'80; the TV ads. had the catchy
"Me and My Arrow" song. The imported Arrow truck was sold from '79-'82.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 23, 2016, 12:41:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 10:12:46 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 16, 2016, 01:49:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2016, 11:08:23 AMFunny to think that a car that large selling 100,000 units a year back then was a failure. You'd never see something RWD and of that size selling anywhere close to that mark today
One needs to remember that the vehicle market then wasn't as fragmented (in terms of vehicle types) back then as it is now. SUVs were only starting to get noticed and most pick-up trucks came one-way... single-cab. The term, crossover (aka CUV), wasn't yet even a term in the automotive sense.
True...lineups are far more diverse then they used to be. Market share probably plays a huge part of all this too, way more than people think it does. Back in those days GM had market shares near the 40 range while today it's in the ball park of slightly under 20%.
Funny thing about the CUV is that it basically took market share from three segments; boxed SUVs, mini-vans and station wagons. The boxed-SUV managed to survive the best out of the three while the Mini-Van and Station Wagon basically are close to extinct. I would find it greatly amusing to rename the CUV segment the Station Van class. :-D
Color and trim notwithstanding. Nowdays you are lucky if you get a choice of interior color. There used to be so many different choices for interior trim back then.
Whilst there may now be far more items in an automoblie these days they are far less custom. No longer can you get a list of options and choose. These days you have to pick a trim level and/or package.
That's not just interior, you used to have a lot more options for body style and powertrains for individual models. That's the problem with everything pretty much being a uni-body construction. It's a lot more difficult to fit different pieces, parts and even engines when you have to compensate for the biggest of each. Back in the olden days you just had a big empty car that almost anything would bolt onto.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 23, 2016, 11:22:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 10:50:36 PMI still don't understand how post Mini-Van era we morphed into tank SUVs and now faux Mini-Van/Station Wagons we call "Cross-overs or CUVs."
Part of the reasoning for such was that FWD-based vehicles (which most minivans were) is that while such could hold passengers and/or cargo; are not known for heavy-duty towing. Since most cars at the time either weren't able or no longer had an available heavy-duty (Ford called theirs Class III) tow package offering; buyers flocked to RWD & truck-based SUVs... at least until gas prices skyrocketed about a decade later.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 10:50:36 PM
It just seems like a total waste of space and money, but then again we made due with the Vista Cruiser until affordable vans came around in the 1980s...so really at the end of the day it was the game changer that everyone thought it was...especially the Chrysler stuff back then.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The CAFE standards that existed back then made it very hard for automakers to promote & upgrade large station wagons. GM finally did such circa 1991 (revamp its wagons) but oddly Ford bowed out of the full-size station wagon market when it redid its Panther-based Crown Victorias & Grand Marquis' for 1992.
Many predicted that those platforms were on borrowed time and thought such would be gone prior to the end of the 80s; so why invest the money & time to redevelop/revamp the vehicles more frequently if such was going to be discontinued?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2016, 10:50:36 PMQuote from: Stephane Dumas on June 22, 2016, 06:44:51 PMAnyone who heard or remember the 4-door hardtop sedan?
...
I miss that kind of body.
But hasn't that come full circle with cars like the CLS, Charger and SS just to name a few Back in those days everyone had to have a coupe since the sedan was considered the "boring" version of the car. Man have attitudes changed on that since the 60s and 70s.
I believe that Stephanie Dumas was referring to the 4-door hardtop body style in her earlier post; a type that disappeared from the North American market after 1978. As earlier mentioned, 4-door pillared hardtops are still around but only offered in a handful of models & manufacturers.
As far as performance sedans being offered instead of coupes; one reason why manufacturers dropped their coupes (the last domestic full-size coupes were from 1987) from their line-ups was due to sluggish sales. If one wanted a sporty or luxury coupe, they simply opted for coupe-only offerings like a Mustang, Camaro or T-Bird rather than a 2-door version of the Crown Vic or Caprice. Child-safety locks for the rear doors that would become standard equipment also contributed to the sales decline of 2-door models; in the old days, if one was concerned about young kids grabbing the rear-door handle & accidentally opening the door, a 2-door model was the only solution readily available at the time.
Right but how many people who bought those SUVs used them for the tow capacity that they came with?...it was very few. So basically the SUV became the style points vehicle over the Mini-Van somewhere in the late 90s. Even the people who drove the Mini-Vans would largely ever come close to using the total gross weight capacity much less tow capability. So when...rather why did this all change that a family needed a monster honking vehicle to toat the 2.3 kids around in? Look at the CTS wagon that was out for a couple years on the last generation platform. That was a great vehicle that offered a luxury buyer everything they could have wanted for cargo capacity but everyone hated it. Even the Dodge Magnum as cool as it was suffered the fate of the Station Wagon stigma....and yes Chrysler going out of the way to not call it one was silly.
As for the large coupe, I think that one was doomed when sedans in the same segment started to catch on. There always seemed to be a high end luxury tinge to them in the heyday or a gimmick like suicide doors.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 23, 2016, 11:36:37 PMRight but how many people who bought those SUVs used them for the tow capacity that they came with?...it was very few.
How many people, in the past, bought mid-70s Ford Country Squires w/460s (or equivalent) that actually used them for towing capacity (those equipped w/the Class III tow package could pull up to 7000 lbs.)? That type of question has existed for decades.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 23, 2016, 11:36:37 PMSo basically the SUV became the style points vehicle over the Mini-Van somewhere in the late 90s. Even the people who drove the Mini-Vans would largely ever come close to using the total gross weight capacity much less tow capability. So when...rather why did this all change that a family needed a monster honking vehicle to toat the 2.3 kids around in?
Again, many minivans that existed
lacked the brawn that the old station wagons and truck-based SUVs had. In addition to towing ability there's payload; most FWD-based minivans could certainly hold stuff, but not all of them offered optional heavy-duty suspension packages if the cargo was not only bulky but heavy as well. I know of one company that bought a fleet of FWD-based vans (instead of RWD-based vans) and discovered that the weight of their equipment was cracking the rear axles. Granted, one may not experience such in passenger vehicle applications.
Regarding the 2.3 kids... many of these vehicles were used as
soccer mom carpools transporting other kids. Granted, if that was the maximum usage of a vehicle; then sure a minivan or now CUV would suffice. But how does one know, unless they know the owner/driver, that the vehicle isn't being used for other purposes (hauling and/or towing). Case-and-point; back in the early 70s when my father had a 25-foot trimoran sailboat, his 8-passenger '69 Mercury Colony Park wagon w/the 390 V8 towed it w/ease... and there were a few occasions when all 8 seats (his was equipped w/the optional dual-facing rear seats) were indeed used when transporting friends & guests. Note: when he sold the boat (due to financial reasons), he traded the wagon for a '74 Pinto Squire wagon. Man, talk about a major change/shock.
Bottom line & long story short; the main reason why many dumped minivans for SUVs was due to
choice. Especially for those large station wagon owners that felt like the automakers largely abandoned them.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 23, 2016, 11:36:37 PMLook at the CTS wagon that was out for a couple years on the last generation platform. That was a great vehicle that offered a luxury buyer everything they could have wanted for cargo capacity but everyone hated it. Even the Dodge Magnum as cool as it was suffered the fate of the Station Wagon stigma....and yes Chrysler going out of the way to not call it one was silly.
Those two wagons are poster childs of how
not to design nor market wagons. Both wagons lacked what previous station wagons had; visibility & capacity.
The Magnum wagon, despite its long 120" wheelbase, had only slightly more cargo capacity than a compact Ford Focus wagon (which still existed at the time & was cheaper) due to its narrow body and short (for its class) overall length. Dodge marketers also IMHO get an "
F" on how they advertised & marketed the wagon; which was largely non-existant. Even their product-line brochures listed the Magnum wagon (in its first year) at the bottom of its lineup, despite being the newest vehicle in the line-up. Such usually gets the proverbial front-page attention.
The Cadillac CTS wagon, IMHO, suffered similarly; but adding insult to injury had terrible visibility, one might as well be driving a panel vehicle.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 23, 2016, 11:36:37 PMAs for the large coupe, I think that one was doomed when sedans in the same segment started to catch on. There always seemed to be a high end luxury tinge to them in the heyday or a gimmick like suicide doors.
Okay, since you don't list your age in your profile (your choice); I'm going to assume based on your comments that you were either not alive during the 70s or been too young to remember.
During the 70s and into the mid 80s; the hottest selling vehicle type was the mid-size personal luxury coupe (Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo, Thunderbird, etc.).
Prior to the 1960s, most car companies only had one or two car lines and such car lines had various body styles and trim levels (that actually featured different model names). By the end of the 60s; the number of car lines & sizes expanded and the first casualties of such diversification were the
bare bones level full-sizes (Chevy Biscaynes/BelAirs, Ford Customs/Custom 500s) particularly the coupes (those continued for a few years in the Canadian market).
When the earlier-mentioned mid-size personal luxury coupes dominated the market; the more
standard mid-size coupes (like the Malibu & Granada coupes) fell out of favor saleswise and were dropped.
When the SUV market expanded (such had existed but were in smaller quantities & types) during the 90s; those mid-size coupes as well as sporty coupes like the Camaro & Firebird/TransAm took a sales hit and were eventually discontinued (the Camaro was revived after a 6-year absence).
Why did sedans survive when coupes took a hit? Since sedans are
perceived to have more utility than their coupe counterparts; many buyers stood by them. For those w/small children; the now-standard rear door child locks means they don't have to buy a coupe (that has larger doors) to prevent their kids from accidentally unlocking and opening the rear door while the vehicle is in motion.
Do you also think that the Uber/Lyft generation has anything to do with the decline of the puchase of the coupe? They don't want to drive themselves. They don't want to warm the planet.
Some 2-door cars had doors that were just too long to make for a good daily. Anybody who has had a 2nd-4th gen Camaro or Firebird knows the long door struggle. Parked next to somebody? You're sliding out the back. Of course the '80s 2-door Caprices doors were even longer.
When I was little though, my folks always bought 2-doors to keep me from jumping out. At the same time, 4 doors can be annoying as well. So many doors and windows to keep track of. Ah crap, door #3s not closed all the way. Gotta get out and close it again. That's like this house I just bought -- despite being a little over 1000 sq. ft. it has FIVE entry doors. Gotta make sure every one's locked or say goodbye to your stuff. People steal everywhere now instead of just in crappy neighborhoods since there's so many heroin addicts.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 24, 2016, 09:43:58 PM
Some 2-door cars had doors that were just too long to make for a good daily. Anybody who has had a 2nd-4th gen Camaro or Firebird knows the long door struggle. Parked next to somebody? You're sliding out the back. Of course the '80s 2-door Caprices doors were even longer.
When I was little though, my folks always bought 2-doors to keep me from jumping out. At the same time, 4 doors can be annoying as well. So many doors and windows to keep track of. Ah crap, door #3s not closed all the way. Gotta get out and close it again. That's like this house I just bought -- despite being a little over 1000 sq. ft. it has FIVE entry doors. Gotta make sure every one's locked or say goodbye to your stuff. People steal everywhere now instead of just in crappy neighborhoods since there's so many heroin addicts.
Don't forget the 5th generation Camaro also, that thing had some huge doors...way too easy to ding IMO. Put a nasty ding in mine at an air compressor one time, thankfully it was on the lip and it only chipped down to primer.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 24, 2016, 01:32:44 PM
Do you also think that the Uber/Lyft generation has anything to do with the decline of the puchase of the coupe? They don't want to drive themselves. They don't want to warm the planet.
That's one of the things that vexes me most about the current college age generation..they don't want to drive. Seems like all they are interested in is being everyone's Facebook friend and playing video games online. I know mass transit and urban living are appealing to the age group also...yuck and yuck...at least for me. I don't really run into to many of them that are into environmentalism or even politics....it's all about the socializing. Oh well...guess that just means I'm old now.
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 24, 2016, 09:08:26 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 23, 2016, 11:36:37 PMRight but how many people who bought those SUVs used them for the tow capacity that they came with?...it was very few.
How many people, in the past, bought mid-70s Ford Country Squires w/460s (or equivalent) that actually used them for towing capacity (those equipped w/the Class III tow package could pull up to 7000 lbs.)? That type of question has existed for decades.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 23, 2016, 11:36:37 PMSo basically the SUV became the style points vehicle over the Mini-Van somewhere in the late 90s. Even the people who drove the Mini-Vans would largely ever come close to using the total gross weight capacity much less tow capability. So when...rather why did this all change that a family needed a monster honking vehicle to toat the 2.3 kids around in?
Again, many minivans that existed lacked the brawn that the old station wagons and truck-based SUVs had. In addition to towing ability there's payload; most FWD-based minivans could certainly hold stuff, but not all of them offered optional heavy-duty suspension packages if the cargo was not only bulky but heavy as well. I know of one company that bought a fleet of FWD-based vans (instead of RWD-based vans) and discovered that the weight of their equipment was cracking the rear axles. Granted, one may not experience such in passenger vehicle applications.
Regarding the 2.3 kids... many of these vehicles were used as soccer mom carpools transporting other kids. Granted, if that was the maximum usage of a vehicle; then sure a minivan or now CUV would suffice. But how does one know, unless they know the owner/driver, that the vehicle isn't being used for other purposes (hauling and/or towing). Case-and-point; back in the early 70s when my father had a 25-foot trimoran sailboat, his 8-passenger '69 Mercury Colony Park wagon w/the 390 V8 towed it w/ease... and there were a few occasions when all 8 seats (his was equipped w/the optional dual-facing rear seats) were indeed used when transporting friends & guests. Note: when he sold the boat (due to financial reasons), he traded the wagon for a '74 Pinto Squire wagon. Man, talk about a major change/shock.
Bottom line & long story short; the main reason why many dumped minivans for SUVs was due to choice. Especially for those large station wagon owners that felt like the automakers largely abandoned them.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 23, 2016, 11:36:37 PMLook at the CTS wagon that was out for a couple years on the last generation platform. That was a great vehicle that offered a luxury buyer everything they could have wanted for cargo capacity but everyone hated it. Even the Dodge Magnum as cool as it was suffered the fate of the Station Wagon stigma....and yes Chrysler going out of the way to not call it one was silly.
Those two wagons are poster childs of how not to design nor market wagons. Both wagons lacked what previous station wagons had; visibility & capacity.
The Magnum wagon, despite its long 120" wheelbase, had only slightly more cargo capacity than a compact Ford Focus wagon (which still existed at the time & was cheaper) due to its narrow body and short (for its class) overall length. Dodge marketers also IMHO get an "F" on how they advertised & marketed the wagon; which was largely non-existant. Even their product-line brochures listed the Magnum wagon (in its first year) at the bottom of its lineup, despite being the newest vehicle in the line-up. Such usually gets the proverbial front-page attention.
The Cadillac CTS wagon, IMHO, suffered similarly; but adding insult to injury had terrible visibility, one might as well be driving a panel vehicle.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 23, 2016, 11:36:37 PMAs for the large coupe, I think that one was doomed when sedans in the same segment started to catch on. There always seemed to be a high end luxury tinge to them in the heyday or a gimmick like suicide doors.
Okay, since you don't list your age in your profile (your choice); I'm going to assume based on your comments that you were either not alive during the 70s or been too young to remember.
During the 70s and into the mid 80s; the hottest selling vehicle type was the mid-size personal luxury coupe (Cutlass Supreme, Monte Carlo, Thunderbird, etc.).
Prior to the 1960s, most car companies only had one or two car lines and such car lines had various body styles and trim levels (that actually featured different model names). By the end of the 60s; the number of car lines & sizes expanded and the first casualties of such diversification were the bare bones level full-sizes (Chevy Biscaynes/BelAirs, Ford Customs/Custom 500s) particularly the coupes (those continued for a few years in the Canadian market).
When the earlier-mentioned mid-size personal luxury coupes dominated the market; the more standard mid-size coupes (like the Malibu & Granada coupes) fell out of favor saleswise and were dropped.
When the SUV market expanded (such had existed but were in smaller quantities & types) during the 90s; those mid-size coupes as well as sporty coupes like the Camaro & Firebird/TransAm took a sales hit and were eventually discontinued (the Camaro was revived after a 6-year absence).
Why did sedans survive when coupes took a hit? Since sedans are perceived to have more utility than their coupe counterparts; many buyers stood by them. For those w/small children; the now-standard rear door child locks means they don't have to buy a coupe (that has larger doors) to prevent their kids from accidentally unlocking and opening the rear door while the vehicle is in motion.
Actually I'm 40...that's not exactly too far off the mark of the 50 you got going on your profile. So no I wasn't car buying age but I do remember cars like the Monte Carlo and others like it being a dime a dozen. Yes I remember when child proof locking became a big selling point...but I don't believe that I actually ever heard of a single story where that happened. Even the 6 years I spent as a highway patrolman I never once heard anyone even speak about a kid opening a car door and falling out...not even from the 20 year guys. I'm not saying that it never happened anywhere but I do think that notion was borne out of a lot of 1980s parental paranoia.
It's funny how that all swung full circle once Ford put some development money into the 05 Mustang. In my view the Firebird and Camaro died a slow death on F-body platform that was way too old running from 1993 to 2002. Also the automakers got more realistic about sales volume with 50,000 to 80,000 being considered acceptable for the current Mustang, Challenger and Camaro. Back in the late 90s the trucks and SUVs were getting all the R&D money which you could completely tell. Even people who hated American cars would at least look at a truck or SUV made by a domestic brand... Hell they kind of became the luxury coupes or brawny vehicles of their time. It's funny...I see so any people piss on the H2 and H3 nowadays and putting them on "worst ever" lists along with the likes of the Pinto, Pacer or Aztec. People WANTED those H2 and H3...I remember people going nuts over the H2 as a status symbol vehicle.
With the CTS pretty much every model had compromised visibility...it was part of the whole Art and Science thing that GM was going for. The Magnum I'm with you on that...it wasn't all that much more roomy than most hatchbacks or worse. I just don't get why they would bring that concept into production off of the concept car reaction and not market it? The 300 and Charger got marketed to death....also the Challenger when it came back. Out all of those LX cars the Magnum was probably the best bang for the buck since you could get it in any configuration the others had plus have a wagon style...at least have something unique. Those Chargers that Chrysler brought out were awful looking...but thankfully have gotten better.
I'm with you on the utility aspect of the SUV and old school wagon versus the CUV/Mini-Van. I just don't see too many people doing things that would require towing or hauling like they used to back in the 80s. Hell I'm on a 3,600 mile road trip through 8 national parks and 5 monuments...the volume of people towing a boat or trailer isn't anywhere what I remember even 10 years back. I've noticed a lot of rental RVs on this trip and the last couple though.
BTW...if I sound loopy and if I'm missing things it's because I'm exhausted from all this friggin driving. I got one more 400 plus day to go before I loop things back to Denver to head on home.
As I recall, there was a brief moment in time during Daimler's occupation of Chrysler where the Dodge brand was going to be trucks, SUVs, and hatch/wagons - no sedans or coupes. Chrysler would get sedans & coupes. Jeep was Jeep.
Magnum was referred to as a Sports Tourer, because the term "station wagon" was still verboten in marketing speak as old and outdated. And as noted, it wasn't all that good as a wagon.
According to the guys that built them, they could have continued building Magnums alongside the 300/Charger and then-new Challenger - but top brass axed it after sales dropped upon the debut of the Charger.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on June 24, 2016, 10:56:05 PM
As I recall, there was a brief moment in time during Daimler's occupation of Chrysler where the Dodge brand was going to be trucks, SUVs, and hatch/wagons - no sedans or coupes. Chrysler would get sedans & coupes. Jeep was Jeep.
Magnum was referred to as a Sports Tourer, because the term "station wagon" was still verboten in marketing speak as old and outdated. And as noted, it wasn't all that good as a wagon.
According to the guys that built them, they could have continued building Magnums alongside the 300/Charger and then-new Challenger - but top brass axed it after sales dropped upon the debut of the Charger.
Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing. I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division. I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist?
Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon. For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now. Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year. And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 10:25:40 PM
It's funny how that all swung full circle once Ford put some development money into the 05 Mustang. In my view the Firebird and Camaro died a slow death on F-body platform that was way too old running from 1993 to 2002. Also the automakers got more realistic about sales volume with 50,000 to 80,000 being considered acceptable for the current Mustang, Challenger and Camaro.
I agree that by the time the LS1 engines rolled out for '98 that the largely new-for-'82 4th gen platform was showing its age especially in the chassis stiffness department where you really want to add both inner and outer subframe connectors. But the even more ancient '79 design of the up through '04 SN95/New Edge Mustangs was way worse with its crappy roll centers and floppy 4-control arm rear end. Yet the SN95s crushed the 4th gens sales-wise and forced GM to tap out two years early despite a vastly superior engine and chassis on the 4th-gen. You still want to double up the subframe connectors on an SN95. Nowadays you see way more SN95s on the road than LT1 and early V6 4th gens which found themselves ground to death by the trailer park just like the 3rd gens ten years prior or locked up in the garage and turned into toys like the LS1 cars have been. Meanwhile you see 21-year-old girls driving 1996 SN95s in the snow every day chugging along forever like a Honda.
1989-1993 vs 1994-1997.
Ergonomics took over in the 1990s big time.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcarphotos.cardomain.com%2Fride_images%2F2%2F3729%2F741%2F21820370004_large.jpg&hash=9ed5d78c649664f681f2ab0719481520bd60d6b7)
(https://www.supermotors.net/getfile/108903/fullsize/my-car-012.jpg%20alt=)
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 25, 2016, 04:42:00 PM
Ergonomics took over in the 1990s big time.
I prefer the wood in the older model. It looks far nicer than acres of grey plastic. My last two cars had wooden trim.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 25, 2016, 11:16:50 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 10:25:40 PM
It's funny how that all swung full circle once Ford put some development money into the 05 Mustang. In my view the Firebird and Camaro died a slow death on F-body platform that was way too old running from 1993 to 2002. Also the automakers got more realistic about sales volume with 50,000 to 80,000 being considered acceptable for the current Mustang, Challenger and Camaro.
I agree that by the time the LS1 engines rolled out for '98 that the largely new-for-'82 4th gen platform was showing its age especially in the chassis stiffness department where you really want to add both inner and outer subframe connectors. But the even more ancient '79 design of the up through '04 SN95/New Edge Mustangs was way worse with its crappy roll centers and floppy 4-control arm rear end. Yet the SN95s crushed the 4th gens sales-wise and forced GM to tap out two years early despite a vastly superior engine and chassis on the 4th-gen. You still want to double up the subframe connectors on an SN95. Nowadays you see way more SN95s on the road than LT1 and early V6 4th gens which found themselves ground to death by the trailer park just like the 3rd gens ten years prior or locked up in the garage and turned into toys like the LS1 cars have been. Meanwhile you see 21-year-old girls driving 1996 SN95s in the snow every day chugging along forever like a Honda.
Even with the long in tooth 4th Gen F-body I'll never understand how the SN95 Mustang whooped it so badly. About the only thing that I can think of was price. That's why I ended up with 02 GT instead of a Camaro or Firebird, it was about 20% cheaper on the used market than an F-Body was. Funny thing is that you're starting to see people collect those 4th Gen F-Bodies, I've seen a lot of nice examples at car shows. The SN95 Mustangs are usually beat to hell unless they are a Boss 302, SVT Cobra or Bullit.
Quote from: Truvelo on June 25, 2016, 05:01:21 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 25, 2016, 04:42:00 PM
Ergonomics took over in the 1990s big time.
I prefer the wood in the older model. It looks far nicer than acres of grey plastic. My last two cars had wooden trim.
More often than not it was just "simulated" and looked fake as all hell since it had a high glossy sheen to it. I would prefer real wood options but they wouldn't run cheap for sure. Incidentally I would love to have a single room in my house all decked out in those fake wood panels everyone seemed to have in the 70s and 80s...hell I'd take the shag carpet too...but one room only, a retro man den.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing. I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division. I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist?
That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.
Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)
In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.
Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon. For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now. Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year. And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. :-D
Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.
Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.
Quote from: Stratuscaster on June 25, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing. I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division. I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist?
That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.
Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)
In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.
Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon. For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now. Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year. And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. :-D
Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.
Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.
That's just plain amusing that Fiat would think of Dodge as anything other than a volume brand. Granted I know the Viper, Challenger and Charger are part of the line up but you have some volume vehicles like the Dart still floating in there. I just don't see the point of all these brands when Dodge and Ram did just fine as a single brand. But that's just my thoughts as someone who recently bought a Chrysler product in a Challenger. And yes I would agree that the LX platform has changed so much that it hardly resembles the E-Class that it came from anymore. Hell the Hemi engines are actually some of the few iron block V8s you can still have...basically they are about as retro as it gets from American cars.
It's just a damn shame with all these CUVs....I think they are boring as all hell and a limited compromise of various vehicle types. Not that I'm in the market for any of them but it would be nice to have the option of a viable wagon or van if needed. The one good thing is that real SUVs have become niche again with models like the Tahoe, Wrangler, Suburban, ect. I'm definitely interested in the current Wrangler once it hits the ten year mark, the 3.6 Pentastar would be a hell of option over an older CJ.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2016, 11:08:57 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on June 25, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing. I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division. I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist?
That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.
Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)
In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.
Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon. For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now. Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year. And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. :-D
Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.
Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.
That's just plain amusing that Fiat would think of Dodge as anything other than a volume brand. Granted I know the Viper, Challenger and Charger are part of the line up but you have some volume vehicles like the Dart still floating in there. I just don't see the point of all these brands when Dodge and Ram did just fine as a single brand. But that's just my thoughts as someone who recently bought a Chrysler product in a Challenger. And yes I would agree that the LX platform has changed so much that it hardly resembles the E-Class that it came from anymore. Hell the Hemi engines are actually some of the few iron block V8s you can still have...basically they are about as retro as it gets from American cars.
It's just a damn shame with all these CUVs....I think they are boring as all hell and a limited compromise of various vehicle types. Not that I'm in the market for any of them but it would be nice to have the option of a viable wagon or van if needed. The one good thing is that real SUVs have become niche again with models like the Tahoe, Wrangler, Suburban, ect. I'm definitely interested in the current Wrangler once it hits the ten year mark, the 3.6 Pentastar would be a hell of option over an older CJ.
My car has a Cast iron block V8, but it is SOHC, aluminum head, etc. Also i don't think that anyone uses iron block any more due to weight.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 01:05:55 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2016, 11:08:57 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on June 25, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing. I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division. I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist?
That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.
Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)
In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.
Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon. For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now. Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year. And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. :-D
Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.
Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.
That's just plain amusing that Fiat would think of Dodge as anything other than a volume brand. Granted I know the Viper, Challenger and Charger are part of the line up but you have some volume vehicles like the Dart still floating in there. I just don't see the point of all these brands when Dodge and Ram did just fine as a single brand. But that's just my thoughts as someone who recently bought a Chrysler product in a Challenger. And yes I would agree that the LX platform has changed so much that it hardly resembles the E-Class that it came from anymore. Hell the Hemi engines are actually some of the few iron block V8s you can still have...basically they are about as retro as it gets from American cars.
It's just a damn shame with all these CUVs....I think they are boring as all hell and a limited compromise of various vehicle types. Not that I'm in the market for any of them but it would be nice to have the option of a viable wagon or van if needed. The one good thing is that real SUVs have become niche again with models like the Tahoe, Wrangler, Suburban, ect. I'm definitely interested in the current Wrangler once it hits the ten year mark, the 3.6 Pentastar would be a hell of option over an older CJ.
My car has a Cast iron block V8, but it is SOHC, aluminum head, etc. Also i don't think that anyone uses iron block any more due to weight.
Actually my 2016 Challenger has a 6.4L/392 and it's an iron block. Apparently all the modern hemi engines are all iron blocks, I didn't realize it until I was searching for a replacement for my 2011 Camaro. Definitely doesn't help with the curb weight but probably makes that huge displacement a little bit easier.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2016, 08:52:44 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 01:05:55 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 25, 2016, 11:08:57 PM
Quote from: Stratuscaster on June 25, 2016, 10:49:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Kinda sorta happened when "Ram" became it's own thing. I'm surprised the Durango and Journey stayed with the Dodge brand after Chrysler decides they wanted a GMC-like division. I noticed that Chrysler is really trying to segment the brands with more or less unique vehicles....maybe that's how they are justifying four brands continuing to exist?
That was all Fiat's doing when they gained control of Chrysler. The general consensus was that the trucks were doing well enough to be their own line of business (like Jeep) - and that should the need to sell off or divest brands occur, it would be more valuable if the trucks were their own brand. Hence, RAM.
Under FCA, there are actually SEVEN brands: Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, RAM, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and Maserati. (Some lump Ferrari in there, but that's been separated a bit today.)
In their last "5-year-plan", those brands finally got some direction as to what they would be. Dodge is the performance brand, Chrysler is the mainstream brand, RAM is trucks/commercial and Jeep is SUVs. There's obviously still a bit of overlap, and there are still some anomalies - the Grand Caravan and Journey aren't exactly paragons of performance, but they'll be dropped/replaced within the next 2 years. Chrysler only has 4 models today and one (the Town & Country) will go away soon, but more are to come to flesh out that line.
Fiat - in the US, anyway - is a very niche boutique brand like MINI is to BMW. Alfa will take on BMW, Mercedes, and Audi (and others), Maserati plays upstairs with Jaguar and Porsche and such.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
Pretty much the Charger killed off the Magnum, it's pretty clear that more people prefer the sedan body over a wagon. For what it's worth Chrysler really got their money's worth out of the LX platform, it's been on the market in one variation or another for over a decade now. Not bad for an old Mercedes sourced platform....hell I just bought a Challenger last year. And Chrysler's marketing team can call the Magnum anything they want..it was a wagon. :-D
Only bits and pieces were Mercedes-sourced - it certainly wasn't just a "last-gen rebodied E-Class" when they debuted, and they indeed have kept on improving upon it over that decade - to the point where many bits and pieces of the LX (300)/LY (Charger)/LC (Challenger) can be found underneath and inside the Maserati Ghibli & Quattroporte, as well as the upcoming Maserati Levante crossover. And that twin-turbo V6 Maserati uses that's built up by Ferrari? It uses a Chrysler Pentastar V6 block.
Wagons fell out of favor for minivans, trucks, and SUVs/CUVs. Then minivans suffered a similar fate to the point where they are almost considered a niche market today. Crossovers are now eating away at the sedan market share - tiny bites for now, but I expect it to grow.
That's just plain amusing that Fiat would think of Dodge as anything other than a volume brand. Granted I know the Viper, Challenger and Charger are part of the line up but you have some volume vehicles like the Dart still floating in there. I just don't see the point of all these brands when Dodge and Ram did just fine as a single brand. But that's just my thoughts as someone who recently bought a Chrysler product in a Challenger. And yes I would agree that the LX platform has changed so much that it hardly resembles the E-Class that it came from anymore. Hell the Hemi engines are actually some of the few iron block V8s you can still have...basically they are about as retro as it gets from American cars.
It's just a damn shame with all these CUVs....I think they are boring as all hell and a limited compromise of various vehicle types. Not that I'm in the market for any of them but it would be nice to have the option of a viable wagon or van if needed. The one good thing is that real SUVs have become niche again with models like the Tahoe, Wrangler, Suburban, ect. I'm definitely interested in the current Wrangler once it hits the ten year mark, the 3.6 Pentastar would be a hell of option over an older CJ.
My car has a Cast iron block V8, but it is SOHC, aluminum head, etc. Also i don't think that anyone uses iron block any more due to weight.
Actually my 2016 Challenger has a 6.4L/392 and it's an iron block. Apparently all the modern hemi engines are all iron blocks, I didn't realize it until I was searching for a replacement for my 2011 Camaro. Definitely doesn't help with the curb weight but probably makes that huge displacement a little bit easier.
Maybe. I once won a bet with a co-worker, he was a mechanic at a trucking company and he was a ford guy. i brought up my car had a cast iron block and heads, he didn't believe me. I bet him 20 bucks i was right. We go out, pop the hood of my sable, and he put a magnet to the head..yup, cast iron. the good old underpowered but reliable vulcan v6.
The cool thing is that Chrysler actually powder coated the 392s in Hemi Orange. Not that it's easy to see with the engine shroud on top of block mind you. That's one thing that I really wish that modern cars would do, I always preferred to see more of the actual engine when I open the hood.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 09:43:51 AM
The official car of asbestos, that had me literally in tears when he said that. :-D I like how the guy on the phone couldn't keep a straight face throughout that rant. On the flip side I used to think the Volare was actually kind of good looking.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/1980_Plymouth_Volare_Duster.JPG/1280px-1980_Plymouth_Volare_Duster.JPG)
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 11:58:22 AM
23hp at the wheels...no wonder it took 23.3 seconds at 59 MPH to get through the quarter mile and another 6.7 seconds to get that last 1 MPH for 60.
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 11, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
Later on, President Obama signed on a CAFE mandate for cars & light trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. Needless to say, the only way to achieve such would be greater emphasis on hybrids & electrics.
And Diesels?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2016, 10:57:49 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 09:43:51 AM
The official car of asbestos, that had me literally in tears when he said that. :-D I like how the guy on the phone couldn't keep a straight face throughout that rant. On the flip side I used to think the Volare was actually kind of good looking.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/1980_Plymouth_Volare_Duster.JPG/1280px-1980_Plymouth_Volare_Duster.JPG)
I disagree regarding the Slant 6 engine. Rock-solid, even though the Aspen was a miserable car.
In 1980, it became clear that
nobody wanted the Aspens and Volares, and there were hundreds of them parked, unsold, on lots all around the D.C. area.
Someone brilliant found a great market for all of those unsold Mopars - the District of Columbia's taxicab fleet.
Because of mandated low fares (and until recently, a zone system instead of meters), and resulting low profits, D.C. taxicabs were nearly always retired rental cars or (more frequently, retired police cars with the odometers well into the 6 digits before starting their career as a D.C. cab), because that was all that drivers (usually owner/operators) could afford. Well, the inventory of these cars were sold to D.C. taxicab operators, getting them off of Chrysler's books - four door sedans and station wagons (no 2 doors allowed). Through the 1980's, these Aspens and Volares were almost the "official" taxicab of D.C. in spite of the AC units
never working (and back then, there was no legal D.C. requirement for cabs to have working AC - station wagons had a sort of "supplemental" AC - the rear hatch was always open on hot summer days except when the driver hit the jackpot and got a profitable and prized fare to IAD (Dulles) or BWI)).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2016, 05:51:22 PM
23hp at the wheels...no wonder it took 23.3 seconds at 59 MPH to get through the quarter mile and another 6.7 seconds to get that last 1 MPH for 60.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2016, 05:51:22 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 11:58:22 AM
23hp at the wheels...no wonder it took 23.3 seconds at 59 MPH to get through the quarter mile and another 6.7 seconds to get that last 1 MPH for 60.
"Right there with British Leyland?" LOL!
Had a neighbor that had not one, but
two (!) Chevettes. She was an employee of the State of Maryland, and the state's fleet managers, being cheap but encouraged by the General Assembly to purchase "American" cars,
loved the Chevettes, the Pintos, the Escorts, the Vegas and (worst of all) the "American" Renault/AMC Alliance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Alliance) (the Alliances
stranded friends of mine (who were state employees) late at night at evening meetings far from home, and getting the state's fleet management people to come and rescue them was nearly impossible). This woman was issued a Chevette (or maybe a Pontiac T-1000, not really sure) and drove the one with state tags to her job and otherwise on state business (it had official "SG" tags).
For some reason, her personal car was
also a Chevette. Not sure why, maybe she did not drive the state car enough during her duty hours, and needed an after-hours dose of misery with her personal Chevette.
I had a grand mother who had one of those Chevettes for well over a decade. She was CONVINCED that it was the greatest car ever...my parents couldn't dissuade her for years. She hung onto the thing well into the 1990s when it was rusting and falling apart. Considering that her and my Grandpa couldn't navigate to Lansing without getting lost it was a miracle they never ended up stranded or crashed in the winter in that thing. I forget what they got after they were convinced to get the Chevette but I know their 97 Malibu was like some sort of unworldly future car by the time their driving days were winding down.
A friend of mine's late father who was a car enthusiast and former mechanic LOVED Chevettes. He even put a 4.3 Vortec in one with an M20 4-speed box. He complained that the door striker/B-pillar metal would tear out over time which basically rendered the vehicle junk. Nobody was making a solution for the problem back then and I don't think anyone's doing it now either.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 26, 2016, 09:14:46 PM
A friend of mine's late father who was a car enthusiast and former mechanic LOVED Chevettes. He even put a 4.3 Vortec in one with an M20 4-speed box. He complained that the door striker/B-pillar metal would tear out over time which basically rendered the vehicle junk. Nobody was making a solution for the problem back then and I don't think anyone's doing it now either.
Now this is how you do a restomod:
I'd rather have the 4.3 honestly :sombrero:
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 26, 2016, 09:14:46 PM
A friend of mine's late father who was a car enthusiast and former mechanic LOVED Chevettes. He even put a 4.3 Vortec in one with an M20 4-speed box. He complained that the door striker/B-pillar metal would tear out over time which basically rendered the vehicle junk. Nobody was making a solution for the problem back then and I don't think anyone's doing it now either.
My roommate in college around 1991 has a diesel chevette...
Mattlock on wheels, the Perry Mason mobile.....
Even though it had been around since 1982, here's the KITT/Bandit car that we all remember and love!
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 26, 2016, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 11, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
Later on, President Obama signed on a CAFE mandate for cars & light trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. Needless to say, the only way to achieve such would be greater emphasis on hybrids & electrics.
And Diesels?
Initially, yes; but given what recently went down w/VW's TDI, I don't think we're going to be seeing that many diesel-powered cars being marketed in the US for a while if ever.
To some degree, we won't down this road before w/GM' (mainly Oldmobile's) diesel offerings from '78-'85. Such offered great mileage (31 MPG highway in a 4000 lb. full-size V8 sedan or wagon); but the associated problems turned out to be a major liability for GM at the time and poisoned the well for diesel cars for nearly a generation.
Can anyone say
Deja Vu?
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2016, 02:39:50 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 26, 2016, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 11, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
Later on, President Obama signed on a CAFE mandate for cars & light trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. Needless to say, the only way to achieve such would be greater emphasis on hybrids & electrics.
And Diesels?
Initially, yes; but given what recently went down w/VW's TDI, I don't think we're going to be seeing that many diesel-powered cars being marketed in the US for a while if ever.
To some degree, we won't down this road before w/GM' (mainly Oldmobile's) diesel offerings from '78-'85. Such offered great mileage (31 MPG highway in a 4000 lb. full-size V8 sedan or wagon); but the associated problems turned out to be a major liability for GM at the time and poisoned the well for diesel cars for nearly a generation.
Can anyone say Deja Vu?
I don't know about that, a lot of people are saying that whole VW scandal has the same taint as those horrid GM diesel offerings. It's not like they are cranking out puffy black clouds of soot....out of sight and out of mind. At least that's how the story has gone; it was being presented as doomsday for VW and while it's going to cost them a crap ton of money that certainly didn't turn out to be the case. The people who cheated those emissions got busted which just means the technology will have to improve and given how much of a footprint diesel has in Europe it likely will. Now will that translate into mainstream American sales?....probably not outside of the heavy duty truck buyer but it will be something just like all the other alternate powertrains.
Speaking of oldies found this on the Regular Cars channel:
I remember that it was either 1995 or 1996 but my Mom finally got rid of the old trusty Astro and stepped up for pearly light blue Blazer two-door. I recall that being a proud moment to break the grasp of mini-vandom one and for all. She was not a happy camper when my Dad made her get an Monte Carlo a couple years later and then a Impala. Her last two vehicles were an Equinox and an SRX before she passed away....always talked about how she loved the ride height of that old trusty Blazer. Now that might be what the doctor ordered as far as a makeshift off-roader that I'm clamoring for these days.
Today's RCR was about a new GM product.
https://youtu.be/wZt2ZqB2J-M
Quote from: Takumi on June 27, 2016, 05:03:31 PM
Today's RCR was about a new GM product.
https://youtu.be/wZt2ZqB2J-M
Aka Cadillac's Corvette.
I'm surprised he didn't touch on the 700 extra pounds the XLR had over the C5 Corvette and the 4.4L Supercharged Northstar. The 4.4L XLR is going to be a collector's piece one day but the standard version is just a weighted down and neutered Corvette.
I know it's a 2003 but it's still a 90s platform...they can call it an SRT 4 all they want it's still a Neon:
One of the pinnacles for the Fast and the Furious crowd:
How about the Regal from hell? That's basically what the Grand National and GNX were back in the 80s:
FWIW, its turbocharged 3.8L V6 was a worthy alternative to the other three G-body performance-based variants that were available at the time (Monte Carlo SS, Grand Prix 2+2, Hurst Olds/442), and all the others had V8s. Additionally, it's very hard to believe that a GN actually outran a Corvette in the quarter-mile! (in 1984, IIRC)
Quote from: Henry on June 28, 2016, 10:46:04 AM
How about the Regal from hell? That's basically what the Grand National and GNX were back in the 80s:
FWIW, its turbocharged 3.8L V6 was a worthy alternative to the other three G-body performance-based variants that were available at the time (Monte Carlo SS, Grand Prix 2+2, Hurst Olds/442), and all the others had V8s. Additionally, it's very hard to believe that a GN actually outran a Corvette in the quarter-mile! (in 1984, IIRC)
Really all the G-bodies needed the Corvette 5.7L TPI engine as an option....but that's how GM was back then. Today you wouldn't see crap like that with the LT engines nor the previous generation LS engines. The Camaro has the LT1 just like the Corvette does and oddly the SS still has the LS3...probably because it's on the Zeta platform and not Alpha. That Monte Carlo comes to mind most out of all with that dog Mouse Motor 305....that was the WORST iteration of the small block Chevy ever built. And GM was flat out lying about how much power the 3.8L Turbo really made...they couldn't let anyone think that something was out powering the Corvette when it was probably pulling 300hp minimum at the crank.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 28, 2016, 11:05:55 AM
Quote from: Henry on June 28, 2016, 10:46:04 AM
How about the Regal from hell? That's basically what the Grand National and GNX were back in the 80s:
FWIW, its turbocharged 3.8L V6 was a worthy alternative to the other three G-body performance-based variants that were available at the time (Monte Carlo SS, Grand Prix 2+2, Hurst Olds/442), and all the others had V8s. Additionally, it's very hard to believe that a GN actually outran a Corvette in the quarter-mile! (in 1984, IIRC)
Really all the G-bodies needed the Corvette 5.7L TPI engine as an option....but that's how GM was back then. Today you wouldn't see crap like that with the LT engines nor the previous generation LS engines. The Camaro has the LT1 just like the Corvette does and oddly the SS still has the LS3...probably because it's on the Zeta platform and not Alpha. That Monte Carlo comes to mind most out of all with that dog Mouse Motor 305....that was the WORST iteration of the small block Chevy ever built. And GM was flat out lying about how much power the 3.8L Turbo really made...they couldn't let anyone think that something was out powering the Corvette when it was probably pulling 300hp minimum at the crank.
Yes, this! My friend had an 89 Mustang LX 5.0 and was continuously getting his doors blown off by a chick in a GN. It took alotta work and $$ just to get his car to the point where he could just hang with a stock Grand National.
Add to that the GNX-that was ridiculous for its time, and it wouldn't take a whole lot of money on top if the stock package to get one to hang with my 2014 Mustang GT in the quarter. That turbo 3.8 was one hell of an engine!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 27, 2016, 04:02:52 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on June 27, 2016, 02:39:50 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 26, 2016, 06:31:48 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on May 11, 2016, 09:24:56 AM
Later on, President Obama signed on a CAFE mandate for cars & light trucks to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. Needless to say, the only way to achieve such would be greater emphasis on hybrids & electrics.
And Diesels?
Initially, yes; but given what recently went down w/VW's TDI, I don't think we're going to be seeing that many diesel-powered cars being marketed in the US for a while if ever.
To some degree, we won't down this road before w/GM' (mainly Oldmobile's) diesel offerings from '78-'85. Such offered great mileage (31 MPG highway in a 4000 lb. full-size V8 sedan or wagon); but the associated problems turned out to be a major liability for GM at the time and poisoned the well for diesel cars for nearly a generation.
Can anyone say Deja Vu?
I don't know about that, a lot of people are saying that whole VW scandal has the same taint as those horrid GM diesel offerings. It's not like they are cranking out puffy black clouds of soot....out of sight and out of mind. At least that's how the story has gone; it was being presented as doomsday for VW and while it's going to cost them a crap ton of money that certainly didn't turn out to be the case. The people who cheated those emissions got busted which just means the technology will have to improve and given how much of a footprint diesel has in Europe it likely will. Now will that translate into mainstream American sales?....probably not outside of the heavy duty truck buyer but it will be something just like all the other alternate powertrains.
Speaking of oldies found this on the Regular Cars channel:
I remember that it was either 1995 or 1996 but my Mom finally got rid of the old trusty Astro and stepped up for pearly light blue Blazer two-door. I recall that being a proud moment to break the grasp of mini-vandom one and for all. She was not a happy camper when my Dad made her get an Monte Carlo a couple years later and then a Impala. Her last two vehicles were an Equinox and an SRX before she passed away....always talked about how she loved the ride height of that old trusty Blazer. Now that might be what the doctor ordered as far as a makeshift off-roader that I'm clamoring for these days.
I had a ZR2 Pewter Metallic two door for a few weeks. I was in the car business and ran the new vehicle inventory department. I was in charge of the ordering and the demos.
Dream car. I will never, ever be able to own one unless the bubble bursts, though.
https://youtu.be/V6FDPS-78WU
I finally met, and rode in, my attainable dream car yesterday. 1990 Nissan Skyline GT-R.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--589AS6Bh--/innz7b4twcxef1oyy8hz.jpg)
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 29, 2016, 12:18:11 AM
Pooing is cool
Why would that bathroom have two doors? :-D
Fake or not this is digging about deep into the 70s as you can get:
I would love to see a 74 GTO, Pontiac Cam-Am or a Laguna S3 on this show.
I drove one of these in college. 302, 2WD, column shifter auto, extended cab, blue/blue/blue. I could bury the needle at about 90. Also, he gets locking diffs wrong, as many commenters have pointed out.
https://youtu.be/YAWBXji6itc
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 27, 2016, 04:02:52 PM
I don't know about that, a lot of people are saying that whole VW scandal has the same taint as those horrid GM diesel offerings. It's not like they are cranking out puffy black clouds of soot....out of sight and out of mind. At least that's how the story has gone; it was being presented as doomsday for VW and while it's going to cost them a crap ton of money that certainly didn't turn out to be the case. The people who cheated those emissions got busted which just means the technology will have to improve and given how much of a footprint diesel has in Europe it likely will. Now will that translate into mainstream American sales?....probably not outside of the heavy duty truck buyer but it will be something just like all the other alternate powertrains.
Diesel wins in Europe because in most countries there's a huge tax advantage for diesel over gasoline, in part because most European countries rely much heavily on trucking for freight than we do, especially now that coal is basically dead - Switzerland basically had to build a freight rail tunnel and ban through trucking to shift transcontinental trucks between Germany and Italy off their roads. Here the taxation levels are fairly similar and until very, very recently the price advantage for gasoline even on a per-gallon basis was substantial due to the ultra-low sulfur transition jacking up diesel prices.
The fact diesel isn't even being used in constant-RPM applications like plug-in hybrid cars in North America, where diesel might work out more cost-efficient than gasoline at US prices at small car scale, suggests there's no real future in diesel here except in buses, trucking, and rail, along with the "contractors who actually use pickup trucks to haul stuff regularly" market.
Incidentally my first two cars were a 1984 Chevy Celebrity station wagon and a 1989 Buick Regal coupe. The latter's claim to fame were bogus "automatic seat belts" that basically amounted to letting you keep the seat belt buckled when you opened the door (there was no motor involved in the process), no doubt implemented to con NHTSA into giving them some sort of production credits for implementing this innovative "safety feature." Mine also leaked oil like nobody's business. Good times.
Quote from: lordsutch on June 30, 2016, 11:58:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 27, 2016, 04:02:52 PM
I don't know about that, a lot of people are saying that whole VW scandal has the same taint as those horrid GM diesel offerings. It's not like they are cranking out puffy black clouds of soot....out of sight and out of mind. At least that's how the story has gone; it was being presented as doomsday for VW and while it's going to cost them a crap ton of money that certainly didn't turn out to be the case. The people who cheated those emissions got busted which just means the technology will have to improve and given how much of a footprint diesel has in Europe it likely will. Now will that translate into mainstream American sales?....probably not outside of the heavy duty truck buyer but it will be something just like all the other alternate powertrains.
Diesel wins in Europe because in most countries there's a huge tax advantage for diesel over gasoline, in part because most European countries rely much heavily on trucking for freight than we do, especially now that coal is basically dead - Switzerland basically had to build a freight rail tunnel and ban through trucking to shift transcontinental trucks between Germany and Italy off their roads. Here the taxation levels are fairly similar and until very, very recently the price advantage for gasoline even on a per-gallon basis was substantial due to the ultra-low sulfur transition jacking up diesel prices.
The fact diesel isn't even being used in constant-RPM applications like plug-in hybrid cars in North America, where diesel might work out more cost-efficient than gasoline at US prices at small car scale, suggests there's no real future in diesel here except in buses, trucking, and rail, along with the "contractors who actually use pickup trucks to haul stuff regularly" market.
Incidentally my first two cars were a 1984 Chevy Celebrity station wagon and a 1989 Buick Regal coupe. The latter's claim to fame were bogus "automatic seat belts" that basically amounted to letting you keep the seat belt buckled when you opened the door (there was no motor involved in the process), no doubt implemented to con NHTSA into giving them some sort of production credits for implementing this innovative "safety feature." Mine also leaked oil like nobody's business. Good times.
Oh I agree they won't ever hold a candle of that market share that hybrids already inhabit but I doubt they'll go away given how much of the tooling is already paid for out of the European market...there will always be a niche of people who want them and the infrastructure isn't going to go away. I just don't see the same taint that those cars 30-40 years ago had with billowing black soot coming out of the tailpipe and wonky quality controls.
Some of the videos that have been shown on this site show the manually "emergency release" some of those automatic seat belts had. That's design was a complete joke and I'm not sure from what angle that was considered a safer alternative to the conventional harness setup that the driver had to use. But then again I seem to remember a lot of people even back in the 80s still refused to wear seat belts and a lot states didn't require them for the back seats.
Quote from: Takumi on June 30, 2016, 08:00:06 PM
I drove one of these in college. 302, 2WD, column shifter auto, extended cab, blue/blue/blue. I could bury the needle at about 90. Also, he gets locking diffs wrong, as many commenters have pointed out.
https://youtu.be/YAWBXji6itc
I had a red extended cab 97 Silverado with a Vortec 350 and 4x4. I remember buying that thing from my Dad since he buried on the cheap since he turned over 100,000 way too fast. God that thing was capable, it could tow, carry and go over about anything that I could find out in the desert. I ever pulled the bumper off and repaired a dent which chipped off some paint and caused a rust spot under the bumper. As much utility as that thing had it was sure a POS as far as build quality went, I somehow managed to lose six fuel injectors all in one shot.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 01, 2016, 07:06:08 AM
That manual should have been an option on the Road Master and Impala SS, that makes a hell of a difference in performance.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 01, 2016, 12:09:05 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on June 30, 2016, 11:58:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 27, 2016, 04:02:52 PM
I don't know about that, a lot of people are saying that whole VW scandal has the same taint as those horrid GM diesel offerings. It's not like they are cranking out puffy black clouds of soot....out of sight and out of mind. At least that's how the story has gone; it was being presented as doomsday for VW and while it's going to cost them a crap ton of money that certainly didn't turn out to be the case. The people who cheated those emissions got busted which just means the technology will have to improve and given how much of a footprint diesel has in Europe it likely will. Now will that translate into mainstream American sales?....probably not outside of the heavy duty truck buyer but it will be something just like all the other alternate powertrains.
Diesel wins in Europe because in most countries there's a huge tax advantage for diesel over gasoline, in part because most European countries rely much heavily on trucking for freight than we do, especially now that coal is basically dead - Switzerland basically had to build a freight rail tunnel and ban through trucking to shift transcontinental trucks between Germany and Italy off their roads. Here the taxation levels are fairly similar and until very, very recently the price advantage for gasoline even on a per-gallon basis was substantial due to the ultra-low sulfur transition jacking up diesel prices.
The fact diesel isn't even being used in constant-RPM applications like plug-in hybrid cars in North America, where diesel might work out more cost-efficient than gasoline at US prices at small car scale, suggests there's no real future in diesel here except in buses, trucking, and rail, along with the "contractors who actually use pickup trucks to haul stuff regularly" market.
Incidentally my first two cars were a 1984 Chevy Celebrity station wagon and a 1989 Buick Regal coupe. The latter's claim to fame were bogus "automatic seat belts" that basically amounted to letting you keep the seat belt buckled when you opened the door (there was no motor involved in the process), no doubt implemented to con NHTSA into giving them some sort of production credits for implementing this innovative "safety feature." Mine also leaked oil like nobody's business. Good times.
Oh I agree they won't ever hold a candle of that market share that hybrids already inhabit but I doubt they'll go away given how much of the tooling is already paid for out of the European market...there will always be a niche of people who want them and the infrastructure isn't going to go away. I just don't see the same taint that those cars 30-40 years ago had with billowing black soot coming out of the tailpipe and wonky quality controls.
Some of the videos that have been shown on this site show the manually "emergency release" some of those automatic seat belts had. That's design was a complete joke and I'm not sure from what angle that was considered a safer alternative to the conventional harness setup that the driver had to use. But then again I seem to remember a lot of people even back in the 80s still refused to wear seat belts and a lot states didn't require them for the back seats.
Another factor to consider about Europe is that their local refining capacity is set up much more for diesel than in the Western Hemisphere.
Automatic seatbelts were required by the 1990 or so if the vehicle wasn't equipped with a driver's airbag. That's my so many early '90s Japanese cars had them since the JDM was slower to require airbags. Automatic belts were cheaper to implement here than airbags. The later passenger airbag requirement is also why a lot of cars that were nearing the end of their generation still got all new dashes for the mid-'90s such as the GM-10s and Thunderbirds discussed earlier.
Yeah it's kind of amazing looking at a lot of the 80s and 90s videos and seeing airbags or anti-lock brakes as being "optional" equipment. Even in the last two decades....weight gains aside, the advances in automotive safety have been huge. It wasn't just the Japanese, pretty much everyone was like that to one extent or the other.
That's true which is why it makes it a lot easier for a European make to offer a low volume diesel passenger car since they already have a market driving supply prices down.
Also in the '80s, the cars finally quit stopping crooked. If you watch those Motorweek retro reviews cars were still trying to loop in the early '80s during panic stops like it was the goddamn '20s or something. By the late '80s all cars, even ones of the same generation, almost all stopped straight. I don't know if it was better tires, calipers, pads, lines, seals or all of the above but they finally nailed that. Brand new '82 Camaros were still trying to get out of hand but my '87 IROC still stops straight as an arrow at autocross despite having 30-year-old, original, unrebuilt calipers.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 01, 2016, 10:44:48 PM
Also in the '80s, the cars finally quit stopping crooked. If you watch those Motorweek retro reviews cars were still trying to loop in the early '80s during panic stops like it was the goddamn '20s or something. By the late '80s all cars, even ones of the same generation, almost all stopped straight. I don't know if it was better tires, calipers, pads, lines, seals or all of the above but they finally nailed that. Brand new '82 Camaros were still trying to get out of hand but my '87 IROC still stops straight as an arrow at autocross despite having 30-year-old, original, unrebuilt calipers.
The real scary thing is that a lot of the early Motorweek tests were from 30 MPH and they were getting out shape. It's probably a combination of all the above improving over time. Tires are one of the biggest improvements pretty much on any vintage car. It's amazing to thing that they were skating around on 14 or 15 inch rims 5 or 6 inches wide back in the 60s.
The MN12 thunderbird was supposed to have an update for 1998. New nose, no v6, a more powerful optional v8, stuff like that. Ford decided to kill it off late in the game. To the Point that the 1999 Taurus SHO uses the wheels intended for the 1998 T-bird, just with the backspacing altered to poke it out more on the MN12. May/June 1997 is the time frame for the canceling of the 1998 model year. That is why they kept making 1997 models until Sept 1997. The 1994 update to the interior was to correct the flawed 1989 interior that was a bit of a rush job. They decided to hold off on the 4.6L and a face lift until 1994 so they had many new items to market at once. 1996 was a upgrade to the nose to fit the revised intake 4.6L engine, that was taller. Hence why if you look at a 1995 nose and the 1996 nose mine has, that the 1996 has no crease down the middle, and has more escort like bulging.
It's not unheard of that a production year runs long if a model is ending production. The Honda Prelude was produced until October 2001, with cars produced in the last few months still getting 2001 model year VINs and other info. Enough 2001s were leftover at the end of the year that a few thousand were in dealer inventory in 2002, and a handful didn't even get sold until 2003.
Quote from: Takumi on July 01, 2016, 11:38:25 PM
It's not unheard of that a production year runs long if a model is ending production. The Honda Prelude was produced until October 2001, with cars produced in the last few months still getting 2001 model year VINs and other info. Enough 2001s were leftover at the end of the year that a few thousand were in dealer inventory in 2002, and a handful didn't even get sold until 2003.
The Cadillac XLR dragged on like that for years with unsold vehicles. A bunch of 09s were sold in 2010 and 2011...but I think they were all called 2009s.
In a similar vein, the Chrysler Crossfire wasn't produced in large numbers, but sold poorly enough that DaimlerChrysler attempted to move the inventory via Overstock.com - and that didn't really work well either.
In the DCX days, the mantra was to run the plants at full tilt and simply rent as many open paved spaces in and around southeastern Michigan to park all the overproduced vehicles. Ultimately they were moved into fleets or incentivized heavily for dealers to take them.
With motorcycles, "non-current" models can lead to big savings. I remember living in Appalachia before a lot of the smaller bike shops closed and seeing plenty of unprepped 3-year-old bikes selling for deep discounts such as a 1999 Kawasaki KDX220 looking new, sexy and cheap in 2003. Of course I was in college then and couldn't scrape up $2 to buy an Atari 7800 I spotted at Goodwill. Fast forward 13 years and I'm sitting on $100,000 worth of video games.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 02, 2016, 12:01:49 AM
With motorcycles, "non-current" models can lead to big savings. I remember living in Appalachia before a lot of the smaller bike shops closed and seeing plenty of unprepped 3-year-old bikes selling for deep discounts such as a 1999 Kawasaki KDX220 looking new, sexy and cheap in 2003. Of course I was in college then and couldn't scrape up $2 to buy an Atari 7800 I spotted at Goodwill. Fast forward 13 years and I'm sitting on $100,000 worth of video games.
Funny how that works over time. I tried to sell I collection of games I had when I was younger back in 09 which included the following systems for $500:
- NES
- SNES
- Gameboy
- Gameboy Color
- Gameboy Advance
- N64
- Game Cube
- Sega Genesis
- Sega CD
- Game Gear
- Atari 2600
- PS1
- PS2
- PS3
I couldn't even get a wiff for all those systems and games...so I kept them. They probably aren't worth much...but they certainly would be worth way more than $500 I was asking back then. They look great on the mantle now...and I pick some older stuff up to kill some time now and then. It's funny how things swing around so quickly on value sometimes...I see the 4th Gen F-Body kind of going through something like that even since the 2010 Camaro.
Most systems aren't going to see major spikes in the near future since systems are too common. But games that aren't too common can go nuts at almost any time these days as long as they are over 12-15 years old.
When ford designed my car, they went after bmw. That meant coilovers in the front with a short/long arm (wishbone upper, odd shaped lower, 2 ball joints) front suspension. And a Independent rear suspension. To make it super smooth they went with front and rear subframes. Meaning that this taurus sized car with a 1.3 inch shorter than the crown vic wheelbase, weighed 3,500-3,800 lbs depending on engine. The design team was called out on this, it was too heavy, and 900 dollars too expensive per car. Yet it was in production for late 1988-late 1997. The V8 was missed until the 1991 model year when the 302 was shoehorned into a engine bay designed for a 3.8L v6. Later the 4.6L got shoe horned in. Thanks to the T-Bird you got the V8 Explorer. they literally just took the modifications they did to make it work on the thunderbird for size, an put it into the ranger based explorer. Friend of mine who loved crown vics for the longest time says this about how the MN12 handles. "It rides smooth like my crown vic, and handles the bigger road imperfections better, the crown vic handles the small bumps a lot better, but when you push this car, it will just take off and have fun" Passive rear wheel steering, and having my rear camber set to 0 makes that a lot more obvious. The factory setup was to give it a little bit of understeer, set it up the way mine is with 0 degrees of camber, and you get a more compliant tail, that is fun around bends. It does have one fun thing about it in terms of looks. If you get a 1996/1997 V8 no badging to say it is a v8, and thanks to ford being ford, you got wheels that make it look like a taurus. With a FWD style (for the 90s at least) offset. No v8 badge, just a dual exhaust and a v8 engine note if you pay attention to the sound. I've had people think they were front wheel drive like the 90s monte carlo.
My folks had a '97 T-Bird. With the 3.8, no limited slip and the smaller, crumbly Firestones it was considerably less fun than one with a 302, limited slip and decent tires. I wouldn't mind dalilying say a '94 with all those things.
Here we go:
That's about the most cheesy thing ever that AMC actually made a Levi's edition Gremlin. :-D
I'd love to see GM try a modern version of this with AWD slammed version of the GMC Canyon with the 464hp turbo 3.6L LF4:
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 02, 2016, 11:26:02 AM
My folks had a '97 T-Bird. With the 3.8, no limited slip and the smaller, crumbly Firestones it was considerably less fun than one with a 302, limited slip and decent tires. I wouldn't mind dalilying say a '94 with all those things.
1994-1997 had the 4.6L for the v8. i lack a limited slip. on the t-bird those will kick you out in the snow something fierce.
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
Didn't a lot of those midwestern states outright ban studded snow tires and chains? I could swear I remember told me a law like that passed in Michigan after I was gone for a couple years?
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
the Mod is a lot faster in that car, plus no automatic belts on the 1994+
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 03, 2016, 03:12:16 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
the Mod is a lot faster in that car, plus no automatic belts on the 1994+
I had an 02 Mustang GT with a 4.6L Modular in it. The thing was way under powered which was likely due to it having only two valves per cylinder despite being overhead cam. I always preferred the 5.7LT1 and 5.7L LS1 which the F-bodies were using at the time the SN95 platform was being since they had so much torque due to the displacement. The SN95 had a couple hundred pound weight advantage which helped even the odds...I think my Mustang was a tick under 3,300 for curb weight while the non-convertible V8 F-Bodies were about 3,600 if memory serves. Ford really shot themselves in the foot by sticking with the 4.6L Modular in 2010 when the Camaro came out with the LS3 which was producing 426hp versus the 315hp the modular was cranking out 315hp. Granted Ford switched to the 5.0 Coyote for 2011 but they really let the Camaro get a bigger foothold than it should have had that first model year.
Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 09:40:55 AM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
Didn't a lot of those midwestern states outright ban studded snow tires and chains? I could swear I remember told me a law like that passed in Michigan after I was gone for a couple years?
Probably. I've never seen chains in Ohio. I was thinking of unstudded ones like Blizzaks.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:25:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 09:40:55 AM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
Didn't a lot of those midwestern states outright ban studded snow tires and chains? I could swear I remember told me a law like that passed in Michigan after I was gone for a couple years?
Probably. I've never seen chains in Ohio. I was thinking of unstudded ones like Blizzaks.
Apparently chains are still okay provided the weather is good enough they don't contact the road surface. Apparently studded tires have been banned since 1949....guess the Michigan State Legislature didn't account for my high school automotive class and my Dad's garage with all their homemade winter tread bolts. :-D
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dwg0ycv2asuanoxj41orkfex))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-257-709&relation=next
I wonder though...given some Canadian provinces require snow tires in the winter if the rubberized studs really cause that much excess wear that Michigan seems to think they do. Regardless I find it greatly amusing when I have my family out here in California from the Midwest in the winter time. I've popped the trunk a couple times and asked them to check for the snow chains....usually it's my little act of payback for all those unfounded implications that I can't drive in winter weather anymore.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 05:02:29 PM
Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/
I read it, and agree on everything except for one point: Parking Ease. The words below don't explain the point very well. What exactly makes it more space efficient on the outside than sedans? Are hatchbacks typically shorter than their sedan counterparts? It seems to me that they basically repeated their point about more utility. BTW, I like sedans more.
Ummm, also can we talk about the serious road pr0n in these early to mid '80s Motorweek retro reviews? I don't have the time right now to lovingly craft a thread about all the unopened I-68, US-48 and other Western Maryland roads that have probably been upgraded by now, but the pr0n is serious. I'll have to leave it to others. I'm in the process of moving.
Quote from: billtm on July 03, 2016, 10:07:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 05:02:29 PM
Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/
I read it, and agree on everything except for one point: Parking Ease. The words below don't explain the point very well. What exactly makes it more space efficient on the outside than sedans? Are hatchbacks typically shorter than their sedan counterparts? It seems to me that they basically repeated their point about more utility. BTW, I like sedans more.
Yeah I don't agree with them on that point myself. Even the most car like CUV usually has a longer turning circle than a car does. The only thing I can think they were referring too was maybe ease of seeing out of the hood? Turning into the spot and backing out certainly is nowhere near as easy as it is in a sedan.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 10:12:04 PM
Ummm, also can we talk about the serious road pr0n in these early to mid '80s Motorweek retro reviews? I don't have the time right now to lovingly craft a thread about all the unopened I-68, US-48 and other Western Maryland roads that have probably been upgraded by now, but the pr0n is serious. I'll have to leave it to others. I'm in the process of moving.
There is really good stuff in those early reviews that show how far a lot of those east coast roads have come. I'm amazed they have stuck it out with Roebling Road Raceway almost all these years...I want to know where the hell they were trying to do all those tests on whatever iced over course they were at in 1982.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 03:17:33 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 03, 2016, 03:12:16 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
the Mod is a lot faster in that car, plus no automatic belts on the 1994+
I had an 02 Mustang GT with a 4.6L Modular in it. The thing was way under powered which was likely due to it having only two valves per cylinder despite being overhead cam. I always preferred the 5.7LT1 and 5.7L LS1 which the F-bodies were using at the time the SN95 platform was being since they had so much torque due to the displacement. The SN95 had a couple hundred pound weight advantage which helped even the odds...I think my Mustang was a tick under 3,300 for curb weight while the non-convertible V8 F-Bodies were about 3,600 if memory serves. Ford really shot themselves in the foot by sticking with the 4.6L Modular in 2010 when the Camaro came out with the LS3 which was producing 426hp versus the 315hp the modular was cranking out 315hp. Granted Ford switched to the 5.0 Coyote for 2011 but they really let the Camaro get a bigger foothold than it should have had that first model year.
In my car it has the 3.27:1 rear, with the Ford 4R70W transmission. Which nets it a 0-60 stock of 7.9 for a 3,800 Lb Car. I have the later intake that people say is good for power, at least 5-10 horses. and a modified transmission valve body for faster shifts and less wear, that thing will take off despite being an early 4.6L 2 valve. The 4.6L is a bullet proof engine for the most part, as long as you take care of the 1996-2001 or so plastic crossover on the intake for the coolant, 1991-1995 ones have an aluminum one that is harder for the air to get through, for the entire intake, and also ahve a oil burn issue due to bad valve guide seals. Teething issues on the new design. Once you get used to how the 4.6L delivers power, you get a good bit of fun out of it. Plus getting 27mpg highway in my car with performance tires, not bad.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 05:54:18 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 03:17:33 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 03, 2016, 03:12:16 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
the Mod is a lot faster in that car, plus no automatic belts on the 1994+
I had an 02 Mustang GT with a 4.6L Modular in it. The thing was way under powered which was likely due to it having only two valves per cylinder despite being overhead cam. I always preferred the 5.7LT1 and 5.7L LS1 which the F-bodies were using at the time the SN95 platform was being since they had so much torque due to the displacement. The SN95 had a couple hundred pound weight advantage which helped even the odds...I think my Mustang was a tick under 3,300 for curb weight while the non-convertible V8 F-Bodies were about 3,600 if memory serves. Ford really shot themselves in the foot by sticking with the 4.6L Modular in 2010 when the Camaro came out with the LS3 which was producing 426hp versus the 315hp the modular was cranking out 315hp. Granted Ford switched to the 5.0 Coyote for 2011 but they really let the Camaro get a bigger foothold than it should have had that first model year.
In my car it has the 3.27:1 rear, with the Ford 4R70W transmission. Which nets it a 0-60 stock of 7.9 for a 3,800 Lb Car. I have the later intake that people say is good for power, at least 5-10 horses. and a modified transmission valve body for faster shifts and less wear, that thing will take off despite being an early 4.6L 2 valve. The 4.6L is a bullet proof engine for the most part, as long as you take care of the 1996-2001 or so plastic crossover on the intake for the coolant, 1991-1995 ones have an aluminum one that is harder for the air to get through, for the entire intake, and also ahve a oil burn issue due to bad valve guide seals. Teething issues on the new design. Once you get used to how the 4.6L delivers power, you get a good bit of fun out of it. Plus getting 27mpg highway in my car with performance tires, not bad.
For it's displacement it was a decent producer, especially considering most of them before 2005 only had two valves...which when you think about it was really strange given it was overhead cam. I want to say the 05 Mustang GT had a three valve version which really helped increase power when it came out but Ford was capable of getting a lot more out of it with four valve versions that pulled 320hp. The problem for Mustang guys was that GM could say that the LS1 was only getting 305hp all they wanted, it wasn't detuned at all from the Corvette where it was pulling 350hp. In the early 90s the modular was cutting edge but it was completely outpaced by 98 when the F-bodies were getting the LS1.
New today....can't believe he snuck a Gary Johnson reference in there, almost nobody is going to get the joke. :-D
Not exactly on-topic but I had to post this here:
I remember reading about this car about 10 years ago in I want to say Hemmings Muscle Machines. There was also a Crown Vic that CHP had with a 5.4L Supercharged engine out of a Ford GT.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 07:43:11 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 05:54:18 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 03:17:33 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 03, 2016, 03:12:16 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 03, 2016, 09:32:51 AM
'93 it is then. I'm not a Mod motor guy. Winter tires would have to be snows in the smaller size. I could go anywhere I wanted in nasty Cincinnati storms with the 944 I had fitted with snows.
the Mod is a lot faster in that car, plus no automatic belts on the 1994+
I had an 02 Mustang GT with a 4.6L Modular in it. The thing was way under powered which was likely due to it having only two valves per cylinder despite being overhead cam. I always preferred the 5.7LT1 and 5.7L LS1 which the F-bodies were using at the time the SN95 platform was being since they had so much torque due to the displacement. The SN95 had a couple hundred pound weight advantage which helped even the odds...I think my Mustang was a tick under 3,300 for curb weight while the non-convertible V8 F-Bodies were about 3,600 if memory serves. Ford really shot themselves in the foot by sticking with the 4.6L Modular in 2010 when the Camaro came out with the LS3 which was producing 426hp versus the 315hp the modular was cranking out 315hp. Granted Ford switched to the 5.0 Coyote for 2011 but they really let the Camaro get a bigger foothold than it should have had that first model year.
In my car it has the 3.27:1 rear, with the Ford 4R70W transmission. Which nets it a 0-60 stock of 7.9 for a 3,800 Lb Car. I have the later intake that people say is good for power, at least 5-10 horses. and a modified transmission valve body for faster shifts and less wear, that thing will take off despite being an early 4.6L 2 valve. The 4.6L is a bullet proof engine for the most part, as long as you take care of the 1996-2001 or so plastic crossover on the intake for the coolant, 1991-1995 ones have an aluminum one that is harder for the air to get through, for the entire intake, and also ahve a oil burn issue due to bad valve guide seals. Teething issues on the new design. Once you get used to how the 4.6L delivers power, you get a good bit of fun out of it. Plus getting 27mpg highway in my car with performance tires, not bad.
For it's displacement it was a decent producer, especially considering most of them before 2005 only had two valves...which when you think about it was really strange given it was overhead cam. I want to say the 05 Mustang GT had a three valve version which really helped increase power when it came out but Ford was capable of getting a lot more out of it with four valve versions that pulled 320hp. The problem for Mustang guys was that GM could say that the LS1 was only getting 305hp all they wanted, it wasn't detuned at all from the Corvette where it was pulling 350hp. In the early 90s the modular was cutting edge but it was completely outpaced by 98 when the F-bodies were getting the LS1.
The 1990s 4.6L stuffered from poor breathing, that is why until 1998/1999 it only put out 190-220hp, in 1999 they designed new heads, bumping the mustang up to 260hp. They used two valve since that allowed for wider valve spacing and lower cost when they first started with the engine, 1993 you got the DOHC 4 Valve model with 280 horse power and all aluminum. 290 by 1996, 305 in 1996 for a cobra. 1999/2000 cobra had 320hp, on 93 octane fuel.
For 2005 ford developed the three valve version, which made 300hp and 320lbft on 87 octane. Later 315/325. the 3V was developed in Australia, and later used on ours. It is cheaper to build than the 4v and actually has the same performance. The 5.0L Coyote is the 4.6L equivlent to the 1990s LS1, where it is built around the same tooling, but is mostly a clean sheet engine. Ford figured that 1991-2010 was about the amount of development the 1990s emissions era engine could deal with. It was designed for Mpg and Emissions, and later got developed into a powerhouse. The 302 for example had a smog pump, the 4.6L does not.
Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things. I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version. That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 05:02:29 PM
Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/
The ride height is probably the only reason I would want any type of crossover. It's so damn annoying trying to turn when some other car blocks your sight. Even then, I would want pretty small crossovers, a good example of such being the Honda HR-V.
I would have replaced the Rocket 88 with the 55 Chevy or 64 Pontiac GTO. I don't tend to really lump pony cars and muscle cars in the same category...but it looked like they were trying to call the Rocket 88 the first muscle car?
http://www.motortrend.com/news/top-10-greatest-american-cars-of-all-time/
Quote from: Zeffy on July 04, 2016, 02:16:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 03, 2016, 05:02:29 PM
Looks like Motortrend had their own take on the Sedan versus CUV debate:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/four-reasons-buy-sedan-small-crossover-five-reasons-not/
The ride height is probably the only reason I would want any type of crossover. It's so damn annoying trying to turn when some other car blocks your sight. Even then, I would want pretty small crossovers, a good example of such being the Honda HR-V.
Even height position of the seat could make a difference in that regard. A lot of those smaller wagons like the PT Cruiser and HHR had a more CUV-like upright seat that let you see better down the road. I feel like I practically have to lean out the window to look for oncoming traffic in a car since so many people like to hug the center stripe these days.
I thought this was an interesting story on the 2016 Camaro getting incentives:
http://www.torquenews.com/106/camaro-sales-drop-2-year-low-mustang-continues-dominate
The great irony is this...go back to 2010 and the Camaro was the bargain out of the three pony cars that were on the market. I bought my 2011 1SS for about 31.5k before taxes....now it's almost 39k for the same trim level on the 2016 model. Back in 2010 the Camaro had well over 100 more horsepower than the cheaper Mustang....and well the Challenger...was underpowered and overpriced. Come 2016 the Challenger has shifted down in price by a ton and the Mustang has stayed the lowest priced entry into the segment. More than anything else the 39k for for a 1SS 2016 Camaro is what really turned me off from buying one, I spent similar money on an R/T Challenger Scat Pack...and given the content of the car it was a bargain. I could have had an R/T Challenger for 32k and a Mustang GT for 31.5k....so why the hell is the 1SS running 39K for the entry level V8 package? Not to mention the color palette is boring as all hell on the Camaro and the current styling (while very pretty) really backed off from the muscular origins that were part of previous generation being so popular.
Even 26k for the entry level Camaro is a little much... Maybe by the time 2020 rolls around the Sonic is ready to give up the ghost I can find a base level Camaro with a Turbo-4 that has some incentives on it?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 02:09:52 PM
Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things. I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version. That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane.
The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.
The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 02:09:52 PM
Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things. I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version. That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane.
The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.
The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.
Funny, the LS3 and L99 in the Camaro actually allowed 87 octane with a retarded spark. The only problem is that you had a pull a couple fuses because the computer wouldn't know to go back to normal spark on it's own. Even still, it's a lot better than having to worry about getting gummed out gas at the pump or accidental knocking by putting 87 octane in by mistake to a car that was meant for 91.
It's too bad that the Panther never got some of the improved versions of the 4.6L that would come out in 05. The Marauder had the the DOHC version that the Mach 1 SN95 and it made a huge difference getting that car to go. If I recall correctly the Marauder had a lot of the upgrades from the Interceptor Crown Vic; specifically suspension and brakes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 05:27:11 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 02:09:52 PM
Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things. I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version. That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane.
The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.
The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.
Funny, the LS3 and L99 in the Camaro actually allowed 87 octane with a retarded spark. The only problem is that you had a pull a couple fuses because the computer wouldn't know to go back to normal spark on it's own. Even still, it's a lot better than having to worry about getting gummed out gas at the pump or accidental knocking by putting 87 octane in by mistake to a car that was meant for 91.
It's too bad that the Panther never got some of the improved versions of the 4.6L that would come out in 05. The Marauder had the the DOHC version that the Mach 1 SN95 and it made a huge difference getting that car to go. If I recall correctly the Marauder had a lot of the upgrades from the Interceptor Crown Vic; specifically suspension and brakes.
It basically was a Police Interceptor, without the increased ride height, but stiffer ride, better built in general. The main reason the crown vic kept the 4.6L 2v was because it was standardized. Everyone can work on it nowadays, and keeping fleet cars on the same engine design makes sense. By the early 2000s fleets were the main buyers of panther platform vehicles. Same reason why the 3.0L Vulcan was kept around until 2007. It was cheap, easy to work on, and proven.
Ford dumped money into the crown vic in 2003, to make it drive better, with rack and pinion steering, newer shocks, moving them outboard for servicablity, hydroformed frame, etc. but that was mostly to just make it easier to build.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 06:17:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 05:27:11 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 02:09:52 PM
Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things. I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version. That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane.
The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.
The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.
Funny, the LS3 and L99 in the Camaro actually allowed 87 octane with a retarded spark. The only problem is that you had a pull a couple fuses because the computer wouldn't know to go back to normal spark on it's own. Even still, it's a lot better than having to worry about getting gummed out gas at the pump or accidental knocking by putting 87 octane in by mistake to a car that was meant for 91.
It's too bad that the Panther never got some of the improved versions of the 4.6L that would come out in 05. The Marauder had the the DOHC version that the Mach 1 SN95 and it made a huge difference getting that car to go. If I recall correctly the Marauder had a lot of the upgrades from the Interceptor Crown Vic; specifically suspension and brakes.
It basically was a Police Interceptor, without the increased ride height, but stiffer ride, better built in general. The main reason the crown vic kept the 4.6L 2v was because it was standardized. Everyone can work on it nowadays, and keeping fleet cars on the same engine design makes sense. By the early 2000s fleets were the main buyers of panther platform vehicles. Same reason why the 3.0L Vulcan was kept around until 2007. It was cheap, easy to work on, and proven.
Ford dumped money into the crown vic in 2003, to make it drive better, with rack and pinion steering, newer shocks, moving them outboard for servicablity, hydroformed frame, etc. but that was mostly to just make it easier to build.
It's too bad they never made a new body-on-frame platform to follow up the Panther, seems like the fleet purchasers would prefer them to uni-bodies. It would be interesting to see how much profit that Panther had given the age of the platform when it was discontinued. Granted I don't know how much business that would really draw...but GM seemed to be making the case with drawing out the W-Body basically for that purpose until last year I believe?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 06:53:06 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 06:17:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 05:27:11 PM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 02:09:52 PM
Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things. I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version. That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane.
The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.
The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.
Funny, the LS3 and L99 in the Camaro actually allowed 87 octane with a retarded spark. The only problem is that you had a pull a couple fuses because the computer wouldn't know to go back to normal spark on it's own. Even still, it's a lot better than having to worry about getting gummed out gas at the pump or accidental knocking by putting 87 octane in by mistake to a car that was meant for 91.
It's too bad that the Panther never got some of the improved versions of the 4.6L that would come out in 05. The Marauder had the the DOHC version that the Mach 1 SN95 and it made a huge difference getting that car to go. If I recall correctly the Marauder had a lot of the upgrades from the Interceptor Crown Vic; specifically suspension and brakes.
It basically was a Police Interceptor, without the increased ride height, but stiffer ride, better built in general. The main reason the crown vic kept the 4.6L 2v was because it was standardized. Everyone can work on it nowadays, and keeping fleet cars on the same engine design makes sense. By the early 2000s fleets were the main buyers of panther platform vehicles. Same reason why the 3.0L Vulcan was kept around until 2007. It was cheap, easy to work on, and proven.
Ford dumped money into the crown vic in 2003, to make it drive better, with rack and pinion steering, newer shocks, moving them outboard for servicablity, hydroformed frame, etc. but that was mostly to just make it easier to build.
It's too bad they never made a new body-on-frame platform to follow up the Panther, seems like the fleet purchasers would prefer them to uni-bodies. It would be interesting to see how much profit that Panther had given the age of the platform when it was discontinued. Granted I don't know how much business that would really draw...but GM seemed to be making the case with drawing out the W-Body basically for that purpose until last year I believe?
The W Body is in production for this year. 2017 no more W Body Impala. The Dodge Charger and Caprice proved that police departments are 100% okay with unibody. NYC is moving away from v8 taxis to the Nissan/Chevy micro-van thing. The ford Transit connect, etc. Due to Emissions and Mpg they are wanting to move away from the gas hogs of the crown vic. Back in the day it was the Checker Taxi, which was almost unchanged between the 50s and the 80s, then in 1998 it was pretty much standardized on the crown victoria, which was kept unchanged for the most part until 2011. All door panels fit between 1998 and 2011, Grand Marquis doors fit 1992-2011, etc. They standardized the body on the 1992 grand marquis roofline instead of the 1992 more open crown victoria roof.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Ford-Crown-Vic.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/1995-97_Mercury_Grand_Marquis.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/98-07_Ford_Crown_Victoria.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/1998-2002_Mercury_Grand_Marquis_--_09-27-2010_1.jpg)
I don't know, there seems to be a lot of departments who like to use the Tahoe Police Package over the cars due them being body-on-frame. The common complaints with the uni-body cars are that they don't have anywhere near the room the Crown Vic did for all the gear up front and they aren't as rugged given the uni-body construction. But you really hit on the issue at hand, the EPA requirements are going up and a big huge car is going to be difficult to engineer with maximum efficiency. I there was some third party company that was working on an exclusive police patrol package but it never panned out when all of the Big Three put out a sedan offering for police duty...I guess they were going for a whatever spot Checker was occupying in the market back in it's time.
For the life of me I can't find any articles or videos of the CHP 5.4L Supercharged Crown Vic that they had as a demonstration vehicle. I remember reading about it in Hemmings Muscle Machines about a decade ago and it was an absolute beast.
I believe it was Carbon Motors working on that specific police-only vehicle. It fell through.
A friend that works for a vehicle upfitter notes that once the cage and other gear is installed, all 3 of today's police packages - Charger, Taurus, and Impala - are VERY tight for a fully loaded officer to get in and out of.
Locally, some locations use the police-spec Tahoes but more have opted for the Explorer Police Interceptors based on interior room. FCA is out of that market because they have not opted to create an actual police-spec Dodge Durango (but they do get sold and outfitted for support - ie; non-pursuit - duties.)
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 04, 2016, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 02:09:52 PM
Funny to think that pretty much everyone thought that central cam engine were going to die out but here we got GM and Chrysler full of V-8 varieties to this very day...the Hemi is even still an iron-block out of all things. I could have sworn that Ford had the 4.6L 16 value up to 240hp at some point before the bump to 260?...maybe I'm thinking of the Panther platform version. That's surprising though...I didn't know the 05 three valve 4.6L actually ran on 87 octane.
The 4.6L 2V had various HP ratings, mustang got 260, crown vic got 239 for dual exhaust, 250 for cop, and i think 230 or so for single exhuast crown vics. I think they used a more conservative tune for the civilian models to keep the engine under stressed for long term use and lower rpm torque.
The 3V and DOHC can run on 87, so can the Coyote. 412hp on 91, 402 on 87. "Using premium grade, 91-octane or better gasoline, the new 5.0 L V8 could produce 412 bhp (307 kW) @ 6500rpm and 390 lb·ft (529 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm. Output of the 5.0 drops to 402 bhp (300 kW) @ 6500rpm and 377 lb·ft (511 N·m) of torque @ 4250rpm when regular grade gasoline is used." This is a non direct injected v8.
Yep, my wife's 2012 is 412hp, my 2014 is 420hp.
The new S550 Mustang's have 435hp Coyotes.
I had always preferred the torque delivery of a pushrod V8 better, but, I gotta admit, these Coyote's are real screamers, they freely rev all the way up to just short of 7K rpm in stock form (the FRP tune has them going up to 7,300 rpm or so-hence the lower powertrain warranty at 36K miles, lol).
I have had several 4.6L 2V vehicles over the years and I enjoyed them all, both car and truck. I also had one 5.4L 3v (my 04 F150) and it was ok. Its just that my truck was so heavy that matting the gas amounted to more noise than actual forward motion. My 97 F150 with the 4.6L felt quicker, but it probably wasn't.
With the 4.6L, if it is mated to the AOD-E or AOD, it is a real dog. The gearing on that transmission is just out of whack for the motor. Yes, there are two years the AOD was used on a 4.6L Car, 1991/early 1992 town car and early 1992 crown vics. i know someone with a bolt in 302 swap on a 1992 crown vic thanks to that. The 4R70W has a lot better gearing, allowing for better acceleration. The 1990s was the time when they could start doing that again, giving you a transmission with a 1st and 2nd that can get you going fast, without worrying about a big mpg hit on the EPA testing, since the rest of the engine is efficent. The 4.6L In the mustang was never mated to the Tremec T-5 for example, just the V6. The 4.6L until 2001 used the T45, and then the TR-3650 for 2001+.
http://www.moderndriveline.com/Technical_Bits/tremec_t45.htm
The Marauder needed more torque that came at a lower RPM. Fantasizing about a factory 5.4 Marauder. It was a big, heavy car and I'd argue that the early Mod motors didn't even make enough torque to be in a Mustang. I remember going to the dragstrip in 1997 and I lined up against a 1996 Cobra. Assuming the car was running right, and I will since the car was only a year old, the guy was only able to coax 15.5s out of it. I walked him by running a 14.1 in my IROC-Z. I didn't see it since I was messing with tire pressures, but according to my friends afterward the guy flipped out, pulled out of grid and left the facility in a huff. I don't know if the guy wasn't good at driving it (it was only my second time at the strip ever) or if it was a manual or automatic.
The 1996-1998 SN95s were just underpowered for the amount of complexity you had to deal with. A lot of people say to avoid 96-98s and I agree. Granted a '94-'95 only makes "215hp
", but I say they are underrated whereas the 96-98s were overrated. And I just like the 302 better than the pre-'05 non-Terminator Modulars. B-cam, heads and bolt-ons 302 for the win.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 05, 2016, 09:33:26 PM
The Marauder needed more torque that came at a lower RPM. Fantasizing about a factory 5.4 Marauder. It was a big, heavy car and I'd argue that the early Mod motors didn't even make enough torque to be in a Mustang. I remember going to the dragstrip in 1997 and I lined up against a 1996 Cobra. Assuming the car was running right, and I will since the car was only a year old, the guy was only able to coax 15.5s out of it. I walked him by running a 14.1 in my IROC-Z. I didn't see it since I was messing with tire pressures, but according to my friends afterward the guy flipped out, pulled out of grid and left the facility in a huff. I don't know if the guy wasn't good at driving it (it was only my second time at the strip ever) or if it was a manual or automatic.
The 1996-1998 SN95s were just underpowered for the amount of complexity you had to deal with. A lot of people say to avoid 96-98s and I agree. Granted a '94-'95 only makes "215hp
", but I say they are underrated whereas the 96-98s were overrated. And I just like the 302 better than the pre-'05 non-Terminator Modulars. B-cam, heads and bolt-ons 302 for the win.
I guess it goes back the old adage about "no replacement for displacement," at least with pure torque that seems to ring true even until today. Even those neutered cam-in-block V8s in the 1970s usually had a huge disparity with torque figures in comparison to horsepower. That's why this is killing me that I can't find this CHP Interceptor with the super charged 5.4L...I suspect even the non boosted unit would have pushed quarter mile times well into the low or mid 14s.
215-220 hp for a 302 for the 1990s is right on the nose. That engine had some emissions issues going on, they had to run it on a more restrictive tune to keep it in check. The 4.6L just feels differnet on the butt dyno. It will get up and move, and will keep going up to red line, just ford limited them to 5,400 rpm on automatics, to keep the torque converter from blowing itself apart.
I can't help but laugh at all of these piss-poor power figures from these supposedly "good" engines. The 302 was garbage, the 4.6 was garbage, the SBC was garbage, the new LS is even garbage. This sorry state of horsepower is only in American cars. Give BMW 4.6 litres and they'll give you 350hp - and it was an SUV motor. GM can't even give you that with 5.3 litres.
And this new Mustang GT that runs a 13 flat - yet supposedly has 400hp - yeah, sure it does. The old M3 from 2000 ran a 13 flat and it only had 330hp. Another thing America is great at doing - inflating numbers.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 11:44:09 AM
Not exactly on-topic but I had to post this here:
I remember reading about this car about 10 years ago in I want to say Hemmings Muscle Machines. There was also a Crown Vic that CHP had with a 5.4L Supercharged engine out of a Ford GT.
A high school classmate had a Plymouth Fury a few years younger than this Dodge but with that 383 V8 and a 4 bbl carburetor. Fast off the line and fast at the top end too.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 11:44:09 AM
Not exactly on-topic but I had to post this here:
I remember reading about this car about 10 years ago in I want to say Hemmings Muscle Machines. There was also a Crown Vic that CHP had with a 5.4L Supercharged engine out of a Ford GT.
More CHP cars from Jay Leno's Garage.
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 08, 2016, 05:06:05 PM
I can't help but laugh at all of these piss-poor power figures from these supposedly "good" engines. The 302 was garbage, the 4.6 was garbage, the SBC was garbage, the new LS is even garbage. This sorry state of horsepower is only in American cars. Give BMW 4.6 litres and they'll give you 350hp - and it was an SUV motor. GM can't even give you that with 5.3 litres.
And this new Mustang GT that runs a 13 flat - yet supposedly has 400hp - yeah, sure it does. The old M3 from 2000 ran a 13 flat and it only had 330hp. Another thing America is great at doing - inflating numbers.
Probably has more to do with gearing more than anything else. Domestic brands are infamous for sloppy slow shifts while all the German makes along with some higher end Japanese models with the GTR have gotten technologies like the PDK transmission or anything twin-clutch. Besides there has been an inverse rumor about BMW for decades understating the power of the engines they put out, or that they were much closer pretty much to "wheel horsepower" than anyone else in the industry.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 08, 2016, 07:01:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 04, 2016, 11:44:09 AM
Not exactly on-topic but I had to post this here:
I remember reading about this car about 10 years ago in I want to say Hemmings Muscle Machines. There was also a Crown Vic that CHP had with a 5.4L Supercharged engine out of a Ford GT.
More CHP cars from Jay Leno's Garage.
Sweet, some light viewing material for dinner. Looks like there is a Fox Body pursuit special in that group of cars.
Some of the old rest areas on I-10 used to have posters of this CHP Camaro in them:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2217/2379554156_fba1a2c95c_z.jpg)
I was really hoping one would pop on ebay by now but alas...no luck. Michigan State Police was also a big user of the 3rd Generation Camaro back in the 80s...got me thinking about it when I saw that 82 Mustang Pursuit Car.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8225/8490946616_f7bccce7aa_z.jpg)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:17:05 PM
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 08, 2016, 05:06:05 PM
I can't help but laugh at all of these piss-poor power figures from these supposedly "good" engines. The 302 was garbage, the 4.6 was garbage, the SBC was garbage, the new LS is even garbage. This sorry state of horsepower is only in American cars. Give BMW 4.6 litres and they'll give you 350hp - and it was an SUV motor. GM can't even give you that with 5.3 litres.
And this new Mustang GT that runs a 13 flat - yet supposedly has 400hp - yeah, sure it does. The old M3 from 2000 ran a 13 flat and it only had 330hp. Another thing America is great at doing - inflating numbers.
Probably has more to do with gearing more than anything else. Domestic brands are infamous for sloppy slow shifts while all the German makes along with some higher end Japanese models with the GTR have gotten technologies like the PDK transmission or anything twin-clutch. Besides there has been an inverse rumor about BMW for decades understating the power of the engines they put out, or that they were much closer pretty much to "wheel horsepower" than anyone else in the industry.
It is also all about tolerences. A ford V8 will run for hundreds of hundreds of thousands of miles before needing a rebuild. A German engine will have tighter tolerances, and will need a valve adjustment among other things over time, due to how tight they are. a Ford V8 is designed for longevity not outright power. A understressed engine will last forever. Plus BMW engines run on 91 or 93 octane, ford tunes theirs for 87
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 09, 2016, 02:03:34 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2016, 10:17:05 PM
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 08, 2016, 05:06:05 PM
I can't help but laugh at all of these piss-poor power figures from these supposedly "good" engines. The 302 was garbage, the 4.6 was garbage, the SBC was garbage, the new LS is even garbage. This sorry state of horsepower is only in American cars. Give BMW 4.6 litres and they'll give you 350hp - and it was an SUV motor. GM can't even give you that with 5.3 litres.
And this new Mustang GT that runs a 13 flat - yet supposedly has 400hp - yeah, sure it does. The old M3 from 2000 ran a 13 flat and it only had 330hp. Another thing America is great at doing - inflating numbers.
Probably has more to do with gearing more than anything else. Domestic brands are infamous for sloppy slow shifts while all the German makes along with some higher end Japanese models with the GTR have gotten technologies like the PDK transmission or anything twin-clutch. Besides there has been an inverse rumor about BMW for decades understating the power of the engines they put out, or that they were much closer pretty much to "wheel horsepower" than anyone else in the industry.
It is also all about tolerences. A ford V8 will run for hundreds of hundreds of thousands of miles before needing a rebuild. A German engine will have tighter tolerances, and will need a valve adjustment among other things over time, due to how tight they are. a Ford V8 is designed for longevity not outright power. A understressed engine will last forever. Plus BMW engines run on 91 or 93 octane, ford tunes theirs for 87
The M3 in question had a redline of 8,000 RPM. Those M3s were meant for a limited production and were way, way, WAY more expensive than a SN95 or 4th Gen F-Body. I would hardly doubt anyone would seriously ever cross shop a LS1 Camaro Z/28, 4.6L Mustang GT and a BMW M3. But for comparisons sake I found some reading on the subject:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2001-bmw-m3-long-term-road-test
Not quite the comparison I was looking for but the 2002 Camaro SS and 2001 Mustang SVT Cobra
http://www.motortrend.com/news/chevrolet-camaro-ss-ford-mustang-svt-cobra-comparison/
Note the redline on the SS is only 5,500 RPM while the Mustang which in SVT Ford was pretty tricked out is still on 6,800 RPM. The SS cost about 22K while he SVT was about 28k. So we're trying to compare these mass production cars to a E46 BMW M3, not exactly an apples to apples view when we're talking about a car with a 46K MSRP at the time. It should be noted that the E46 was really the pinnacle of when the M3 was a performance oriented car, the Camaro and Mustang despite being higher production have made huge strides in performance while the M3 went more towards luxury. In fact the 2016 Camaro SS was picked over the 2015 BMW M4 in a comparison test by Motortrend:
http://www.motortrend.com/news/comparison-2015-bmw-m4-vs-2016-chevrolet-camaro-ss/
Now...not that I'm saying people would still cross shop an M3/M4 with a Camaro SS but you're not leaps and bounds above a Pony Car with that 30k price difference as you might think. I have this argument with my brother all the time in regards to German and American cars. He always tells me German cars are better and more advanced then the Americans....well they ought to be considering all of them that are sold here with the exception of VW are meant to be high luxury, performance or both. He got himself a 2016 Porche 911 Carrera S for 100k something that he's making mortgage payments on while I bought a 2016 Challenger R/T Scat Pack for less than 40K which I own outright. Now, the Challenger out of the three pony cars is the WORST performing overall of the three but it will still match the SS and M4 in straight line performance with it's dinosaur 392 iron block. I guess at the end of the day it comes down to what you really want and what your tastes out of a car. For me all I wanted was something that looked really cool, had a really big engine and would go really fast a straight line. I'm not sure what my brother wanted other than maybe a status symbol...reason being is that he never does any performance much less mountain driving. My car goes on the road, goes on some of the best highways California has to offer and his 911 drives around Whiskey Row in downtown Prescott, Arizona. But like I said, to each his own...both cars are trying to accomplish something different for different people.
The 4.6L with a 4R70W is limited to 5,400 for fear of torque converter balooning pushing on the flex plate, and messing up the crankshaft. In the original intended use (Town Car/Crown Vic until 1994) it wasn't an issue, as the 90s went on more cars got it, 1991 it was just the town car, 1992 it was all panther platform, 1994 the t-bird got it, 1996 was the mustang, 1997 was the F150, 2002 was the Explorer. By 1997 they were noticing the power issues and worked on a new head for the 1999 mustang, 260hp vs 225, 300 lbft i think too. A good boost in power just from a redesigned head and intake. Ford could make small, high power engines. SVT focus, 170HP 2.0L just had to have special parts. The Duratec 3.0L, 200HP 200 LbFt all aluminum DOHC. American cars are about bang for the buck. You pay a lot less, and get a good bit of power. It will never live up to a BMW in terms of out right performance but will give you your money's worth.
With most American V8s, I rarely suspect internal engine trouble when the car isn't running right and the vehicle hasn't been abused or has very high mileage. I've been around them enough to think it's something like dried up intake gaskets, seals, dirty injectors/carb, poor tuning, ham-fisted work or ignition problems rather than flat cams, burnt valves or poor compression/leakdown numbers. I have also seen enough engines apart to not be surprised when cylinders still show crosshatching at 200,000. American V8s last but paper, rubber and gasoline don't.
Something a little different:
I really wish Chrysler would try some of the other classic 300 designs other than the "C." Some really good discussion about the development history of the original generation Chrysler Hemi.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2016, 11:11:36 PM
Here's something different:
I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater. That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it. That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south. Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around. I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market. About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.
Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2016, 11:11:36 PM
Here's something different:
I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater. That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it. That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south. Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around. I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market. About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.
Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.
Saw one today up at Yosemite that was black. I should have taken a picture of it...I thought to since it was a rare sighting.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2016, 11:11:36 PM
Here's something different:
I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater. That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it. That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south. Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around. I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market. About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.
Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.
I think that was a very popular color for those. My 1st grade teacher had one in that color and I remember seeing more.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 17, 2016, 08:51:24 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2016, 11:11:36 PM
Here's something different:
I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater. That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it. That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south. Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around. I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market. About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.
Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.
I think that was a very popular color for those. My 1st grade teacher had one in that color and I remember seeing more.
Nothing quite says 70s/80s like that weird gold color along with burgundy, that pale yellow in the Aspen regular cars video OR brown...just poop colored brown. :-D I'm actually surprised that none of those colors has come up as a special edition on one of the three pony cars. I mean hell we got Synergy Green on the Camaro...Plum Crazy Purple, Commando Green, Sublime Green and Furious Fuchsia on the Challenger. Really we get a pink but no brown or gold option?...orange oddly seems to have become somewhat common.
Modified the title of the thread to include the 1970s... Something a little different on Youtube today:
I always been kind of fond of Model Ts. The market price on them really has come down over the last couple decades (relative to inflation) which makes it one of the cheaper vintage cars to get into.
Regular Cars take on the PT, didn't the whole Modernism and Post Modernism rant:
I kinda glossed over the modernism/postmodernism part of the review. Mr. Regular was an English major (and IIRC was/is an English teacher), so it's in his wheelhouse.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 17, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 17, 2016, 08:51:24 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2016, 11:11:36 PM
Here's something different:
I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater. That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it. That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south. Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around. I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market. About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.
Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.
I think that was a very popular color for those. My 1st grade teacher had one in that color and I remember seeing more.
Nothing quite says 70s/80s like that weird gold color along with burgundy, that pale yellow in the Aspen regular cars video OR brown...just poop colored brown. :-D I'm actually surprised that none of those colors has come up as a special edition on one of the three pony cars. I mean hell we got Synergy Green on the Camaro...Plum Crazy Purple, Commando Green, Sublime Green and Furious Fuchsia on the Challenger. Really we get a pink but no brown or gold option?
The Jim Rockford Edition
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 18, 2016, 08:55:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 17, 2016, 10:15:49 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 17, 2016, 08:51:24 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 16, 2016, 11:11:36 PM
Here's something different:
I remember my Dad had to get rid of the Caravan when it came out in 1985..he actually had to wait until 1987 to not go underwater. That was actually one of the few mini-vans that actually was somewhat "manly" looking and that along with the 4.3L V6 was the reason he got it. That thing had a crap ton of utility, we even had a rigged up TV/VHS combo for road trips down south. Strange to think that Chrysler was so far ahead with the front drive platform back in those days....those vans along with the K Car probably are the reason they are still around. I would kill to see a RWD bulky Mini-Van like the Astro these days...possibly with a V8 option...but alas I think the CUV crowd has consumed the market. About the closest we ever really got to the Sports-Van was the R-Class R63 AMG.
Does anybody see the Toyota Van in the middle of that still frame of the video? That was the exact color of an '85 Toyota Van I had back in the 1990's.
I think that was a very popular color for those. My 1st grade teacher had one in that color and I remember seeing more.
Nothing quite says 70s/80s like that weird gold color along with burgundy, that pale yellow in the Aspen regular cars video OR brown...just poop colored brown. :-D I'm actually surprised that none of those colors has come up as a special edition on one of the three pony cars. I mean hell we got Synergy Green on the Camaro...Plum Crazy Purple, Commando Green, Sublime Green and Furious Fuchsia on the Challenger. Really we get a pink but no brown or gold option?
The Jim Rockford Edition
But what year?....many to choose from, wasn't a new one every for each model year or something?
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fec%2F2f%2F27%2Fec2f27f13e78a2a6af23233a19d47c68.jpg&hash=5d1c52a1e3dfe3637a7ddf5f4a60ce7e9e749617)
Their judgmental car show videos are hilarious.
https://youtu.be/oMDcIApBtL8
(NSFW)
https://youtu.be/qy38UGt8n5c
https://youtu.be/P_GJGLy3EVE
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 18, 2016, 11:09:36 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fec%2F2f%2F27%2Fec2f27f13e78a2a6af23233a19d47c68.jpg&hash=5d1c52a1e3dfe3637a7ddf5f4a60ce7e9e749617)
Man, that Trans Am really was a Hollywood favorite! (Totally forgot about The Rockford Files, and Sylvester Stalone bought a new one in Rocky II, IIRC.) I know that when Smokey and the Bandit first came out, there were many endless calls to Pontiac and its dealerships for the new model that debuted in 1977; no wonder it was able to beat the Camaro for the first time ever. I think the same held true when Knight Rider debuted, and calls were for the KITT edition that only existed on the show. Although one has to wonder: Was David Hasselhoff ever promised a Trans Am from the show like Burt Reynolds was from the movies?
Rockford's car was a base Firebird rather than a T/A. Probably a 6 cylinder too.
Quote from: Takumi on July 19, 2016, 10:50:51 AM
Their judgmental car show videos are hilarious.
https://youtu.be/oMDcIApBtL8
(NSFW)
https://youtu.be/qy38UGt8n5c
https://youtu.be/P_GJGLy3EVE
Never thought I'd see a Fury Road and Dragon Ball Z Abridged reference in the same post....along with Miss Piggy being ready for the... :-D
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 19, 2016, 09:10:13 PM
Rockford's car was a base Firebird rather than a T/A. Probably a 6 cylinder too.
Even still it was INFINITELY better looking than either the Camaro or Mustang in any trim level. Really the late 70s second gen TA/Firebird is about the only car from the era that really gets a significant following. The 400 actually has a bunch of parts that will open it back up from being strangled by the smog equipment and lowered compression....amazing that engine lasted as long as it did until 1979. Those 73/74 SD engines are complete beasts...they pull some amazing numbers considering they are after the net horsepower ratings conversion.
Not actually a thrilling list but chok full of obscure entries:
My mopar is best mercedes
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 19, 2016, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 19, 2016, 09:10:13 PM
Rockford's car was a base Firebird rather than a T/A. Probably a 6 cylinder too.
Even still it was INFINITELY better looking than either the Camaro or Mustang in any trim level. Really the late 70s second gen TA/Firebird is about the only car from the era that really gets a significant following. The 400 actually has a bunch of parts that will open it back up from being strangled by the smog equipment and lowered compression....amazing that engine lasted as long as it did until 1979. Those 73/74 SD engines are complete beasts...they pull some amazing numbers considering they are after the net horsepower ratings conversion.
Yeah a good matched package of heads, cam, intake, headers and tune and you are back in business with a post '73 400, 455 or even the Olds 403. It's been done plenty and there's a lot of people that can point you in the right direction. I kind of like '77-'81 Z28s but a base Camaro from that era is yuck. And finding one that isn't hillbillied out is tough and expensive.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 20, 2016, 08:55:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 19, 2016, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 19, 2016, 09:10:13 PM
Rockford's car was a base Firebird rather than a T/A. Probably a 6 cylinder too.
Even still it was INFINITELY better looking than either the Camaro or Mustang in any trim level. Really the late 70s second gen TA/Firebird is about the only car from the era that really gets a significant following. The 400 actually has a bunch of parts that will open it back up from being strangled by the smog equipment and lowered compression....amazing that engine lasted as long as it did until 1979. Those 73/74 SD engines are complete beasts...they pull some amazing numbers considering they are after the net horsepower ratings conversion.
Yeah a good matched package of heads, cam, intake, headers and tune and you are back in business with a post '73 400, 455 or even the Olds 403. It's been done plenty and there's a lot of people that can point you in the right direction. I kind of like '77-'81 Z28s but a base Camaro from that era is yuck. And finding one that isn't hillbillied out is tough and expensive.
Yeah my brother and I used to call those the Burnout or Mullet Camaros. :-D It would be kind of nice to find one with a solid body and just convert it to drag racing duty with a crate motor. My uncle has a 1973 Camaro with LS2 he installed himself, the thing looked great before the 1974 bumpers came into play. For some reason the Firebird and T/A actually got better looking from 74 to 77 and finally 1979...always digged the shaker hood on the T/A.
Man van....you never see these anymore:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 09:19:16 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 20, 2016, 08:55:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 19, 2016, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 19, 2016, 09:10:13 PM
Rockford's car was a base Firebird rather than a T/A. Probably a 6 cylinder too.
Even still it was INFINITELY better looking than either the Camaro or Mustang in any trim level. Really the late 70s second gen TA/Firebird is about the only car from the era that really gets a significant following. The 400 actually has a bunch of parts that will open it back up from being strangled by the smog equipment and lowered compression....amazing that engine lasted as long as it did until 1979. Those 73/74 SD engines are complete beasts...they pull some amazing numbers considering they are after the net horsepower ratings conversion.
Yeah a good matched package of heads, cam, intake, headers and tune and you are back in business with a post '73 400, 455 or even the Olds 403. It's been done plenty and there's a lot of people that can point you in the right direction. I kind of like '77-'81 Z28s but a base Camaro from that era is yuck. And finding one that isn't hillbillied out is tough and expensive.
Yeah my brother and I used to call those the Burnout or Mullet Camaros. :-D It would be kind of nice to find one with a solid body and just convert it to drag racing duty with a crate motor.
You'd love our local cragslist then. Seems like 50% of Camaros and Mustangs on there are drag cars or convertibles. It gets old if you're not into those things. And of course a lot of the drag cars are a Home Depot jobs. They'll sure let you know the manufacturer of every aftermarket part on it as you look at the terrible craftsmanship in the pictures. Any town that has a dragstrip nearby sees a large portion its ponycars converted to drag cars that see few passes which will require thousands of dollars in work to be turned back into regular cars. Simply not that many members of the general public want drag cars as compared to those who want regular cars.
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 20, 2016, 10:38:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 09:19:16 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 20, 2016, 08:55:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 19, 2016, 11:06:15 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on July 19, 2016, 09:10:13 PM
Rockford's car was a base Firebird rather than a T/A. Probably a 6 cylinder too.
Even still it was INFINITELY better looking than either the Camaro or Mustang in any trim level. Really the late 70s second gen TA/Firebird is about the only car from the era that really gets a significant following. The 400 actually has a bunch of parts that will open it back up from being strangled by the smog equipment and lowered compression....amazing that engine lasted as long as it did until 1979. Those 73/74 SD engines are complete beasts...they pull some amazing numbers considering they are after the net horsepower ratings conversion.
Yeah a good matched package of heads, cam, intake, headers and tune and you are back in business with a post '73 400, 455 or even the Olds 403. It's been done plenty and there's a lot of people that can point you in the right direction. I kind of like '77-'81 Z28s but a base Camaro from that era is yuck. And finding one that isn't hillbillied out is tough and expensive.
Yeah my brother and I used to call those the Burnout or Mullet Camaros. :-D It would be kind of nice to find one with a solid body and just convert it to drag racing duty with a crate motor.
You'd love our local cragslist then. Seems like 50% of Camaros and Mustangs on there are drag cars or convertibles. It gets old if you're not into those things. And of course a lot of the drag cars are a Home Depot jobs. They'll sure let you know the manufacturer of every aftermarket part on it as you look at the terrible craftsmanship in the pictures. Any town that has a dragstrip nearby sees a large portion its ponycars converted to drag cars that see few passes which will require thousands of dollars in work to be turned back into regular cars. Simply not that many members of the general public want drag cars as compared to those who want regular cars.
Yeah I see them for SN95s and 4th Gen F-bodies quite frequently...that's not exactly my bag if that's not done well. Put this way, I know a guy back home who found a 75 Camaro drag car and bought it. The thing was obviously a period car with black primer on top of some yellow, blue and red stripes. I want to say the car had a 327 in it when he bought it that was tricked out for drag duty, it was still fast as all hell and he used to take it to car shows... He's never touched the thing other than to patch up some rust in the body, that thing is a genuine period classic for the late 70s drag racing era. I don't recall it ever having the hood actually ON but I know it had one with a huge grabber scoop.
Pinky E-Bodies, AAR and T/A variety no less:
Mine eyes have glory of the coming of the Bro.
He is exiting the car show with his other Bros in-tow;
He is losing all the traction from his terrible 5-0.
He's heading traffic on!
Glory glory hallelujah! (x3)
Another Mustang crashed!
Here come the cops a-wailin' and his eyes are getting damp.
We have build-ed him an altar out of zip-ties and pipe-clamps.
I can read his righteous sentence by the flairs and flashing lamps.
His day is truly boned!
Glory glory hallelujah! (x3)
You brought this on yourself!
Let me guess, this was written by a Camaro guy? :-D
Quote from: Henry on July 29, 2016, 10:39:12 AM
Let me guess, this was written by a Camaro guy? :-D
Actually I think the Regular Cars guy isn't really anything other than a car guy. I kind of gathered he's building a Ford Falcon from all his videos on the subject. I just wish that he would make a song video from the Volare video. :-D
The Roman (the other guy who does the music part of the videos) has an SN95 Mustang, actually.
http://youtu.be/19NKXnG7kbU
https://youtu.be/1v3CzvQ9e_w
Bitchin camaro by the dead milkmen
And the Challenger song.....
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:33:48 PM
And the Challenger song.....
That's awesome! Sorry if this is a dumb question, but is this a real commercial? It looks authentic, but I can't imagine seeing this on TV :-D
It was a real commercial state side but someone on Youtube put the Team America theme song over it. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:58:43 PM
It was a real commercial state side but someone on Youtube put the Team America theme song over it. :-D
Nice! But even without the theme song, it's still a ridiculous commercial (in a good way). :)
I swear the US gets better commercials than us; my brother and I have noticed how common big-name actors/actresses are in American commercials. I guess it's a simple fact of having a bigger TV market. The worst is during the Super Bowl; in Canada, they'll "overwrite" the big-budget US commercials with regular commercials. Though a quick Google search seem to suggest that this will no longer be the case? (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/04/canadian-commercials-could-be-approaching-super-bowl-end-zone-this-weekend_n_9156304.html)
Quote from: 7/8 on July 29, 2016, 11:09:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 29, 2016, 10:58:43 PM
It was a real commercial state side but someone on Youtube put the Team America theme song over it. :-D
Nice! But even without the theme song, it's still a ridiculous commercial (in a good way). :)
I swear the US gets better commercials than us; my brother and I have noticed how common big-name actors/actresses are in American commercials. I guess it's a simple fact of having a bigger TV market. The worst is during the Super Bowl; in Canada, they'll "overwrite" the big-budget US commercials with regular commercials. Though a quick Google search seem to suggest that this will no longer be the case? (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/04/canadian-commercials-could-be-approaching-super-bowl-end-zone-this-weekend_n_9156304.html)
I noticed on recent trips up there that there seems to be....more restraint in generally everything which would include TV commercials. I guess that I'm kind of used to it from all the trips I've taken to Ontario, the Canadians were always so much more chilled out than the Michiganders or Americans in general. I guess you can chalk that up to "traditional values" or something like that?
Anyways.....one of 5 1970 convertibles with a Hemi and a stick, this probably is among the kings of the traditional muscle cars:
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 09, 2016, 02:03:34 AM
It is also all about tolerences. A ford V8 will run for hundreds of hundreds of thousands of miles before needing a rebuild. A German engine will have tighter tolerances, and will need a valve adjustment among other things over time, due to how tight they are. a Ford V8 is designed for longevity not outright power. A understressed engine will last forever. Plus BMW engines run on 91 or 93 octane, ford tunes theirs for 87
A strung-out M motor will need valve adjustments only because they run solid lifters - but the entire rest of their line will outlast any 302 out there. Ford guys think 200k miles is a lot. Hell, they think 150k is a lot. Go on any Ford forum and ask about high mileage. Then go on a BMW forum and you'll see double the numbers. There's plenty of guys on the BMW forums with 400k miles on their car. I saw someone open up a 4.0 from an old 740 that had 173k on it - and you could still see the cross-hatching on the cylinder walls. It literally wasn't even broken-in yet.
My haggard ass 325 spent its entire life in NYC - all 212k miles of it - and it runs like it's brand new. Doesn't burn a spot of oil, bounces happily off the rev limiter all day at the track, and you can clearly tell this car was NOT taken care of. At all. Every piece of upholstery torn, every body panel dented, half the switches are broken, convertible top doesn't work - but that engine baby, god damn that engine.
But you know what? It's not just BMW. As long as the chassis will hold out, you see the same from Honda, Toyota, hell - even Hyundai.
But people love to make excuses for the piles of crap that America makes.
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 30, 2016, 06:11:57 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on July 09, 2016, 02:03:34 AM
It is also all about tolerences. A ford V8 will run for hundreds of hundreds of thousands of miles before needing a rebuild. A German engine will have tighter tolerances, and will need a valve adjustment among other things over time, due to how tight they are. a Ford V8 is designed for longevity not outright power. A understressed engine will last forever. Plus BMW engines run on 91 or 93 octane, ford tunes theirs for 87
A strung-out M motor will need valve adjustments only because they run solid lifters - but the entire rest of their line will outlast any 302 out there. Ford guys think 200k miles is a lot. Hell, they think 150k is a lot. Go on any Ford forum and ask about high mileage. Then go on a BMW forum and you'll see double the numbers. There's plenty of guys on the BMW forums with 400k miles on their car. I saw someone open up a 4.0 from an old 740 that had 173k on it - and you could still see the cross-hatching on the cylinder walls. It literally wasn't even broken-in yet.
My haggard ass 325 spent its entire life in NYC - all 212k miles of it - and it runs like it's brand new. Doesn't burn a spot of oil, bounces happily off the rev limiter all day at the track, and you can clearly tell this car was NOT taken care of. At all. Every piece of upholstery torn, every body panel dented, half the switches are broken, convertible top doesn't work - but that engine baby, god damn that engine.
But you know what? It's not just BMW. As long as the chassis will hold out, you see the same from Honda, Toyota, hell - even Hyundai.
But people love to make excuses for the piles of crap that America makes.
Basically if you don't take care of any car it isn't going to last much past 100,000 miles. That's something you see across the board and isn't exclusive to any particular brand or origin point like Domestic, European or Asian. To borrow a line from those old Motorweek shows, cars have largely become almost "idiot" proof where they last the buyer 100,000 miles without a fuss despite the beating that typically flung upon them. For me I've never understood why 100,000 or 150,000 became the mark of when you're supposed to toss a car, they'll last twice as long so long as you follow the maintenance schedule. Problem with that is that almost everyone in the general public treats their car like a red headed step child or "appliance" if you will....hence why I don't general peruse the used car market since I don't know what was or WASN'T done.
But in regards to this Domestic Guy, Tuner Guy and Euro-Tuner Guy thing that just popped up. Yes through the mid-70s to the late 1990s the Domestic brands were WAY behind the quality standards in build quality to their overseas counterparts....especially in the compact and mid-sized segments. That really more than anything led to the gradual grind down of the domestic market share over the last four decades. I never found that really to be true with push rod V8s per se on the domestic side but I do recall a lot of issues being more common with 4 and 6 cylinder drive trains. More so the build quality issues were body fit, cheap materials, over all poor design and things of the like. Pretty much since the early 2000s all the automakers have been on a level playing field in terms of build quality. There really isn't a substantial difference in the quality you would see from a VW, to a Chevy, to a Toyota, to a Hyundai and that's probably due to consumers basically making it pretty clear that they won't accept the crap from automakers chugged out decades earlier....but wasn't that kind of the point of this thread to begin with? Regardless, I would certainly hope that a luxury automaker with lower production numbers like BMW or Mercedes would have better build quality standards... In the instance of BMW, the problem they are having nowadays is that the cars they are chugging out are losing comparison tests to vehicles in similar segments that are way cheaper. BMW hasn't been about the "driving machine" in about a decade but has become more like Mercedes with a larger emphasis the luxury part of the coin.
The things that are going out on modern Euro cars isn't internal engine stuff. Pretty much every manufacturer has that stuff down and has for 30 years with the exception of timing belts, tensioners, rollers etc. which aren't themselves internal. It's stuff like radiators, VANOSes, heater cores and other accessory things that are affected by time, heat, fragile plastic pieces, rubber drying out etc. that can make an older Euro car boobytrapped. American cars simply aren't full of those expensive gotchas. Japanese cars used to not have those either, but as they've gotten more complex they have started popping up.
AMC Special for today; 66 Marlin, 70 Rebel Machine and 69 SC/Rambler:
One of the odder birds to come out of the 1970s:
Always had mixed feelings on these cars. They seem a lot more approachable for me given that they have a 351 but usually they are owned by the same guy who has the collection of Ferraris for some reason which generally means the examples I've seen have been beaten up pretty badly.
So they're actually driving the Panteras while the Ferraris sit? Enzo would be displeased.
Quote from: GCrites80s on August 03, 2016, 01:52:37 PM
So they're actually driving the Panteras while the Ferraris sit? Enzo would be displeased.
Yep in my old neighborhood in Scottsdale/Paradise Valley out in Arizona it wasn't too unusual to see them parked at local car show. Anything greater than a Porche usually didn't see much road duty, but you'd see things like Panteras floating about now and then. That was surprising to hear that about 66% of the Panteras are accounted for.
Quote from: leroys73 on April 30, 2016, 09:23:59 PM
Those days were suck city. It all was started in 1971 when compression started coming down because of low to no lead. Then in 1973 the looks went away with the 5 mph bumper, then 1975 the catalytic converters started putting the nails in the coffin. From there with only a few exceptions it was all down hill compounded by the oil embargo. A lot of the cars then became performance cars by just adding some paint, letters, and/or numbers. Almost all were dogs and fell apart.
Talking about rebadged cars. Remember Cadillac rebadged Chevys.
My wife had a high end Plymouth Acclaim with the V-6. It really was not a bad car. For the day it handled pretty good, not too slow, and it was comfortable. My wife and three daughters took a cross country trip in it. We had to dump it at 200,000 + miles. Transmission went out at 77,000 and replaced under partial warranty, we paid half.
I had a 95 Dodge full size van it was good. Had the 360 with the old 727 auto with OD, whatever they numbered it with OD. I got over 200,000 mi out of it then my daughter drove the s*** out of it for another year, but hey, it was really a truck. I now have a 1993 Dodge Dakota with the V-6 and 216,000 miles on it, the AC still works. But once again, it is a truck.
Cadillac rebadged Chevys. The ugly Cadillac Cimarron comes to mind. Ugh!
And I agree that the 1970's and early 1980's were a dark period for the American Automobile Industry. Like others have iterated, you have the falling compression ratios, smog pumps, falling final drive axle ratios also, especially from the mid 1970's onto the late 1980's.
My least favorite era was the late 1970's / early 1980's boxy look. The movie National Lampoon's Vacation really takes a jab at the incredibly bad styling cues during that time with that monstrosity Family Truckster, a highly hoked up LTD station wagon. I thought it was funny when Clark had the thing up to 80! :D
Things got slightly better when the automakers FINALLY went to the 4 speed overdrive automatic transmission (10 years too late... it should have come out in the mid 1970's!!).
My first car was a 1986 mustang with the 2.3 four cylinder. Mediocre gas mileage, compounded by the fact that it leaked gas. Pinged like crazy, even on 91 octane gas.
2nd car was a 1990 mustang with the 5.0 engine. It went fast but boy was it unreliable. Catalytic converters begin to stop up by summer of 1998, causing it to stall when it got hot. Mileage wasn't that bad for a 5.0, as long as you didn't floorboard it all the time. I averaged 20 to 21 mpg overall, and it got 25 to 28 on the highway, thanks to its incredibly tall gearing: 2.73 axle ratio w/ the 4 speed AOD.
3rd car was a 1999 accord. While I missed the acceleration of the 5.0 'stang, the car was reliable. I took a course in electronics at a tech. / trade school so I needed a car that would be reliable and affordable (I was leasing the car at the time).
Traded that for a 2002 Honda Civic 5 spd. that I'm still driving today.
Both Hondas have been very good cars. I'm about to trade off the Civic since things in it are starting to go south, namely the suspension.
Quote from: capt.ron on August 04, 2016, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: leroys73 on April 30, 2016, 09:23:59 PM
Those days were suck city. It all was started in 1971 when compression started coming down because of low to no lead. Then in 1973 the looks went away with the 5 mph bumper, then 1975 the catalytic converters started putting the nails in the coffin. From there with only a few exceptions it was all down hill compounded by the oil embargo. A lot of the cars then became performance cars by just adding some paint, letters, and/or numbers. Almost all were dogs and fell apart.
Talking about rebadged cars. Remember Cadillac rebadged Chevys.
My wife had a high end Plymouth Acclaim with the V-6. It really was not a bad car. For the day it handled pretty good, not too slow, and it was comfortable. My wife and three daughters took a cross country trip in it. We had to dump it at 200,000 + miles. Transmission went out at 77,000 and replaced under partial warranty, we paid half.
I had a 95 Dodge full size van it was good. Had the 360 with the old 727 auto with OD, whatever they numbered it with OD. I got over 200,000 mi out of it then my daughter drove the s*** out of it for another year, but hey, it was really a truck. I now have a 1993 Dodge Dakota with the V-6 and 216,000 miles on it, the AC still works. But once again, it is a truck.
Cadillac rebadged Chevys. The ugly Cadillac Cimarron comes to mind. Ugh!
And I agree that the 1970's and early 1980's were a dark period for the American Automobile Industry. Like others have iterated, you have the falling compression ratios, smog pumps, falling final drive axle ratios also, especially from the mid 1970's onto the late 1980's.
My least favorite era was the late 1970's / early 1980's boxy look. The movie National Lampoon's Vacation really takes a jab at the incredibly bad styling cues during that time with that monstrosity Family Truckster, a highly hoked up LTD station wagon. I thought it was funny when Clark had the thing up to 80! :D
Things got slightly better when the automakers FINALLY went to the 4 speed overdrive automatic transmission (10 years too late... it should have come out in the mid 1970's!!).
My first car was a 1986 mustang with the 2.3 four cylinder. Mediocre gas mileage, compounded by the fact that it leaked gas. Pinged like crazy, even on 91 octane gas.
2nd car was a 1990 mustang with the 5.0 engine. It went fast but boy was it unreliable. Catalytic converters begin to stop up by summer of 1998, causing it to stall when it got hot. Mileage wasn't that bad for a 5.0, as long as you didn't floorboard it all the time. I averaged 20 to 21 mpg overall, and it got 25 to 28 on the highway, thanks to its incredibly tall gearing: 2.73 axle ratio w/ the 4 speed AOD.
3rd car was a 1999 accord. While I missed the acceleration of the 5.0 'stang, the car was reliable. I took a course in electronics at a tech. / trade school so I needed a car that would be reliable and affordable (I was leasing the car at the time).
Traded that for a 2002 Honda Civic 5 spd. that I'm still driving today.
Both Hondas have been very good cars. I'm about to trade off the Civic since things in it are starting to go south, namely the suspension.
My Mom had a blue Vista Cruiser that looked a lot like that Truckster. She got really offended any time Vacation came on TV. :-D
Quote from: GCrites80s on August 03, 2016, 01:52:37 PM
Enzo would be displeased.
From the stories the press and racing drivers have given over the years, it sounds like he was never publicly happy.
Quote from: formulanone on August 04, 2016, 06:08:16 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on August 03, 2016, 01:52:37 PM
Enzo would be displeased.
From the stories the press and racing drivers have given over the years, it sounds like he was never publicly happy.
That's one of the reason I just couldn't get into Ferrari's, the whole driver base seems to take after his snobbery. I always thought it was amusing that Lamborghini created is company largely just to show the guy up. :-D
I thought it was funny that Lamborghini's entry into the car market centered around problems with Ferrari clutches but then Lamborghini clutches turned out to be terrible.
One day if I'm ever stupid rich I wouldn't mind having a modern Lamborghini tractor shipped over for use at our farm. We don't own our own equipment since the farm is too small to make it economically feasible (357 tilled acres), but it sure would be fun to say "Let the Lamborghini handle this" or say "Hey. Take the Lamborghini" to our farmers. Of course this is until something breaks. I don't know if a U.S. Lamborghini car dealer can get tractor parts or not. Also the farmers wouldn't feel like moving all of their GPS, seed population, fertilizer control devices etc. over to the Lamborghini. Who knows if they would even integrate with the steering control.
Quote from: GCrites80s on August 04, 2016, 09:57:46 PM
I thought it was funny that Lamborghini's entry into the car market centered around problems with Ferrari clutches but then Lamborghini clutches turned out to be terrible.
Either way I find both brands to be completely forgettable....them all all the high-end super cars or uber luxury brands. It just feels there is no room to improve the car or really make it yours. At MINIMUM you can still build out something like a 911, Corvette, GT-R or other vehicles just a notch below super car territory that will blow the doors off any of them stock. About the only supercar that bothered to break the mold at all the last couple decades that I can think of off the top of my head was the Veyron....well the 918 also.
I read an article about John Carmack's (maker of the Doom game) efforts to turbo his Testarossa and F50. It sounded like a total nightmare.
This one?
Man those guys at Id must have made some stupid money over the years with all that credibility they got from Doom. John Romero basically screwed himself over with that Daikatana abortion. I still play vanilla Doom and Brutal Doom on a regular....I prefer good old vanilla since I can use my keyboard exclusively which works great for a lap top.
Ugh, the street. You can't do ANYTHING. At least he had enough cash that he could IDDQD the things when they acted up.
Quote from: GCrites80s on August 04, 2016, 11:32:56 PM
Ugh, the street. You can't do ANYTHING. At least he had enough cash that he could IDDQD the things when they acted up.
That and IDCLIP....I'm just surprised that I found anything with his car at all.
For when you are feeling "festive" but don't want an actually party:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2016, 07:19:44 AM
For when you are feeling "festive" but don't want an actually party:
At least Festiva was a better name than Fiesta. It's basically the difference between putting a modest effort into choosing a fairly creative name, and just picking a Spanish word that everyone knows.
On the topic of Ford car names, who here has heard of the Ford Ka? What is that supposed to be, the sound a Falcon makes?
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 08, 2016, 04:21:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2016, 07:19:44 AM
For when you are feeling "festive" but don't want an actually party:
At least Festiva was a better name than Fiesta. It's basically the difference between putting a modest effort into choosing a fairly creative name, and just picking a Spanish word that everyone knows.
On the topic of Ford car names, who here has heard of the Ford Ka? What is that supposed to be, the sound a Falcon makes?
Having never bothered to research the entomology of "Ka" I would just got and say that to me it just sounds like how someone in Boston would say "car." They could have called the Fiesta the Ford Party and had the hatch back version be the "Party Wagon?" I always though Fiesta was pretty girly sounding for a car name. But then again what is an Aveo, Yaris, and Versa?
Rather than trying to explain this....apparently this is the scope behind the "Ka" in Ford Ka:
https://petroleumvitae.com/2011/04/19/ka-rant-not-are-ay-en-tee/
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2016, 10:36:02 PM
Rather than trying to explain this....apparently this is the scope behind the "Ka" in Ford Ka:
https://petroleumvitae.com/2011/04/19/ka-rant-not-are-ay-en-tee/
I always like the name Ford
Mondeo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo), though I am not aware of the Blue Oval selling under name in the United States or Canada (the Mondeo has been sold under names like Fusion, Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique in North America).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2016, 11:31:38 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2016, 10:36:02 PM
Rather than trying to explain this....apparently this is the scope behind the "Ka" in Ford Ka:
https://petroleumvitae.com/2011/04/19/ka-rant-not-are-ay-en-tee/
I always like the name Ford Mondeo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo), though I am not aware of the Blue Oval selling under name in the United States or Canada (the Mondeo has been sold under names like Fusion, Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique in North America).
At least Contour was better sounding than Probe and Escort. For awhile there the Ford lineup sounded like the line menu at a brothel.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2016, 12:45:17 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 09, 2016, 11:31:38 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2016, 10:36:02 PM
Rather than trying to explain this....apparently this is the scope behind the "Ka" in Ford Ka:
https://petroleumvitae.com/2011/04/19/ka-rant-not-are-ay-en-tee/
I always like the name Ford Mondeo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mondeo), though I am not aware of the Blue Oval selling under name in the United States or Canada (the Mondeo has been sold under names like Fusion, Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique in North America).
At least Contour was better sounding than Probe and Escort. For awhile there the Ford lineup sounded like the line menu at a brothel.
LOL, that reminds of The Office (U.S. TV show), when Michael Scott tells this joke:
First guy says "Well, I'm an astronaut, so I drive a Saturn". And the second guy says, "Well, I am a pimp, so I drive a cheap Escort". And the third guy says "I gotcha both beat, I'm a proctologist, so I drive a brown Probe".
http://www.complex.com/sports/2012/07/the-25-most-ridiculous-car-names-of-all-time/daihatsu-naked
Some of my favorites include:
- Light Dump
- Titan Dump
- Homey Super Long
- Scat
LeCar, P'up, Probe and Quattroporte I'm familiar with, but the rest are forgettable to me. Although that Mazda Titan Dump makes an interesting case, because the first thing that came to mind was, shouldn't that be a Nissan (as the Titan is that brand's large truck)?
Quote from: Henry on August 10, 2016, 11:05:57 AM
LeCar, P'up, Probe and Quattroporte I'm familiar with, but the rest are forgettable to me. Although that Mazda Titan Dump makes an interesting case, because the first thing that came to mind was, shouldn't that be a Nissan (as the Titan is that brand's large truck)?
Well in fairness most are Asian market cars that would never make it over here. I'm sure that translating them into literal English isn't helping too much either. That's how things like "spoony bard" happen or Enrish in general.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 10, 2016, 08:51:17 AM
http://www.complex.com/sports/2012/07/the-25-most-ridiculous-car-names-of-all-time/daihatsu-naked
I've always imagined that a couple of 20-sided dice are tossed when a collision between a Deliboy and a Mysterious Utility Wizard occurs.
The first time I'd heard of a Light Dump, I figured it was something JIS created specifically to haul dead light bulbs to the landfill; pooing be damned.
Some of BMW's latest offerings have some extremely clumsy names, like "X3 xDrive28d", which sound like software updates.
Well I'm not going anywhere now on Friday:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2F13962518_10208681932038291_4985333478460603873_n_zpspvodwen5.jpg&hash=51c55c5e7af49f58d9176d41d81b4c88c7ffa4ae)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1255.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh630%2FMadMaxRockatansky73%2F13920990_10208681932238296_2570835783752077102_n_zpsembfthxi.jpg&hash=395fb1df4c34c55f592cecd16b6ef81b7aca4849)
Basically I noticed some corrosion on part of my negative terminal after the clock started going nuts in the Sonic. Turns out I had some pretty bad discharge upon pulling the battery. :-D Anyways, I was debating taking a day trip Friday to the Parkfield Grade....but there was a wild fire, then CA 168 over to the Tollhouse Grade...but another wildfire. Looks like I'll just be picking up Sonic some time in the afternoon now, maybe I'll just find something local to do with the Challenger other than just washing it.
Quote from: formulanone on August 10, 2016, 12:34:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 10, 2016, 08:51:17 AM
http://www.complex.com/sports/2012/07/the-25-most-ridiculous-car-names-of-all-time/daihatsu-naked
I've always imagined that a couple of 20-sided dice are tossed when a collision between a Deliboy and a Mysterious Utility Wizard occurs.
The first time I'd heard of a Light Dump, I figured it was something JIS created specifically to haul dead light bulbs to the landfill; pooing be damned.
Some of BMW's latest offerings have some extremely clumsy names, like "X3 xDrive28d", which sound like software updates.
But a Titan Dump...man that can't be taken any other way. I'm sure there are about a billion fun ways to work that into a sentence or short story. That or the Scat or Naked....not sure how those even acceptable in their native lands.
This article describes exactly why Ferrari never was much of anything for me:
https://gma.yahoo.com/ferrari-collector-sues-luxury-automaker-denying-him-model-203004061.html
Basically you got a shit ton of snobbery and upper class privilege by both parties in this. I would remiss to say the incantation system is pretty wide spread in the uber luxury and Super car segment. Money aside wouldn't it not be a lot more interesting to see what you could build on your own dime rather than having a hissy fit you weren't invited to buy something you'd ultimately never drive?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2016, 02:32:25 PM
This article describes exactly why Ferrari never was much of anything for me:
https://gma.yahoo.com/ferrari-collector-sues-luxury-automaker-denying-him-model-203004061.html
So he's suing Ferrari based on second-hand information...kind of proves their point, no? They have 150 examples, and Preston Henn is not the only multi-millionaire in the world.
That said, Preston Henn actually drives his high-end cars around on the road; it's easy to tell because he adds "Swap Shop" logos to most of them. I've seen his GT40, 458 Italia, Mercedes SLR, and Veyron tootling around.
Quote from: formulanone on August 14, 2016, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2016, 02:32:25 PM
This article describes exactly why Ferrari never was much of anything for me:
https://gma.yahoo.com/ferrari-collector-sues-luxury-automaker-denying-him-model-203004061.html
So he's suing Ferrari based on second-hand information...kind of proves their point, no? They have 150 examples, and Preston Henn is not the only multi-millionaire in the world.
That said, Preston Henn actually drives his high-end cars around on the road; it's easy to tell because he adds "Swap Shop" logos to most of them. I've seen his GT40, 458 Italia, Mercedes SLR, and Veyron tootling around.
So basically what's the point of sueing Ferrai then other than he was flipping out because he felt snubbed. No matter how high end the car it will always reach the second hand market at one point or another....so why not just dump your money that way and tell Ferrai to pound sand?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2016, 03:36:13 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 14, 2016, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 14, 2016, 02:32:25 PM
This article describes exactly why Ferrari never was much of anything for me:
https://gma.yahoo.com/ferrari-collector-sues-luxury-automaker-denying-him-model-203004061.html
So he's suing Ferrari based on second-hand information...kind of proves their point, no? They have 150 examples, and Preston Henn is not the only multi-millionaire in the world.
That said, Preston Henn actually drives his high-end cars around on the road; it's easy to tell because he adds "Swap Shop" logos to most of them. I've seen his GT40, 458 Italia, Mercedes SLR, and Veyron tootling around.
So basically what's the point of sueing Ferrai then other than he was flipping out because he felt snubbed. No matter how high end the car it will always reach the second hand market at one point or another....so why not just dump your money that way and tell Ferrai to pound sand?
I agree, he should just spend his money elsewhere. There's no lack of super-exotics to choose from. I'm sure any automaker or dealer can refuse service for any reason, but their silly country-club fraternity nonsense is part of the legend and mystique (I guess it matters to some people).
Maybe this is why he needs the Ferrai:
Not that I'm endorsing those god awful movies but the point is it's a shit ton cooler when your car is fast because you built it up rather bought it so you can impress some gold digging bimbo in the passenger seat. :-D
SOOOOooooooo fancy....my nipple:
Soooooooo fawncehhh!
Side note: he made an error with the C4. The ZR1 was the only one that made 375 HP, and that was over $50,000 back then.
Quote from: Takumi on August 15, 2016, 05:53:51 PM
Soooooooo fawncehhh!
Side note: he made an error with the C4. The ZR1 was the only one that made 375 HP, and that was over $50,000 back then.
Oh...I have a paper towel roll filled with Micro Machines. :rofl:
Even still....I wasn't a big fan of the 300 ZX Z32 after having to ride in one for a Rose Bowl visit to Pasadena back when Michigan played USC. It was my brother's girlfriend's car so I got stuffed in the back seat...even though I was by far the largest of the three people by a good 4 inches and 30 pounds. They spent the entire game trying to convince me how cool that car was....worst part was that his truck got broken into at her house, stole his computer and everything. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2016, 10:57:49 AM
Quote from: SteveG1988 on June 26, 2016, 09:43:51 AM
The official car of asbestos, that had me literally in tears when he said that. :-D I like how the guy on the phone couldn't keep a straight face throughout that rant. On the flip side I used to think the Volare was actually kind of good looking.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/1980_Plymouth_Volare_Duster.JPG/1280px-1980_Plymouth_Volare_Duster.JPG)
I had a 1980 Volare, but it was a sedan. A white sedan that I had much more elaborate ambitions for which unfortunately I couldn't afford, like a decent car stereo to replace the standard AM that came with the thing, a blue and white paint job similar to the pre-1973 Suffolk County Police Cars, and some oversized extra taillights for the rear deck, among other ideas. I bought the mount, but never got the stereo, and I still have the lights for the deck that I never got the chance to install. I ended up selling it to the father of one of my neighbors for cheap, and some drunk driver ran into him and totaled the thing close to his home.
And yes, this had a Slant Six too.
^^^^
I'd love to have one now, total conversion of everything except the exterior the car. I would love to see the shocked faces on when a stock looking 6.4L Volare dusts them from the stop light....perish the thought. :-D
Anyways, this was new today and nothing screams 80s more than the origins of the Great Camcord Era....too bad Ford didn't want to stay competitive with the Taurus didn't want to compete past the 1990s:
I submitted my '91 Prelude to RCR to see if they'd review it, so of course it broke down.
Quote from: Takumi on November 04, 2016, 09:31:28 AM
I submitted my '91 Prelude to RCR to see if they'd review it, so of course it broke down.
They ever respond? I would consider submitting the Sonic if they hadn't already done a 2013 naturally aspirated model. Basically that car has been beaten on so many times by animals and other drivers the only original body work is just the doors and the roof. :-D
No, they typically only contact you if they're going to be in your area. And they get dozens of submissions a day, so it's a pretty low chance they contact you in the first place unless you have something really special, like when they drove to Lynchburg over the summer to drive a Focus RS. They did a few more videos when they were there. The only time they've stopped in Richmond was a couple years ago when visiting another YouTuber, and the car wasn't registered at the time.
This is peak regular.
https://youtu.be/ZF2lRNqd-LI
Quote from: Takumi on November 07, 2016, 05:10:09 PM
This is peak regular.
https://youtu.be/ZF2lRNqd-LI
Beat me to the punch on that one, gave it a watch at breakfast this morning. What was it 26,000 original miles? I wanted to know how and why it was so low on the mileage.
Quote from: Takumi on November 07, 2016, 05:10:09 PM
This is peak regular.
https://youtu.be/ZF2lRNqd-LI
In my long-ago past, I worked as a telephone installer in the Bell System. The service garage I worked out of was part of a trial. We got a dozen Horizons to replace our normal Econolines and Chevy Vans. I got drafted to be one of the guinea pigs. Imagine for a moment: Ladder racks on the roof carrying two heavy wood extension ladders. All my pole-climbing gear. All the wire and piece parts to install inside telephone wire. A six-foot wood stepladder. A 50-pound reel carrying a large length of aerial service wire. A couple dozen fat phone books. A couple dozen phones. And me. A lot of weight. And, a manual trans. All of the test cars blew their clutches at less than 5K miles, and they all vanished from the fleet in less than a year due to countless other issues due to being overweight.
Speaking of peaks, there's a peak of another kind to come. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-08/peak-autos-toyota-and-nissan-execs-admit-us-auto-sales-have-peaked-rapidly-growing-i
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on November 08, 2016, 04:17:49 PM
Speaking of peaks, there's a peak of another kind to come. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-08/peak-autos-toyota-and-nissan-execs-admit-us-auto-sales-have-peaked-rapidly-growing-i
I'm surprised that the incentives trend never really peaked down. I can't really think of too many "terrible" cars that really would traditionally need them. It seems like everything gets and incentive at one point or another, it really doesn't make much sense to buy a generic daily driver at MSRP when you can just wait for a deal...can't help profit margins.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on November 01, 2016, 01:03:21 AM
I had a 1980 Volare, but it was a sedan. A white sedan that I had much more elaborate ambitions for which unfortunately I couldn't afford, like a decent car stereo to replace the standard AM that came with the thing, a blue and white paint job similar to the pre-1973 Suffolk County Police Cars, and some oversized extra taillights for the rear deck, among other ideas. I bought the mount, but never got the stereo, and I still have the lights for the deck that I never got the chance to install. I ended up selling it to the father of one of my neighbors for cheap, and some drunk driver ran into him and totaled the thing close to his home.
And yes, this had a Slant Six too.
Speaking of the Plymouth Volare police package, they were used for a time in police duty by the University of Maryland's College Park campus police department (they might have been used by the university cops at the Baltimore City or Baltimore County or Princess Anne (Eastern Shore) campuses, but not sure about that). I think either the 1979 or 1980 model year. Not sure if they had the Slant Six or a V8 under the hood (the Slant Six was IMO adequate for the campus cops).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 11, 2016, 08:46:09 PMSpeaking of the Plymouth Volare police package, they were used for a time in police duty by the University of Maryland's College Park campus police department (they might have been used by the university cops at the Baltimore City or Baltimore County or Princess Anne (Eastern Shore) campuses, but not sure about that). I think either the 1979 or 1980 model year. Not sure if they had the Slant Six or a V8 under the hood (the Slant Six was IMO adequate for the campus cops).
If memory serves, the Police-Packaged Aspen/Volare offered both the Slant-6 and the V8; the former for light-duty/urban patrol, the latter for more pursuit-oriented duties.
BTW, 1980 Aspen/Volare had singular rectangular headlights; its earlier predecessors had singular round headlights.
I love how the testers complaining was kept in as audio for the Stanza Wagon:
And the old people criteria Motorweek used to use along with a total failure to talk about the specs on the Volvo GLT Turbo:
Makes you wonder though, how say was that Stanza in a side impact crash? X-(
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 17, 2016, 10:33:41 PM
I love how the testers complaining was kept in as audio for the Stanza Wagon:
Makes you wonder though, how say was that Stanza in a side impact crash? X-(
Here in the Great White North, the Stanza wagon was sold as Nissan Multi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTzX4LzmLio
Now here's something you almost never see:
Now those headlights are garishly awesome as all hell. :-D
I'm fairly amused at the use liberal of the word "Oriental" back in the 1980s by Motorweek:
Can't have a wagon in the 80s without fake wood trim and blue interior pieces....good god the body dives like crazy under heavy braking:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 25, 2016, 11:43:05 PM
I'm fairly amused at the use liberal of the word "Oriental" back in the 1980s by Motorweek:
As long as I can still call myself "Occidental"
Quote from: GCrites80s on November 27, 2016, 08:30:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 25, 2016, 11:43:05 PM
I'm fairly amused at the use liberal of the word "Oriental" back in the 1980s by Motorweek:
As long as I can still call myself "Occidental"
True....regardless I recall a lot of mid-western folk who worked in the car industry or were in Japan or Korea using it as ethnic slang along with a couple other choice words. My Grand Father was brutal in that regard, it didn't help that he worked for General Motors for 30 plus years after WWII.
I forgot how long rear drum brakes were a thing on the F-body:
They need to find a better launch RPM, way too much wheel spin. :-D
If you didn't spec the G80 performance rear axle option I don't think you could get anything but drums. There was a lot of sticker shock in 1987 when in order to get the 350 you had to get all other performance options. That changed for 1988 to make 350s more affordable... including the option of rear drums returning.
Quote from: GCrites80s on December 08, 2016, 08:29:28 PM
If you didn't spec the G80 performance rear axle option I don't think you could get anything but drums. There was a lot of sticker shock in 1987 when in order to get the 350 you had to get all other performance options. That changed for 1988 to make 350s more affordable... including the option of rear drums returning.
It's just weird to think out of almost all the performance variables that have improved since the 1980s that almost nobody thinks of brake technology. In those Motorweek videos you keep hearing about non-standard ABS, drum brakes, and 150 foot plus distances to emergency stop. Even the cars that carry drums today on smaller compact and sub-compact cars still usually panic stop in the neighborhood of 120 feet, that was unheard of except for big time performance cars back then.
To give you the "inside stuff", GM put almost all of the brake bias in the front on the 3rd gen F-bodies so it doesn't really matter if you have discs or drums stock. The rear brakes seriously barely do anything. I have an adjustable proportioning valve that I haven't installed yet due to having trouble tracking down the proper metric (car) and SAE (prop valve) adapters. I want to dial in a lot more more rear brake.
That will sure get you a lot better results with a more balanced bias. I'm assuming that you have a 3rd gen from the sounds of it?
Yes, an 87 IROC-Z.
Quote from: GCrites80s on December 09, 2016, 04:24:21 PM
Yes, an 87 IROC-Z.
305 or 350? Wasn't that the first year for the L98 in the F-Body?
Original 350 and yes.
I have had rear discs for over 20 years, on three different models--1986 Nissan Maxima, 1994 Saturn SL2, and 2005 Toyota Camry. I much prefer them for smooth stops, but on the Nissan and the Saturn (the only two of the three with enough mileage to have needed brake work), the pads and rotors have worn much faster on the rear than on the front. ABS does not seem to make any difference (the Saturn has it, the Nissan didn't), and none of these cars has been through a true salt-belt winter. I wonder if my tendency to glide to stops (to minimize dive) puts more wear on the rear brakes than is assumed in their design.
I haven't lubed my brake hardware, largely because I have never seen any evidence of sticking calipers in MPG numbers, but now I wonder if I should start.
Its certainly possible, although not likely probably for most drivers. Hell I had a Ford Focus that I put 143,000 miles on 2.3 years during work travel that bought new off the lot. I still had 5mm of front brake pad on that thing before I sold it, I was my third set of tires on that thing. Probably helped I hardly ever stopped in that car, it averaged 52 MPH over it's life before I sold it. Suffice to say that's not exactly what would be considered "normal" vehicle operation though.
Funny y'all mention the rear brakes. I'm not sure about the other makes of muscle cars, in particular, but the Mustangs seem to be suffering to one weird side effect to how the traction control does it's job-the rear brakes are wearing out faster than the front ones. Those of us that like to get on the loud pedal a little harder than normal coming off of a stop light, for example, are triggering the TC and the rear brakes are being engaged to control the wheel spin. Discs and calipers are usually smaller on the rear than on the front. My wife's 2012 has 53K miles and she already needs rear brakes (I'm gettin' all 4 done anyway for her because she deserves the best for putting up with me). Just interesting I guess, that's all-back to the regularly scheduled sorry cars of the late 20th Century.
Newer cars also have electronic proportioning, which is designed to involve the rear brakes more in stopping and results in more rear brake wear. And, yes, disc brakes are usually not as beefy on the rear. In older cars with fixed proportioning, designers have to make assumptions about how heavily the rear brakes will be involved in stopping the car, and for some driving styles I think that can result in them wearing relatively much faster than the front even with no corrosion or lubricant loss in the brake hardware.
I have looked at a rear disc brake pad replacement DIY for the Camry and I suspect lubing the caliper pins just to eliminate the possibility of accelerated pad wear may be more trouble than it is worth, since getting at the pins takes you two-thirds of the way to full pad replacement.
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 11, 2016, 04:03:08 PM
Funny y'all mention the rear brakes. I'm not sure about the other makes of muscle cars, in particular, but the Mustangs seem to be suffering to one weird side effect to how the traction control does it's job-the rear brakes are wearing out faster than the front ones. Those of us that like to get on the loud pedal a little harder than normal coming off of a stop light, for example, are triggering the TC and the rear brakes are being engaged to control the wheel spin. Discs and calipers are usually smaller on the rear than on the front. My wife's 2012 has 53K miles and she already needs rear brakes (I'm gettin' all 4 done anyway for her because she deserves the best for putting up with me). Just interesting I guess, that's all-back to the regularly scheduled sorry cars of the late 20th Century.
What are the rotor sizes? I never had an issue in my 5th Generation Camaro but that was pretty close in rotor size front and rear. The Challenger is too new to calculate even wear patterns even on the tires.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 11, 2016, 09:21:09 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 11, 2016, 04:03:08 PM
Funny y'all mention the rear brakes. I'm not sure about the other makes of muscle cars, in particular, but the Mustangs seem to be suffering to one weird side effect to how the traction control does it's job-the rear brakes are wearing out faster than the front ones. Those of us that like to get on the loud pedal a little harder than normal coming off of a stop light, for example, are triggering the TC and the rear brakes are being engaged to control the wheel spin. Discs and calipers are usually smaller on the rear than on the front. My wife's 2012 has 53K miles and she already needs rear brakes (I'm gettin' all 4 done anyway for her because she deserves the best for putting up with me). Just interesting I guess, that's all-back to the regularly scheduled sorry cars of the late 20th Century.
What are the rotor sizes? I never had an issue in my 5th Generation Camaro but that was pretty close in rotor size front and rear. The Challenger is too new to calculate even wear patterns even on the tires.
On regular 2011-2014 Mustang GT's (non Track Pack) the fronts are 336 x 36 (mm) with dual piston 43 mm calipers, 330 x 19 on the rear with single piston calipers (also 43 mm, so that puts paid to my assertion of smaller calipers in the rear-I guess I got to close to the evidence locker when I made my last post).
My wife is not a corner carver. Her driving style is actually pretty easy on the brakes. Her big vice is that she loves to launch it off every stop light like she's at the Summernationals. But she jumps out of it right or just above the speed limit and she coasts down to the next light, she's not diving it in there like a NASCAR driver coming in for a pit stop.
I usually leave the light a little more like an old grand pa but I like to play a little on curvy mountain roads when we road trip to western NC, yet on the downhills I rarely even have to give the brakes a courtesy tap (the beauty of a manual transmission car).
Her rear pads are pretty much gone, and her rotors are scored. I'm mulling turning vs replacement of the rear rotors but since it's her DD I think I'd feel better just replacing them outright.
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 12, 2016, 09:42:20 AMOn regular 2011-2014 Mustang GT's (non Track Pack) the fronts are 336 x 36 (mm) with dual piston 43 mm calipers, 330 x 19 on the rear with single piston calipers (also 43 mm, so that puts paid to my assertion of smaller calipers in the rear-I guess I got to close to the evidence locker when I made my last post).
My wife is not a corner carver. Her driving style is actually pretty easy on the brakes. Her big vice is that she loves to launch it off every stop light like she's at the Summernationals. But she jumps out of it right or just above the speed limit and she coasts down to the next light, she's not diving it in there like a NASCAR driver coming in for a pit stop.
It looks like this generation of Mustang has EBD:
http://iihs.net/fsm/?dir=786&viewfile=Anti-Lock%20Control.pdf
I have seen reports of rear disc pad life as low as 30,000 miles in cars equipped with EBD.
For comparison, my 1994 Saturn, which is my DD and has seen primarily city service for all but 20,000 miles of its life, still has the factory original front rotors but needed new pads on all four wheels at 9 years/73,000 miles, new pads on the rear wheels at 10 years/80,000 miles, and new pads on all four wheels and new rear rotors at 18 years/125,000 miles. (I think the pads installed at 73,000 and 80,000 miles were semi-metallic rather than ceramic, and so failed to match factory specification. The new rear pads at 80,000 miles were almost certainly the consequence of a bad lube job at the 73,000-mile service. The current pads are ceramic and seem to be holding up quite well in terms of NVH as well as wear when casually inspected by glancing through openings in each wheel.)
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 30, 2016, 07:49:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 06:10:50 PM
Really about the Lada that I remember that was worth about anything was the Niva 4x4s.
It's funny for the longest time the domestic automakers would sell some of their best stuff outside the U.S. market. Aside from the Chevette some more recent examples were the European Focus and the all the rear-drive Holden platform cars that would never seem to make it over this way. It's something that has only really changed since GM and Chrysler have gone bankrupt.
It was a lot of things that led to the domestic automakers losing so much of their market share. The biggest one was a failure to adapt to market changes post OPEC Embargo which led to all those Japanese and Korean companies to exploit the void with quality smaller cars. There was a ton of things like corporate arrogance in assuming people would continue to buy American despite build qualities and designs falling far behind the competition. Although platform sharing was a thing before OPEC it got way out of control in the 70s and 80s which led to cars like the Pontiac 1000 in addition to Cadillac Cimmaron. It's not like any of the bigger or sportier cars were better, I remember my Dad's 82 Corvette was a told dog on the 15 year old C3 platform which had ballooned in weight over it's life span.
The "downsized" 1977 full-size GM cars, was beginned to be studied as early as 1972 with some earlier clay models popping up in 1973.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/vintage-review-1977-chevrolet-caprice-downsized-by-design/
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/vintage-ads-and-brochures/vintage-ad-general-motors-announces-its-1977-full-size-cars/
The "plucked chicken" 1962 Dodge and Plymouth ironically was around the same size as the 1977 GM. Bit their controversal design got a cold reception, they was originally planned to be bigger but William Newberg who was Chrysler president had heard of rumors then Ford and GM plan smaller cars who was in reality, the mid-size intermediate Fairlane and the Chevy II http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/chrysler-downsizing-disaster-1962/ There some photos of clay models of how they should had originally look. http://www.allpar.com/history/plymouth/1962.html There was also some plans for a 1962 DeSoto http://bangshift.com/general-news/car-features/check-rare-photos-1962-desoto-mockup/ A bit extreme compared to that clay model and design made by Don Kopka http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960s-chrysler-concept-cars1.htm If the first oil crisis happened in 1962 instead of 1973, Chrysler would had been more lucky.
The US wasn't the only one who got a "malaise era", the UK had faced the same music as well as Jeremy Clarkson noted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9tUlve9jc
The "plucked chicken" was the finless 1962 Chrysler, not the Dodge or Plymouth.
My map light switch says "MAP LIGHT!"
Holy crap on the mileage of the Sentra:
Wonder if they'll still send you a transcript if you mail $3 dollars?
I completely forgot that this was even a thing:
The 1980's were a decade of odd gauges--this Tercel had a tilt indicator:
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2017, 11:04:34 PM
The 1980's were a decade of odd gauges--this Tercel had a tilt indicator:
Funny....and I probably could really make use out of a tilt indicator on some of the roads I go travel on. Generally unless its a state highway there is very little in the way of grade warnings and even they really aren't all that reliable. I've must have hit 20% on at least half a dozen roads in 2016.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2017, 11:26:47 PMFunny....and I probably could really make use out of a tilt indicator on some of the roads I go travel on. Generally unless its a state highway there is very little in the way of grade warnings and even they really aren't all that reliable. I've must have hit 20% on at least half a dozen roads in 2016.
I still miss the volts and oil pressure gauges some 1980's cars had. My 1986 Nissan Maxima, which was the first car I road-tripped seriously in, had both. But the technology has moved on so much that a dedicated tinkerer could probably replicate the lost function on a DIY basis--maybe the OBD II data stream (through the J1962 connector) for oil pressure and other operating parameters that are still reported to the PCM through sensors, and a smartphone accelerometer for tilt?
For city streets with unusually steep grades (e.g. Marin Avenue in Berkeley), I have parked and gone exploring on foot so I can count rise and run on brick or stone block walls abutting the sidewalk.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2017, 11:50:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2017, 11:26:47 PMFunny....and I probably could really make use out of a tilt indicator on some of the roads I go travel on. Generally unless its a state highway there is very little in the way of grade warnings and even they really aren't all that reliable. I've must have hit 20% on at least half a dozen roads in 2016.
I still miss the volts and oil pressure gauges some 1980's cars had. My 1986 Nissan Maxima, which was the first car I road-tripped seriously in, had both. But the technology has moved on so much that a dedicated tinkerer could probably replicate the lost function on a DIY basis--maybe the OBD II data stream (through the J1962 connector) for oil pressure and other operating parameters that are still reported to the PCM through sensors, and a smartphone accelerometer for tilt?
For city streets with unusually steep grades (e.g. Marin Avenue in Berkeley), I have parked and gone exploring on foot so I can count rise and run on brick or stone block walls abutting the sidewalk.
Seems like most pedestrian models of cars really have dropped gauges in favor of warning (idiot) lights). Really I'm finding some of these modern sub-compacts despite being built with a commuter action actually handle mountain grades very well. I would suspect in the case of my Sonic the low weight coupled with a nice high torque turbo four cylinder make uphill climbs relatively easy compared to what one might expect. The damn thing always reminds me it is a commuter car though because of the lack of gauges and worse so that the stock brakes warp easily if pushed too hard, so lots of engine braking on long sustained stretches of downhill are in order.
Now my other car on the other hand is a 2016 Challenger and has literally every single piece of data available in the DIC. Not quite the old mechanical gauges of old but they are really nice to have on a quick browse through the menu. Now I've actually looked for tilt gauges for both cars but nobody seems to offer them for either. Maybe you're onto something trying to use a smart phone app, I'll have to look into it.
The Miser....only during the late 1970s and early 1980s could such a name for a vehicle have been thought to been "appealing." Buy the TC3 Miser on the cheap, save the money for those chain-smoked unfiltered menthol cigarettes:
How 80s to have "the suburbs" as the aspiration of the American Dream. Love the brake performance at 3:01. :-D
Where are they testing the car out at? And that unused highway strip?
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2017, 11:50:38 PM
I still miss the volts and oil pressure gauges some 1980's cars had.
Both my '97 Crown Vic. and 2007 Mustang has those as well.
The Crown Vics. has those as standard equipment circa 1992-2005 (Grand Marquis had them standard circa 1995-2005). It was optional on the 2005-2014 Mustangs.
My wife's 2012 Nissan Versa doesn't even have a temp gauge. It's maddening.
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 09:42:08 AMMy wife's 2012 Nissan Versa doesn't even have a temp gauge. It's maddening.
Many vehicles from the 70s & 80s didn't have such either.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2017, 09:47:24 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 09:42:08 AMMy wife's 2012 Nissan Versa doesn't even have a temp gauge. It's maddening.
Many vehicles from the 70s & 80s didn't have such either.
My 1981 Honda Civic did. :D
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 09:48:17 AM
Many does not equal
all. :sombrero:
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2017, 11:50:38 PM
I still miss the volts and oil pressure gauges some 1980's cars had.
The 1970-1977 Lincoln Continentals/Town Cars/Town Coupes had the volt gauge.
1970 Continental cluster shown (one can see the volt gauge on the far-left):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fautomotivemileposts.com%2Flincoln%2Fimages%2Flinc1970instrumentpanel.jpg&hash=d756f4aee6e20bc099ae3829c949050181357c94)
1976 Continental cluster:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2F00%2Fs%2FOTAwWDE2MDA%3D%2Fz%2FkG8AAOSwojRYScE3%2F%24_1.JPG&hash=eb4bdd9f52b0f523eb1ff08ca6cb3c6605b5fc2e)
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 13, 2017, 09:12:52 AM
Where are they testing the car out at? And that unused highway strip?
Given the show's home base of Owings Mills, MD, it would be the southern half of I-795 that would open to traffic in 1984. (The part further north wasn't completed until '87-'88.) At the time, it was common practice to test drive cars on highways that weren't available for use, like the aforementioned example.
It also looks like they did some testing on unfinished I-68 in western MD later on, say '84-'87.
Quote from: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 09:42:08 AM
My wife's 2012 Nissan Versa doesn't even have a temp gauge. It's maddening.
My Sonic and Fiesta didn't have them either. Really it looks like you have to step up to compact or mid-size territory these days to get anything but idiot lights. I'm thinking the assumption is that the smaller the car the more likely it will be driven in-town on commutes where mechanical issues are less common. It would be the nice to have an option for enhanced onboard diagnostics, I certainly appreciated them when I had my Camaro and well as in my Challenger. I would gladly pay $200-$400 for that option line...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 13, 2017, 10:01:30 PMQuote from: Rothman on January 13, 2017, 09:42:08 AMMy wife's 2012 Nissan Versa doesn't even have a temp gauge. It's maddening.
My Sonic and Fiesta didn't have them either. Really it looks like you have to step up to compact or mid-size territory these days to get anything but idiot lights. I'm thinking the assumption is that the smaller the car the more likely it will be driven in-town on commutes where mechanical issues are less common. It would be the nice to have an option for enhanced onboard diagnostics, I certainly appreciated them when I had my Camaro and well as in my Challenger. I would gladly pay $200-$400 for that option line...
I think non-provision of a temperature gauge (which, by the way, is also true for the 2009 Honda Fit in the family) is straight-up market segmentation. The automakers seem to have decided that as long as OBD II will set a code when the thermostat goes kaput and the engine takes too long to warm up, the gauge is a nice-to-have toy.
I also suspect, but have not yet been able to confirm for more than a handful of models, that automotive thermostats have improved in reliability since the 1990's. The basic control element (the "wax motor" invented by Sergius Vernet and patented in 1938) doesn't really wear out, but thermostat failures often trace back to seals, which are a perennially active area of research.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 13, 2017, 10:00:52 AM1970 Continental cluster shown (one can see the volt gauge on the far-left):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fautomotivemileposts.com%2Flincoln%2Fimages%2Flinc1970instrumentpanel.jpg&hash=d756f4aee6e20bc099ae3829c949050181357c94)
1976 Continental cluster:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ebayimg.com%2F00%2Fs%2FOTAwWDE2MDA%3D%2Fz%2FkG8AAOSwojRYScE3%2F%24_1.JPG&hash=eb4bdd9f52b0f523eb1ff08ca6cb3c6605b5fc2e)
Neat!
^^^^
The only issue for someone like me is that I spend a substantial time on roadways in the mountains where a temperature gauge would be a benefit. The Sierras have a ton of huge uphill slopes and it would be a benefit to me if I could tell for certain that I needed to ease back or was straining the engine too hard. Granted, I don't think many people go out with Sonic for a mountain drive and then ride the low gears back down on the 20% grades....suffice to say it probably doesn't make the option viable from a profit standpoint to the automakers. So yes, I would appreciate the option...sure beats having to step up another class or two with the huge bump in price point just to get access to proper gauges. The way I see it the Sonic is pretty much a car that you use up and throw in the trash when you're done with it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 13, 2017, 10:45:48 PMThe only issue for someone like me is that I spend a substantial time on roadways in the mountains where a temperature gauge would be a benefit. The Sierras have a ton of huge uphill slopes and it would be a benefit to me if I could tell for certain that I needed to ease back or was straining the engine too hard. Granted, I don't think many people go out with Sonic for a mountain drive and then ride the low gears back down on the 20% grades....suffice to say it probably doesn't make the option viable from a profit standpoint to the automakers. So yes, I would appreciate the option...sure beats having to step up another class or two with the huge bump in price point just to get access to proper gauges. The way I see it the Sonic is pretty much a car that you use up and throw in the trash when you're done with it.
I think the automakers now use things like soft starts for engine fans to control temperature within fairly narrow limits even on long uphill climbs. In the 2005 Camry I use as a roadtrip vehicle, the temperature needle stays in the middle of the gauge even on long climbs. On the other hand, the 1994 Saturn I now use as a daily driver has a hard start for the engine fan (the older technology), and I could see the fan cycle on and off on the very long steady climb up Pikes Peak (it is an almost uninterrupted 6% grade).
On the other hand, where automatic transmissions are concerned, there now seems to be a trend toward making smaller and cheaper cars less competent for mountain driving. The 2009 Honda Fit with five-speed automatic (paddle shifters) did just fine on a trip to Colorado and New Mexico four years ago that included the Million Dollar Highway and long slopes up and down in various places. On the other hand, I am told newer cars with CVTs make it very hard to develop well-modulated engine braking for descending hills safely at a high but still controlled speed without using the brakes.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 13, 2017, 11:20:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 13, 2017, 10:45:48 PMThe only issue for someone like me is that I spend a substantial time on roadways in the mountains where a temperature gauge would be a benefit. The Sierras have a ton of huge uphill slopes and it would be a benefit to me if I could tell for certain that I needed to ease back or was straining the engine too hard. Granted, I don't think many people go out with Sonic for a mountain drive and then ride the low gears back down on the 20% grades....suffice to say it probably doesn't make the option viable from a profit standpoint to the automakers. So yes, I would appreciate the option...sure beats having to step up another class or two with the huge bump in price point just to get access to proper gauges. The way I see it the Sonic is pretty much a car that you use up and throw in the trash when you're done with it.
I think the automakers now use things like soft starts for engine fans to control temperature within fairly narrow limits even on long uphill climbs. In the 2005 Camry I use as a roadtrip vehicle, the temperature needle stays in the middle of the gauge even on long climbs. On the other hand, the 1994 Saturn I now use as a daily driver has a hard start for the engine fan (the older technology), and I could see the fan cycle on and off on the very long steady climb up Pikes Peak (it is an almost uninterrupted 6% grade).
On the other hand, where automatic transmissions are concerned, there now seems to be a trend toward making smaller and cheaper cars less competent for mountain driving. The 2009 Honda Fit with five-speed automatic (paddle shifters) did just fine on a trip to Colorado and New Mexico four years ago that included the Million Dollar Highway and long slopes up and down in various places. On the other hand, I am told newer cars with CVTs make it very hard to develop well-modulated engine braking for descending hills safely at a high but still controlled speed without using the brakes.
Ironic you mention Pikes Peak, I drove for the first time in years this summer since I wanted to try it out with asphalt all the way up with a rental Toyota Corrola S.. I did the normal procedure of turning off the AC and rolling the windows down, I could hear the fan click on and off from time to time. US 550 on the Million Dollar Highway, US 34 with Trail Ridge, and US 212 on the Beartooh were all part of the same trip with no issues there either.
Something that I noticed with the Sonic though, not only does Sonic use the soft start on the fan while in operation it will do it after the car is turned off for a short while as well on a long uphill climb. I first noticed it this year after climbing Carson Pass, Mount Rose, and the Geiger Grade in the Sierras. In the case of the Sonic I find it pretty impressive that it stays cool like that given that it does have a small turbo given that I have the 1.4L. I've found 1st, 2nd, and 3rd all to be useful in downhill grades for a good 15, 25, 35 MPH split depending on the grade and straightness of the roadway. I couldn't imagine how bad a CVT would handle something like Pikes Peak or even a Mineral King Road here in California.
Incidentally something interesting I saw in some recent rental cars. I had a base level Nissan Versa for a car a couple months back. The thing actually had the L, 1, 2 on the gear selector with no multimatic function. I had a Buick Enclave for awhile after I mowed a deer down in the Sonic which had an "L" in place of the standard "M." The funny thing was that the "L" was still just a multimatic but was labeled probably that way for elderly buyers I would surmise.
The temp gauge also tells you when the engine has really started to warm up for those of us who live where this season exists called winter. Prevents you from immediately turning on your heater and getting blasted with cold air. Also agree with Max about mountain driving.
My Elantra has the gauge and I am grateful for it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 13, 2017, 11:20:21 PM
On the other hand, where automatic transmissions are concerned, there now seems to be a trend toward making smaller and cheaper cars less competent for mountain driving. The 2009 Honda Fit with five-speed automatic (paddle shifters) did just fine on a trip to Colorado and New Mexico four years ago that included the Million Dollar Highway and long slopes up and down in various places. On the other hand, I am told newer cars with CVTs make it very hard to develop well-modulated engine braking for descending hills safely at a high but still controlled speed without using the brakes.
I have a 2016 Subaru Outback (and prior to that, a 2011 model) with a second generation CVT. The 2011 had the first generation CVT. To share some experiences:
* Going down from Clingman's Dome to Gatlinburg, TN in the Great Smoky Mountains requires some use of the brakes around the tightest of corners, but I downshifted successfully for about 90% of the route. What infuriated me was that the vehicles ahead of me - SUV's, just braked almost continuously. They had no idea how to drive and by about half-way down the mountain, I could smell their brakes. They had to pull over and let them cool down. Even if you don't have paddle shifters, you can downshift.
* Going down Mt. Washington's Auto Route was more difficult. I did downshift to first and second gears but had to pull over several times to let the brakes (and my nerves) rest. I laughed at the mandatory requirements for downshifting when I was at the base but they are not kidding around!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2017, 12:03:45 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2017, 11:50:38 PM
I still miss the volts and oil pressure gauges some 1980's cars had.
Seems like most pedestrian models of cars really have dropped gauges in favor of warning (idiot) lights).
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but looking back at old car brochures, this doesn't appear to be a new phenomenon–at least with American cars. Particularly from the '60s through the mid '80s, it didn't seem uncommon for a typical mass market Ford or Chevrolet to be equipped with only a speedometer and fuel gauge and rely on tell-tale lights for everything else. Any model with pretense of being a "performance" car might have full instrumentation, but a great number of work-a-day Impalas and Fairmonts appear to have lumbered through life with only two gauges.
Chrysler products seem to have been the exception in this regard–most pre-K Dodges and Plymouths I've seen were outfitted with an impressive array of instruments, usually including speed, fuel, temp, and alternator.
From what I've seen, the Japanese built their reputation in the US beginning in the '70s not only by the build quality and efficiency of their cars (perceptions that survive today) but also by stuffing their cars with all kinds of extra features, niceties, and gadgetry while keeping prices fairly low. So in addition to features like reclining seatbacks and storage nooks that we take for granted today, most Japanese cars came equipped with four gauges: speed, tach, fuel, and temp.
From the late '80s on, perhaps as a response to the Japanese and changing tastes, the American automakers largely standardized a more generous instrumentation package: speed, fuel, and temp on base models–with tach, oil pressure, and alternator added on higher trim levels. In the past decade, though, it seems like most cars have been reduced to the "Japanese four" gauges.
But from what I've read, the temp gauge in modern cars isn't much of a gauge anyway. It's been heavily normalized so that it reads at the 12 o'clock position unless the car is either stone cold or nearly overheating. The rationale for this–so I've read–is because if typical American consumers saw the actual fluctuations in running temperature that occur daily, they'd run into the dealer's service department: "
...my car's constantly running cool, then warm, then cool...don't tell me they all do that...fix it now."
I don't know if that's true, but if so, the modern temp gauge is basically an idiot light with a needle. Anything left of center is equivalent to the green "COLD" idiot light on a '60s Chevy–and anything right of center is the red "HOT" light.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 14, 2017, 10:33:36 PMFeel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but looking back at old car brochures, this doesn't appear to be a new phenomenon–at least with American cars. Particularly from the '60s through the mid '80s, it didn't seem uncommon for a typical mass market Ford or Chevrolet to be equipped with only a speedometer and fuel gauge and rely on tell-tale lights for everything else. Any model with pretense of being a "performance" car might have full instrumentation, but a great number of work-a-day Impalas and Fairmonts appear to have lumbered through life with only two gauges.
I am not familiar enough with instrument panels from that era to evaluate this generalization thoroughly, but it would seem to have numerous exceptions besides Chryslers. For instance, the 1978 Impala base that was my first car had a temperature gauge in addition to the speedometer and fuel gauge.
Quote from: briantroutman on January 14, 2017, 10:33:36 PMFrom what I've seen, the Japanese built their reputation in the US beginning in the '70s not only by the build quality and efficiency of their cars (perceptions that survive today) but also by stuffing their cars with all kinds of extra features, niceties, and gadgetry while keeping prices fairly low. So in addition to features like reclining seatbacks and storage nooks that we take for granted today, most Japanese cars came equipped with four gauges: speed, tach, fuel, and temp.
There was also a difference in design intent. For purposes of export to the US market, the Japanese focused on the economy niche for which the US automakers had no competent products, and thus exported cars with high-revving engines for which tachometers make more sense. In US domestic auto production the low-revving V8 was king.
A couple of things to check out: did European makers routinely provide tachometers in cars they produced for the US or their domestic markets, and did Japanese makers routinely outfit the premium sedans for their domestic market (e.g. Toyota Crown, Nissan Cedric) with tachometers?
Quote from: briantroutman on January 14, 2017, 10:33:36 PMBut from what I've read, the temp gauge in modern cars isn't much of a gauge anyway. It's been heavily normalized so that it reads at the 12 o'clock position unless the car is either stone cold or nearly overheating. The rationale for this–so I've read–is because if typical American consumers saw the actual fluctuations in running temperature that occur daily, they'd run into the dealer's service department: "...my car's constantly running cool, then warm, then cool...don't tell me they all do that...fix it now."
This is certainly true for some models, notably the Saturn S-Series. The first-generation temperature gauge was calibrated so that a wide sweep corresponded to a relatively narrow temperature interval, and the (hard) fan-on point was just below the red markings. So people would get caught in traffic and see the needle climb all the way to the three-quarters mark (panic!), and then the fan would turn on and drive temperature down almost to the one-quarter mark. At the other end of the typical engine operating temperature range, the wide sweep created the illusion that dedicated DIYers could rely solely on the gauge to tell when the thermostat is not working (the usual test for first-generation Saturns is needle hanging just past the one-quarter mark instead of just past an imaginary three-eighths mark).
After customer complaints to dealers that I think eventually necessitated issuance of a TSB, later generations received a redesigned gauge with a narrower sweep and more of a gap between the fan-on point and the danger markings.
On the other hand, width of sweep and location of danger markings have become less of an issue now that soft-start fans are more common. On the 2005 Camry I use as a roadtrip vehicle, unpinning of the needle at C roughly corresponds to the point where the heater will start blowing warm air if the automatic climate control is set to full-hot, and as the engine warms up the needle moves to and then rests almost at the exact middle of the gauge, and hardly ever deviates as long as the engine runs, regardless of ambient temperature, engine load, or percentage of time spent idling in the last quarter-hour.
I call those "idiot gauges".
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2017, 11:04:34 PM
The 1980's were a decade of odd gauges--this Tercel had a tilt indicator:
I'm pretty sure gauges like that were mostly for four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive vehicles, since that version of the Tercel is supposed to be one.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 25, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 06, 2017, 11:04:34 PM
The 1980's were a decade of odd gauges--this Tercel had a tilt indicator:
I'm pretty sure gauges like that were mostly for four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive vehicles, since that version of the Tercel is supposed to be one.
Yes that's true, but I have a glut of 15% plus grade roads where that tilt indicator would be a handy option to have. The problem in California is that Caltrans and pretty much all the county DOTs are really crappy at giving adequate warnings or supplying data on road grades. CA 4, CA 108, and Mineral King Road probably have the best signage in the state with Mineral King probably being the best at supplying you with information on what to expect grade wise.
But then again, I know that I'm an overwhelming vast minority looking for trouble in the mountains like I do....much less doing it in a car that was built with commuting in mind. I think the Challenger would be just fine given the vented Brembo brakes but that poor Sonic definitely needs the transmission to help on anything sustained over 10% for a couple miles.
Incidentally, something completely different from RegularCars:
Can't believe that I didn't get around to watching this until now:
A story like this only could have come from the 1970s.
Days of Thunder! We're gettin' a satellite dish!
Quote from: Takumi on January 30, 2017, 01:08:13 PM
Days of Thunder! We're gettin' a satellite dish!
Just remember.....HIT THE PACE CAR!
Although Juan Montoya pretty much forever one-upped that by hitting the jet dryer in the Daytona 500.
51 pages dedicated to the seat belts:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2017, 12:42:13 PM51 pages dedicated to the seat belts . . .
The seatbelts in the first-generation Lumina were one way of implementing the passive restraint requirement that the Reagan administration fought but eventually had to start phasing in by 1987. I never understood how they were supposed to work in collisions where the doors flew open. My 1994 Saturn meets the requirement with (1) a driver's-side airbag and (2) automatic shoulder belts for driver and front-seat passenger that slide in tracks anchored to the spaceframe over each door. My family also used to own a 1990 Toyota Cressida (my mother's favorite car in her lifetime) with similar automatic shoulder belts. Both cars were equipped with separate manual lap belts.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2017, 01:00:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2017, 12:42:13 PM51 pages dedicated to the seat belts . . .
The seatbelts in the first-generation Lumina were one way of implementing the passive restraint requirement that the Reagan administration fought but eventually had to start phasing in by 1987. I never understood how they were supposed to work in collisions where the doors flew open. My 1994 Saturn meets the requirement with (1) a driver's-side airbag and (2) automatic shoulder belts for driver and front-seat passenger that slide in tracks anchored to the spaceframe over each door. My family also used to own a 1990 Toyota Cressida (my mother's favorite car in her lifetime) with similar automatic shoulder belts. Both cars were equipped with separate manual lap belts.
The first car I bought for myself was a slightly used 1992 Pontiac Sunbird. I to say that it wasn't the 92 that was configured like that but the 94 was? It has been so long that I honestly really don't remember, all I seem to recall was that the car was uncomfortable over time and had issues with rust on the bottom pieces of the front doors. I've never understood what was supposedly safer about that spaceframe mounted setup. It would seem as though you would want the seat belt mounted to an actual piece of the frame...like you said it wouldn't be inconceivable for the door to come off in a severe accident.
The (misguided) intent of GM's door-mounted seatbelts from the early-to-mid 90s was that one could keep the belts buckled at all times. In theory; one could just open the door, slide in the seat, & close the door without needing to fasten the seatbelt.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 31, 2017, 03:02:50 PMThe (misguided) intent of GM's door-mounted seatbelts from the early-to-mid 90s was that one could keep the belts buckled at all times. In theory; one could just open the door, slide in the seat, & close the door without needing to fasten the seatbelt.
That was indeed the intent, and car dealers were actually required to display the cars with the seatbelts fastened. At the time there was considerable concern not just about the doors flying open in a crash, but also about lightweight passengers (such as young children) being ejected from the car when the door opened under normal conditions.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/15/style/consumer-s-world-gm-is-challenged-over-seat-belts.html
GM gave up the door-mounted concept under pressure from the feds.
At the time, power door locks were also fairly unsophisticated and people were urged to lock their doors to reduce the risk of ejection in an accident. I wonder if this was a factor in GM management thinking they could get away with door-mounted belts. Nowadays, it is common (if not universal) for power door locks to engage by default when the car is in a driving gear, although in some cars (including my 2005 Camry) this behavior can be modified.
Wasn't there a thing in the 80s or something where a kid opened a door and fell out of the door? :eyebrow: I seem to recall whatever happened had reached urban legend status by the late 1980s. We (my siblings and I) had to wear seat belts in the back seat of sedans but not in coupes because of the lack of rear doors. I also want to say Michigan might not have had a back seat belt law on the books even up to that time period. Station Wagons were basically a free-for-all with bouncing around the back free range. Weird to think that child-proof locks weren't all that common even back in those days and it was still difficult to convince some people to use seat belts.
Was difficult? In many cases it still is difficult to get people to wear them. At least 3 of the 7 deputies working my shift right now categorically refuse to put them on while on patrol "in case they need to exit the vehicle in a hurry". As with many traffic related laws, on duty LEO's are exempt from NC's seat belt laws.
A few of them (as well as other friends/acquaintances) refuse to wear them in their personal vehicles as well. They'd rather take the ticket because "they heard about JimJoBob who would most certainly have died if he hadn't been ejected from the vehicle as it rolled over because the roof was crushed (etc,etc)". Dead serious, I can't make this stuff up, SMDH.
I won't move my car across the street without putting mine on-I didn't need a law to tell me to, either.
In my family we have had a 1962 VW Bug, 1964 Ford Falcon, 1966 Dodge Dart, 1967 VW Bug, 1974 Buick Regal, 1981 Toyota Tercel, 1986 Nissan Maxima, 1994 Saturn SL2, 1990 Toyota Cressida, 1995 Nissan Maxima, 2005 Toyota Camry, and 2009 Honda Fit. I have lived memories of all but the first three.
The 1981 Tercel was the first that I remember having usable lap and shoulder belts. If I do a Google image search for the 1967 VW Bug, I can find pictures of various designs of front seatbelt, but I can't really tell whether any of them are OEM.
The 1974 Buick Regal did have front seatbelts, and I think they were lap and shoulder belts, but we never actually used them. My recollection is that they came packed into plastic strips at the edge of the headliner, just over each door (our car was a two-door hardtop), and thus required some assembly by the owner.
When I was in elementary school, I came home one day full of the health and safety propaganda that was then standard--don't smoke, wear your seatbelts--and asked about seatbelts in the Buick. My father went into the car, pulled down lengths of webbing attached to what I think was an anchor point, looked at it for about fifteen minutes, said "The hell is this?" (or similar), and packed it away. It was not until September 1985 (we bought the 1986 Maxima early in the model year) that all of the family cars had usable seatbelts. It took some years for my mother to stop reaching out with her arm to cover the passenger seat when she had to brake heavily.
Kansas did not have a seatbelt use law until 1986 (it was Chapter 35 in the session laws for that year). It is still secondary enforcement only for adults, and applies only to cars made after January 1, 1968 and to cars made earlier that have OEM seatbelts. (That date in 1968 is presumably the effective date for whatever section of FMVSS requires seatbelts.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2017, 04:35:26 PM
In my family we have had a 1962 VW Bug, 1964 Ford Falcon, 1966 Dodge Dart, 1967 VW Bug, 1974 Buick Regal, 1981 Toyota Tercel, 1986 Nissan Maxima, 1994 Saturn SL2, 1990 Toyota Cressida, 1995 Nissan Maxima, 2005 Toyota Camry, and 2009 Honda Fit. I have lived memories of all but the first three.
The 1981 Tercel was the first that I remember having usable lap and shoulder belts. If I do a Google image search for the 1967 VW Bug, I can find pictures of various designs of front seatbelt, but I can't really tell whether any of them are OEM.
The 1974 Buick Regal did have front seatbelts, and I think they were lap and shoulder belts, but we never actually used them. My recollection is that they came packed into plastic strips at the edge of the headliner, just over each door (our car was a two-door hardtop), and thus required some assembly by the owner.
When I was in elementary school, I came home one day full of the health and safety propaganda that was then standard--don't smoke, wear your seatbelts--and asked about seatbelts in the Buick. My father went into the car, pulled down lengths of webbing attached to what I think was an anchor point, looked at it for about fifteen minutes, said "The hell is this?" (or similar), and packed it away. It was not until September 1985 (we bought the 1986 Maxima early in the model year) that all of the family cars had usable seatbelts. It took some years for my mother to stop reaching out with her arm to cover the passenger seat when she had to brake heavily.
Kansas did not have a seatbelt use law until 1986 (it was Chapter 35 in the session laws for that year). It is still secondary enforcement only for adults, and applies only to cars made after January 1, 1968 and to cars made earlier that have OEM seatbelts. (That date in 1968 is presumably the effective date for whatever section of FMVSS requires seatbelts.)
Our 73 Chevy Vega, 74 VW Bus, 75 Olds Starfire, 77 Pontiac Catalina and 78 Ford Granada all had lap/shoulder belts up front (the Catalina and I think the Granada also had a center lap-only belt, to seat 3 up front). I'm struggling to remember if our 1970 Plymouth Valiant had lap/shoulder belts or not.
My 1991 Prelude has the same kind of seat belts as that Lumina, and the manual indeed says they've should always remain buckled in.
Meanwhile in Japan...
https://youtu.be/-S0dKSHCU4I
Quote from: Takumi on January 31, 2017, 06:02:54 PM
My 1991 Prelude has the same kind of seat belts as that Lumina, and the manual indeed says they've should always remain buckled in.
Meanwhile in Japan...
https://youtu.be/-S0dKSHCU4I
So in 17,000 KM driven nobody ever bothered to take the plastic wrap off the sun visors and rear seats? Obviously someone was putting in a lot of effort into things like maintaining the exterior appearance much less everything else on the car....who the hell would do that for Toyota Crown? That would be like someone's Grandpa state side doing the same thing to a third generation Buick Regal.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2017, 06:35:52 PMSo in 17,000 km driven nobody ever bothered to take the plastic wrap off the sun visors and rear seats? Obviously someone was putting in a lot of effort into things like maintaining the exterior appearance much less everything else on the car....who the hell would do that for Toyota Crown? That would be like someone's Grandpa state side doing the same thing to a third generation Buick Regal.
It didn't look to me like a lot of effort went into keeping this specimen in near-hundred-pointer condition; it presumably wasn't driven much, having been owned by the Japanese equivalent of the grandpa with the third-generation Regal. I did think keeping the factory plastic wrap on all three (!!!) visors and the parking brake release was a bit much even by grandpa standards, and probably reflected a very Japanese concern with quality.
The Crown has its American aficionadoes. There is actually a white RHD mid-1980's supercharged hardtop Crown kept somewhere near Stillwater, Minnesota. It was unplated but I got to see it when the owner informally exhibited it at a parking lot near downtown while I was on my way back from the St. Croix rapids last May. It didn't have the grandfather lace covers, though. Before I saw the video clip Takumi embedded, I didn't know those were a thing.
About a year and a half ago I looked into getting a MX83 (1989-1992) Toyota Cressida as a hobby car. It is probably the closest thing to a Crown Toyota has tried to sell in the US market in the EFI age. By current standards it is pleasingly weird: I6, not V6, RWD instead of FWD, performance-oriented wide angle between the intake and exhaust valves (the "G" in the 7M-GE engine designation) instead of the economy-oriented narrow angle that is now universal on US-market Toyotas, and lots of little touches like the second bank of HVAC controls that opens when you push a button. To maximize the weirdness factor my preference was for 1989-90, with the special Cressida-only star-in-hands badging; 1991-92 had the modern Toyota triple oval. However, it is now very hard to find a specimen that isn't riced out or clapped out, and there is a head bolt torque issue that spells early death for the engine if it isn't caught in time. The best specimen I found was online, a 1990 from a specialist dealer in the Northeast, that had about 28,000 original southern California miles and all the original paperwork. The asking price was a bit north of $9,000 and so was slightly less than half the MSRP when new ($20,000). That was more than I was willing to spend, so for nostalgia purposes I just harvested the 250-odd photos that accompanied the ad.
The 7M-GE and it's turbocharged version, the 7M-GTE, were also used in the Mark 3 (1986-1992) Supra, and suffered the same head bolt issues. In 1990, Toyota introduced the famous JZ engine in JDM Supras and the Aristo (sold as the Lexus GS300 here). Both had twin-turbo variants, but the only twin-turbo JZ sold in the US was in the Mark 4 (1993-2002) Supra and was identical to the one from the Aristo.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2017, 04:35:26 PMThe 1974 Buick Regal did have front seatbelts, and I think they were lap and shoulder belts, but we never actually used them. My recollection is that they came packed into plastic strips at the edge of the headliner, just over each door (our car was a two-door hardtop), and thus required some assembly by the owner.
Given that 1974 was the year of the controversial and very short-lived
vehicle won't start unless the front outboard seatbelts were buckled; it's safe to say that all '74 models (including your Regal) had the combined lap-and-shoulder belt (aka the 3-point belt system that's still around today) for the outboard front seats.
Many '73 and earlier models had your fore-mentioned separate shoulder belts that were typically stored along the headliner when not in use. Very rarely were these separate shoulder belts were ever worn.
IIRC, lap seatbelts for all seats (station wagons had optional third row or dual-facing) were mandatory from the 1966 model year onward. I think by 1968, the separate shoulder belts for the front outboard seats would be mandatory as well for all cars except for convertibles. I know that my grandfather's '68 Galaxie 500 sedan and my '69 LTD sedan I had in high school had the separate shoulder belts.
48 MPG city BELOW BASE at Cars and Coffee:
Want to talk about the sorry state of cars? You people should see the article I just read with the false perception of baby boomers and their attitudes towards autonomous cars.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/are-baby-boomers-afraid-of-autonomous-cars-because-of-this-plymouth/ar-AAmLoIP?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
No, dimwit. They're not afraid of them because of "Christine." They're afraid of them because they can be frigging HACKED! And if you want to use fiction as an example, use "ex-Driver."
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 10, 2017, 08:38:25 AM
Want to talk about the sorry state of cars? You people should see the article I just read with the false perception of baby boomers and their attitudes towards autonomous cars.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/are-baby-boomers-afraid-of-autonomous-cars-because-of-this-plymouth/ar-AAmLoIP?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
No, dimwit. They're not afraid of them because of "Christine." They're afraid of them because they can be frigging HACKED! And if you want to use fiction as an example, use "ex-Driver."
Consider the source of the article-link. MSN is not known for giving objective nor accurate reports/commentaries regarding vehicles.
Christine wasn't even that scary of a movie, that is just asinine to insinuate that a book and movie over three decades old has any influence at all.
^There was also T3
Quote from: Sherman Cahal on January 14, 2017, 10:47:00 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 13, 2017, 11:20:21 PM
On the other hand, I am told newer cars with CVTs make it very hard to develop well-modulated engine braking for descending hills safely at a high but still controlled speed without using the brakes.
I have a 2016 Subaru Outback (and prior to that, a 2011 model) with a second generation CVT. The 2011 had the first generation CVT. To share some experiences:
* Going down from Clingman's Dome to Gatlinburg, TN in the Great Smoky Mountains requires some use of the brakes around the tightest of corners, but I downshifted successfully for about 90% of the route. What infuriated me was that the vehicles ahead of me - SUV's, just braked almost continuously. They had no idea how to drive and by about half-way down the mountain, I could smell their brakes. They had to pull over and let them cool down. Even if you don't have paddle shifters, you can downshift.
* Going down Mt. Washington's Auto Route was more difficult. I did downshift to first and second gears but had to pull over several times to let the brakes (and my nerves) rest. I laughed at the mandatory requirements for downshifting when I was at the base but they are not kidding around!
In general I haven't had any trouble with my CVT-equipped 2009 Nissan Altima on downhills; it can be thrown into a virtual "manual" mode if you really, really want to engine brake, which is what I tend to do if I see someone running radar.
Longer term I'd imagine most CVTs are going to be in hybrids and plug-in hybrids where regenerative braking is preferred over engine or friction braking in most circumstances anyway.
The official car of "I don't want a chip on my card, that's how they GET YA!"
https://youtu.be/qfK0PqP_Bjg
225 horsepower....EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE! I kind of miss the jelly bean designs of the late 90s now...weird how they kind of grew on me.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 31, 2017, 01:00:41 PM
automatic shoulder belts for driver and front-seat passenger that slide in tracks anchored to the spaceframe over each door. My family also used to own a 1990 Toyota Cressida (my mother's favorite car in her lifetime) with similar automatic shoulder belts. Both cars were equipped with separate manual lap belts.
My family's 1988 Camry had that type of seat belt for the front seats. There was a big button near the gearshift and parking brake lever that would release the shoulder belts from their anchors in case you couldn't get out of the belt after a wreck. When you pushed the disengage button, the car would beep until you engaged it again, so we used to push it while driving just to freak out unknowing passengers into thinking there was something wrong with the car.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 31, 2017, 12:42:13 PM
51 pages dedicated to the seat belts:
I had a 1992 Lumina Euro with the seat belts in the door, and I never once thought of keeping them buckled all the time as I opened the doors. That just seems like a totally awkward way to enter and exit the car. Forget about trying to hold on to say a bag of groceries to set in the passenger seat without getting all tangled up. I also had a 1991 Ford Escort that had the shoulder belts that slid along a track along with the manual lap belt. Those were annoying enough as well. It had a buckle that could be disconnected at the top, but then the car would beep until it was buckled.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 20, 2017, 08:20:22 PMIt had a buckle that could be disconnected at the top, but then the car would beep until it was buckled.
Most if not all cars today beep every so often when the front seat occupants aren't buckled up while the car is moving. Both my 2007 Mustang & 2011 Crown Vic. do such.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2017, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 20, 2017, 08:20:22 PMIt had a buckle that could be disconnected at the top, but then the car would beep until it was buckled.
Most if not all cars today beep every so often when the front seat occupants aren't buckled up while the car is moving. Both my 2007 Mustang & 2011 Crown Vic. do such.
When I was moving across the country I had a dog chill out in the back which meant that I needed to put a box on the front seat. Apparently it was just enough weight to trigger a sensor that someone was there, it would chime a couple times every minute or so. The solution was just to connect the seat belt which satisfied the sensor. Oddly a similar weight in a Chevy a couple years later also in the passenger seat was not even enough to trigger the car to think someone was there.
Manual convertible! How many times can you call a car "cute" in one review?
18.9 seconds in the quarter mile is pretty damn good for something with 55 HP.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 23, 2017, 10:15:52 AM
I
still wouldn't want to drive one of those out on a road or bridge that's subject to high cross-winds.
People were buying those 3-cylinder Metros up like crazy when gas hit $4.50 a gallon out here. They were light, parts were cheap, and efficient as all hell which really made them the perfect "I don't care what I drive" commuter car. Really there aren't really all that many bargin bin cars like that anymore aside from some like the Chevy Spark and ESPECIALLY a neutered Nissan Versa.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 21, 2017, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on February 20, 2017, 08:20:22 PMIt had a buckle that could be disconnected at the top, but then the car would beep until it was buckled.
Most if not all cars today beep every so often when the front seat occupants aren't buckled up while the car is moving. Both my 2007 Mustang & 2011 Crown Vic. do such.
Both of my Mustangs have a conniption if the seat belts aren't buckled. I did my wife a favor and picked up a gallon of milk a few weeks ago. Being the lazy person I am I set it on the passenger seat instead of the floor. Not only did I get the chime every few seconds, the message center on my 2014 kept warning me as well.
About your Vic-did you know there is a way to shut the chime off in the Crown Vics? Its in the owners manual, it's a feature that cops asked for and got in the CVPI. I once thought it was CVPI only, until one of the deputies I work with turned it off for me on my 2001 Grand Marquis, so I can only assume civilian Crown Vics have a way to shut it off, too.
Quote from: slorydn1 on February 23, 2017, 02:42:47 PMAbout your Vic-did you know there is a way to shut the chime off in the Crown Vics? Its in the owners manual, it's a feature that cops asked for and got in the CVPI. I once thought it was CVPI only, until one of the deputies I work with turned it off for me on my 2001 Grand Marquis, so I can only assume civilian Crown Vics have a way to shut it off, too.
Good to know, I'll have to check that out. Do you know what page/section would that info. be in?
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2017, 03:23:06 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on February 23, 2017, 02:42:47 PMAbout your Vic-did you know there is a way to shut the chime off in the Crown Vics? Its in the owners manual, it's a feature that cops asked for and got in the CVPI. I once thought it was CVPI only, until one of the deputies I work with turned it off for me on my 2001 Grand Marquis, so I can only assume civilian Crown Vics have a way to shut it off, too.
Good to know, I'll have to check that out. Do you know what page/section would that info. be in?
https://www.manualslib.com/manual/53106/Ford-2011-Crown-Victoria.html?page=109#manual
Quote from: slorydn1 on February 23, 2017, 03:35:36 PM
Thanks. I wonder if similar can be done on other Ford Motor Company vehicles?
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2017, 04:26:13 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on February 23, 2017, 03:35:36 PM
Thanks. I wonder if similar can be done on other Ford Motor Company vehicles?
Not on my Mustangs (I checked) and I know I couldn't on my 2004 F150. Cops wanted this because many of them slow patrol unbelted so they could just jump out if something came up. It drove me crazy when ever a deputy keyed up the radio to run a plate or call out on a traffic stop and the quick DING DING DING DING DING chime was louder than them sometimes. I'm sure it drove them even more crazy. I want to say Ford put this option in the Crown Vics the last year of the old aero body style (98?) but I could be wrong.
something like this would resolve the beep problem:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pair-Universal-Carbon-Fiber-Car-Safety-Seat-Belt-Buckle-Alarm-Stopper-Clip-Clamp-/162081031141
And another option which doesn't even compromise the safety (assuming reasonable quality, which may or may not be true):
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2pcs-Universal-Auto-Car-Safety-Seat-Belt-Buckle-Extension-Extender-Clip-Black-/262179650129
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 23, 2017, 04:26:13 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on February 23, 2017, 03:35:36 PM
Thanks. I wonder if similar can be done on other Ford Motor Company vehicles?
I am able to do that on my 2005 F-150
1996 Honda Accord, because your weed dealer needs to get around too:
GAS, CASH, OR GRASS. NO ONE RIDES FOR FREE!
I always thought Honda stopped offering the Accord wagon with a stick after 1995. In fact, Honda parts websites even say so. I guess that one was swapped.
Oh dear.
https://youtu.be/tTV3CLb3gTg
Beat me to it. :-D Kind of amusing that a car weighing less than 3,000 was called "heavy." Even sadder it carries the Challenger name plate. Basically my 2016 would in theory do the quarter mile in 5.6 less seconds....wow that was a dark period.
At least the LX platform came out of the merger:
While in theory this was a good idea, it was very poorly executed. And now it has Fiat to deal with; to merge with GM would be the ultimate mistake and bring up bad memories of 2008!
Regular Cars story up on the curse of Little Bastard:
Doesn't hurt that I like hearing about all those Central California highways and seeing the pictures from the 1950s. "Highway 46" as it was phrased would have been US 466 for about another decade at the time of James Dean's crash however...
Keeping with the 70s, 80, and 90s theme how about a class straight six Cherokee:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 30, 2017, 04:08:24 PM
Regular Cars story up on the curse of Little Bastard:
Doesn't hurt that I like hearing about all those Central California highways and seeing the pictures from the 1950s. "Highway 46" as it was phrased would have been US 466 for about another decade at the time of James Dean's crash however...
Speaking of James Dean's car. I spotted that interview where Alec Guinness warned James Dean to not go with that car one week before he was killed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nptoFE1Js
And here a tv ad wondering what if James Dean had lived?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fbiO5N_NNc
^^^
Props for accuracy for whoever did that commercial for including the US 466 shield in the background at the end.
Chrysler LeBaron, the car for the man who likes his menthols laced with asbestos and lead....quarter mile 19.8....stopping from the Federally mandated 55 MPH?....go %#*% yourself! :nod:
Anyone else ever notice that almost every town in seems to have some old dude who holds on his pristine K-LeBaron like it is going to be the next big thing on the collectors market?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 05, 2017, 10:44:14 PM
Chrysler LeBaron, the car for the man who likes his menthols laced with asbestos and lead....quarter mile 19.8....stopping from the Federally mandated 55 MPH?....go %#*% yourself! :nod:
Anyone else ever notice that almost every town in seems to have some old dude who holds on his pristine K-LeBaron like it is going to be the next big thing on the collectors market?
Funny you should mention that. In my area an old guy has a LeBaron K-car convertible in very nice shape. I see it semi-regularly. Never thought about each place having an old man with a K-car until you mentioned it though!
I used to have a 1983 Dodge 400. Gutless wonder supreme! It is as challenging to drive a low power car as a high power one, especially when it is freeway merging time...LOL! At least the 400's bucket seats were quite comfortable and the FWD went through snow like no one's business.
Rick
Hey a 400 might have been worth hanging onto, I seem to recall that there was only about 60k of them actually built? The third generation LeBaron which was on the J-platform was actually a big step up from the earlier models. There was some decent engine choices to be had and in all fairness that tends to be generation people tend to hang onto rather than the first on the K-platform.
ATS and CTS are great cars for Cadillac, but Cimarron? Not so much:
In fact, it damn near signaled the death of GM's pristine luxury brand as we knew it. That LeBaron has nothing on this dud!
"If you try the new 5-speed manual times (quarter mile) drop under 19 (seconds)." WTF :-D
Hey, at least the Cimarron could stop pretty well...maybe Cadillac should have used it more in the marketing. :cool: You're right at least at minimum the LeBaron had more clear luxury appointments and looked more so the part even when it was on the K-platform. The Cimarron just looks someone switched the Chevy badge off a Caviler.....they even look the same side-by-side:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Cadillac_Cimarron_2_--_07-01-2009.jpg/250px-Cadillac_Cimarron_2_--_07-01-2009.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/1st_Chevrolet_Cavalier_sedan.jpg/250px-1st_Chevrolet_Cavalier_sedan.jpg)
The Wikipedia article even points out that in modern dollars the Cimarron would have cost about 31k today adjusted for inflation, that is a truly pathetic attempt of putting lipstick on a pig.
GM actually did a much better job in the 1990s with the Catera which really led into the first generation CTS. Granted I know neither the CTS or Catera really fit in the compact slot that the Cimarron failed in but the ATS succeeds:
Its funny, the Catera really did get a lot of good press when it came out...sure is bagged on pretty hard nowadays. That car actually had a lot of features you'd expect in something sold today.
My first car was a 1980 Pontiac Firebird my dad had sitting in the barn for years upon years. The thing was fine, at least in terms of aesthetics. The engine block was full of dirt and dust, anyhoo, after a deep cleaning, the car still ran like shit. The car finally crapped out on I-57 when the catalytic converter caught fire and blew up.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2017, 10:23:16 AM
Its funny, the Catera really did get a lot of good press when it came out...sure is bagged on pretty hard nowadays. That car actually had a lot of features you'd expect in something sold today.
The first thing I think of when I hear Catera is Cindy Crawford. I can live with that.
Quote from: chays on April 07, 2017, 11:09:41 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2017, 10:23:16 AM
Its funny, the Catera really did get a lot of good press when it came out...sure is bagged on pretty hard nowadays. That car actually had a lot of features you'd expect in something sold today.
The first thing I think of when I hear Catera is Cindy Crawford. I can live with that.
I tried like hell to find that commercial on Youtube to no avail when you mentioned it. No dice on even find an image on Yahoo either.
Something different for today with something interesting engineering behind it:
Kind of interesting to think that a 206 inch long car could weigh well under 4,000 pounds given the huge amount of weight gains cars have had in the last quarter century:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 19, 2017, 10:08:06 PM
Kind of interesting to think that a 206 inch long car could weigh well under 4,000 pounds given the huge amount of weight gains cars have had in the last quarter century:
Much of that can be blamed on the additional standard features & safety-related equipment (example: air bags, note the plural) that have been added on cars since then. Adding AWD to an existing 2WD vehicle doesn't help in the weight department either.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2017, 09:20:13 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 19, 2017, 10:08:06 PM
Kind of interesting to think that a 206 inch long car could weigh well under 4,000 pounds given the huge amount of weight gains cars have had in the last quarter century:
Much of that can be blamed on the additional standard features & safety-related equipment (example: air bags, note the plural) that have been added on cars since then. Adding AWD to an existing 2WD vehicle doesn't help in the weight department either.
Even the heyday of the late 1960s it was hard to find even a 4,000 plus pound car out that crowd. They were basically big metal bodies but there wasn't anything in them like you said...like air bags which probably drive most of the weight increases alone. The mid-1980s actually had plenty of cars to go around that weighed less than 2,500 pounds given air bag/safety requirements were nowhere near as strict as they are today.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 19, 2017, 10:08:06 PM
Kind of interesting to think that a 206 inch long car could weigh well under 4,000 pounds given the huge amount of weight gains cars have had in the last quarter century:
I see your 98, and raise you an LHS:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 20, 2017, 09:32:34 AMEven the heyday of the late 1960s it was hard to find even a 4,000 plus pound car out that crowd. They were basically big metal bodies but there wasn't anything in them like you said...like air bags which probably drive most of the weight increases alone.
I wouldn't go that far. The largest of the large vehicles (mostly luxury vehicles (Cadillacs, Buicks/Oldsmobile's C-bodies, Lincolns & Imperials) weighed over 4000 lbs. even during the early 60s. The '59-'60 Cadillacs were even close to or over 5000 lbs. back then.
By the early 70s, most standard, full-size cars weighed over 4000 lbs.; and by the mid-70s, many of them were close to and even over 5000 lbs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 20, 2017, 09:32:34 AMThe mid-1980s actually had plenty of cars to go around that weighed less than 2,500 pounds given air bag/safety requirements were nowhere near as strict as they are today.
Very few cars in the mid-80s came w/air bags. The driver's side air bag wasn't mandated until the early 90s.
Another reason for increased weight on today's cars is increased rim sizes. Prior to the mid-1980s, 15-inch rims were the largest that was offered on cars. Today, 19 or even 20-inch rims are offered as an option on many models.
As an example, when Ford's Panther (downsized full-sizes) platform first rolled out for the 1979 model year; it had 14-inch rims standard w/15-inchers being optional.
For 1986, 15-inchers became standard again.
From 1993-1997, the optional Handling & Performance Package was the only way one could get 16-inch rims as standard equipment on those cars.
16-inch rims became standard across the board for all full-size Fords, Lincolns & Mercurys for the 1998 model year.
17-inch rims became first available as an option for 2003 and became standard for 2005. Such would remain standard through 2011 (2012 for export-only models) when the long-running platform was retired.
The 2003-2004 Mercury Marauder had 18-inch rims and the latter Lincoln Town Cars had 18-inchers as well.
Those road-tested '91 Olds 98 & '93 Chrysler LHS, no doubt, only had 15-inchers.
Six-year rust through warranty and galvanized steel body panels. :cool:
Those tires look so thin on that Blazer....
Regular Cars on the history of the NYC Autoshow:
Modified 2002:
What the tail end of the 1990s thought a hybrid should be. I forgot those hyper mileage club were a thing:
French car....surprisingly quick 1/4 mile time for 1982:
Mike & Molly led me to these discoveries:
^^^
That's a lot of effort to restore a 79 Gallant. Too bad it wasn't the 2.0 in the first video, that 1.6 looks tiny in that engine bay.
SHO:
I remember people used to think these were the coolest cars out there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2017, 08:20:06 AM
SHO:
I remember people used to think these were the coolest cars out there.
For brief period of time (say, 1989-1990) there weren't many sedans in production that could touch those performance numbers.
The BMW M5 comes to mind, although in another league, and with only about 2000 examples produced over four years, until production ramped up later on.
That SHO may go down in history as the large American sedan that broke lots of rules for its time, with a manual transmission (and no automatic until the second generation debuted in 1992) and a souped-up engine that did not require the help of a turbocharger or supercharger. About the closest thing to this is the mid-90s Caprice-based Impala SS 6-speed, aka Chevy's answer to the SHO.
About the only thing I didn't like on that Impala build was how low it was, hopefully that is an air suspension. That was some nice blending modern equipment into a stock looking design on the interior. Probably pushing 600 hp easily with a moderately boosted LS2.
I really don't know if there has been a true follow-up to the original SHO. Don't forget that thing was a FWD performance car that really probably did have too much power torque steering the wheels for the time. Nowadays a transverse engine car would likely be equipped with AWD in a performance application like that. I would think the LS4 W-Bodies were probably a little in concept.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 23, 2017, 10:37:31 AMI really don't know if there has been a true follow-up to the original SHO. Don't forget that thing was a FWD performance car that really probably did have too much power torque steering the wheels for the time.
I see torque steering as a 1980's/early 1990's problem that resulted from the automakers trying to use axle shafts of unequal length instead of putting in a proper intermediate shaft. My 1986 Nissan Maxima had a problem with torque steer; neither the 1994 Saturn SL2 nor the 2005 Toyota Camry show any signs of it even with rapid takeoffs. These cars all have similar power/weight ratios.
I don't think we've done too many Volvos:
Good god every car in the Volvo line used to be hideous, at least you can occasional panel creases with Saab.
I think JN Winkler nailed it:
My dad's 1987 Bonneville had a huge torque steer problem. That Series 3800 3.8L V-6 was quite torquey for its size anyway and that car would want to turn dead left if launched from the line.
My wife's 1999 Grand AM was a smaller, lighter car with a smaller 3.4L V-6 that was putting out similar power numbers if memory serves and it had zero torque steer. It was quite fun in the twisties, the most fun I had up in the NC mountains untill we got our Mustang GT's in this decade.
If you mash the throttle, you'll typically get torque steer in powerful front-wheel drive car. Low-profile tires on modern cars also nudge the steering a bit if the road isn't perfectly flat.
I get it a tad on my 128-hp front-driver, but it's fairly gentle.
Quote from: formulanone on May 31, 2017, 06:27:11 PM
If you mash the throttle, you'll typically get torque steer in powerful front-wheel drive car. Low-profile tires on modern cars also nudge the steering a bit if the road isn't perfectly flat.
I get it a tad on my 128-hp front-driver, but it's fairly gentle.
Speaking of mashing the throttle of a FWD car, see 3:12:
How about two for the price of one? As in two of Ford's earliest Fox-body applications.
Fairmont
Zephyr (aka the better-looking Mercury variant)
Perhaps the ultimate oddball from GM, or all of Detroit for that matter:
On a side note, I've always wondered why GM allowed the Riviera to be a RWD car from 1966 to '76, even though it rode on the same platform as the Toronado and Eldorado (which were both FWD)? At least they got it right in '79, when it was finally converted to FWD as well.
The funny thing is that people were really so enamored with Dallas in the 1980s that it would have been a viable marketing ploy. :rolleyes:
I love the "losing cemeteries of customers line." :-D Funny to thing that the HT line was really the last engine family that was exclusive to Cadillac. The Northstar Alllantes were a lot more impressive considering they had some pretty strong engines for the early 1990s.
I thought Kelly Bundy was a much better spokes person at 20:10:
Way to keep it classy Cadillac, put your car on THE definitive white trash show. :rolleyes:
It also might be just me....but man was Pininfarina overrated in my opinion. That was always the hot thing for automotive styling back in the 1980s with the whole "Italian" thing.
Another GM oddball, this time the 1982-86 G-body Bonneville:
Yes, there was a time when the Bonneville was not Pontiac's flagship; back then, that honor fell to the Parisienne, which was just a dressed-up version of the humble Chevy Caprice. As the LeMans was no longer made, and the Grand Prix needed a sedan companion, the Bonneville filled that role rather nicely.
Quote from: Henry on June 16, 2017, 09:27:32 AMYes, there was a time when the Bonneville was not Pontiac's flagship; back then, that honor fell to the Parisienne, which was just a dressed-up version of the humble Chevy Caprice. As the LeMans was no longer made, and the Grand Prix needed a sedan companion, the Bonneville filled that role rather nicely.
That
blunder on Pontiac's part was the result of:
1. Anticipation of future rising gas prices & stringent CAFE standards forcing production of full-size cars out of existence. One needs to keep in mind that the original plans for
all the RWD B & C bodies were to be replaced with smaller, FWD-based models for the 1983 model year. Slapping the
Bonneville badge onto what was the previous year's ('81) LeMans (A, then later G-body) was a way of gradually
weaning the public from the larger B-Body. Nobody back then thought for a moment that the RWD B (Chevy & Buick) & C-body (Cadillac) platform would be produced through the '96 model year let alone have an aero makeover in the early 90s.
2. Another attempt for GM to separate the product line-ups in their respective divisions. The long-term plan was to only have product overlap w/all the divisions in its mid-size car line-ups. The full-sizes were planned to be restricted to Oldsmobile, Buick & Cadillac. Such was the main reason why Pontiac didn't receive a version of the FWD H-body until 1987 & why Chevy never received a version of such at all; police package variants of its full-size cars would've been offered on Buicks (LeSabre) & Oldsmobiles (Delta 88) en lieu of the Chevy Impala (Caprice from '86 onward). With the above in place; Chevy & Pontiac would have been the only GM divisions selling small (compact, subcompact) cars.
Needless to say, the plan described in 2. never was fully carried out/executed and the Canadian market (that had their Pontiac Catalina/Bonneville named Laurentian/Parisienne)
still wanted a full-size Pontiac for a new car at the time; models sold to markets outside the U.S. (including Canadian models) weren't required to meet CAFE standards. Dressing up a Caprice as the '82-1/2 Parisienne was a low-cost effort to meet that demand.
No more auto plants in Australia. Here what really killed the Aussie auto industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62xwizjP67M
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on June 19, 2017, 09:31:50 PM
No more auto plants in Australia. Here what really killed the Aussie auto industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62xwizjP67M
That was actually a really well put together piece. I miss when people would do serious automotive journalism here without using swear words five times in a sentence.
First gen MR2:
Too bad Toyota doesn't make these anymore, they were fun small light weight rear-engine cars.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2017, 08:39:38 AM
First gen MR2...
Too bad Toyota doesn't make these anymore, they were fun small light weight rear-engine cars.
Agreed on that; it's also too bad that they don't make the Celica or Supra either. In fact, the closest thing to a sports car in today's lineup is the 86, although I've heard rumors of a possible Supra comeback.
Quote from: Henry on June 22, 2017, 09:52:17 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2017, 08:39:38 AM
First gen MR2...
Too bad Toyota doesn't make these anymore, they were fun small light weight rear-engine cars.
Agreed on that; it's also too bad that they don't make the Celica or Supra either. In fact, the closest thing to a sports car in today's lineup is the 86, although I've heard rumors of a possible Supra comeback.
And I'm kind of surprised Toyota really went with the 86 after Scion went defunct, the brand hasn't exactly been known for making fun cars for awhile. Really if they had a turbo option for the 86 and Subaru BRZ it would fill the niche that has been missing since the GM Kappa cars went defunct.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2017, 10:24:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 20, 2017, 09:32:34 AMEven the heyday of the late 1960s it was hard to find even a 4,000 plus pound car out that crowd. They were basically big metal bodies but there wasn't anything in them like you said...like air bags which probably drive most of the weight increases alone.
I wouldn't go that far. The largest of the large vehicles (mostly luxury vehicles (Cadillacs, Buicks/Oldsmobile's C-bodies, Lincolns & Imperials) weighed over 4000 lbs. even during the early 60s. The '59-'60 Cadillacs were even close to or over 5000 lbs. back then.
By the early 70s, most standard, full-size cars weighed over 4000 lbs.; and by the mid-70s, many of them were close to and even over 5000 lbs.
I was reading how much of the weight of cars in those days had to do with maintaining traction on bias-ply tires, and that the shift to radials, which didn't need as much weight to maintain cornering traction, in the mid-70s led to much of the weight (and cost) reduction. That's what's sort of fascinating about this thread - while many of these cars are pretty awful in retrospect, they represent the first attempts of large, lumbering bureaucracies to adapt to new ideas and technologies.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on June 22, 2017, 10:24:10 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 20, 2017, 10:24:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 20, 2017, 09:32:34 AMEven the heyday of the late 1960s it was hard to find even a 4,000 plus pound car out that crowd. They were basically big metal bodies but there wasn't anything in them like you said...like air bags which probably drive most of the weight increases alone.
I wouldn't go that far. The largest of the large vehicles (mostly luxury vehicles (Cadillacs, Buicks/Oldsmobile's C-bodies, Lincolns & Imperials) weighed over 4000 lbs. even during the early 60s. The '59-'60 Cadillacs were even close to or over 5000 lbs. back then.
By the early 70s, most standard, full-size cars weighed over 4000 lbs.; and by the mid-70s, many of them were close to and even over 5000 lbs.
I was reading how much of the weight of cars in those days had to do with maintaining traction on bias-ply tires, and that the shift to radials, which didn't need as much weight to maintain cornering traction, in the mid-70s led to much of the weight (and cost) reduction. That's what's sort of fascinating about this thread - while many of these cars are pretty awful in retrospect, they represent the first attempts of large, lumbering bureaucracies to adapt to new ideas and technologies.
That's kind of the really crappy thing was that it took regulation to drive innovation. At least with some prospective regulation rollbacks it looks like the automakers are still looking to innovate today because of competition. I'd say the door opening for Japanese competition during the emissions era which is really what was the driver behind the modernized cars we see today.
Speaking of Japanese Cars....1987 Corolla:
Early SN95 Cobra, pretty good braking distance...not sure about the "Asian" looking spoiler. :rolleyes:
300D, never really the appeal of these....they seem to have a decent following:
I can't believe no one mentioned this:
This 80s attempt at reviving one of the most revered nameplates in GM history may have been a great idea in theory, but it was too bad they put it on a copycat Japanese subcompact (although it's nice that they retrofitted the front for four headlights, which the original Nova never had) instead of a proper-sized compact (like what they'd get with the Corsica/Beretta twins). At least it led to the more plausible Prizm. And today's Regal is sort of a deja vu thing, compared to what is seen here.
I love these judgmental car show videos.
https://youtu.be/1TAv0jFChQg
Also, I need to send them my TSX.
Most people forget that this was Cadillac's version of the 1970s X-body:
Quote from: Henry on July 14, 2017, 10:05:44 AM
Most people forget that this was Cadillac's version of the 1970s X-body:
The styling of that car would influence nearly all of GM's line-up in the subsequent years following its inaugural 1975 launch.
1983 Chrysler lineup; love to see the Rampage, Scamp, and Cordova:
1983 Ford Lineup:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2017, 07:40:25 AM
1983 Chrysler lineup; love to see the Rampage, Scamp, and Cordova:
That's Cordo
ba.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2017, 07:40:25 AM
1983 Ford Lineup:
The LTD Crown Victoria sedan shown is actually an '82 model. The '83s grille featured wider eggcrate squares & looked less Oldsmobile-like. The full-size Mercury wagon shown after it is also an '82 model (Marquis wagon). From '83 onward, all full-size Mercury wagons were Colony Parks (with the simulated woodgrain on the sides & rear).
Got a chance to review the Ford video. Not sure if the narration was actually from 1983 or not; but there's a few errors
even for then:
1. Although such might have been ultimately planned as a replacement for the Panther-based full-sizes years down the road;
it was already well known prior to their introduction that the Fox-bodied LTD/Marquis would
not replace them. Both wound up replacing the Fox-bodied Granada & Cougar (non-XR-7) models that were only around for 2 years.
2. 1984 would
not be the year that the Panther platform would be retired. The platform would continue on (with a switch to sequential-port injection for 1986, a major restyle & engine change for 1992) in some fashion for 27 more years. Granted, nobody back then thought the platform would survive beyond the mid-80s. Not mentioned is the fact that the '83 full-size Panther-based Fords & Mercurys would receive throttle-body fuel injection for its now-standard 5.0L/302 V8. This would replace the previous year's variable-venture carburation system (such was still on the 5.8L/351 engine that was only offered for Police Packages & Canadian-marketed models). The smaller 4.2L/255 V8 engine was dropped for good; such was true for the entire line-up that had previously offered this engine.
3. The 5.0L/302 V8 was still offered as an option on then-new aero-T-Bird & Cougar. The narrator made no mention of such.
Chrysler Australia had once a Hemi 6, a inline 6 265 ci with Hemi head used in Aussies Valiants and Chargers in the early 1970s. Too bad it didn't go under the hood of Dart/Valiant/Duster, Cuda/Challenger, Coronet/Satellite, Polara/Fury. That engine could had helped Chrysler to pass the 1st oil crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWmf3TKV-1M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAXcqLW2_zs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML50Vj7xwcw
C4 Callaway Corvette Super Natural. I remember when 400hp territory was considered ungodly....almost 130k is out of control even for a modern Corvette:
1994 Ford Aspire, the bridge between the Festiva and the second coming of the Fiesta:
Also, it was technically Kia's first foray into the U.S.; they would sell cars under their own banner just three years later.
1990 ZX Turbo, my brother had one of these cars. The lack of a tilt wheel was a bigger problem than people realize today, so damn annoying:
Quote from: Henry on August 04, 2017, 09:06:17 AM
1994 Ford Aspire, the bridge between the Festiva and the second coming of the Fiesta:
...
Also, it was technically Kia's first foray into the U.S.; they would sell cars under their own banner just three years later.
Actually, it was the Festiva that was Kia's first foray into the US. The Aspire's an updated version of that platform.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 14, 2017, 03:07:48 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 04, 2017, 09:06:17 AM
1994 Ford Aspire, the bridge between the Festiva and the second coming of the Fiesta:
...
Also, it was technically Kia's first foray into the U.S.; they would sell cars under their own banner just three years later.
Actually, it was the Festiva that was Kia's first foray into the US. The Aspire's an updated version of that platform.
I still see Ford Festivas on the road, many more than Aspires.
Any truth to a story that the Aspires were just here to balance out CAFE fuel economy numbers in light of their light truck sales?
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 01:53:31 PMAny truth to a story that the Aspires were just here to balance out CAFE fuel economy numbers in light of their light truck sales?
Only 1/2 correct. Both the Aspire & its Festiva predecessor were introduced to balance Ford's CAFE figures from penalties incurred by every Crown Vic. & V8-powered T-Birds & Mustangs they were selling.
Light trucks were subject to a lower CAFE standard than cars. Such was the main reason why manufacturers started focusing on & expanding their SUV line-ups.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 16, 2017, 01:58:40 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 01:53:31 PMAny truth to a story that the Aspires were just here to balance out CAFE fuel economy numbers in light of their light truck sales?
Only 1/2 correct. Both the Aspire & its Festiva predecessor were introduced to balance Ford's CAFE figures from penalties incurred by every Crown Vic. & V8-powered T-Birds & Mustangs they were selling.
Light trucks were subject to a lower CAFE standard than cars. Such was the main reason why manufacturers started focusing on & expanding their SUV line-ups.
That makes more sense; the entire manufacturer's light truck fleet was like 20-21 mpg and passenger cars were 27.5 mpg (or something).
The push for greater fuel economy was forced on light trucks, and I guess successfully so. Meanwhile, passenger cars got a free pass for essentially 20 years, and while I advocate for improved fuel economy numbers, that two-decade lag wasn't really improving the breed.
I guess we're going to see some, uh..."interesting" little cars coming out soon, but I'm not sure how this whole "vehicle footprint" thing is going work out. I think we'll either see a lot more underpowered large vehicles (probably better for driver-less technologies) and equally-compromised small cars on both extreme ends of the spectrum.
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 03:51:05 PMI guess we're going to see some, uh..."interesting" little cars coming out soon, but I'm not sure how this whole "vehicle footprint" thing is going work out. I think we'll either see a lot more underpowered large vehicles (probably better for driver-less technologies) and equally-compromised small cars on both extreme ends of the spectrum.
I am concerned about long-term durability, since in this family our preferred approach to dealing with the cost of car ownership has been to buy new and well-equipped, for cash on the barrelhead, and keep until the car is compromised by rust (happened to my 1986 Nissan Maxima after 22 years) or destroyed in an accident (happened to two of the last three family cars). My daily driver has been in the family since new and is now 23 years old.
The current CAFE push has given rise to substitution of turbo fours for normally aspirated V6 engines, which causes me to worry about sludging and oil consumption. High specific output tends to correlate with sticking rings in the absence of good oil temperature management, and turbos run hot, which can lead to sludging. My 1994 Saturn was purposely designed with slow oil drainback in the late 1980's because the 5W-30 oils then available were considered vulnerable to film strength failure, and as a result it has a 1500 MPQ oil habit.
Besides the possibility of oil consumption and sludging in the engine, there are wider powertrain durability issues due to the automakers clinging to ATFs that are semi-synthetic at best while making the ATF increasingly difficult to change (the Toyota Camry hasn't had a transmission dipstick since MY 2006), as well as battery life for hybrids. With the rise of leasing, I envisage the "product as service" concept bleeding over from the software industry to automobiles.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 16, 2017, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 03:51:05 PMI guess we're going to see some, uh..."interesting" little cars coming out soon, but I'm not sure how this whole "vehicle footprint" thing is going work out. I think we'll either see a lot more underpowered large vehicles (probably better for driver-less technologies) and equally-compromised small cars on both extreme ends of the spectrum.
I am concerned about long-term durability, since in this family our preferred approach to dealing with the cost of car ownership has been to buy new and well-equipped, for cash on the barrelhead, and keep until the car is compromised by rust (happened to my 1986 Nissan Maxima after 22 years) or destroyed in an accident (happened to two of the last three family cars). My daily driver has been in the family since new and is now 23 years old.
The current CAFE push has given rise to substitution of turbo fours for normally aspirated V6 engines, which causes me to worry about sludging and oil consumption. High specific output tends to correlate with sticking rings in the absence of good oil temperature management, and turbos run hot, which can lead to sludging. My 1994 Saturn was purposely designed with slow oil drainback in the late 1980's because the 5W-30 oils then available were considered vulnerable to film strength failure, and as a result it has a 1500 MPQ oil habit.
Besides the possibility of oil consumption and sludging in the engine, there are wider powertrain durability issues due to the automakers clinging to ATFs that are semi-synthetic at best while making the ATF increasingly difficult to change (the Toyota Camry hasn't had a transmission dipstick since MY 2006), as well as battery life for hybrids. With the rise of leasing, I envisage the "product as service" concept bleeding over from the software industry to automobiles.
I suppose the nearly universal switch to full synthetics or semi-synthetics will help out; many manufacturers are starting to push for full synthetics.
The transmission dipstick is starting to become a thing of the past on many vehicles in the past 5-10 years. I think a few fearful owners still want a transmission pan services (or if it is leaking), but there is no interval specified in the owner's manual, and no idea if even the pan service is a good idea in the first place. Traditional logic is that you either change it on a regular interval, or just never change the fluid once it acts up, because they'll be back in three days with an even worse case of transmission problems.
With everything else that will fail electronically and render it less-than useful, I think the third-hand market will look really haphazard another decade or so, because there is basically no aftermarket for control modules, airbags, InfoNavRadioTainment systems, instrument clusters, and the like. The problem is that there's very few "simple" vehicles anymore...Maybe Jeeps and Caterham 7s?
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 06:56:36 PM
The problem is that there's very few "simple" vehicles anymore...Maybe Jeeps and Caterham 7s?
Jeeps aren't even that simple anymore. The Renegade is basically a Fiat, and the rest are more complex than their predecessors. Cars like the 7, the Ariel Atom, and even the Lotus Evora* are very, very niche. The current Mazda Miata, even though it's smaller and lighter than its immediate predecessor, has stuff you wouldn't see back in the 90s.
*I originally had the Exige here, not the Evora, but the Exige and Elise haven't been sold in the US for a few years because they're too simple for our regulations!
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 06:56:36 PMThe transmission dipstick is starting to become a thing of the past on many vehicles in the past 5-10 years. I think a few fearful owners still want a transmission pan services (or if it is leaking), but there is no interval specified in the owner's manual, and no idea if even the pan service is a good idea in the first place. Traditional logic is that you either change it on a regular interval, or just never change the fluid once it acts up, because they'll be back in three days with an even worse case of transmission problems.
As with lots of other stuff auto-related, there is an upright view and then there is a cynical view.
The upright view says that shear stability matters far less than it used to now that friction modifiers (for which each automaker has its own bespoke package) are the principal determinants of shift quality, and routine maintenance is no longer necessary because transmissions run cooler, so that the fluid is protected from heat degradation, and strainers and magnets do a good enough job intercepting grit particles that a transmission can be trusted to last well over 100,000 miles on the original fluid. Therefore, eliminating the dipstick gets rid of a potential source of contamination and also a potential source of mechanic error since there is no such thing as an easy-to-read transmission dipstick and the idiots at the iffy-lube places insist on checking transmission fluid with a view toward upselling unneeded and possibly damaging transmission flushes. Moreover, having a fluid-check routine in the PCM that uses the CEL to signal fluid level gives a more reliable indication of adequate fill.
The cynical view holds that while friction modifiers do control shift quality, viscosity still has an impact, and factory fluid will shear down enough that shifts will start banging noticeably. Bespoke friction modifier packages either support inflated-margin OEM parts sales (if the customer decides to service the transmission completely by the book) or contribute to planned obsolescence (if a general-purpose ATF is used that nominally meets manufacturer's specs but is too far away from out-of-bottle performance of OEM fluid). Changeout of fluid is still one of the most reliable ways to get rid of grit, as is dropping the pan and cleaning or changing the strainer. Getting rid of the dipstick builds in planned obsolescence since it puts the transmission "out of sight, out of mind" for the majority of customers and helps ensure leaks are not found until the transmission is irretrievably damaged.
I personally think there is merit in both views, so I navigate between them by changing fluid every so often. I had a 1986 Nissan Maxima for which no service interval for the ATF was specified; the FSM did not even explain how to drain the ATF. I got the latter information from a Haynes manual and drained and filled the transmission every year at a time when I was doing 30,000 miles a year. This was in the Dexron II age, when viscosity loss had much more of an effect on shift quality. Under this maintenance regime, which did not include strainer changing, the transmission shifted like new well beyond 200,000 miles; other Maximas of similar vintage I saw advertised in the newspapers invariably had had the transmission rebuilt at least once. It was only when the car hit 20 years, clearcoat started peeling, battery started going out, etc. that I let maintenance slip and shift quality started to go.
I think I would have done better if I had used synthetic ATF from the get-go. The Saturn now has about 75% Castrol TranSynd in its sump (two drains and fills), and shifts very smoothly aside from an occasional notchy 1-2 shift that I suspect has to do with the throttle position sensor (factory original) having worn out of spec. I tried the Camry with Valvoline MaxLife full synthetic, with misgivings owing to a large mismatch in out-of-bottle 100° C kinematic viscosity; after about 30,000 miles of mostly mediocre shift performance, I changed to Amsoil ATF, which is a closer out-of-the-bottle match, and am pleased with the results. (MaxLife: 5.9 cSt; Toyota T-IV: 7.1 cSt; Amsoil ATF: 7.5 cSt; estimated viscosity of mixture currently in sump after two drains and fills: 6.9 cSt.)
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 06:56:36 PMWith everything else that will fail electronically and render it less-than useful, I think the third-hand market will look really haphazard another decade or so, because there is basically no aftermarket for control modules, airbags, InfoNavRadioTainment systems, instrument clusters, and the like. The problem is that there's very few "simple" vehicles anymore...Maybe Jeeps and Caterham 7s?
I am a little more sanguine about the durability of electronic components now that we are past the problem of capacitors with quaternary ammonium salts. The Maxima had dementia symptoms which at the time I blamed on static discharge while vacuuming the trunk carpet, but which could well have been leaking capacitors. The Saturn is in excellent "mental" health at age 23.
On the other hand, the Takata bankruptcy could have an effect on the secondhand market. I have seen no word on who would even make the replacement airbags, let alone finance their changeout.
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 06:56:36 PMI suppose the nearly universal switch to full synthetics or semi-synthetics will help out; many manufacturers are starting to push for full synthetics.
I am actually a little worried about this development. It is a very demanding discipline for the automakers to design engines that will run well for hundreds of thousands of miles on the unbranded garbage that the bulk tankers decant at the iffy-lube places, but when they succeed the result is usually bulletproof. Making synthetic oil an owner's-manual requirement reduces the customer's margin for error and also scope for realizing superlative wear and sludge protection by investing in Walmart synthetics.
The latest Amsoil house magazine notes that the new tranche of oil specs coming in 2019 (API SP, ILSAC GF-6) is designed to accommodate automakers' desire to progress CAFE compliance by using the oil, not control logic in the PCM, to prevent low-speed preignition. It's hard to see how this promotes robustness in design.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 16, 2017, 09:14:12 PMplanned obsolescence
Not to boil away your fine post, but I feel this is essentially the biggest concern with many complex things, especially when everything is in perpetual Beta.
Can a smartphone last seven years? Yes, with a little care. Do we want to struggle with it after three? Probably not.
I think that people think of their cars that way...keep it only 7-8 years, even if it can last 15-20 with a few expensive repairs along the way. The difference is that it is still 99% usable and reliable after the first decade, unlike 3 years of the phone becoming bogged down with OS updates and software that it wasn't primarily designed for (or kludged against its will).
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 03:51:05 PMThat makes more sense; the entire manufacturer's light truck fleet was like 20-21 mpg and passenger cars were 27.5 mpg (or something).
The push for greater fuel economy was forced on light trucks, and I guess successfully so. Meanwhile, passenger cars got a free pass for essentially 20 years, and while I advocate for improved fuel economy numbers, that two-decade lag wasn't really improving the breed.
IIRC, the fore-mentioned truck standard went to 20-21 mpg at the same time that the car standard went to 27.5* mpg circa 1985. *the car standard was temporarily lowered to 26 mpg from 1987 to 1989 due to law enforcement agencies complaining about the gas guzzler taxes imposed on their patrol vehicles.
The truck standard was the main reason why Ford, Chevy, GMC and later Jeep & Dodge started offering compact pick-up trucks (Ranger, S-10, S-15, Comanche & Dakota) & SUVs (Bronco II, S-10 Blazer, S-15 Jimmy & Cherokee/Wagoneer). Most of these were sales successes in their day with the Wagoneer (later rebadged as a 4-door Cherokee) setting the stage for the 4-door SUV boom that would start in the early 90s.
Quote from: formulanone on August 16, 2017, 03:51:05 PMI guess we're going to see some, uh..."interesting" little cars coming out soon, but I'm not sure how this whole "vehicle footprint" thing is going work out. I think we'll either see a lot more underpowered large vehicles (probably better for driver-less technologies) and equally-compromised small cars on both extreme ends of the spectrum.
Not to get political here, but given that we just had a major election last year & its results; I don't believe that we're going to see as aggressive of a push for increased mileage for vehicles as we've seen in previous years outside of items that were already in the design/development pipeline beforehand and are nearing
production-ready status in the next year or so.
If anything & from a market perspective, we're going in the opposite direction now; especially now the small cross-over (CUV) has dethroned the mid-size sedan as the best selling vehicle type. Most of the CUVs due to their design get lower mileage than mid-size sedans; especially in AWD form.
More law enforcement agencies are choosing SUVs & even full-size pick-ups over more fuel-efficient sedans. Right after Ford discontinued production of their long-running full-size Panther platform (Crown Victoria); the California Highway Patrol (CHP) modified their required payload specs for their Enforcement Class vehicles so that only SUVs like the Utility Interceptor (Explorer) & the Tahoe PPV would be eligible.
Long story short; I would not be so quick to make any ambitious predictions here. History has shown time-and-time again that such can turn on a dime. One reason why automakers started struggling with the CAFE standards during the early-to-mid 80s was due to buyers returning to larger (Caprice, Crown Victoria, etc.) and/or performance-oriented (read V8-powered Mustang GT, Camaro Z28 & Trans Am) cars that were originally destined for discontinuation. If one told a Ford designer circa the late 70s that their Panther platform would run through the first decade of the 21st century; they would've laughed in one's face.
1994 Taurus SHO:
Love how much revs those Yamaha V6 could handle.
1977 Pontiac Can Am, my Uncle picked up one of these as a collector and is the only car he regrets selling:
Pontiac really was the only light in a really dark period in the late 1970s in American performance. I find it amazing how long the Pontiac 400 managed to hang on through the emissions era.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 06, 2017, 08:27:15 PMPontiac really was the only light in a really dark period in the late 1970s in American performance. I find it amazing how long the Pontiac 400 managed to hang on through the emissions era.
One can thank the 1977 movie
Smokey & the Bandit for such.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 07, 2017, 08:38:55 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 06, 2017, 08:27:15 PMPontiac really was the only light in a really dark period in the late 1970s in American performance. I find it amazing how long the Pontiac 400 managed to hang on through the emissions era.
One can thank the 1977 movie Smokey & the Bandit for such.
Off the top of my head didn't the 400 last only through 1979 before it was replaced by the 301 Pontiac Turbo and 305 Chevy Mouse Motor? Weird to think back at that movie and how people thought Coors was some fancy pants high end beer.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:01:12 AMOff the top of my head didn't the 400 last only through 1979 before it was replaced by the 301 Pontiac Turbo and 305 Chevy Mouse Motor?
Yes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:01:12 AMWeird to think back at that movie and how people thought Coors was some fancy pants high end beer.
Different time/different era.
Quote from: Legal status of Coors beer per Wiki account of the "Smokey and the Bandit" movieIn 1977, Coors was unavailable for sale east of Oklahoma. A 1974 Time magazine article explains why Coors was so sought after that someone could be willing to pay the Bandit such a high price to transport it. Coors Banquet Beer had a brief renaissance as certain people sought it out for its lack of stabilizers and preservatives. The article says that future Vice President Gerald Ford hid it in his luggage after a trip to Colorado in order to take it back to Washington. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a steady supply airlifted to Washington by the Air Force. The article also mentions Frederick Amon, who smuggled it from Colorado to North Carolina and sold it for four times the retail price. The lack of additives and preservatives meant that Coors had the potential for spoiling in a week if it were not kept cold throughout its transportation and in storage at its destination. This explains the 28-hour deadline.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 07, 2017, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:01:12 AMOff the top of my head didn't the 400 last only through 1979 before it was replaced by the 301 Pontiac Turbo and 305 Chevy Mouse Motor?
Yes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:01:12 AMWeird to think back at that movie and how people thought Coors was some fancy pants high end beer.
Different time/different era.
Quote from: Legal status of Coors beer per Wiki account of the "Smokey and the Bandit" movieIn 1977, Coors was unavailable for sale east of Oklahoma. A 1974 Time magazine article explains why Coors was so sought after that someone could be willing to pay the Bandit such a high price to transport it. Coors Banquet Beer had a brief renaissance as certain people sought it out for its lack of stabilizers and preservatives. The article says that future Vice President Gerald Ford hid it in his luggage after a trip to Colorado in order to take it back to Washington. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a steady supply airlifted to Washington by the Air Force. The article also mentions Frederick Amon, who smuggled it from Colorado to North Carolina and sold it for four times the retail price. The lack of additives and preservatives meant that Coors had the potential for spoiling in a week if it were not kept cold throughout its transportation and in storage at its destination. This explains the 28-hour deadline.
So I say this not having boned up 1970s era alcohol distribution laws... Wouldn't it be perfectly legal to purchase Coors in a state where it was legal to do so and transport it to a private local for private use? its still amusing to think that Coors was once considered "exotic" in those days when it certainly would be lumped in the bland/generic category today.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 07, 2017, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:01:12 AMOff the top of my head didn't the 400 last only through 1979 before it was replaced by the 301 Pontiac Turbo and 305 Chevy Mouse Motor?
Yes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 07, 2017, 10:01:12 AMWeird to think back at that movie and how people thought Coors was some fancy pants high end beer.
Different time/different era.
Quote from: Legal status of Coors beer per Wiki account of the "Smokey and the Bandit" movieIn 1977, Coors was unavailable for sale east of Oklahoma. A 1974 Time magazine article explains why Coors was so sought after that someone could be willing to pay the Bandit such a high price to transport it. Coors Banquet Beer had a brief renaissance as certain people sought it out for its lack of stabilizers and preservatives. The article says that future Vice President Gerald Ford hid it in his luggage after a trip to Colorado in order to take it back to Washington. President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a steady supply airlifted to Washington by the Air Force. The article also mentions Frederick Amon, who smuggled it from Colorado to North Carolina and sold it for four times the retail price. The lack of additives and preservatives meant that Coors had the potential for spoiling in a week if it were not kept cold throughout its transportation and in storage at its destination. This explains the 28-hour deadline.
So I say this not having boned up 1970s era alcohol distribution laws... Wouldn't it be perfectly legal to purchase Coors in a state where it was legal to do so and transport it to a private local for private use? its still amusing to think that Coors was once considered "exotic" in those days when it certainly would be lumped in the bland/generic category today.
Each state probably has laws limiting the amount imported like that to a fairly small amount.
In the mid-1970s, I was making 5 or 6 trips from Detroit to Denver and back every year. I had a standing order from my father (who had been introduced to Coors on a family vacation to Colorado in 1968) to bring back as many cases as would fit in my car. This was usually around 6 to 10, depending on the car I had. Never saw the attraction myself, but he paid me well. :)
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2017, 11:19:50 PM
Perhaps the ultimate oddball from GM, or all of Detroit for that matter:
On a side note, I've always wondered why GM allowed the Riviera to be a RWD car from 1966 to '76, even though it rode on the same platform as the Toronado and Eldorado (which were both FWD)? At least they got it right in '79, when it was finally converted to FWD as well.
Front wheel drive is considered a demerit when it comes to sports or luxury cars by a majority of drivers. It is more practical for economy or family cars but not for premium cars.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 06, 2017, 08:27:15 PM
1977 Pontiac Can Am, my Uncle picked up one of these as a collector and is the only car he regrets selling:
Pontiac really was the only light in a really dark period in the late 1970s in American performance. I find it amazing how long the Pontiac 400 managed to hang on through the emissions era.
I'm not a big fan of the Colonnade cars, but for some reason I like the Pontiac Can Am. I don't even know why.
Speaking of Colonnades, the original plan was to offer the SD455 engine in the 1973 Pontiac GTO and Grand Am. Unfortunately, this plan was changed and the SD455 was only available in the Firebird Formula and Trans Am models.
A disturbing trend in cars today is the lack of a spare tire in many new cars. About 1/3 of new cars do not offer spare tires, even as an option. This is unacceptable for many reasons. The reason given for discontinuing the spare tire is for weight reasons. The government with its unreasonable mileage regulations is directly responsible for ridiculous moves such as this one.
Quote from: bugo on October 19, 2017, 08:10:45 PM
A disturbing trend in cars today is the lack of a spare tire in many new cars. About 1/3 of new cars do not offer spare tires, even as an option. This is unacceptable for many reasons. The reason given for discontinuing the spare tire is for weight reasons. The government with its unreasonable mileage regulations is directly responsible for ridiculous moves such as this one.
But really even those that have them usually are of the 20-25 pound donut variety. Really the 50 MPH speed limits and 50 mile tread life those things carry isn't going to help anyone in modern urban traffic or in the boon docks. I build a full size spare for whatever my daily driver is out of whatever the cheapest wheel/tire combo I can find. I much rather rely on a real tire built for real road use over some hunk of junk requiring 60 PSI.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2017, 08:17:47 PM
But really even those that have them usually are of the 20-25 pound donut variety. Really the 50 MPH speed limits and 50 mile tread life those things carry isn't going to help anyone in modern urban traffic or in the boon docks. I build a full size spare for whatever my daily driver is out of whatever the cheapest wheel/tire combo I can find. I much rather rely on a real tire built for real road use over some hunk of junk requiring 60 PSI.
It's going to help a hell of a lot if I'm 50 miles from home on a Sunday in an area that doesn't have cell service.
Quote from: bugo on October 19, 2017, 10:46:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2017, 08:17:47 PM
But really even those that have them usually are of the 20-25 pound donut variety. Really the 50 MPH speed limits and 50 mile tread life those things carry isn't going to help anyone in modern urban traffic or in the boon docks. I build a full size spare for whatever my daily driver is out of whatever the cheapest wheel/tire combo I can find. I much rather rely on a real tire built for real road use over some hunk of junk requiring 60 PSI.
It's going to help a hell of a lot if I'm 50 miles from home on a Sunday in an area that doesn't have cell service.
True, but thing is how many people actually keep that donut near that required 60 PSI? Most spares I've touched have seen an air compressor in years and it would be a rare day to see even 30 PSI in most instances. When it comes down to it, some preventative maintenance like checking for slow leaks once a month can prevent a lot of blow outs even if a car doesn't have a spare. Really at the end of the day if a car doesn't have a spare you're looking at $100-$150 to have one built for peace of mind.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2017, 11:42:43 PMTrue, but thing is how many people actually keep that donut near that required 60 PSI? Most spares I've touched have not seen an air compressor in years and it would be a rare day to see even 30 PSI in most instances. When it comes down to it, some preventative maintenance like checking for slow leaks once a month can prevent a lot of blow outs even if a car doesn't have a spare. Really at the end of the day if a car doesn't have a spare you're looking at $100-$150 to have one built for peace of mind.
In about 25 years of driving, I have had only three blowouts, and both were in connection with run-off-the-road accidents. In the first incident, two tires were torn off their mounts (though more or less undamaged), so even with a full-size conventional spare mounted on top of the trunk carpet, I would not have been able to get back on the road if good Samaritans had not stopped and been able to re-mount one of the blown-out tires. The second incident involved a different car that had a donut spare kept in a well under the trunk carpet. It had likely not been checked even once since the car was new, ten years earlier, and it sufficed to limp back to town 20 miles away for repairs.
I used to check air pressure of the four road tires obsessively (once every month at minimum, maybe once every one to two weeks), but now do so no longer. In 25 years of driving there have been only two issues that were caught by this close surveillance: (1) slow bead leak, and (2) slow leak due to nail puncture that barely reached the inner wall. It failed to catch a fairly rapid (but not blowout rapid) leak in several tires due to exposed steel belts--it was a change in steering feel that told me something was up, and I ended up replacing all four tires midway through a long-distance roadtrip.
I no longer feel frequent checks are justified for a car that is driven primarily at legal speeds and almost exclusively on high-type paved roads, with due care taken to avoid roads that are likely to pick up nail/screw debris and don't get enough sweeping action from cars passing at speed (classic example: 30 mph residential road where houses are being re-roofed and the last hailstorm to force roof replacement occurred when nails instead of staples were being used to secure roofing shingles). Unless you take care to control conditions, such as checking tires cold and in the dark if the car is parked outside, you can easily wind up with pressure imbalances across each axle that degrade ride and steering feel. All that pushing the Schrader valve pins to take readings lets out enough air that sooner or later you have to pump some back in.
These days I check tire pressures probably once every six months, in a garage, with a meat thermometer taken out of its sleeve, waved around, and put on top of a paper towel roll to measure the ambient temperature. One set of tires is 10 years/40,000 miles old, while the other is four years/40,000 miles old, and both hold air well with pressure loss of about 0.6 psi/month at about 70° F and no more than 1 psi pressure variation across each axle. I inflate to label pressures plus 4 psi added margin for cold ambient temperatures, air loss, and high-speed driving, so pressures never actually go below label values. I also try to schedule pressure checks for times of day when the rate of change in ambient temperature is low.
Since I've moved back to California I've had two tires with slow leaks in the two years I've been here. In Florida I didn't have any in three years but I had five in three years in addition to a full on blow out in a job that had me traveling 150 nights a year in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and western Texas. Really my observation for the road debris is that it is generally much worse in the western states largely because of the terrain and lack of maintenance off of primary highways. The rock fall in Arizona and California in particular is probably the worst I've encountered in the lower 48 states. The big debris can cause a blow out but even the small stuff can cause a leak. The temperature swing in the dryer climates can be as much as 40-50 degrees from peak sunlight to night time. I've generally found that I lose 2 PSI for every 10 degrees Fahrenheit the low temperature drops in the winter.
Probably the worst spot I had an issue was in the middle of CA 62 east of 29 Palms when I lost 10 PSI from morning (the car had a dash gauge). Luckily I had the full-size spare and it wasn't much more than a 20-25 delay all things considered. A lot of the trips I do really are essentially just dodging rockfall or other debris out in some derelict mountain range. I want to say I'm still doing about 30,000 miles easily a year with all my vehicles all things considered, doesn't hurt to have an extra tire just in case.
Quote from: bugo on October 19, 2017, 07:37:56 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 10, 2017, 11:19:50 PM
Front wheel drive is considered a demerit when it comes to sports or luxury cars by a majority of drivers. It is more practical for economy or family cars but not for premium cars.
And yet GM continued to ignore this, as did Chrysler (especially with its Imperial/New Yorker/LHS, Concorde, 300M, LeBaron and Sebring models). However, it seems that Cadillac finally learned its lesson when it reverted to RWD for all of its passenger cars a decade ago (except for the DTS/DHS/XTS).
Quote from: bugo on October 19, 2017, 08:10:45 PM
A disturbing trend in cars today is the lack of a spare tire in many new cars. About 1/3 of new cars do not offer spare tires, even as an option. This is unacceptable for many reasons. The reason given for discontinuing the spare tire is for weight reasons. The government with its unreasonable mileage regulations is directly responsible for ridiculous moves such as this one.
It has more to do with the larger wheels that are the style now. To pick a random example, 1990 Honda Accord tires were R14 or R15 depending on the model. For 2017, they are R17 to R19 depending on the model.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 20, 2017, 02:02:17 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2017, 11:42:43 PMTrue, but thing is how many people actually keep that donut near that required 60 PSI? Most spares I've touched have not seen an air compressor in years and it would be a rare day to see even 30 PSI in most instances. When it comes down to it, some preventative maintenance like checking for slow leaks once a month can prevent a lot of blow outs even if a car doesn't have a spare. Really at the end of the day if a car doesn't have a spare you're looking at $100-$150 to have one built for peace of mind.
In about 25 years of driving, I have had only three blowouts, and both were in connection with run-off-the-road accidents. In the first incident, two tires were torn off their mounts (though more or less undamaged), so even with a full-size conventional spare mounted on top of the trunk carpet, I would not have been able to get back on the road if good Samaritans had not stopped and been able to re-mount one of the blown-out tires. The second incident involved a different car that had a donut spare kept in a well under the trunk carpet. It had likely not been checked even once since the car was new, ten years earlier, and it sufficed to limp back to town 20 miles away for repairs.
I used to check air pressure of the four road tires obsessively (once every month at minimum, maybe once every one to two weeks), but now do so no longer. In 25 years of driving there have been only two issues that were caught by this close surveillance: (1) slow bead leak, and (2) slow leak due to nail puncture that barely reached the inner wall. It failed to catch a fairly rapid (but not blowout rapid) leak in several tires due to exposed steel belts--it was a change in steering feel that told me something was up, and I ended up replacing all four tires midway through a long-distance roadtrip.
I no longer feel frequent checks are justified for a car that is driven primarily at legal speeds and almost exclusively on high-type paved roads, with due care taken to avoid roads that are likely to pick up nail/screw debris and don't get enough sweeping action from cars passing at speed (classic example: 30 mph residential road where houses are being re-roofed and the last hailstorm to force roof replacement occurred when nails instead of staples were being used to secure roofing shingles). Unless you take care to control conditions, such as checking tires cold and in the dark if the car is parked outside, you can easily wind up with pressure imbalances across each axle that degrade ride and steering feel. All that pushing the Schrader valve pins to take readings lets out enough air that sooner or later you have to pump some back in.
These days I check tire pressures probably once every six months, in a garage, with a meat thermometer taken out of its sleeve, waved around, and put on top of a paper towel roll to measure the ambient temperature. One set of tires is 10 years/40,000 miles old, while the other is four years/40,000 miles old, and both hold air well with pressure loss of about 0.6 psi/month at about 70° F and no more than 1 psi pressure variation across each axle. I inflate to label pressures plus 4 psi added margin for cold ambient temperatures, air loss, and high-speed driving, so pressures never actually go below label values. I also try to schedule pressure checks for times of day when the rate of change in ambient temperature is low.
I've had probably five or six slow leaks in the last ten years. With the most recent, it turns out all four of my brand-new tires were leaking around the TPMS inside the valves. The time before that, I first noticed a leak (actually, the driver behind me pointed it out) about 240 miles south of the border on my way north through Mexico; it was completely flat one morning a week or two later. Nearly all of my driving (at least in the States) is on paved roads. It's fairly common for a tire to pick up a bolt here and there along the edge of the road in town; a leaky right-rear tire is a telltale sign that you picked up something that had rolled or been swept down towards the curb. I also work at a cable company, so finding screws in the parking lot is a frequent thing.
ETA: I also carry a bicycle pump on trips to Mexico or trips that will take me off pavement for this reason. That time a couple of years ago, I was able to put 15 or 20 pounds of air in the tire right there on the side of the highway.
Quote from: kkt on October 20, 2017, 03:50:35 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 19, 2017, 08:10:45 PM
A disturbing trend in cars today is the lack of a spare tire in many new cars. About 1/3 of new cars do not offer spare tires, even as an option. This is unacceptable for many reasons. The reason given for discontinuing the spare tire is for weight reasons. The government with its unreasonable mileage regulations is directly responsible for ridiculous moves such as this one.
It has more to do with the larger wheels that are the style now. To pick a random example, 1990 Honda Accord tires were R14 or R15 depending on the model. For 2017, they are R17 to R19 depending on the model.
And the worst part is that it is almost impossible to find any generic wheels to build a spare above 15 inches. I was looking at building one for my Camaro about 6-7 years ago but it would have required a 18 inch wheel to clear the brake pads which I want to say were 14.4 inches on the front and 14 inch on the rears?
Quote from: kkt on October 20, 2017, 03:50:35 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 19, 2017, 08:10:45 PM
A disturbing trend in cars today is the lack of a spare tire in many new cars. About 1/3 of new cars do not offer spare tires, even as an option. This is unacceptable for many reasons. The reason given for discontinuing the spare tire is for weight reasons. The government with its unreasonable mileage regulations is directly responsible for ridiculous moves such as this one.
It has more to do with the larger wheels that are the style now. To pick a random example, 1990 Honda Accord tires were R14 or R15 depending on the model. For 2017, they are R17 to R19 depending on the model.
It's more common now to see 2 or three sizes of wheels as options, and performance vehicles are more likely to have staggered-fitment sizes. 20 years ago, the full-size spare made a bit of a comeback, but either mini spare/donuts are more common or those silly inflator kits. The kit saves perhaps 5 pounds, so I'm not convinced it's so much of a weight-saving measure to gain a fraction of an mpg, but recent vehicle design at play (more trunk space, supposed ease of removing it from vehicle, unsightly design of spare wheel).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2017, 11:42:43 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 19, 2017, 10:46:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2017, 08:17:47 PM
But really even those that have them usually are of the 20-25 pound donut variety. Really the 50 MPH speed limits and 50 mile tread life those things carry isn't going to help anyone in modern urban traffic or in the boon docks. I build a full size spare for whatever my daily driver is out of whatever the cheapest wheel/tire combo I can find. I much rather rely on a real tire built for real road use over some hunk of junk requiring 60 PSI.
It's going to help a hell of a lot if I'm 50 miles from home on a Sunday in an area that doesn't have cell service.
True, but thing is how many people actually keep that donut near that required 60 PSI? Most spares I've touched have seen an air compressor in years and it would be a rare day to see even 30 PSI in most instances. When it comes down to it, some preventative maintenance like checking for slow leaks once a month can prevent a lot of blow outs even if a car doesn't have a spare. Really at the end of the day if a car doesn't have a spare you're looking at $100-$150 to have one built for peace of mind.
Money very well spent. A bargain. A good value. It's taking 20 minutes to change a flat and be on your way vs calling a tow truck (IF you are lucky enough to have cell service), waiting on them to get there, waiting for them to either tow you to the nearest town or if possible, repair your tire right there on the side of the road. If you had a spare you would have been home by the time the tow truck operator got there. Not having a spare could turn an ordeal of less than half an hour into an all day thing. Considering the extreme heat and cold in certain parts of the country and you're talking about the difference between a minor inconvenience and a catastrophe.
Quote from: bugo on October 27, 2017, 05:18:12 AMMoney very well spent. A bargain. A good value. It's taking 20 minutes to change a flat and be on your way vs calling a tow truck (if you are lucky enough to have cell service), waiting on them to get there, waiting for them to either tow you to the nearest town or if possible, repair your tire right there on the side of the road. If you had a spare you would have been home by the time the tow truck operator got there. Not having a spare could turn an ordeal of less than half an hour into an all day thing. Considering the extreme heat and cold in certain parts of the country and you're talking about the difference between a minor inconvenience and a catastrophe.
I think it is the high mileage on indifferently maintained roads that make a full-size custom spare a sensible investment in Max's case. For the typical housecat scenario--bulk of annual mileage on highly improved and well-maintained highways, roads in poor condition hardly ever seen--a full-size spare can be more trouble than it is worth, especially in a car with no place already available to carry it.
Max: do you typically also have a well or carrier custom-fabricated for each spare?
I don't see how carrying a spare, at least a donut, can be a bad thing. They add to weight but the weight isn't that much and it is well worth it to me for the added piece of mind.
The larger and boxier the vehicle, the less the extra weight seems to matter anyway.
The weight is not the problem so much as the added bulk in the trunk and also keeping the spare from moving around or leaving marks on other things carried in the trunk.
Mine is mounted under the vehicle.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 27, 2017, 01:14:19 PM
Quote from: bugo on October 27, 2017, 05:18:12 AMMoney very well spent. A bargain. A good value. It's taking 20 minutes to change a flat and be on your way vs calling a tow truck (if you are lucky enough to have cell service), waiting on them to get there, waiting for them to either tow you to the nearest town or if possible, repair your tire right there on the side of the road. If you had a spare you would have been home by the time the tow truck operator got there. Not having a spare could turn an ordeal of less than half an hour into an all day thing. Considering the extreme heat and cold in certain parts of the country and you're talking about the difference between a minor inconvenience and a catastrophe.
I think it is the high mileage on indifferently maintained roads that make a full-size custom spare a sensible investment in Max's case. For the typical housecat scenario--bulk of annual mileage on highly improved and well-maintained highways, roads in poor condition hardly ever seen--a full-size spare can be more trouble than it is worth, especially in a car with no place already available to carry it.
Max: do you typically also have a well or carrier custom-fabricated for each spare?
With the Sonic it has a well that was designed around fitting a donut. I have the full size spare on top of the truck mat and neatly organize my tools around it/on top of it so it stays in place. Basically I've pretty much have done the same thing in every daily driver I've had for the last decade. I want to say I carry maybe 80-100 pounds of tools and emergency equipment which would include the full-size spare. I've never really had any issues with things bouncing around even on the worst roads but it probably wouldn't be that way without making a good fit back there. So far I'd say the effect on fuel economy is pretty nominal considering I'm averaging 34.4 MPG over the last 45-50k miles.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 27, 2017, 03:20:20 PM
I want to say I carry maybe 80-100 pounds of tools and emergency equipment which would include the full-size spare.
Don't stop. Our best friend keeps a bunch of tools in his vehicle, and the one time he considered leaving them at home to save space for a trip to Mexico (his vehicle has been part of the caravan three times) was the time his wheel bearing went out in the middle of the Chihuahuan Desert. Good thing he had decided against leaving them at home. By the time the rest of us had gone into the city to buy a new bearing and gotten back with the mechanic, he had most of the first part of the job done already. And, considering some of the mechanic's tools were inadequate, he ended up using some of our friend's tools instead (such as a sturdier pipe and a heavier sledgehammer).
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2017, 03:28:27 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 27, 2017, 03:20:20 PM
I want to say I carry maybe 80-100 pounds of tools and emergency equipment which would include the full-size spare.
Don't stop. Our best friend keeps a bunch of tools in his vehicle, and the one time he considered leaving them at home to save space for a trip to Mexico (his vehicle has been part of the caravan three times) was the time his wheel bearing went out in the middle of the Chihuahuan Desert. Good thing he had decided against leaving them at home. By the time the rest of us had gone into the city to buy a new bearing and gotten back with the mechanic, he had most of the first part of the job done already. And, considering some of the mechanic's tools were inadequate, he ended up using some of our friend's tools instead (such as a sturdier pipe and a heavier sledgehammer).
Even on two cross-country moves this past decade I've found that I've still had enough room even with a full-size spare and tools in the trunk. Really it just comes down to checking the Gross Vehicle Weight sticker on the driver's side door to see what you can load in the car. Me and the dog probably weighed 250 pounds combined, with the tools being a good 100 it left a solid 450-500 pounds to distribute through the rest of the vehicle. That could easily be translated just as well into additional passengers or whatever one might want to carry on a trip. Pretty much everything that is in my trunk has a purpose and has pulled my butt out of the fire at least once in the past. Hell, even a good bottle of coolant on board can get you out a bad situation if you've sprung a leak somewhere like in a water pump.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 27, 2017, 03:33:41 PM
checking the Gross Vehicle Weight sticker on the driver's side door to see what you can load in the car.
pffft :sombrero:
Here are two pictures from our family vacation this summer.
This is the view from the front seat. When we go on a road trip, you can pretty much count on not seeing out the back window.
(https://i.imgur.com/ql6WSv3.jpg)
That's 15 gallons of water behind the two older boys. The water really came in handy, considering I had neglected to put the radiator overflow cap back on after checking levels before out trip. It didn't catch our attention in the flatland but, by the top of Monarch Pass, it was spitting all over under the hood. I stuffed part of a tee shirt down the neck and duct taped it, and we headed to Gunnison for a replacement cap. I unwittingly bought the wrong kind of cap, such that the system still wasn't pressurized (I've never before owned a car that pressurized through the overflow instead of the rad itself), but we didn't know it at the time. Every time I checked, there was still coolant in the overflow, so I wasn't panicking. Still, I decided not to go over Ophir Pass, which is a good thing, because the temp gauge pinned at H just north of Naturita, CO. With the help of a couple of truckers, we figured out that the radiator was dry even though the overflow still had coolant in it. We put three gallons in there on the side of the road. Moving on west towards Utah, the overflow was spitting again at the top of John Brown Canyon. Not wanting to end up stranded on a dirt road in the La Sal Mountains, I put another gallon of water in the rad, and we headed for Grand Junction to find a mechanic. I drove from Gateway to Grand Junction at 45 mph with the heat on full blast in 105° weather. It was the mechanic in GJ who figured out all that had happened was that I'd bought the wrong type of radiator cap. But, without all that water in the car, we may well have been seriously stranded in an area with near-zero cell phone reception, many miles from a mechanic, in triple-digit weather.
From the outside. I love our cargo box.
(https://i.imgur.com/AqFaG4N.jpg)
We were packed full. Three tents, tarps, blankets, food, cookware, a wood stove, firewood, 15 gallons of water, a cooler, plus some tools and engine fluids. My approach is that, if it fits, then it's all good. Our suspension might not 100% agree, of course, considering it's all original with 160k+ miles on the clock.
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2017, 04:01:47 PMI stuffed part of a tee shirt down the neck and duct taped it, and we headed to Gunnison for a replacement cap. I unwittingly bought the wrong kind of cap, such that the system still wasn't pressurized (I've never before owned a car that pressurized through the overflow instead of the rad itself), but we didn't know it at the time.
I am curious as to how you ended up with the wrong type of cap. Most pressure caps are rated for around 15 psi (though there are caps with lower pressure ratings you can get for use with, e.g., Evans waterless coolant), but there is enough variation in diameter, thread pitch, location and width of hold-down ears (if used), etc. that I'd think you would have had to use an application chart.
I think my daily-driver Saturn may be the only one of the family cars that has had a pressurized coolant reservoir. Two advantages of including the reservoir in the pressurized system are greatly simplifying air bleeding when changing the coolant and preventing coolant loss through evaporation.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 27, 2017, 08:41:21 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2017, 04:01:47 PMI stuffed part of a tee shirt down the neck and duct taped it, and we headed to Gunnison for a replacement cap. I unwittingly bought the wrong kind of cap, such that the system still wasn't pressurized (I've never before owned a car that pressurized through the overflow instead of the rad itself), but we didn't know it at the time.
I am curious as to how you ended up with the wrong type of cap. Most pressure caps are rated for around 15 psi (though there are caps with lower pressure ratings you can get for use with, e.g., Evans waterless coolant), but there is enough variation in diameter, thread pitch, location and width of hold-down ears (if used), etc. that I'd think you would have had to use an application chart.
I think my daily-driver Saturn may be the only one of the family cars that has had a pressurized coolant reservoir. Two advantages of including the reservoir in the pressurized system are greatly simplifying air bleeding when changing the coolant and preventing coolant loss through evaporation.
When I got to the O'Reilly in Gunnison, I told the clerk I needed a cap for my antifreeze overflow reservoir. He couldn't find an item with that name in the database for my vehicle, so I just bought the same kind of overflow cap that I'd bought in the past (for a different vehicle), which is just a flat cap with no spring action. I figured it was just a flat cap, so what did it matter? I'd never heard of the pressure cap going on the overflow before, so it never occurred to me that it could be wrong. It fit the reservoir, so I figured all was good. Our best friend, who owns the same model of car as we do, never thought of it either when I described the symptoms to him by phone every so often during our trip; the truckers who stopped to help when we overheated never thought of it; at least half the people I've told the story to later have never heard of that setup either and told me they would have done the same thing. The mechanic in Grand Junction even had to call a Nissan dealership in Virginia (where he used to work) to confirm the way the caps were supposed to be.
Because of my inattention and a $10 part, we missed visiting Ophir Pass, the La Sal Mountains, a dinosaur track site, Arches National Park, Dead Horse Point State Park, and the ghost town of Cisco. Before our trip, I had our oldest son learning about geology and erosion specifically because we were going to be hiking in that area, and we never made it there; we turned around 1½ miles from the Utah state line, in fact. It's actually probably a good thing we missed Utah, because it was in the middle of a heat wave, reaching 100° by noon every day, and we would have been totally zapped hiking in those conditions. We found two neat museums in Fruita and Grand Junction instead, and the one in GJ was actually my wife's favorite part of the trip.
Quote from: kphoger on October 30, 2017, 01:32:20 PMWhen I got to the O'Reilly in Gunnison, I told the clerk I needed a cap for my antifreeze overflow reservoir. He couldn't find an item with that name in the database for my vehicle, so I just bought the same kind of overflow cap that I'd bought in the past (for a different vehicle), which is just a flat cap with no spring action.
I figured it might be something like that--asking the guy at the parts counter is often the kiss of death. There is a Nissan dealership in Montrose, but that is an additional 65 miles west of Gunnison and might not have been on your itinerary. Did you find the original cap when you returned to Wichita? It should have had "do not open when hot" warnings on it, though Nissan OEM caps seem to be half-and-half about pressure ratings.
If my memory is correct and your current vehicle is a 2006 Pathfinder, part of the problem might have been it actually having two pressure caps.
https://parts.nissanusa.com/nissanparts/index.cfm?action=replacement&groupid=C§ionid=214&jointvehid=11917&siteid=14
The cap you were missing was presumably parts lookup number 21516 (part number 21430-1P111 (https://www.amazon.com/Genuine-Nissan-21430-1P111-Radiator-Cap/dp/B00BFE0VFE)) but it also looks like there is an eared pressure cap on the radiator itself that has no parts lookup number of its own and is sold as part of the radiator assembly.
In regards to the other people you talked to who expressed surprise about the missing cap being the cause of so much trouble, I wonder how many were genuinely not aware coolant reservoirs could be part of the pressurized system, and how many simply assumed the missing cap had been replaced with the correct part. I would certainly have been aware of the possibility the reservoir was pressurized, but would probably have assumed the new part was correct until I was informed
in detail about the circumstances under which it was acquired.
FWIW, with the possible exception of the Honda, none of the family cars has a cooling system with a completely traditional layout. The Saturn has a capless radiator with a pressure cap on the reservoir. The Toyota also has a capless radiator, but the reservoir is unpressurized, and the pressure cap is in a coolant feed pipe next to the intake manifold.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 30, 2017, 02:16:37 PM
There is a Nissan dealership in Montrose, but that is an additional 65 miles west of Gunnison and might not have been on your itinerary.
Montrose is where we stocked up on groceries before heading south to Ouray. But, again, I thought I had solved the problem in Gunnison, so I had no need to look for a mechanic in Montrose. When the car finally overheated, we were north of Naturita, and the direct road between the two is not even entirely paved.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 30, 2017, 02:16:37 PM
Did you find the original cap when you returned to Wichita?
No, I probably left it sitting on top of the air filter cover or something like, and then it rode around with me awhile before falling down through the cracks. That's the likely scenario. This is not the first time I've left a cap off; usually, though, it's been from topping off the motor oil, and I quickly realize it when I smell some hitting hot metal.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 30, 2017, 02:16:37 PM
It should have had "do not open when hot" warnings on it, though Nissan OEM caps seem to be half-and-half about pressure ratings.
If my memory is correct and your current vehicle is a 2006 Pathfinder, part of the problem might have been it actually having two pressure caps.
https://parts.nissanusa.com/nissanparts/index.cfm?action=replacement&groupid=C§ionid=214&jointvehid=11917&siteid=14
The cap you were missing was presumably parts lookup number 21516 (part number 21430-1P111 (https://www.amazon.com/Genuine-Nissan-21430-1P111-Radiator-Cap/dp/B00BFE0VFE)) but it also looks like there is an eared pressure cap on the radiator itself that has no parts lookup number of its own and is sold as part of the radiator assembly.
The overflow reservoir gets a pressure cap, and the radiator itself gets a flat cap. I had never before taken the cap off the radiator, and I didn't remember that the overflow cap was spring-pressurized. I had the mechanic in GJ do a full inspection–draining the system including the core, doing a pressure test, etc. It was in the shop for two days, but all they ended up needing to do was to buy a pressure cap for the overflow. That was back in June, and I haven't lost any coolant since then. I checked at the top of Vail Pass on our way back, and there was not a stray drop of coolant to be found under the hood.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 30, 2017, 02:16:37 PM
In regards to the other people you talked to who expressed surprise about the missing cap being the cause of so much trouble, I wonder how many were genuinely not aware coolant reservoirs could be part of the pressurized system, and how many simply assumed the missing cap had been replaced with the correct part. I would certainly have been aware of the possibility the reservoir was pressurized, but would probably have assumed the new part was correct until I was informed in detail about the circumstances under which it was acquired.
I should clarify. You're only the fourth person who has told me they've even
heard of cars being pressurized through the overflow, and I've talked to people who've worked on cars for years.
They would have bought the same kind of cap I had, not knowing any better than I. One of the other three people who
had seen this kind of setup used to work in his dad's garage in the 1960s, back when it was apparently more common, and the other two have owned vehicles like that. Our best friend, who owns a 2005 Pathfinder, was kicking himself for not thinking of it, because he new full well that our cars are pressurized like that, but it just hadn't crossed his mind.
Quote from: kphoger on October 30, 2017, 03:59:38 PMNo, I probably left it sitting on top of the air filter cover or something like, and then it rode around with me awhile before falling down through the cracks. That's the likely scenario. This is not the first time I've left a cap off; usually, though, it's been from topping off the motor oil, and I quickly realize it when I smell some hitting hot metal.
I think it is a good idea to develop the habit of double-checking for sump closure any time the hood is opened to inspect fluid levels or replace fluids. I cannot think of a single fluid-using system that is anything more than minimally tolerant of the stray debris that can blow in when a cap is off. In fact, I probably should start taking a handheld vacuum cleaner with me when I change the oil in the Camry, because the oil filler opening is recessed in the engine top cover and tends to gather crap that blows in through the radiator, which then tends to fall in when the filler cap is taken off.
I do DIY oil changes and I also find the hot oil smell comes from failing to wipe down oil filter drip rails. I have started to do this with the Camry and the last oil change was the first where I did not smell hot oil for the first few hundred miles. In general, I try to practice continuous improvement: I'm now trying to get to zero drip on a consistent basis.
In honor of the Astros' recent World Series victory, I now present the van that was named after them:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.cargurus.com%2Fimages%2Fsite%2F2012%2F12%2F10%2F16%2F49%2F1995_chevrolet_astro_3_dr_lt_passenger_van_extended-pic-4829589150783130272.jpeg&hash=3bcb393ea90777096d10bb3a5b4faad632cecd4f)
Quote from: kphoger on October 27, 2017, 04:01:47 PM
Here are two pictures from our family vacation this summer.
From the outside. I love our cargo box.
(https://i.imgur.com/AqFaG4N.jpg)
I thought about getting one of those roof carriers for my HHR.
We had one of those caps on the Astro Van back in the 1990s. I always thought it made that thing resemble a snail like on the logo.
The used 1996 Honda Accord, starting at $499.
Something back from when Lotus was actually cool:
Forgive me if this video has already been posted, but when I stumbled upon this cornucopia of Malaise-era vehicles, I immediately thought of this thread.
Something not sorry today; an LT1 1970 Camaro Z/28:
Pretty decent channel too, lots of good information with the difference between gross/net horsepower and inflation figures usually thrown out there.
I may be the only person in the world who prefers the non-RS one piece bumper version of this body style Camaro.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4687/38444213335_0d213256b5_b.jpg)
I like the '67-'69 Camaro 100 times more than I like the '70-'81.
Quote from: bugo on December 26, 2017, 06:57:29 PM
I may be the only person in the world who prefers the non-RS one piece bumper version of this body style Camaro.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4687/38444213335_0d213256b5_b.jpg)
I like the '67-'69 Camaro 100 times more than I like the '70-'81.
Problem with the second gen Camaro was that it was only good for a couple years until the gas crisis hit. The LT1 was by far the best 350 small block of the era. Once the emissions controls and safety bumpers got attached Chevy didn't have anything that could compete with the Pontiac 400 you could get in the T/A.
I don't know why Chevrolet never put a 454 in a Camaro. That would be the ultimate trailer park car: a 1970s Camaro with a 185 HP 454 jacked up in the back in primer with mismatched rally wheels.
Quote from: bugo on December 26, 2017, 09:38:47 PM
I don't know why Chevrolet never put a 454 in a Camaro. That would be the ultimate trailer park car: a 1970s Camaro with a 185 HP 454 jacked up in the back in primer with mismatched rally wheels.
There was some prototypes of Camaros with 454 done but Chevrolet never go further. However some specialists like Berger and Baldwin-Motion did some aftermarket 454 Camaros.
http://www.superchevy.com/features/sucp-0704-1970-berger-454-camaro/
https://www.mecum.com/lots/DA0912-135952/1971-chevrolet-baldwin-motion-phase-iii-camaro/
http://www.conceptcarz.com/view/makeHistory/755,11741/Baldwin-Motion_History.aspx
Something unique; 1970 Chrysler 300 Hurst:
Pontiac Sun Bird convertible:
My first car was a J-Body, it feels odd to see them held in somewhat high regard on a test. 145 feet from 55 MPH might as well be an eternity to stop.
73-75 Chevy Caprice convertible:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 23, 2017, 03:17:13 PM
Something back from when Lotus was actually cool:
As cool as these Lotuses are, they're also smaller than they look.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 18, 2018, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 23, 2017, 03:17:13 PM
Something back from when Lotus was actually cool:
As cool as these Lotuses are, they're also smaller than they look.
Lotuses were and
are always cool.
Maybe the Lotus Carlton (Type 104) isn't very small, but they're otherwise all about light curb weights and usually as elemental as a car can get.
Quote from: formulanone on January 18, 2018, 08:34:11 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 18, 2018, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 23, 2017, 03:17:13 PM
Something back from when Lotus was actually cool:
As cool as these Lotuses are, they're also smaller than they look.
Lotuses were and are always cool.
Maybe the Lotus Carlton (Type 104) isn't very small, but they're otherwise all about light curb weights and usually as elemental as a car can get.
+1. Modern Lotuses are just as cool as the older ones, and, with Toyota engines, probably more reliable than ever. Whenever I see an Elise or Exige (haven't seen an Evora yet) I always turn my head.
The Carlton was a Lotus in name only, as it was just tuned by them.
Quote from: Takumi on January 18, 2018, 09:04:44 PM
+1. Modern Lotuses are just as cool as the older ones, and, with Toyota engines, probably more reliable than ever. Whenever I see an Elise or Exige (haven't seen an Evora yet) I always turn my head.
When I see a Lotus Elise, I realize I could wear one as a shoe!
My Dad had collectors edition 1982 Corvette. That thing hardly left the garage, shame to know that my Sonic could probably take it in a drag race.
Presenting the '86 Chrysler lineup:
I've always wondered how a combined GM/Chrysler merger would work in the present, and some divisions would have to be eliminated for product overlap (mainly because they serve the same segments, like Chevy and Dodge); it's best that they remain two separate companies today.
Quote from: Henry on January 29, 2018, 10:03:01 AM
Presenting the '86 Chrysler lineup:
I've always wondered how a combined GM/Chrysler merger would work in the present, and some divisions would have to be eliminated for product overlap (mainly because they serve the same segments, like Chevy and Dodge); it's best that they remain two separate companies today.
In Iacocca's biography along with that old article from the NY Times from 1981. Ford rejected the merger offer from Chrysler. http://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/11/business/ford-says-it-rejected-chrysler-tie.html Iacocca mentionned in his biography then a Chrysler-Ford combo would had be a bigger force against GM. Plymouth and Mercury would had been dropped. Dodge going after Pontiac(cars) and GMC (trucks). We could wonder what if Ford had sayed yes to that offer? I wonder if they would still be able to acquire AMC after that?
In the late 1950s, George Romney who was AMC president, pushed the congress to split GM into smaller companies like how Standard Oil was in the early 20th Century and AT&T into various "Baby Bells" but no success.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19580210&id=QnIgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TGcFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1185,3782658&hl=fr
https://books.google.ca/books?id=PerGbKxOPZYC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=george+romney+GM+split&source=bl&ots=0dlufSjw0X&sig=n0Qm1Zqyt482N4PUUAAf5VfwzQ0&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjppNPcwufMAhUI7BQKHZziCooQ6AEIQjAG#v=onepage&q=george%20romney%20GM%20split&f=false
There are persistent rumors that GM intentionally tried to shed market share in the early 1970s during the OPEC crisis due to threats of being declared a monopoly. Hard to believe that they really once had over 60% of the domestic market share back in the 1960s...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2018, 09:08:48 PM
There are persistent rumors that GM intentionally tried to shed market share in the early 1970s during the OPEC crisis due to threats of being declared a monopoly. Hard to believe that they really once had over 60% of the domestic market share back in the 1960s...
In the mid-1960s they might well have been trying to shed market share. But the first oil crisis was 1973, and by then too high market share was no longer a worry.
Pure 80s cheese with a repeating stock soundtrack:
Some new/old videos from Motor Week.
1992 Cadillac Eldorado with the 4.9L Cadillac L26 V8:
1994 BMW 840Ci...the V8 edition:
For some reason GM and Ford seemed to have an obsession with trying to make Pony Cars FWD...
RCR Stories on John DeLorean:
Toyota. Century.
https://youtu.be/6IZNSaVOM3s
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2018, 10:36:48 PM
For some reason GM and Ford seemed to have an obsession with trying to make Pony Cars FWD...
That's because, it was thought that the price of gasoline would reach $3-5/gallon by
1990;
and the Feds would likely increase the CAFE figure even higher than 27.5 mpg before 1990. Needless to say, both did not happen then (though the latter would happen after 2007).
What finally convinced Ford to back-off on a FWD Mustang was the backlash/public outcry they received from current and/or Mustang owners/loyalists (this was
pre-internet/social media) when word got out about a proposed Mazda-designed FWD coupe slated to be the would-be successor to the Fox-bodied Mustang. Since the FWD coupe was well in the pipeline, it was released as the Probe instead and the older Mustang continued for four more years unchanged. Such was the reason why the Mustang's 25th Anniversary went largely ignored by Ford.
Had the Probe indeed become the Mustang; the 'Stang would've wound up dead after 1997 (when the Probe was killed off).
Quote from: Takumi on March 05, 2018, 08:55:33 AMToyota. Century.
With those fender mirrors it is like watching
Triple Cross again.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 05, 2018, 11:09:18 AM
Quote from: Takumi on March 05, 2018, 08:55:33 AMToyota. Century.
With those fender mirrors it is like watching Triple Cross again.
The design is based off the original Century, which was released in the late 1960s, when fender mirrors were very popular in Japan. The original version had a V8, while the V12 version was released in 1997. So far the first two RCR New Zealand videos have been of large RWD Toyota sedans; a third, the Chaser (a newer version of what we once got as the Cressida) has been confirmed.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 05, 2018, 10:57:23 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2018, 10:36:48 PM
For some reason GM and Ford seemed to have an obsession with trying to make Pony Cars FWD...
That's because, it was thought that the price of gasoline would reach $3-5/gallon by 1990; and the Feds would likely increase the CAFE figure even higher than 27.5 mpg before 1990. Needless to say, both did not happen then (though the latter would happen after 2007).
What finally convinced Ford to back-off on a FWD Mustang was the backlash/public outcry they received from current and/or Mustang owners/loyalists (this was pre-internet/social media) when word got out about a proposed Mazda-designed FWD coupe slated to be the would-be successor to the Fox-bodied Mustang. Since the FWD coupe was well in the pipeline, it was released as the Probe instead and the older Mustang continued for four more years unchanged. Such was the reason why the Mustang's 25th Anniversary went largely ignored by Ford.
Had the Probe indeed become the Mustang; the 'Stang would've wound up dead after 1997 (when the Probe was killed off).
I remember the push for a FWD Mustang, the backlash was absolutely brutal. The push at the time was for FWD cars in general by pretty much every automaker. The general public was eating FWDs up in the 1980s because of the economy and general perception (at least in the Mid-West) that they were far safer to drive in the winter. Ironically you don't really tend to hear the flak about K-Body cars anymore that was kind of popular in car circles about 10 years ago. For what its worth Chrysler certainly had a workable FWD platform that had some decent performance for the time, I'm sure GM and Ford took notice when it came to the F-Body cars/Mustang.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 08, 2018, 11:09:49 AMThe push at the time was for FWD cars in general by pretty much every automaker. The general public was eating FWDs up in the 1980s because of the economy and general perception (at least in the Mid-West) that they were far safer to drive in the winter. Ironically you don't really tend to hear the flak about K-Body cars anymore that was kind of popular in car circles about 10 years ago. For what its worth Chrysler certainly had a workable FWD platform that had some decent performance for the time, I'm sure GM and Ford took notice when it came to the F-Body cars/Mustang.
Which performance-oriented
K bodied-cars are you referring to? The Omni 024/Horizon TC3 (later rebadged as Chargers & Turismos/Dusters) coupes were on the smaller L-body platform.
And one possible reason why one doesn't hear the
flak (your word) anymore about those cars is many of them are probably junked by now.
There were lots of turbo K-cars including the Dodge Daytona and the Chrysler Laser.
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2018, 11:57:48 AM
There were lots of turbo K-cars including the Dodge Daytona and the Chrysler Laser.
The Daytona and Laser were G-body cars, which were derived from the K-body platform.
Quote from: renegade on March 08, 2018, 12:20:08 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2018, 11:57:48 AM
There were lots of turbo K-cars including the Dodge Daytona and the Chrysler Laser.
The Daytona and Laser were G-body cars, which were derived from the K-body platform.
One doesn't those around anymore; yet one can still occasionally see a Camaro or Mustang from that era in the wild.
Yes, but they were basically K-platform cars.
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2018, 06:18:06 PMYes, but they were basically K-platform cars.
K-car derived, yes. Actually called K-car, no.
Case-and-point: the RWD M-bodies ('77-'81 LeBaron, '82 New Yorker Fifth Avenue, '83-'89 Fifth Avenue, Diplomat (all vintages), '77-'81 Caravelle (Canada only), '82-'89 Gran Fury) were more directly derived from the F-body (Aspen/Volare) platform but the M-bodies were never referred to as the F-bodies despite their similarities.
Weren't the Aspen/Volare descendants of the downsized 1962 B body Plymouth and Dodge?
Quote from: bugo on March 09, 2018, 03:38:17 PMWeren't the Aspen/Volare descendants of the downsized 1962 B body Plymouth and Dodge?
I have not heard nor have any knowledge of such. The F-bodies ultimately replaced the A-bodied Dart & Valiant.
Actually I think you're right. It appears that the 1962-vintage B body platform was last used in 1978.
Quote from: bugo on March 09, 2018, 07:59:30 PMActually I think you're right. It appears that the 1962-vintage B body platform was last used in 1978.
1979; the Chrysler Cordoba & Dodge Magnum XE used that platform a year longer than its other mid-size companions.
One of the coolest, rarest cars of the 80s, the 1989 Toyota Soarer Aerocabin. The Soarer was, essentially, a more luxurious Supra, and the first two generations (1981-1990) were sold only in Japan. The third and fourth generations were sold in North America as the Lexus SC from 1991 to 2010. There were only 500 Aerocabins made.
https://youtu.be/69Xxkknz_L8
Quote from: renegade on March 08, 2018, 12:20:08 PM
Quote from: bugo on March 08, 2018, 11:57:48 AM
There were lots of turbo K-cars including the Dodge Daytona and the Chrysler Laser.
The Daytona and Laser were G-body cars, which were derived from the K-body platform.
Were there any known plans to apply the Challenger name to what eventually became the Daytona? I wouldn't be surprised, considering that the Mustang and Camaro were rumored to switch to FWD at some point in that era.
As for my latest contribution to this thread, let's go back to Japan for another forgotten 80s relic, the Datsun/Nissan Pulsar NX, which was slotted below the 200SX and 300ZX:
Quote from: Henry on March 20, 2018, 10:37:29 AMWere there any known plans to apply the Challenger name to what eventually became the Daytona? I wouldn't be surprised, considering that the Mustang and Camaro were rumored to switch to FWD at some point in that era
Although not FWD-based, and many Challenger enthusiast/purists would like to forget that this car ever existed (at least with a "Challenger" badge), a much smaller Challenger did exist in the form a badge-engineered Mitsubishi Galant Lambda from 1978-1983. Its Plymouth-badged counterpart was the Sapporo.
The discontinuation of the Mitsubishi-based Challenger/Sapporo likely coincided with the 1984 model year launch of the earlier-mentioned G-bodied Daytona/Laser.
Since Renault and Nissan are set to merge, here's the French automaker's last foray into the American market, the AMC-built Alliance, Encore and GTA:
The C5 is still one of my favorite Corvette designs, especially the fixed roof version that the Z06 had:
I miss the pop-up headlights, I thought it always gave the Corvette a unique look that other sports cars didn't have.
I'm not sure why Ford didn't stick with this version of the 4.6 Modular in the Mustang GT the rest of the SN95 run, The two valve per cylinder 4.6 was a complete dog for a SOHC engine and couldn't compete with the LT1 or LS1:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2018, 09:03:15 AMI miss the pop-up headlights, I thought it always gave the Corvette a unique look that other sports cars didn't have.
Not entirely true; there are other sports cars from the era that had pop-up headlights, such as the Pontiac Sunbird GT, Fiero and Firebird, Dodge Daytona/Chrysler Conquest, Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000GT, Ford Probe, Mazda Miata, Honda Prelude, Nissan Pulsar NX, 240SX and 300ZX, Toyota Celica, Supra, MR2 and Corolla GT-S, Subaru XT, Lamborghini Countach and Diablo, all Ferrari models, BMW 8 Series and Porsche 944, to name a few.
Quote from: Henry on April 06, 2018, 09:14:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2018, 09:03:15 AMI miss the pop-up headlights, I thought it always gave the Corvette a unique look that other sports cars didn't have.
Not entirely true; there are other sports cars from the era that had pop-up headlights, such as the Pontiac Sunbird GT, Fiero and Firebird, Dodge Daytona/Chrysler Conquest, Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000GT, Ford Probe, Mazda Miata, Honda Prelude, Nissan Pulsar NX, 240SX and 300ZX, Toyota Celica, Supra, MR2 and Corolla GT-S, Subaru XT, Lamborghini Countach and Diablo, all Ferrari models, BMW 8 Series and Porsche 944, to name a few.
Fair enough, it still is kind of irksome (at least to me) that a styling cue that was present back to the C2 was removed for the C6. Come to think of it wasn't there some sort of safety regulation that was involved in the pop-up headlight virtually going extinct? I want to say 1997 was the year GM started daytime headlights? I remember there used to be commercials about "your lights are on" for GM vehicles around that time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2018, 10:31:16 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 06, 2018, 09:14:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 06, 2018, 09:03:15 AMI miss the pop-up headlights, I thought it always gave the Corvette a unique look that other sports cars didn't have.
Not entirely true; there are other sports cars from the era that had pop-up headlights, such as the Pontiac Sunbird GT, Fiero and Firebird, Dodge Daytona/Chrysler Conquest, Dodge Stealth/Mitsubishi 3000GT, Ford Probe, Mazda Miata, Honda Prelude, Nissan Pulsar NX, 240SX and 300ZX, Toyota Celica, Supra, MR2 and Corolla GT-S, Subaru XT, Lamborghini Countach and Diablo, all Ferrari models, BMW 8 Series and Porsche 944, to name a few.
Fair enough, it still is kind of irksome (at least to me) that a styling cue that was present back to the C2 was removed for the C6. Come to think of it wasn't there some sort of safety regulation that was involved in the pop-up headlight virtually going extinct? I want to say 1997 was the year GM started daytime headlights? I remember there used to be commercials about "your lights are on" for GM vehicles around that time.
I seem to recall the standard changed at some point to require that the concealing mechanism have a fail-save mode, such that if if malfunctioned it had to do so in the open state. Looking at FMVSS 108 today, I don't see that but there is a requirement to design the closing mechanism so that it can be manually opened without the use of tools in the event of failure. I'm guessing it was a GM corporate decision. Here's the relevant section of FMVSS 108:
Quote
S12 Headlamp concealment device requirements.
S12.1 While the headlamp is illuminated, its fully opened headlamp concealment device must remain fully opened should any loss of power to or within the headlamp concealment device occur.
S12.2 Whenever any malfunction occurs in a component that controls or conducts power for the actuation of the concealment device, each closed headlamp concealment device must be capable of being fully opened by a means not requiring the use of any tools. Thereafter, the headlamp concealment device must remain fully opened until intentionally closed.
S12.3 Except for malfunctions covered by S12.2, each headlamp concealment device must be capable of being fully opened and the headlamps illuminated by actuation of a single switch, lever, or similar mechanism, including a mechanism that is automatically actuated by a change in ambient light conditions.
S12.4 Each headlamp concealment device must be installed so that the headlamp may be mounted, aimed, and adjusted without removing any component of the device, other than components of the headlamp assembly.
S12.5 Except for cases of malfunction covered by S12.2, each headlamp concealment device must, within an ambient temperature range of −20 °F to + 120 °F, be capable of being fully opened in not more than 3 seconds after the actuation of a driver-operated control.
S12.6 As an alternative to complying with the requirements of S12.1 through S12.5, a vehicle with headlamps incorporating VHAD or visual/optical aiming in accordance with this standard may meet the requirements for Concealable lamps in paragraph 5.14 of UNECE Regulation 48 page 17 (incorporated by reference, see §571.5), in the English language version.
S12.7 Certification election. Manufacturers of vehicles with headlamps incorporating VHAD or visual/optical aiming must elect to certify to S12.1 through S12.5 or to S12.6 prior to, or at the time of certification of the vehicle, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 567. The selection is irrevocable.
Quote from: Henry on March 30, 2018, 09:35:44 AM
Since Renault and Nissan are set to merge, here's the French automaker's last foray into the American market, the AMC-built Alliance, Encore and GTA:
Don't forget the Renault Fuego "sports car". From what I have read, they were great when they ran right. Which was a minority of the time as they were trouble-prone and typically in the shop more than they were out.
(https://images.autotrader.com/scaler/620/420/cms/content/articles/oversteer/2017/05-may/05-25/266077.jpg)
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.
Quote from: bugo on April 13, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.
It would have been much closer to the LT1 or LS1 if they did the three valves per cylinder from the outset. It wasn't until the 05 model year that the standard GT got a 4.6 Modular with three valves.
I find it interesting that the V6 powered 2011 Mustang was nearly as quick as the V8 in the 2010 and older models.
There was a point in the early 2000s where Acura was selling a V6 (in the 3.2 TL and CL Type S) that had 260 HP, close to what the Mustang's V8 was making at the time. Sadly, the car is notorious for transmission problems, because Honda forgot how to build an automatic transmission some time around 1997.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/2002-2003_Acura_TL_--_03-16-2012.JPG/1280px-2002-2003_Acura_TL_--_03-16-2012.JPG)
Quote from: Takumi on April 14, 2018, 03:12:28 PM
There was a point in the early 2000s where Acura was selling a V6 (in the 3.2 TL and CL Type S) that had 260 HP, close to what the Mustang's V8 was making at the time. Sadly, the car is notorious for transmission problems, because Honda forgot how to build an automatic transmission some time around 1997.
Could you get a 6 speed manual in that car? If so, problem solved.
Quote from: bugo on April 15, 2018, 04:28:03 PM
Quote from: Takumi on April 14, 2018, 03:12:28 PM
There was a point in the early 2000s where Acura was selling a V6 (in the 3.2 TL and CL Type S) that had 260 HP, close to what the Mustang's V8 was making at the time. Sadly, the car is notorious for transmission problems, because Honda forgot how to build an automatic transmission some time around 1997.
Could you get a 6 speed manual in that car? If so, problem solved.
The TL, no...the CL, yes, but good luck finding one.
Quote from: Takumi on April 14, 2018, 03:12:28 PM
There was a point in the early 2000s where Acura was selling a V6 (in the 3.2 TL and CL Type S) that had 260 HP, close to what the Mustang's V8 was making at the time. Sadly, the car is notorious for transmission problems, because Honda forgot how to build an automatic transmission some time around 1997.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/2002-2003_Acura_TL_--_03-16-2012.JPG/1280px-2002-2003_Acura_TL_--_03-16-2012.JPG)
The first year of the 7th Generation Pontiac Grand Prix (2004 had a supercharged 260hp/280ftlb 3.8L Buick engine which was certainly right there with the 16 valve 4.6 Modular V8. Even the 6th Generation GTPs were no slouches, I seem to recall they ran high 13 quarter mile times as well. Really the game didn't start changing with Pony Cars until 5th Generation Camaro SS came standard with an LS3 or L99 depending on transmission choice. The Mustang GT at the time had a 24 valve 4.6 Modular which wasn't much more powerful than the 5th Generation Camaro's 3.6L V6. The Mustang got an entire new engine line up in 2011 with the 5.0 Coyote and a 3.7L V6. Even the Challenger got the 3.6L Pentastar V6 and 392 Hemi by 2011, the later of the two is one of my favorite modern engines given it is massive displacement iron block.
Laguna S3, the sad last gasp of the Chevelle:
For what its worth I kind of dig the colonnade body style GM was going for in the mid-1970s.
Quote from: bugo on April 13, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.
Four-letter answer: C - A - F - E.
The intent of the modular engine was two-fold: to offer more power than its pushrod Windsor-block predecessor as well as better fuel economy. In base form, the 4.6L modular V8 in a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis
could actually obtain 27-28 mpg in highway driving; which was
higher than what was posted on the EPA sticker. Such was probably due to the EPA highway testing is done at 40-50 mph vs. 68-72 mph driving in the real world.
The 1982 Turbo T/A with a Pontiac 301 that could have bee:
Bookmarking this thread so that I can continue reading it. I made it up to page 3 so far.
1989 Shelby Dakota:
1977 Ford Bronco
1997 Buick Park Avenue
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 16, 2018, 11:42:38 PM
1989 Shelby Dakota:
The Shelby Dakota wasn't even Dodge's first high performance pickup. That honor goes to the 1963 Dodge HPP. The HPP offered a 365 horsepower 426 "wedge" V8 engine and a push-button automatic Torqueflite transmission. It was a fast truck. Dodge has a history of building high-performance pickup trucks. There was the Dodge Lil Red Express Truck of 1978. During the dark days the of the malaise era, this truck was a rare bright spot. It had a 225 horsepower 360 V8. It was one of the quickest if not the quickest production vehicle in the United States in 1978. In the 1970s, cars and trucks have different emissions standards. The high output 360 put out too much pollution to pass the test for cars but it was able to pass the truck emissions test. Also, there was the Dodge Ram SRT-10 pickup truck with the Viper based V10 engine and an optional 6-speed manual transmission. These trucks were brutal.
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2018, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 13, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.
Four-letter answer: C - A - F - E.
The intent of the modular engine was two-fold: to offer more power than its pushrod Windsor-block predecessor as well as better fuel economy. In base form, the 4.6L modular V8 in a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis could actually obtain 27-28 mpg in highway driving; which was higher than what was posted on the EPA sticker. Such was probably due to the EPA highway testing is done at 40-50 mph vs. 68-72 mph driving in the real world.
That argument doesn't hold water because General Motors was able to certify the small block Chevy V8 engine. Chrysler was later able to meet CAFE and emission standards using a pushrod overhead valve Hemi engine. There's no reason why Ford couldn't have continued building an overhead valve V-8 engine. Overhead valve engines are arguably superior to overhead cam engines when it comes to producing low-end torque is required from trucks. I drove a Ford pickup with a 5. 4 L modular V8 engine and it was gutless.
Bold emphasis added below:
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2018, 02:05:40 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on April 16, 2018, 08:59:33 AM
Quote from: bugo on April 13, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
I have always thought the modular V8 was kind of wimpy compared to the 302 that it replaced. The 302/4.9 ("5.0") had gobs of low-end torque while you had to rev the modular engine to get any power out of it. GM stuck to overhead valves, why did Ford think they had to get fancy and use overhead cams? Overhead cams are fine for smaller inline 4 cylinder or V6 engines but I'd rather have pushrods in a V8.
Four-letter answer: C - A - F - E.
The intent of the modular engine was two-fold: to offer more power than its pushrod Windsor-block predecessor as well as better fuel economy. In base form, the 4.6L modular V8 in a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis could actually obtain 27-28 mpg in highway driving; which was higher than what was posted on the EPA sticker. Such was probably due to the EPA highway testing is done at 40-50 mph vs. 68-72 mph driving in the real world.
That argument doesn't hold water because General Motors was able to certify the small block Chevy V8 engine. Chrysler was later able to meet CAFE and emission standards using a pushrod overhead valve Hemi engine. There's no reason why Ford couldn't have continued building an overhead valve V-8 engine. Overhead valve engines are arguably superior to overhead cam engines when it comes to producing low-end torque is required from trucks. I drove a Ford pickup with a 5. 4 L modular V8 engine and it was gutless.
Define
certify in your above-quote. Emission standards in & of themselves,
and CAFE standards are
two completely separate entities. It's possible to have a fuel efficient vehicle with terrible emissions (think VW diesel scandal) as well as a proverbial gas-guzzler with lower emissions.
While an engine needs certification to meet emission standards; a CAFE figure for said-engine is just that... a figure based on fuel economy ratings. The posted
combined EPA figure on sticker prices (posted since the 2013 model year) is believed to be the CAFE number for that particular vehicle/engine combo that gets factored into manufacturer's fleetwide CAFE average when sold. The combined figure is a weighted-average between the posted city/highway ratings (55% city/45% highway IIRC).
To date, there is no known gasoline-powered V8 out there that has been capable of
averaging 27.5 mpg let alone 30 or 35 in
combined city/highway driving. In short, cars with V8 engines (regardless of whether it's a pushrod or modular design) fall well short of the CAFE standard (sales of more fuel-efficient cars were intended to offset any fuel economy/CAFE drawdowns from sales of vehicles with larger engines). When the standards were first set circa 1975; it was originally based on the assumption that V8 engines in cars would be all but gone by 1985... the first year the standard hit 27.5 mpg. I.e. the newer V8 engine offerings from the Big Three during the 90s and beyond
weren't originally planned to happen.
While GM & Chrysler made newer pushrod V8s; one needs to keep in mind that those initially rolled out
years if not a decade after Ford's first modular V8 (the 4.6L) came out circa 1991 (for its Lincoln Town Cars). When such (the 4.6L) rolled out, Chrysler had no V8-powered cars in its line-up and GM was planning on eventually pulling the plug on its V8-powered RWD full-size sedans & wagons (which it did circa 1996).
While Ford has since launched a newer 5.0L "Coyote" V8 for its Mustangs & pick-up trucks; they seem heck-bent on offering Ecoboost V6s and 4-bangers for everything else in its current line-up. So the likelihood of them going back to pushrod V8s at the time of this writing seems nil.
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 17, 2018, 09:36:24 AM
When the standards were first set circa 1975; it was originally based on the assumption that V8 engines in cars would be all but gone by 1985... the first year the standard hit 27.5 mpg. I.e. the newer V8 engine offerings from the Big Three during the 90s and beyond weren't originally planned to happen.
While GM & Chrysler made newer pushrod V8s; one needs to keep in mind that those initially rolled out years if not a decade after Ford's first modular V8 (the 4.6L) came out circa 1991 (for its Lincoln Town Cars). When such (the 4.6L) rolled out, Chrysler had no V8-powered cars in its line-up and GM was planning on eventually pulling the plug on its V8-powered RWD full-size sedans & wagons (which it did circa 1996).
In that vein:
I currently own a 1997 Ford Thunderbird with a V8
Back when that generation of the car (the Ford MN-12 platform that also covered the contemporaneous Mercury Cougar) was launched in fall 1988, there was not a single V8 option for that car, just the standard V6 and the Super Coupe supercharged V6, following the seeming industry trend of phasing out V8s at the time. Consumer demand though led to the 5.0 HO engine being added to the model in 1991, followed by the modular 4.6 supplanting it in 1993.
The supercharged V6 version of the car ceased production in 1995, two years before the end of that era of Thunderbird. The Lincoln Mark VIII on the similar FN-10 platform always only had the 4.6L V8 as its sole engine option IIRC.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2018, 10:26:35 AMI currently own a 1997 Ford Thunderbird with a V8
Back when that generation of the car (the Ford MN-12 platform that also covered the contemporaneous Mercury Cougar) was launched in fall 1988, there was not a single V8 option for that car, just the standard V6 and the Super Coupe supercharged V6, following the seeming industry trend of phasing out V8s at the time. Consumer demand though led to the 5.0 HO engine being added to the model in 1991, followed by the modular 4.6 supplanting it in 1993.
The supercharged V6 version of the car ceased production in 1995, two years before the end of that era of Thunderbird. The Lincoln Mark VIII on the similar FN-10 platform always only had the 4.6L V8 as its sole engine option IIRC.
IIRC, one
supposed-excuse for why the V8 wasn't initially included was due to lack of room under the hood. The hoods were slightly modified for '91 to allow more room for the 5.0L/302 Windsor V8 to be placed in.
Such was kind of a repeat, of sorts, for what happened with the Mustang II during the mid-70s. For '74, no V8 engine was available but when such was added to the options list for '75-'78, Ford had to expand the hood opening in order to accommodate it (again, for the 302 Windsor).
I think even the V6 is on its way out. The future appears to be turbo I4s with combined port and direct injection, the combination being necessary to prevent oil aspirated through the crankcase breather system from coking on the intake valves, and an engine oil specification of SN+ or better to prevent LSPI. Toyota does offer normally aspirated I4s and V6s in the current-generation Camry, but I expect even those to go away once LSPI and intake valve clogging are deemed to be controlled with sufficient thoroughness that turbo GDI can be risked in model lines that are marketed to value- and reliability-conscious consumers.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 17, 2018, 11:41:17 AM
I think even the V6 is on its way out.
I'd guess for most vehicles, the V6 is on the way out, but will continue in performance models.
There's a lot of high-output V6s in sportier cars that have replaced the V8 in terms of power outputs (if not always a replacement in torque and visceral sound).
Transcript of the PT Cruiser Review. I think I finally understand modernism and post-modernism.
http://regularwiki.com/2004_Chrysler_PT_Cruiser
Quote from: formulanone on July 17, 2018, 06:48:52 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 17, 2018, 11:41:17 AM
I think even the V6 is on its way out.
I'd guess for most vehicles, the V6 is on the way out, but will continue in performance models.
There's a lot of high-output V6s in sportier cars that have replaced the V8 in terms of power outputs (if not always a replacement in torque and visceral sound).
Horsepower yes, but not so much with torque ratings. I've never really seen a V6 really replicate the low end torque of a V8 all that well. Granted even V8s on the whole generally have a whole lot less displacement than they used with shorter stroke configurations. Usually the lengthier stroke the more of that low end power you could generally expect.
1985 GM lineup, they pretty much start things right off with an Iron Duke to set the mood. Love the total lack of suspension travel on the N-Bodies:
Mustang II
For what its worth I always thought the Mustang II was a fairly decent looking car. Had a V8 been offered from the first model year I don't think it would get so much shit from performance car fans playing Monday Morning Quarterback. The Trans Am definitely was the lone bright point in a dark decade for performance.
Pontiac Phoenix; the most bastardized Chevy Nova until the 80s NUMMI version:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 31, 2018, 08:38:24 PM
Mustang II
Video snipped
For what its worth I always thought the Mustang II was a fairly decent looking car. Had a V8 been offered from the first model year I don't think it would get so much shit from performance car fans playing Monday Morning Quarterback. The Trans Am definitely was the lone bright point in a dark decade for performance.
While the Mustang II was indeed an initial let-down for older-Mustang & performance car fans for being much smaller and offering no V8 (in its first year); such didn't matter at the time. Due to its launch (unintentionally) coinciding with skyrocketing gas prices (& long gas lines); sales for the '74 model increased to numbers not seen post-1967 (385,993 units). Such was the only
new subcompact offering for that model year; everything else carried over from '73.
Ford F250 Centurion Van/Truck
We had a '75 Mustang with the 302/5.0L V8 that was a blast. We had it was 14 and I had just gotten my restricted driver's license and I thought spinning the tires was cool. The Mustang was actually quite fast and it had 13" wheels and it would squeal them for as long as you wanted to. The street in front of our house had black marks going in several directions. I had no idea how obnoxious I was and lucky I was that I never got in trouble for it. It was the 1980s and it was a different time. But yeah, that Mustang was powerful and had good acceleration. I don't know if the engine was stock or if it had been modified. I have fond memories of the Mustang II and don't think it deserves the bad reputation they have. Well, the 1974 model deserves all the scorn in the world but the V8 really woke that car up and made it a good performer. We had a '78 fastback with the 171/2.8L V6 which was absolutely gutless. It was a terrible car. But I had a lot of fun in that '75.
Nexus 5X
I saw a PT Cruiser yesterday and someone at work drives an HHR. Why does the Charger/Challenger revival seem to "work" for me, aesthetically speaking, while these don't?
Quote from: jon daly on August 29, 2018, 06:31:31 AM
I saw a PT Cruiser yesterday and someone at work drives an HHR. Why does the Charger/Challenger revival seem to "work" for me, aesthetically speaking, while these don't?
Probably because it's not a specific throwback to any particular model and an era nobody was asking for. The SSR and HHR had the exact issue the PT Cruiser had in term of design asthetics. Granted the volume PT and HHR sold wel but the automakers found out quick after those experience people wanted stuff from the 60s/70s. There was huge hype for the 05 Mustang when it came out because it like a first generation. Chrysler and GM followed with the Challenger and Camaro concepts which essentially were close to one-to-one with the how the production car look. The GTO drove and preformed almost exactly like the 2010 Camaro SS but people hated it because it looked like a Chevy Cavalier.
In regards to the Mustang II automakers until recently had a really bad habit of launching cars with incomplete or weak engine lines. In the case of the Mustang II had the 302 available in 1974 nobody would complain about it today. The Camaro wasn't a pretty bad car in the late 70s but skates by because of the engines available and that most people just want to remember the 400 Trans Ams. Conversely I think the SSR would have found a market had it launched with the 6.0L LS2 instead of the 5.3L. The 5.3 made it really apparent the SSR was a Trailblazsr reskin. The Pontiac Fiero was supposed to have a V6 it's first year but it got mixed which killed the repuatation of the car also.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 29, 2018, 08:46:44 AMIn regards to the Mustang II automakers until recently had a really bad habit of launching cars with incomplete or weak engine lines. In the case of the Mustang II had the 302 available in 1974 nobody would complain about it today.
Today? Most of those
lack of V8 complaints on that car were from the mid-70s and came from die-hard pony/muscle car enthusiasts. However, at that particular time, pony & muscle cars were on the wane due to soaring insurance premiums, increased pollution/emission control regulations/standards taking place in a very short period of time & skyrocketing gas prices. The coincidental timing of the debut of the '74 Mustang II sans the V8 option with respect soaring gas prices & long lines (including odd/even plate number gas rations) worked in Ford's favor (see the first year sales figures as proof) and most of the buying public (at least initially) didn't care about the
no V8 option.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 29, 2018, 08:46:44 AMThe Pontiac Fiero was supposed to have a V6 it's first year but it got mixed which killed the repuatation of the car also.
Not sure where you got that info. but based on old issues (from that era) of
Motor Trend,
Popular Science,
Popular Mechanics, etc.; the Fiero was originally conceived (late 70s/early 80s) to be a two-seat
economy (read
4-banger) commuter car... much like the more conventional front-engine/FWD Ford EXP/Mercury LN7 that were launched (spring of '81) as early '82 models. It was only when gas prices started leveling off/dropping and a
*pause* of government regulations (mainly the CAFE standards peaking at 27.5 mpg (it even dropped to 26 mpg for about three years in the late 80s)) that Pontiac decided to offer a V6 for the Fiero.
Oh yeah; the SSR. That one looks like something out of a Looney Tunes cartoon. At least the Cruiser looks like a toned down version of the car on the cover of ZZ Topp's Eliminator.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2018, 09:13:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 29, 2018, 08:46:44 AMIn regards to the Mustang II automakers until recently had a really bad habit of launching cars with incomplete or weak engine lines. In the case of the Mustang II had the 302 available in 1974 nobody would complain about it today.
Today? Most of those lack of V8 complaints on that car were from the mid-70s and came from die-hard pony/muscle car enthusiasts. However, at that particular time, pony & muscle cars were on the wane due to soaring insurance premiums, increased pollution/emission control regulations/standards taking place in a very short period of time & skyrocketing gas prices. The coincidental timing of the debut of the '74 Mustang II sans the V8 option with respect soaring gas prices & long lines (including odd/even plate number gas rations) worked in Ford's favor (see the first year sales figures as proof) and most of the buying public (at least initially) didn't care about the no V8 option.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 29, 2018, 08:46:44 AMThe Pontiac Fiero was supposed to have a V6 it's first year but it got mixed which killed the repuatation of the car also.
Not sure where you got that info. but based on old issues (from that era) of Motor Trend, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, etc.; the Fiero was originally conceived (late 70s/early 80s) to be a two-seat economy (read 4-banger) commuter car... much like the more conventional front-engine/FWD Ford EXP/Mercury LN7 that were launched (spring of '81) as early '82 models. It was only when gas prices started leveling off/dropping and a *pause* of government regulations (mainly the CAFE standards peaking at 27.5 mpg (it even dropped to 26 mpg for about three years in the late 80s)) that Pontiac decided to offer a V6 for the Fiero.
Regarding the V6 Fiero, this article is a good read about the initial design concept:
https://pontiacfiero.wordpress.com/about/
In short the Fiero basically was neutered for the sake of the Corvette keeping as top GM performance dog. It seems absurd that anyone in retrospect at GM thought a V6 would put preform a C4 Corvette.
Regarding the Mustang II I think that I mentioned the high volume numbers upthread and the wane perfoamce pony cars. The real truth is that all early pony cars had a large percentage of straight six sales. It's sad to see in modern times so many perfectly good vintage I6 get chopped up for restomods.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 29, 2018, 10:00:24 AMRegarding the V6 Fiero, this article is a good read about the initial design concept:
https://pontiacfiero.wordpress.com/about/
In short the Fiero basically was neutered for the sake of the Corvette keeping as top GM performance dog. It seems absurd that anyone in retrospect at GM thought a V6 would put preform a C4 Corvette.
The short-lived Regal Grand National & GNX say
"Hello"... at with respect to 0-60 times.
Quote from: Pontiac Wordpress articleThe Fiero was conceived as a small, two-seat sports car with all new suspension and V6 engine. While General Motors management and accountants were opposed to investing in a second two-seater sports car that might compete with the Corvette, they perceived the oil crisis as a market opportunity for a fuel-efficient sporty commuter car. To this end, the Fiero was re-designed to use a fuel efficient version of GM's 2.5 L (150 cu in) four-cylinder "Iron Duke" engine capable of 31 mpg-US (7.6 L/100 km; 37 mpg-imp) in the city and 50 mpg-US (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg-imp) on the highway with the economy-ratio transmission option. These figures are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency test-circuit results, published by Pontiac, and confirmed from multiple sources. It was impressive mileage for a 2.5 L engine of the period, and still good by today's standards, but the three-speed automatic reduced highway mileage to only 32 mpg-US (7.4 L/100 km; 38 mpg-imp). With respect to fuel economy, the Fiero was intended to appeal to a market niche for which the Corvette with its V8 engine was unsuitable.
...
By 1985, the oil crisis was long past and demand developed for a Fiero having more engine power and better sports car performance. Pontiac responded by introducing the GT model which included upgraded suspension tuning, wider tires, and a V6 engine having 43 hp (32 kW) more than the base four-cylinder.
I'd be curious to know
when this article was written and/or
when the initial plan for a V6 engine was conceived because the majority if not all the press (including such from GM) prior to the 1984 launch of Fiero made no mention of it initially/originally coming with or offering a V6 engine when planned.
The CB (4th generation) Accord. Interesting that he says he'd prefer an airbag; the car got one in the 1992 facelift. Also the last Accord without a V6 until the current generation came out early this year (both engines in the new Accord are turbo 4s).
https://youtu.be/9cm1JIhY0QM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2018, 11:35:51 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 29, 2018, 10:00:24 AMRegarding the V6 Fiero, this article is a good read about the initial design concept:
https://pontiacfiero.wordpress.com/about/
In short the Fiero basically was neutered for the sake of the Corvette keeping as top GM performance dog. It seems absurd that anyone in retrospect at GM thought a V6 would put preform a C4 Corvette.
The short-lived Regal Grand National & GNX say "Hello"... at with respect to 0-60 times.
Quote from: Pontiac Wordpress articleThe Fiero was conceived as a small, two-seat sports car with all new suspension and V6 engine. While General Motors management and accountants were opposed to investing in a second two-seater sports car that might compete with the Corvette, they perceived the oil crisis as a market opportunity for a fuel-efficient sporty commuter car. To this end, the Fiero was re-designed to use a fuel efficient version of GM's 2.5 L (150 cu in) four-cylinder "Iron Duke" engine capable of 31 mpg-US (7.6 L/100 km; 37 mpg-imp) in the city and 50 mpg-US (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg-imp) on the highway with the economy-ratio transmission option. These figures are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency test-circuit results, published by Pontiac, and confirmed from multiple sources. It was impressive mileage for a 2.5 L engine of the period, and still good by today's standards, but the three-speed automatic reduced highway mileage to only 32 mpg-US (7.4 L/100 km; 38 mpg-imp). With respect to fuel economy, the Fiero was intended to appeal to a market niche for which the Corvette with its V8 engine was unsuitable.
...
By 1985, the oil crisis was long past and demand developed for a Fiero having more engine power and better sports car performance. Pontiac responded by introducing the GT model which included upgraded suspension tuning, wider tires, and a V6 engine having 43 hp (32 kW) more than the base four-cylinder.
I'd be curious to know when this article was written and/or when the initial plan for a V6 engine was conceived because the majority if not all the press (including such from GM) prior to the 1984 launch of Fiero made no mention of it initially/originally coming with or offering a V6 engine when planned.
And Buick never saw a true performance coupe again after the Grand National...shame too... :no:
Regarding the Fiero, I believe one of the major car magazines covered the Fiero and how it was supposed to have a V6 from the get-go. For the life of me I can't find the article or video I seem to be remembering it from. Either way, why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day? Granted the 3rd Gen F-Body also had the Iron Duke as the base engine when they rolled out...
Quote from: bugo on October 19, 2017, 08:06:21 PM
I'm not a big fan of the Colonnade cars, but for some reason I like the Pontiac Can Am. I don't even know why.
The quad square headlights and the body sculpture that fit them took the gaudiness away from the Colonnade-era cars... at least in most cases. The Buick Century had square headlights too, but they were vertically stacked. It was an improvement over the 1973-75 Buicks and it was unique compared to the Regals, Customs, and Specials, but it was still pretty gaudy-looking.
Speaking of Regals, there was a guy in Florida who had a 1986 Buick Regal GS 455 Stage One!!!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1986_Buick_Regal_Stage_One;_Front_End.jpg
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 11:05:41 PM...why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?
Again, one needs to understand the time and economic situation that was going on at the time. The decision to initially go with a 4-cylinder for the Fiero was made based on the assumptions that the cost of gasoline was going to be $3-5/gallon by 1985-1990 and that the 27.5 mpg CAFE figure for 1985 was going to increase shortly thereafter. Needless to say wouldn't happen until some 20+ years later.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 11:05:41 PMGranted the 3rd Gen F-Body also had the Iron Duke as the base engine when they rolled out...
Such was obviously done for CAFE reasons.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 09:36:25 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 11:05:41 PM...why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?
Again, one needs to understand the time and economic situation that was going on at the time. The decision to initially go with a 4-cylinder for the Fiero was made based on the assumptions that the cost of gasoline was going to be $3-5/gallon by 1985-1990 and that the 27.5 mpg CAFE figure for 1985 was going to increase shortly thereafter. Needless to say wouldn't happen until some 20+ years later.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 11:05:41 PMGranted the 3rd Gen F-Body also had the Iron Duke as the base engine when they rolled out...
Such was obviously done for CAFE reasons.
That's the thing, why not offer the V6 and the Iron Duke from the get go then? Yes I understand that the volume of the cars would go with the base engine due to economy and cost (hell people still buy 4 cylinder Mustangs and Camaros). What I was getting at is GM goes and builds a two-seat car platform that obviously has some sort of sporty intentions to it but doesn't even bother an engine option at launch. 1980s, 90s, and even 2000s GM would launch cars repeatedly without option packages that would have promoted the car so much better in the eyes of the public and with automotive crirtics. Couple that up with GMs dubious build quality compared to foreign competitors it's really not a wonder that they post so much market share during those decades.
Incidentally one of my favorite inflation comparisons is $1.50 a gallon gas in the early 1980s. Basically it would math out to over $4 dollars today which people became more or less accustomed to paying just a year or so ago. What really exceeded the price of inflation was the price of a car. It's interesting to take the price a pre-EPA era car and watch it price out what would be the equivalent as a modern entry level car. All those safety regs, technology, and crash standards don't come cheap.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 09:50:19 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 09:36:25 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 11:05:41 PM...why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?
Again, one needs to understand the time and economic situation that was going on at the time. The decision to initially go with a 4-cylinder for the Fiero was made based on the assumptions that the cost of gasoline was going to be $3-5/gallon by 1985-1990 and that the 27.5 mpg CAFE figure for 1985 was going to increase shortly thereafter. Needless to say wouldn't happen until some 20+ years later.
That's the thing, why not offer the V6 and the Iron Duke from the get go then?
In the case of the Fiero, the marketing/launch at the time was a 2-seat
commuter car w/sporty looks. Ford did similar with its Escort-based EXP (& Mercury LN7) and Toyota did such with its MR2 (remember those?); both those two-seaters only offered 4-cylinder engines during their entire runs. The fore-mentioned leveling off/lowering of gas prices coupled with the
pause setting on regulations helped fuel the renaissance of performance-oriented cars during the mid-80s and motivated Pontiac to offer a V6 option in its Fiero later on.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 09:50:19 AM1980s, 90s, and even 2000s GM would launch cars repeatedly without option packages that would have promoted the car so much better in the eyes of the public and with automotive crirtics.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment here; GM's likely reasoning for initially offering only a handful of/limited option packages may be due to their wanting to
wait-and-see if the car would actually sell first. That and the bean-counters had a greater pull on the purse strings in the production department so-to-speak. Multiple option packages equates to added production costs. If the car turned out to be sales failure early on; the limited options, in their eyes, helped cut down on those losses.
I know,
penny-wise/dollar foolish; but that was the philosophy then and sadly, such is still true now and not just with GM (read: Ford's recent move to phase out all its sedans & hatchbacks in the US market within the next two years).
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 10:30:46 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 09:50:19 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 31, 2018, 09:36:25 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2018, 11:05:41 PM...why build a car like that if you're just going to only slap an Iron Duke in it and call it a day?
Again, one needs to understand the time and economic situation that was going on at the time. The decision to initially go with a 4-cylinder for the Fiero was made based on the assumptions that the cost of gasoline was going to be $3-5/gallon by 1985-1990 and that the 27.5 mpg CAFE figure for 1985 was going to increase shortly thereafter. Needless to say wouldn't happen until some 20+ years later.
That's the thing, why not offer the V6 and the Iron Duke from the get go then?
In the case of the Fiero, the marketing/launch at the time was a 2-seat commuter car w/sporty looks. Ford did similar with its Escort-based EXP (& Mercury LN7) and Toyota did such with its MR2 (remember those?); both those two-seaters only offered 4-cylinder engines during their entire runs. The fore-mentioned leveling off/lowering of gas prices coupled with the pause setting on regulations helped fuel the renaissance of performance-oriented cars during the mid-80s and motivated Pontiac to offer a V6 option in its Fiero later on.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 09:50:19 AM1980s, 90s, and even 2000s GM would launch cars repeatedly without option packages that would have promoted the car so much better in the eyes of the public and with automotive crirtics.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment here; GM's likely reasoning for initially offering only a handful of/limited option packages may be due to their wanting to wait-and-see if the car would actually sell first. That and the bean-counters had a greater pull on the purse strings in the production department so-to-speak. Multiple option packages equates to added production costs. If the car turned out to be sales failure early on; the limited options, in their eyes, helped cut down on those losses.
I know, penny-wise/dollar foolish; but that was the philosophy then and sadly, such is still true now and not just with GM (read: Ford's recent move to phase out all its sedans & hatchbacks in the US market within the next two years).
I guess the point is conveyed with the MR2 getting a supercharged engine later in it's run in the 1980s. Either way its still kind of a shame the Fiero isn't remembered very fondly, I always thought it was a solid car handling car.
Regarding phasing out certain segments of the market, Ford really ought to be careful about that. Chrysler really has backed itself into a corner relying almost entirely on truck/SUV sales smattered in with an aging LX platform.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 09:50:19 AMThat's the thing, why not offer the V6 and the Iron Duke from the get go then? Yes I understand that the volume of the cars would go with the base engine due to economy and cost (hell people still buy 4 cylinder Mustangs and Camaros). What I was getting at is GM goes and builds a two-seat car platform that obviously has some sort of sporty intention to it but doesn't even bother with an engine option at launch. 1980s, 90s, and even 2000s GM would launch cars repeatedly without option packages that would have promoted the car so much better in the eyes of the public and with automotive critics. Couple that up with GMs dubious build quality compared to foreign competitors it's really not a wonder that they lost so much market share during those decades.
The Fiero's problems went well beyond using an engine whose main point of commercial appeal was reliability rather than performance (it never received multiport fuel injection while the Fiero was in production, for example). It had mediocre performance because off-the-shelf suspension and braking components were used.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 09:50:19 AMIncidentally one of my favorite inflation comparisons is $1.50 a gallon gas in the early 1980s. Basically it would math out to over $4 today which people became more or less accustomed to paying just a year or so ago.
The big drop in retail gasoline prices (https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/) occurred in 2015. In 2014 the nationwide average gasoline price was about $3.50/gallon; beginning in 2015 it has been around $2.50/gallon.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2018, 09:50:19 AMWhat really exceeded the price of inflation was the price of a car. It's interesting to take the price of a pre-EPA era car and price out what would be the equivalent as a modern entry level car. All those safety regs, technology, and crash standards don't come cheap.
Actually, in constant real dollars, I think the cost of ownership from new to end of life has stayed about the same if it has not actually dropped. Cars from the late 1960's/early 1970's had exaggerated turnunder with all-steel fenders and steel body panels did not receive an elpo dip before they were primed and painted, so they rusted out rapidly. Engines ran dirtier and would go out of tune if you so much as looked at them cross-eyed, so the rule of thumb was 100,000 miles if normally maintained or 200,000 miles if "overmaintained" (maintenance intervals halved). Now 200,000 miles is normal life with maintenance, and continued good performance at much higher mileages is available with customized regimes that don't necessarily involve across-the-board halving of intervals.
My father used to own a 1967 VW Beetle that he kept for 14 years and, in the mid-1970's, he had to buy a heavy bolt with a thick washer to cover up a hole where the floorpan had rusted through. My second car was a 1986 Nissan Maxima, which still had all-steel fender panels but did not start developing visible rear wheel arch rust until it was over 20 years old, and never had floorpan rust. My current daily driver is a 1994 Saturn SL2, which is still rust-free at 24 years old.
When I go to car shows locally, I notice a substantial minority--if not the majority--of the like-new restorations have retrofitted EFI.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2018, 12:36:52 AM
Regarding phasing out certain segments of the market, Ford really ought to be careful about that. Chrysler really has backed itself into a corner relying almost entirely on truck/SUV sales smattered in with an aging LX platform.
Nissan did a similar move in Australia, keeping only the 350Z, GT-R and Leaf. All the rest are SUV/crossovers. http://www.nissan.com.au/cars-vehicles/browse-range
Just out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars? It seems that mine tend to get replaced after 7 years or 150,000 miles. Its generally not because of maintenance issues but rather just wanting something new, the 200,000 seems obtainable even in the worst cars.
Speaking of that, there doesn't seem to be a complete basement of the car world like the days of old. Even some of the worst cars produced to today can't measure up to the legendary low-end of the market crap that used to be churned out of factories in the era that this thread is dedicated to.
Speaking of gas, its an interesting to see how the price tends to really influence what the buying public wants. Right now were in a tread where gas prices are falling which has led to a rise in SUV/CUV sales and big cars getting more market share again (which seems to be having a effect on market segments as described above). It would be interesting to see what kind of dynamic electric cars, hybrids, and even more efficient engines across the board would have if gas ever hit $4.50-$5.00 a gallon again.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2018, 11:32:14 PMJust out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars? It seems that mine tend to get replaced after 7 years or 150,000 miles. Its generally not because of maintenance issues but rather just wanting something new, the 200,000 seems obtainable even in the worst cars.
In this family we generally keep them until they drop. The average age at disposal (sale, donation, or accident loss) or the present age (if still in our ownership) of the 10 vehicles we have owned since the 1967 VW Beetle (inclusive) is 14 years. Two cars (one still in service) have made it past 20 years. Most were bought new, although three were acquired used.
I believe only two at most have been sourced through auto loans, the last being a 1974 Buick Regal. It has been at least 40 years since we last traded in a car to buy another. (I am frankly not sure we have ever done it.) We typically buy to keep indefinitely and are therefore very choosy about reliability, quality of materials, driver/passenger comfort, etc. When we have failed to be selective, we have ultimately come to regret it.
I am personally more willing to put up with cosmetic aging and even loss of non-essential systems (such as A/C) than I am with certain functional limitations. For example, I have learned not to accept poor driveability or a lack of cruise control. I was happy to get rid of a 1978 Chevy Impala, even at very low mileage (got it at about 5,000 miles, parted with it at about 20,000 miles), because it was very hard to start and did not have cruise control.
Despite hail damage, rips in the driver's seat, headliner fabric hanging down, assorted leaks, and about 20 other problems or issues I have written up in a file somewhere, I still love the 1994 Saturn SL2. It is only because its A/C does not work and is (probably) not economically repairable that I am slowly becoming emotionally ready to part with it. On the other hand, if the cruise control stopped working tomorrow and I could not fix it, it would probably go on Craigslist the very next day.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2018, 11:32:14 PMSpeaking of that, there doesn't seem to be a complete basement of the car world like the days of old. Even some of the worst cars produced to today can't measure up to the legendary low-end of the market crap that used to be churned out of factories in the era that this thread is dedicated to.
There aren't cars like the Yugo on the market anymore, but there are entry-level vehicles where interior finish materials wear out rapidly (seats rip really easily, etc.) as a way of pushing the customer to buy a newer vehicle. The newest vehicle in the family, a 2009 Honda Fit, already has seat rips at nine years and 60,000 miles, while our 1986 Nissan Maxima never had any even after 22 years and over 200,000 miles.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2018, 11:32:14 PMSpeaking of gas, it's interesting to see how the price tends to really influence what the buying public wants. Right now we're in a trend where gas prices are falling which has led to a rise in SUV/CUV sales and big cars getting more market share again (which seems to be having a effect on market segments as described above). It would be interesting to see what kind of dynamic electric cars, hybrids, and even more efficient engines across the board would have if gas ever hit $4.50-$5.00 a gallon again.
I view it as an example of what economists call myopic choice. A car is such an expensive investment that a long view has to be taken of total ownership costs. This means buying fuel-efficient even when gas is $2.50/gallon (or even lower) today, because it might be $5/gallon five years from now. (In the 24 years the Saturn has been in the family, gas has ranged from $0.80/gallon to $4.50/gallon.)
Even with gas prices and their effect on customer preferences taken out of account, myopic choice is why the auto dealers' four-square system works.
At the same time, I realize that the auto industry would implode and life as a car buyer would become very difficult for me if everyone else carbon-copied my family's approach toward car ownership.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2018, 11:32:14 PM
Just out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars? It seems that mine tend to get replaced after 7 years or 150,000 miles. Its generally not because of maintenance issues but rather just wanting something new, the 200,000 seems obtainable even in the worst cars.
Speaking of that, there doesn't seem to be a complete basement of the car world like the days of old. Even some of the worst cars produced to today can't measure up to the legendary low-end of the market crap that used to be churned out of factories in the era that this thread is dedicated to.
Speaking of gas, its an interesting to see how the price tends to really influence what the buying public wants. Right now were in a tread where gas prices are falling which has led to a rise in SUV/CUV sales and big cars getting more market share again (which seems to be having a effect on market segments as described above). It would be interesting to see what kind of dynamic electric cars, hybrids, and even more efficient engines across the board would have if gas ever hit $4.50-$5.00 a gallon again.
Until they drop. I live vicariously through the other drivers I see on the road.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2018, 11:32:14 PMJust out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars?
I try to keep mine as long as possible. If my '97 Crown Vic (that I owned since Nov. 1996) wasn't totaled in a 3-car accident two-and-a-half years ago (I replaced it with a 2011 Crown Vic., a former rental); I'd still be driving it. I've had my other car, a 2007 Mustang convertible, for just over 11 years.
At the moment, I have no plans to replace either of them.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2018, 12:52:53 AM
The quad square headlights and the body sculpture that fit them took the gaudiness away from the Colonnade-era cars... at least in most cases. The Buick Century had square headlights too, but they were vertically stacked. It was an improvement over the 1973-75 Buicks and it was unique compared to the Regals, Customs, and Specials, but it was still pretty gaudy-looking.
The Monte Carlo and Malibu had stacked headlights too...which I never cared about. FWIW, the Cutlasses (including the performance-minded Hurst Olds and 442 variants) were the best-looking ones of the bunch, especially the ones with the slanted nose, similar to what was seen on the NASCAR stockers back then.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 04, 2018, 09:32:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 01, 2018, 11:32:14 PMJust out of curiosity how long is everyone generally keeping their cars?
I try to keep mine as long as possible. If my '97 Crown Vic (that I owned since Nov. 1996) wasn't totaled in a 3-car accident two-and-a-half years ago (I replaced it with a 2011 Crown Vic., a former rental); I'd still be driving it. I've had my other car, a 2007 Mustang convertible, for just over 11 years.
At the moment, I have no plans to replace either of them.
I'm with you. If I didn't absolutely need the money when we were buying my wife's 2012 Mustang GT I'd still have my 2001 Mercury Grand Marquis. It only had 95K miles on it in Dec 2011 when we parted with it, and I estimate it would still only have 120-125K miles on it now if we still had it. The Mustang(s) became the defacto road trip vehicle(s) and work is only 9 miles away for me. I certainly wouldn't be driving my 2014 Mustang GT to work every day if I still had the Grand Marquis, other than really nice days. ;)
In fact, I am not 100 % sure that we would have gotten the second Mustang, tbh. My wife demanded I get my own because I kept wanting to drive hers all the time and she got tired of driving my truck.
Hers is paid off and mine will be in January. We have zero plans on replacing either of them. We have been putting the amount of her car payment away in a separate savings account every month for the inevitable clutch/transmission repair which will not be cheap. The way we drive and maintain our cars our Coyote V8's should last for a very long time as they are designed to put up with alot more abuse than what we give them.
Recently, GMC has been running ads for their Sierra pickups towing an ice cream truck.
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/dRKZ/gmc-sierra-ice-cream-day-song-by-outasight
But they used to MAKE ice cream trucks.
Something different; TRX tires and wheels:
I had a 1980 Mercury Cougar XR-7. It came from the factory with TRX wheels and tires. They were very expensive, so we replaced them with 14" wheels and tires. The speedometer was always a couple of MPH off because of the smaller wheels.
Quote from: bugo on October 23, 2018, 12:31:48 PM
I had a 1980 Mercury Cougar XR-7. It came from the factory with TRX wheels and tires. They were very expensive, so we replaced them with 14" wheels and tires. The speedometer was always a couple of MPH off because of the smaller wheels.
Heh, my brother used to use that excuse in high school to get out of speeding tickets. I forget what he was driving but he made the switch from TRX to conventional wheels. I want to say that worked 2-3 Times before the local township police called him out on his BS, guess it sounded plausible back then.
Quote from: bugo on October 23, 2018, 12:31:48 PM
I had a 1980 Mercury Cougar XR-7. It came from the factory with TRX wheels and tires. They were very expensive, so we replaced them with 14" wheels and tires. The speedometer was always a couple of MPH off because of the smaller wheels.
Speaking of gauges being off, I noticed a while back that my odometer goes 1.1 or so miles for every 1 mile. I don't plan on selling my car, so this doesn't worry me much. So I've never investigated the issue. Your post just triggered my memory, bugo.
Michelin still uses a similar tire size format for their PAX tires, their lineup of costly run-flat tires...much to the dismay of some Honda Odyssey owners that had 17.5" wheels.
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
Yoooo, that is freakin awesome man. Yea they definitely should have kept that thing going. Id buy that & just live in it.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on November 19, 2018, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
Yoooo, that is freakin awesome man. Yea they definitely should have kept that thing going. Id buy that & just live in it.
iPhone
Oh, to be able to live like this while traveling across the USA :sombrero:
Quote from: Henry on November 20, 2018, 11:05:20 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 19, 2018, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
Yoooo, that is freakin awesome man. Yea they definitely should have kept that thing going. Id buy that & just live in it.
iPhone
Oh, to be able to live like this while traveling across the USA :sombrero:
As awesome as it might be I'd still need to tow a two or four wheel vehicle to enjoy backroads properly.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 20, 2018, 12:51:35 PM
Quote from: Henry on November 20, 2018, 11:05:20 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on November 19, 2018, 06:49:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
Yoooo, that is freakin awesome man. Yea they definitely should have kept that thing going. Id buy that & just live in it.
iPhone
Oh, to be able to live like this while traveling across the USA :sombrero:
As awesome as it might be I'd still need to tow a two or four wheel vehicle to enjoy backroads properly.
You can tow cars with that right? Probably just gotta put some extra wide mirrors on it. & bang you're ready to go.
iPhone
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2016, 12:08:17 PM
At 3:19 you can see the test driver shaking his head in total disgust. :-D I remember my Grandma bought a new Chevette from the dealer in Detroit in 1980. For some reason she thought that piece of crap was wonderful despite it being a total piece of garbage and completely useless in the winter. If I remember right my Dad tried to convince her to buy something else that was front wheel drive and did find body rust on it (the grand legend of show room Chevettes) shortly after it was purchased. She hung on to that piece of crap until 1989 when her and my Grandpa got a new Lumina. For some reason they were completely loyal to GM despite never have worked for the company themselves. I think that it had something to do with my Mom being an accountant at GM rather than anything logical...people really blindly followed brand loyalty back then.
Used to work for a guy in the Boston area (he's now deceased) who had a small battery factory. He used Chevettes for light deliveries and several survived into the late nineties with close to 300k miles. He was fanatical about maintenance and rinsing off salt - which there was plenty of in the winter in the Boston area.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
An old friend of mine, Miles, lived in something like that.
Of course, I had another friend who lived in an old school bus.
Quote from: US71 on November 20, 2018, 11:21:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
An old friend of mine, Miles, lived in something like that.
Of course, I had another friend who lived in an old school bus.
Reminds me of a show, in one episode they pimped the bus out & it was able to float on the water & the band had a concert on it.
iPhone
Quote from: bugo on October 23, 2018, 12:31:48 PM
I had a 1980 Mercury Cougar XR-7. It came from the factory with TRX wheels and tires. They were very expensive, so we replaced them with 14" wheels and tires. The speedometer was always a couple of MPH off because of the smaller wheels.
A few years ago, the batteries in my bicycle "computer" died suddenly, before I could record the wheel circumference. I made a guess, but it seemed off, so I took my Garmin and biked down a straightaway to calibrate it that way. The speed between the two devices was exactly one mile-per-hour off at the speed I was going, about 10 miles per hour. It was very strange watching both devices advance or decrease the readings at the same time. If I were still in college, I would come up with an algebraic formula to adjust the circumference setting, but I didn't bother now.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
Bill Murray and Sgt. Hulka would approve
Quote from: DJStephens on November 30, 2018, 08:44:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 25, 2018, 12:37:46 PM
GMC Motor Home; I'd love to have one of these:
Bill Murray and Sgt. Hulka would approve
My 3 year old niece approves apparently and asked for one for Christmas to take camping.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2018, 11:27:55 AM
Ford F250 Centurion Van/Truck
That's actually an E-250, since it has the cab of an Econoline.
Quote from: Henry on September 04, 2018, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2018, 12:52:53 AM
The quad square headlights and the body sculpture that fit them took the gaudiness away from the Colonnade-era cars... at least in most cases. The Buick Century had square headlights too, but they were vertically stacked. It was an improvement over the 1973-75 Buicks and it was unique compared to the Regals, Customs, and Specials, but it was still pretty gaudy-looking.
The Monte Carlo and Malibu had stacked headlights too...which I never cared about. FWIW, the Cutlasses (including the performance-minded Hurst Olds and 442 variants) were the best-looking ones of the bunch, especially the ones with the slanted nose, similar to what was seen on the NASCAR stockers back then.
Believe it was change for the sake of change - '76 - '77 model years in the GM mid size cars. Like the single round ones better - more simple and basic. The '73 - '75 A cars look better imho.
Most prefer the quad lights of the '69 and '70 Chevelles as opposed to the singles of the '71 and '72 models. Of course the 69 and 70 model years were the pinnacle of factory horsepower, which gives them their value today.
I was asking an old friend who is a gearhead, but he doesn't know the answer: do some of these car collectors look for roadmaps of the same vintage of their cars for their gloveboxes? I stopped by a local antique place and they had some 50 year old Arco, Esso, and Phillips 66 maps. The latter was of Hawaii and, I have no idea how these are graded, but it looked like it was in good condition; compared to the other maps I usually see at this shop. (It's like the owner brought it home from a trip and stuck it in a drawer all of these years.)
Quote from: DJStephens on December 02, 2018, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 04, 2018, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2018, 12:52:53 AM
The quad square headlights and the body sculpture that fit them took the gaudiness away from the Colonnade-era cars... at least in most cases. The Buick Century had square headlights too, but they were vertically stacked. It was an improvement over the 1973-75 Buicks and it was unique compared to the Regals, Customs, and Specials, but it was still pretty gaudy-looking.
The Monte Carlo and Malibu had stacked headlights too...which I never cared about. FWIW, the Cutlasses (including the performance-minded Hurst Olds and 442 variants) were the best-looking ones of the bunch, especially the ones with the slanted nose, similar to what was seen on the NASCAR stockers back then.
Believe it was change for the sake of change - '76 - '77 model years in the GM mid size cars. Like the single round ones better - more simple and basic. The '73 - '75 A cars look better imho.
Most prefer the quad lights of the '69 and '70 Chevelles as opposed to the singles of the '71 and '72 models. Of course the 69 and 70 model years were the pinnacle of factory horsepower, which gives them their value today.
To further expand, the 1965-67 GTOs/Lemans (and most other Pontiacs and Cadillacs from that era) had stacked headlights, and the 1967-68 F-85/Cutlass/Hurst Olds/442 models had a strange configuration in which the turn signals were mounted in between the two lights on each side. IMHO, the stacked lights on the Pontiacs (and Cadillacs) looked better, but I still prefer the traditionally-arranged quad headlights.
I have a theory as to why the Chevelles were switched to singles in 1971; it probably was to match up with the first-generation Monte Carlo (a personal luxury coupe that debuted in 1970)?
And the BOP A cars (Skylark/GS, Cutlass/442, and LeMans/GTO) retained quads through the end of the "classic" era (1972).
454 SS
That fuel economy estimate... :-D
Patrol Cars
1970-74 Dodge Challenger
I have to disagree with the video editor, the popularity of the E-Body is a relatively modern affair. Everyone I knew that owned an E-Body absolutely hated them and said that they had spotty quality. I seem to recall a lot of older publications often put the E-Bodies below the F-Body cars and Mustang variants in the hierarchy of Pony Cars.
For what it's worth Chrysler really nailed the retro look and feel when the 08 Challenger came out and really built upon it since then. The Challenger the most authentic looking of the current Pony cars and definitely is the most unique of the three on the market. I don't think there will be another production car with close to 400 cubic inches of displacement once the current Challenger and 392 are retired.
How did Dodge/Plymouth manage to avoid the bumper standards on the '73 - '74 Challenger/Barracuda cars? Maybe it is hidden, the enhanced bumper and or hydraulic pistons. It appears that they still had the old style bumpers after the '72 model year. Unfortunate that they felt they had to cancel the cars after '74. Despite lower sales, perhaps the pair could have been kept as a "halo" pair of cars. The Mopar offerings post '76 were dismal in appearance to what one could have purchased just a few short years before.
Quote from: DJStephens on December 31, 2018, 10:40:43 AM
How did Dodge/Plymouth manage to avoid the bumper standards on the '73 - '74 Challenger/Barracuda cars? Maybe it is hidden, the enhanced bumper and or hydraulic pistons. It appears that they still had the old style bumpers after the '72 model year. Unfortunate that they felt they had to cancel the cars after '74. Despite lower sales, perhaps the pair could have been kept as a "halo" pair of cars. The Mopar offerings post '76 were dismal in appearance to what one could have purchased just a few short years before.
The 73 E-Body had bumpers that met federal regulations but slant destroy the appearance of the car like it did with the F-Bodies. I imagine that the lack of sales was reason enough to shutter the E-Body. Sales of the E-Body compared to the F-Body and Mustang were infinitely behind back in the 1970s. They just weren't popular cars until fairly modern times.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2018, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 31, 2018, 10:40:43 AM
How did Dodge/Plymouth manage to avoid the bumper standards on the '73 - '74 Challenger/Barracuda cars? Maybe it is hidden, the enhanced bumper and or hydraulic pistons. It appears that they still had the old style bumpers after the '72 model year. Unfortunate that they felt they had to cancel the cars after '74. Despite lower sales, perhaps the pair could have been kept as a "halo" pair of cars. The Mopar offerings post '76 were dismal in appearance to what one could have purchased just a few short years before.
The 73 E-Body had bumpers that met federal regulations but slant destroy the appearance of the car like it did with the F-Bodies. I imagine that the lack of sales was reason enough to shutter the E-Body. Sales of the E-Body compared to the F-Body and Mustang were infinitely behind back in the 1970s. They just weren't popular cars until fairly modern times.
The main issue with those E-bodies saleswise was
timing. Such came out just when sales of muscle & pony cars were already falling due to rising insurance costs and increased emission controls putting a damper on performance. The rising gas prices & related lines at the pumps that started just when the '74 models were rolling out (October 1973) effectively sealed the fate of those E-bodies.
1976 AMC Gremlin on Regular Car Reviews today:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RHhnFjCn26M
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 10:57:20 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2018, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 31, 2018, 10:40:43 AM
How did Dodge/Plymouth manage to avoid the bumper standards on the '73 - '74 Challenger/Barracuda cars? Maybe it is hidden, the enhanced bumper and or hydraulic pistons. It appears that they still had the old style bumpers after the '72 model year. Unfortunate that they felt they had to cancel the cars after '74. Despite lower sales, perhaps the pair could have been kept as a "halo" pair of cars. The Mopar offerings post '76 were dismal in appearance to what one could have purchased just a few short years before.
The 73 E-Body had bumpers that met federal regulations but slant destroy the appearance of the car like it did with the F-Bodies. I imagine that the lack of sales was reason enough to shutter the E-Body. Sales of the E-Body compared to the F-Body and Mustang were infinitely behind back in the 1970s. They just weren't popular cars until fairly modern times.
The main issue with those E-bodies saleswise was timing. Such came out just when sales of muscle & pony cars were already falling due to rising insurance costs and increased emission controls putting a damper on performance. The rising gas prices & related lines at the pumps that started just when the '74 models were rolling out (October 1973) effectively sealed the fate of those E-bodies.
Read an interesting story in an older copy of Mopar Muscle. They (Chrysler)was working on a 75 Barracuda. In 1969. Lowered sales, myopic management, the embargo, insurance rates, and the changing federal requirements all conspired to kill E body continuance. In hindsight, would have just carried the car over, as larger GM did with the Camaro and Firebird.
Quote from: DJStephens on February 06, 2019, 10:19:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 10:57:20 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2018, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 31, 2018, 10:40:43 AM
How did Dodge/Plymouth manage to avoid the bumper standards on the '73 - '74 Challenger/Barracuda cars? Maybe it is hidden, the enhanced bumper and or hydraulic pistons. It appears that they still had the old style bumpers after the '72 model year. Unfortunate that they felt they had to cancel the cars after '74. Despite lower sales, perhaps the pair could have been kept as a "halo" pair of cars. The Mopar offerings post '76 were dismal in appearance to what one could have purchased just a few short years before.
The 73 E-Body had bumpers that met federal regulations but slant destroy the appearance of the car like it did with the F-Bodies. I imagine that the lack of sales was reason enough to shutter the E-Body. Sales of the E-Body compared to the F-Body and Mustang were infinitely behind back in the 1970s. They just weren't popular cars until fairly modern times.
The main issue with those E-bodies saleswise was timing. Such came out just when sales of muscle & pony cars were already falling due to rising insurance costs and increased emission controls putting a damper on performance. The rising gas prices & related lines at the pumps that started just when the '74 models were rolling out (October 1973) effectively sealed the fate of those E-bodies.
Read an interesting story in an older copy of Mopar Muscle. They (Chrysler)was working on a 75 Barracuda. In 1969. Lowered sales, myopic management, the embargo, insurance rates, and the changing federal requirements all conspired to kill E body continuance. In hindsight, would have just carried the car over, as larger GM did with the Camaro and Firebird.
Which would have been interesting considering the F-Bodies really took off in sales during the tail-end of the 1970s despite being on an old platform. Suffice to say that in spite of the gas crisis and emissions that there was still a market for real Pony Cars.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 07, 2019, 12:01:31 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on February 06, 2019, 10:19:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 10:57:20 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2018, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 31, 2018, 10:40:43 AM
How did Dodge/Plymouth manage to avoid the bumper standards on the '73 - '74 Challenger/Barracuda cars? Maybe it is hidden, the enhanced bumper and or hydraulic pistons. It appears that they still had the old style bumpers after the '72 model year. Unfortunate that they felt they had to cancel the cars after '74. Despite lower sales, perhaps the pair could have been kept as a "halo" pair of cars. The Mopar offerings post '76 were dismal in appearance to what one could have purchased just a few short years before.
The 73 E-Body had bumpers that met federal regulations but slant destroy the appearance of the car like it did with the F-Bodies. I imagine that the lack of sales was reason enough to shutter the E-Body. Sales of the E-Body compared to the F-Body and Mustang were infinitely behind back in the 1970s. They just weren't popular cars until fairly modern times.
The main issue with those E-bodies saleswise was timing. Such came out just when sales of muscle & pony cars were already falling due to rising insurance costs and increased emission controls putting a damper on performance. The rising gas prices & related lines at the pumps that started just when the '74 models were rolling out (October 1973) effectively sealed the fate of those E-bodies.
Read an interesting story in an older copy of Mopar Muscle. They (Chrysler)was working on a 75 Barracuda. In 1969. Lowered sales, myopic management, the embargo, insurance rates, and the changing federal requirements all conspired to kill E body continuance. In hindsight, would have just carried the car over, as larger GM did with the Camaro and Firebird.
Which would have been interesting considering the F-Bodies really took off in sales during the tail-end of the 1970s despite being on an old platform. Suffice to say that in spite of the gas crisis and emissions that there was still a market for real Pony Cars.
Yes & no. In many instances, those F-bodies sold on looks alone regardless of what was under the hood. Many of those lower-priced base models had 6-cylinder engines. Similar holds true for today's Camaros, Mustangs and probably Challengers BTW.
For sure, the 1977 movie
Smokey & the Bandit certainly helped boost F-body sales... especially the Trans-Am. However, larger 400+ cubic inch engines were starting to get scarce even then on those cars. For 1977, not one Chevrolet
car offered an engine larger than 350 cubic inches and that
included the Camaro.
The last year the 455 engine was offered on the Firebird/Trans-Am was 1976 and the last year of the 400 was offered was 1979. One September 1978 issue of
Motor Trend had an article that covered the then-ten years of the Trans-Am, mentioned that the then-new '79 model was the
last of the super cars.
While that generation F-body indeed soldiered on through 1981; the cars were indeed emasculated performance-wise.
Quote from: DJStephens on February 06, 2019, 10:19:25 PM
Read an interesting story in an older copy of Mopar Muscle. They (Chrysler)was working on a 75 Barracuda. In 1969. Lowered sales, myopic management, the embargo, insurance rates, and the changing federal requirements all conspired to kill E body continuance. In hindsight, would have just carried the car over, as larger GM did with the Camaro and Firebird.
And I think it was republished in its sister publication Hot Rod as well showing the clay models of proposed 1975 Barracuda.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/0709phr-1975-barracuda/
I also remember a 1994 concept car called Dodge Venom who did the cover of Car & Driver and that car did some nods to the E-bodies.
(https://i.imgur.com/JDDTG2U.jpg)
^^^^
If anything that design screams Charger more than Challenger or Barracuda. The Coke bottle sides were always something I associated with the Charger.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 07, 2019, 04:52:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 07, 2019, 12:01:31 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on February 06, 2019, 10:19:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 10:57:20 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2018, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 31, 2018, 10:40:43 AM
How did Dodge/Plymouth manage to avoid the bumper standards on the '73 - '74 Challenger/Barracuda cars? Maybe it is hidden, the enhanced bumper and or hydraulic pistons. It appears that they still had the old style bumpers after the '72 model year. Unfortunate that they felt they had to cancel the cars after '74. Despite lower sales, perhaps the pair could have been kept as a "halo" pair of cars. The Mopar offerings post '76 were dismal in appearance to what one could have purchased just a few short years before.
The 73 E-Body had bumpers that met federal regulations but slant destroy the appearance of the car like it did with the F-Bodies. I imagine that the lack of sales was reason enough to shutter the E-Body. Sales of the E-Body compared to the F-Body and Mustang were infinitely behind back in the 1970s. They just weren't popular cars until fairly modern times.
The main issue with those E-bodies saleswise was timing. Such came out just when sales of muscle & pony cars were already falling due to rising insurance costs and increased emission controls putting a damper on performance. The rising gas prices & related lines at the pumps that started just when the '74 models were rolling out (October 1973) effectively sealed the fate of those E-bodies.
Read an interesting story in an older copy of Mopar Muscle. They (Chrysler)was working on a 75 Barracuda. In 1969. Lowered sales, myopic management, the embargo, insurance rates, and the changing federal requirements all conspired to kill E body continuance. In hindsight, would have just carried the car over, as larger GM did with the Camaro and Firebird.
Which would have been interesting considering the F-Bodies really took off in sales during the tail-end of the 1970s despite being on an old platform. Suffice to say that in spite of the gas crisis and emissions that there was still a market for real Pony Cars.
Yes & no. In many instances, those F-bodies sold on looks alone regardless of what was under the hood. Many of those lower-priced base models had 6-cylinder engines. Similar holds true for today's Camaros, Mustangs and probably Challengers BTW.
For sure, the 1977 movie Smokey & the Bandit certainly helped boost F-body sales... especially the Trans-Am. However, larger 400+ cubic inch engines were starting to get scarce even then on those cars. For 1977, not one Chevrolet car offered an engine larger than 350 cubic inches and that included the Camaro.
The last year the 455 engine was offered on the Firebird/Trans-Am was 1976 and the last year of the 400 was offered was 1979. One September 1978 issue of Motor Trend had an article that covered the then-ten years of the Trans-Am, mentioned that the then-new '79 model was the last of the super cars.
While that generation F-body indeed soldiered on through 1981; the cars were indeed emasculated performance-wise.
Regarding the Trans-Am some states like California had more strict emissions requirements which meant that the Pontiac 400 was swapped for the Oldsmobile 403. For the most part the Trans-Am wasn't all that embarrassing until it got saddled with the emissions compliant 301 Turbo V8. The Camaro by comparison generally had the weaker engine lineup and in my opinion looked way worse than it's Pontiac counterpart was the 1970s wore on. The downsized 3rd Generation F-Bodies must have been a welcome change when they finally arrived by 1982.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 07, 2019, 06:37:03 PMThe downsized 3rd Generation F-Bodies must have been a welcome change when they finally arrived by 1982.
Not sure about the Firebird/Trans-Am but the cross-fire-injected engines offered on those early Camaros of that generation had some reliability issues. Such was probably enough to send a perspective buyer over to the Mustang, which had just brought back the GT model as well as a high-output version of the 302/5.0L midway through the '82 model year.
The F cars did not really have good power until the '85 tuned port engine. The interiors were plasticky, and they had that converter hump on the passenger floor. And the MacPherson strut front end was numb. The '93 - '02 upgraded car was better.
No Chevette/1000 but holy intro fish tail:
Oh, the LeMans...probably even more out-of-place than the Nova in the same era was.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 07, 2019, 12:01:31 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on February 06, 2019, 10:19:25 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 02, 2019, 10:57:20 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 31, 2018, 11:12:23 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 31, 2018, 10:40:43 AM
How did Dodge/Plymouth manage to avoid the bumper standards on the '73 - '74 Challenger/Barracuda cars? Maybe it is hidden, the enhanced bumper and or hydraulic pistons. It appears that they still had the old style bumpers after the '72 model year. Unfortunate that they felt they had to cancel the cars after '74. Despite lower sales, perhaps the pair could have been kept as a "halo" pair of cars. The Mopar offerings post '76 were dismal in appearance to what one could have purchased just a few short years before.
The 73 E-Body had bumpers that met federal regulations but slant destroy the appearance of the car like it did with the F-Bodies. I imagine that the lack of sales was reason enough to shutter the E-Body. Sales of the E-Body compared to the F-Body and Mustang were infinitely behind back in the 1970s. They just weren't popular cars until fairly modern times.
The main issue with those E-bodies saleswise was timing. Such came out just when sales of muscle & pony cars were already falling due to rising insurance costs and increased emission controls putting a damper on performance. The rising gas prices & related lines at the pumps that started just when the '74 models were rolling out (October 1973) effectively sealed the fate of those E-bodies.
Read an interesting story in an older copy of Mopar Muscle. They (Chrysler)was working on a 75 Barracuda. In 1969. Lowered sales, myopic management, the embargo, insurance rates, and the changing federal requirements all conspired to kill E body continuance. In hindsight, would have just carried the car over, as larger GM did with the Camaro and Firebird.
Which would have been interesting considering the F-Bodies really took off in sales during the tail-end of the 1970s despite being on an old platform. Suffice to say that in spite of the gas crisis and emissions that there was still a market for real Pony Cars.
Lots of baby boomers moving into prime age for buying such a car. Gold chainers was a Northeastern term for Trans Am and Corvette buyers. Many were Italian. Chrysler could have had some of those buyers too, if they had had a car (other than Aspen / Volare Roadrunner) to sell them.
TC3 Miser, at least the mileage lives up to the name:
RCR feature on Cash for Clunkers:
Quote from: Henry on December 03, 2018, 12:03:32 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on December 02, 2018, 10:26:38 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 04, 2018, 09:38:10 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 31, 2018, 12:52:53 AM
The quad square headlights and the body sculpture that fit them took the gaudiness away from the Colonnade-era cars... at least in most cases. The Buick Century had square headlights too, but they were vertically stacked. It was an improvement over the 1973-75 Buicks and it was unique compared to the Regals, Customs, and Specials, but it was still pretty gaudy-looking.
The Monte Carlo and Malibu had stacked headlights too...which I never cared about. FWIW, the Cutlasses (including the performance-minded Hurst Olds and 442 variants) were the best-looking ones of the bunch, especially the ones with the slanted nose, similar to what was seen on the NASCAR stockers back then.
Believe it was change for the sake of change - '76 - '77 model years in the GM mid size cars. Like the single round ones better - more simple and basic. The '73 - '75 A cars look better imho.
Most prefer the quad lights of the '69 and '70 Chevelles as opposed to the singles of the '71 and '72 models. Of course the 69 and 70 model years were the pinnacle of factory horsepower, which gives them their value today.
To further expand, the 1965-67 GTOs/Lemans (and most other Pontiacs and Cadillacs from that era) had stacked headlights, and the 1967-68 F-85/Cutlass/Hurst Olds/442 models had a strange configuration in which the turn signals were mounted in between the two lights on each side. IMHO, the stacked lights on the Pontiacs (and Cadillacs) looked better, but I still prefer the traditionally-arranged quad headlights.
I have a theory as to why the Chevelles were switched to singles in 1971; it probably was to match up with the first-generation Monte Carlo (a personal luxury coupe that debuted in 1970)?
The first car with stacked headlights was the 1957 Nash, which was the last year for the marque.
Quote from: bugo on September 29, 2019, 07:21:27 AMThe first car with stacked headlights was the 1957 Nash, which was the last year for the marque.
Given that not all of the then-48 states allowed for separate high/low beam bulbs (aka dual headlights per side/quad headlights) until the 1958 model year; such on a '57 Nash must've been rare.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 30, 2019, 08:56:21 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 29, 2019, 07:21:27 AMThe first car with stacked headlights was the 1957 Nash, which was the last year for the marque.
Given that not all of the then-48 states allowed for separate high/low beam bulbs (aka dual headlights per side/quad headlights) until the 1958 model year; such on a '57 Nash must've been rare.
While most of the 1957 cars still had single headlights, there were some from that year that actually had quads. Some prime examples include the Chryslers, Cadillacs and Mercury Turnpike Cruiser.
Quote from: Henry on September 30, 2019, 09:18:27 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 30, 2019, 08:56:21 AM
Quote from: bugo on September 29, 2019, 07:21:27 AMThe first car with stacked headlights was the 1957 Nash, which was the last year for the marque.
Given that not all of the then-48 states allowed for separate high/low beam bulbs (aka dual headlights per side/quad headlights) until the 1958 model year; such on a '57 Nash must've been rare.
While most of the 1957 cars still had single headlights, there were some from that year that actually had quads. Some prime examples include the Chryslers, Cadillacs and Mercury Turnpike Cruiser.
I'm well aware of the '57 Mercury Turnpike Cruiser having such (my father owned one when new, I only saw an old pic of it); but in states that
had not yet allowed/approved quad headlights at the time, one has to wonder if models sold in those states still used the single headlights.
In the case of the '57 Mercury; other non-Turnpike Cruiser models still had the single-headlight setup. One has to wonder if the Turnpike Cruiser model was only sold in states that allowed dual/quad headlights or were ones sold in in states that did not yet allow such featured the standard single-headlight design.
If one Google's
1957 Cadillac, one will notice pics of both Fleetwood & Eldorado models featuring
both single & dual/quad headlight setups. My guess was that the latter was
optional where allowed. Similar is probably true for the '57 Chryslers and Imperials (such was a separate make at the time) as well.
Of course & as mentioned previously, dual/quad headlights were allowed
nationwide for the 1958 model year & car manufacturers took full advantage of such.
Something totally different from the 1980s...aside the K-Car parts:
From the time when the Mini-Van was king. Both are absolutely wretched in appearance, at least the Mitsubishi had reasonable power and a cool swivel seat:
Oh and that 80s talk about the supremacy of FWD layouts, I miss hearing that from my Midwest days.
Turbo Sprint and Spectrum:
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 10:47:13 AM
If one Google's 1957 Cadillac, one will notice pics of both Fleetwood & Eldorado models featuring both single & dual/quad headlight setups. My guess was that the latter was optional where allowed. Similar is probably true for the '57 Chryslers and Imperials (such was a separate make at the time) as well.
The only Cadillac for 1957 that had quad headlights was the uber-expensive Eldorado Brougham, which wasn't introduced until March of 1957. Quads had been legalized nationwide by then.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2020, 12:44:48 PM
Something totally different from the 1980s...aside the K-Car parts:
The Consulier GTP was a beast. It would beat many much more powerful cars of the day. Another turbo Chrysler that was fast was the Dodge Spirit R/T and its sportier sibling, the Daytona IROC R/T, both with the 224 horsepower DOHC 2.2L inline 4 cylinder with 16 valves. The Spirit R/T was one ot the greatest sleepers of all time because it was one of the least sporty looking cars ever built. They only built them in 1992 and 1993. I think I read that the Spirit R/T was the fastest American 4 door sedan in 1992. It would show the legendary Taurus SHO its taillights in a race.
Quote from: bugo on February 10, 2020, 05:44:16 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on October 01, 2019, 10:47:13 AM
If one Google's 1957 Cadillac, one will notice pics of both Fleetwood & Eldorado models featuring both single & dual/quad headlight setups. My guess was that the latter was optional where allowed. Similar is probably true for the '57 Chryslers and Imperials (such was a separate make at the time) as well.
The only Cadillac for 1957 that had quad headlights was the uber-expensive Eldorado Brougham, which wasn't introduced until March of 1957. Quads had been legalized nationwide by then.
That particular Caddy sold the area code that I moved to with my parents back in late September of 2017. The oldest dealership around here, in fact, is Claude Nolan Cadillac which originally opened along the historic Main Street corridor at the point where Hogan's Creek divides Downtown (formerly Pine Street just like in Chicago where that particular Pine Street became a portion of Michigan Avenue north of the Loop) and Springfield (Broad Street just like in say, Philly or Newark for example) back in the early 1900s not long after the Great Fire of 1901 (which is probably comparable to the thirty-years-earlier Great Chicago Fire of 1871) ravaged our city's Urban Core area which really hasn't grown much since then aside from some notable annexations I guess.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2020, 01:18:45 AM
From the time when the Mini-Van was king. Both are absolutely wretched in appearance, at least the Mitsubishi had reasonable power and a cool swivel seat:
Oh and that 80s talk about the supremacy of FWD layouts, I miss hearing that from my Midwest days.
I like the way they look. Too bad both of them were lemons.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 12, 2020, 06:44:56 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2020, 01:18:45 AM
From the time when the Mini-Van was king. Both are absolutely wretched in appearance, at least the Mitsubishi had reasonable power and a cool swivel seat:
Oh and that 80s talk about the supremacy of FWD layouts, I miss hearing that from my Midwest days.
I like the way they look. Too bad both of them were lemons.
At least Nissan and Mitsubishi ditched their boxy vans for a more conventional body in the 90s, while Toyota (the best-looking of the three Japanese vans from the 80s) hung on to its own design for a few more years with the Previa (predecessor to the conventional Sienna).
Quote from: Henry on February 12, 2020, 10:02:27 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 12, 2020, 06:44:56 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2020, 01:18:45 AM
From the time when the Mini-Van was king. Both are absolutely wretched in appearance, at least the Mitsubishi had reasonable power and a cool swivel seat:
Oh and that 80s talk about the supremacy of FWD layouts, I miss hearing that from my Midwest days.
I like the way they look. Too bad both of them were lemons.
At least Nissan and Mitsubishi ditched their boxy vans for a more conventional body in the 90s, while Toyota (the best-looking of the three Japanese vans from the 80s) hung on to its own design for a few more years with the Previa (predecessor to the conventional Sienna).
Those 80s vans would make the perfect test bed for some sort of modern turbo four or six cylinder. On occasion an Astro Van with a small block V8 shows up, they are among the most uniquely stupid but yet awesome custom cars.
The eponymous Nissan Van as seen in the comparison test was based on the JDM Nissan Vanette and was sold on the US market from 1986-1989. The Japanese version of the van came with an A engine of up to 1.5 liters, but since Americans love torque, Nissan made the fateful decision to cram the 2.4 liter Z engine out of the Nissan pickup into the US market vans. This larger engine generated a lot of heat, making the vans prone to overheating which led to many engine fires. Nissan recalled the vans 4 times before finally giving up and making the offers to every single one back from the owners, Some of the owners didn't want to sell the vans so a few escaped the crusher. As you might imagine, they are extremely rare today but there are still some in use as daily drivers. The attrition rate for these cars has to be worse than the Chevy Vega because American market Nissan Vans were actively targeted for destruction. These vans were really weird and very Japanese. One of my relatives had one of these little oddballs and riding in it was weird.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 12, 2020, 06:44:56 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2020, 01:18:45 AM
From the time when the Mini-Van was king. Both are absolutely wretched in appearance, at least the Mitsubishi had reasonable power and a cool swivel seat:
Oh and that 80s talk about the supremacy of FWD layouts, I miss hearing that from my Midwest days.
I like the way they look. Too bad both of them were lemons.
(https://tfarchive.com/cartoons/generationone/botd/botdironhide.jpg)
"Who are you callin' a lemon?"
Quote from: GCrites80s on February 13, 2020, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on February 12, 2020, 06:44:56 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 02, 2020, 01:18:45 AM
From the time when the Mini-Van was king. Both are absolutely wretched in appearance, at least the Mitsubishi had reasonable power and a cool swivel seat:
Oh and that 80s talk about the supremacy of FWD layouts, I miss hearing that from my Midwest days.
I like the way they look. Too bad both of them were lemons.
(https://tfarchive.com/cartoons/generationone/botd/botdironhide.jpg)
"Who are you callin' a lemon?"
I recall one of them was a medic Autobot.
This is what the toy Ironhide looks like in robot mode. The top and back of the toy transform into a battle vehicle of some sort, and the front and lower parts of the toy forms the robot himself. He had a head in the cartoon and looked a lot different from the toy. I always thought it was weird that the toy didn't have a head.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49533741583_bddddc0d70_z.jpg)
1985 Ford and Chrysler cars. The poor Merkur really ended up never amounting to much:
I had a run in with a 1974 Chevelle Laguna S3 down in Jaliso. Suffice to say that there is quite the decline from the 1970-1972 Chevelle SS in terms of styling:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49584308983_c7bc51da32_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ixAxz2)IMG_2288 (https://flic.kr/p/2ixAxz2) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
At least for awhile on the S3 you could still get a 454 Big Block. The 400ci Small Block was an option but that seems to be among the most hated Chevy V8s even built.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 29, 2020, 10:32:40 AM
1985 Ford and Chrysler cars. The poor Merkur really ended up never amounting to much:
The Merkur might have had a better chance had it had a real name. Unfortunately its European model name, the Sierra, was unusable in the US since GMC was already using it by then.
The Chevrolet 262 and 267 V8 engines are generally regarded as the worst small block engines. The 307 doesn't have the greatest reputation either, but it's far better than the 262 and 267. The 262 made as little as 110 horsepower. The 305, however, was a good engine. We had a 1985 Impala with a 305 and a Quadrajet and it was pretty fast for a big car from that era. The 400 was never meant to be a performance engine, it was used to pull huge cars around with little drama. The consensus is that the rev-happy 327 was the best small block V8. It put out as many as 375 horsepower (gross).
The Oldsmobile Rocket 260 and the Pontiac 265 were also debored, gutless V8 engines that were not much better performers than V6 engines were, although they were smoother and sounded a hell of a lot better.
And yes, the 1973-1977 "Colonnade" A body cars were a huge letdown from the spectacular 1968-1972 models. They are cool in their own way, but a far cry from the LS6 Chevelle.
If I recall correctly wasn't the 400 Small Block not emissions compliant in California? I want to say only the Oldsmobile 403 ended up being California emissions compliant by the late 1970s.
Quote from: bugo on March 01, 2020, 04:37:25 AM
And yes, the 1973-1977 "Colonnade" A body cars were a huge letdown from the spectacular 1968-1972 models. They are cool in their own way, but a far cry from the LS6 Chevelle.
They were originally supposed to have been introduced as '72 models, but were delayed by strike related issues IIRC. The '72's were considered carryovers, and sold less than many '73 models.
Quote from: GCrites80s on February 13, 2020, 11:17:43 PM
(https://tfarchive.com/cartoons/generationone/botd/botdironhide.jpg)
"Who are you callin' a lemon?"
Hey, I think these cars should be preserved;
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chevrolet_Citation_2.8_V6_(9493193959).jpg
And those were lemons too.
Kind of amazing how few Citations are around today when over 800,000 of them sold in 1980. Personally I don't put the Citation in the same league as something that was truly all time bad like the Chevette. I kind of dig the look of the Citation, it fits the stereotype of a cheap 70s car...which was sold in the 1980s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 01:19:52 PMKind of amazing how few Citations are around today when over 800,000 of them sold in 1980.
Unfortunately, for many of those buyers; the reliability and recalls associated with those Citations, as well as the other X-bodied bretheren, were the reasons why such were the
last domestic-branded vehicles they would ever own. While GM finally sorted out most if not all of its bugs by 1984; the damage to the X-body's reputation was already done.
Among the Citation models, I kind of liked the look of the 2-door notchback
Club-Coupe.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 01:19:52 PMPersonally I don't put the Citation in the same league as something that was truly all time bad like the Chevette. I kind of dig the look of the Citation, it fits the stereotype of a cheap 70s car...which was sold in the 1980s.
I saw quite a lot of Chevettes around circa the late 70s through the mid-80s. To the best of my knowledge, such did not have the same issues that plagued the Vega/Monza nor had the fore-mentioned recall history of those larger FWD-based X-bodies.
FWIW, the Chevettes were simple, basic subcompact transportation. As time went on, the only criticism the RWD-based Chevette received was that the design became dated... especially when all its competitors switched over to FWD.
Regarding the Chevette it got a lot of flack from Mid-Westerners for being RWD which wasn't what was wanted in cold weather climates. My grandma actually had a Chevette she bought as her first brand new car, I recall she had a ton of pride in that thing. The biggest maintenance issue I've heard of on the Chevette is the somewhat well known story of show room rust on the undercarriage. While that probably was true it also wasn't uncommon to get early rust on all cars of that vintage. The rust story along with RWD and extremely slow acceleration somehow has preserved the legacy of the Chevette over the X-Body cars.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 03:13:04 PMRegarding the Chevette it got a lot of flack from Mid-Westerners for being RWD which wasn''t what was wanted in cold weather climates.
Do keep in mind that when the Chevette first rolled out circa 1976; the
majority of subcompact cars in the US market were still RWD-based. Many of the Chevette's competitors switched over to FWD during the early 80s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 03:13:04 PMThe rust story along with RWD and extremely slow acceleration somehow has preserved the legacy of the Chevette over the X-Body cars.
I'm not sure why you keep comparing the Chevette with the Citation. The two vehicles were of completely different size classes. Whereas the Chevette was Chevy's bargain-basement subcompact, somewhat overlapping the Vega/Monza in its early years; the Citation, though larger than any subcompact, was a downsized compact that replaced the long-running RWD-based Nova.
To be clear I'm not trying to compare the Chevette and Citation in terms of their physical dimensions. I'm referring to how both cars are remembered in modern car culture. The Chevette has an almost "it's so bad it's good" following versus the Citation which is largely just forgotten. The Vega/Monza kind of sort had a similar following to the Chevette but those have tracked off this past decade...or at least I don't see them in car shows anymore.
My family had a 1980 Chevette when I was growing up. Lasted forever and we drove it across country at least once with the five of us in it. Took multiple trips to Kentucky from New England as well.
But, the floor did eventually rust through so water did come in on rainy days. My father was forced to get rid of it in 1991 or 1992 when it had nearly 200,000 miles. When we got a minivan, my father would need to make a u-turn he'd grumble and say things like the Chevette could have made three u-turns in the same space. I still don't think he's over it.
Speaking of the Chevette, the Brazilian version got some bodies who wasn't available here like notchbacks 2-door coupe, a 4-door sedan and a station-wagon. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/the-brazilian-chevette/
Speaking of subcompacts when I was in Mexico a couple weeks back I noticed a ton of Chevy Beats lurking around. All a Beat is really is just a last generation Spark that was kind of watered down to make the entry price $8,800. Too bad we can't have "true" basic transportation like that state side with something like the Beat. Granted the circumstances that allow a $8,800 dollar car like lower incomes and congested streets tend to allow for cars like the Beat to thrive in regions south of the border.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 04:58:50 PMThe Chevette has an almost "it's so bad it's good" following versus the Citation which is largely just forgotten. The Vega/Monza kind of sort had a similar following to the Chevette but those have tracked off this past decade...or at least I don't see them in car shows anymore.
Every year at the Chevy (formerly GM) Nationals in Carlisle, PA; there are small sections on the grounds devoted to those who bring their Vegas/Monzas, Chevettes & Citations. At times, those areas can generate more foot traffic than the other areas due to the curiosity factor & the fact that these vehicles aren't around nor as common as they once were.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 03, 2020, 09:04:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 04:58:50 PMThe Chevette has an almost "it's so bad it's good" following versus the Citation which is largely just forgotten. The Vega/Monza kind of sort had a similar following to the Chevette but those have tracked off this past decade...or at least I don't see them in car shows anymore.
Every year at the Chevy (formerly GM) Nationals in Carlisle, PA; there are small sections on the grounds devoted to those who bring their Vegas/Monzas, Chevettes & Citations. At times, those areas can generate more foot traffic than the other areas due to the curiosity factor & the fact that these vehicles aren't around nor as common as they once were.
That's the thing I didn't like about car shows on this side of the country. Aside from the weekly shows you hardly saw anything that was below a muscle car (which probably is driven by Barrett Jackson to some extent). In Scottsdale the weekly McDonalds show at the Pavilions Shopping Center usually had a 300-600 car draw. That show usually had a lot of diversity with older volume cars.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2020, 11:39:23 AMThat's the thing I didn't like about car shows on this side of the country. Aside from the weekly shows you hardly saw anything that was below a muscle car (which probably is driven by Barrett Jackson to some extent).
Are you in an area where cars/vehicles don't rust/rot as much? Such might explain the above.
Growing up in the northeast (New England during my younger years); a vehicle's worst enemy was rust... typically brought on by salt building up on the undercarriage. While traveling further inland; seeing older cars still in
daily use was/is usually more common. Case & point: during a visit w/a friend out in Salem, OR several years ago; I counted three different '59 Fords on the road that were not junkers or car show pieces. I even saw some old 70s-vintage Toyota pick-up trucks still on the road while there; something I never see in southeastern PA let alone MA.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 04:58:50 PM
The Chevette has an almost "it's so bad it's good" following versus the Citation which is largely just forgotten.
Not for me at least - My first car was an '81 Citation (in the early 90s). Best $400 I ever spent for the amount of fun we had with it, but it was falling to pieces. It had a problem with the rack and pinion that cause the steering wheel to randomly lock up sometimes while turning. Always a good time. A couple years later in college I sensibly upgraded to a brown '79 Pinto wagon.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 03, 2020, 01:19:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2020, 11:39:23 AMThat's the thing I didn't like about car shows on this side of the country. Aside from the weekly shows you hardly saw anything that was below a muscle car (which probably is driven by Barrett Jackson to some extent).
Are you in an area where cars/vehicles don't rust/rot as much? Such might explain the above.
Growing up in the northeast (New England during my younger years); a vehicle's worst enemy was rust... typically brought on by salt building up on the undercarriage. While traveling further inland; seeing older cars still in daily use was/is usually more common. Case & point: during a visit w/a friend out in Salem, OR several years ago; I counted three different '59 Fords on the road that were not junkers or car show pieces. I even saw some old 70s-vintage Toyota pick-up trucks still on the road while there; something I never see in southeastern PA let alone MA.
Yes, 13 years in Phoenix. I'm presently on my fifth year in the Fresno Area. I grew up mostly in the Detroit and Chicago Areas where road salt was an annual thing. I still remember ads for underbody rust proofing lasting well into the late 1990s. Interesting even in areas out west that have snow the typical treatment is sand over salt. Suffice to say the dry climates and lack of road salt play a huge part why older cars are far more common than out east.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on March 03, 2020, 01:28:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 04:58:50 PM
The Chevette has an almost "it's so bad it's good" following versus the Citation which is largely just forgotten.
Not for me at least - My first car was an '81 Citation (in the early 90s). Best $400 I ever spent for the amount of fun we had with it, but it was falling to pieces. It had a problem with the rack and pinion that cause the steering wheel to randomly lock up sometimes while turning. Always a good time. A couple years later in college I sensibly upgraded to a brown '79 Pinto wagon.
Now that I have the garage space I want to find a similar older vehicle. I used to have a lot of fun tinkering around with 70s and 80s cars, or at least get them to a point where they would run again. The question is though, what car to get? I really want to get something basic that doesn't have a ton of electronics (particularly fuel management) and a manual transmission. My niece just moved in with us and is approaching driving age, I rather teach her to drive in a car that requires some actual skill.
What about a 75-79 Nova? They don't seem to get a lot of love, or interest, and a manual three on the tree was available on base models through the end of production in Apr '79.
Quote from: DJStephens on March 03, 2020, 07:10:44 PM
What about a 75-79 Nova? They don't seem to get a lot of love, or interest, and a manual three on the tree was available on base models through the end of production in Apr '79.
The Nova doesn't really seem to get much play like it used to in any vintage. Personally I'd rather try to find an old Nova over a first or second generation Camaro. I just had an encounter with a 75-79 Nova down in Jalisco, I don't recall when I last saw one in California.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 01, 2020, 12:09:57 AM
I had a run in with a 1974 Chevelle Laguna S3 down in Jaliso. Suffice to say that there is quite the decline from the 1970-1972 Chevelle SS in terms of styling:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49584308983_c7bc51da32_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ixAxz2)IMG_2288 (https://flic.kr/p/2ixAxz2) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
At least for awhile on the S3 you could still get a 454 Big Block. The 400ci Small Block was an option but that seems to be among the most hated Chevy V8s even built.
There was a time in the '90s when drag racers and other enthusiasts sought 400 SBCs in order to get the cubes in the small block package, but the hassle and added expense didn't end up being worth it over building a 350 or 383 for most people.
The Chevrolet Citation X-11 has a cult following today, but the majority of X bodies are largely forgotten.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 03, 2020, 09:04:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 04:58:50 PMThe Chevette has an almost "it's so bad it's good" following versus the Citation which is largely just forgotten. The Vega/Monza kind of sort had a similar following to the Chevette but those have tracked off this past decade...or at least I don't see them in car shows anymore.
Every year at the Chevy (formerly GM) Nationals in Carlisle, PA; there are small sections on the grounds devoted to those who bring their Vegas/Monzas, Chevettes & Citations. At times, those areas can generate more foot traffic than the other areas due to the curiosity factor & the fact that these vehicles aren't around nor as common as they once were.
A 350 V8 was available in the California version of the Monza. Back in the 1970s, California had stricter emissions standards and the 305 that was available in Monzas in the other 49 states couldn't pass emissions so they offered the 350 instead, which did pass emissions.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 03, 2020, 09:04:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 04:58:50 PMThe Chevette has an almost “it’s so bad it’s good” following versus the Citation which is largely just forgotten. The Vega/Monza kind of sort had a similar following to the Chevette but those have tracked off this past decade...or at least I don’t see them in car shows anymore.
Every year at the Chevy (formerly GM) Nationals in Carlisle, PA; there are small sections on the grounds devoted to those who bring their Vegas/Monzas, Chevettes & Citations. At times, those areas can generate more foot traffic than the other areas due to the curiosity factor & the fact that these vehicles aren't around nor as common as they once were.
What about the Cavaliers? The early models (1982-87) are getting rarer by the day, and therefore would make great additions to these shows. Not to mention the great run of success that their namesake sports teams have experienced lately (with Cleveland winning the NBA championship in 2016, and UVA winning the national championship in men's basketball last year).
Quote from: Henry on March 04, 2020, 09:54:11 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 03, 2020, 09:04:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 04:58:50 PMThe Chevette has an almost "it's so bad it's good" following versus the Citation which is largely just forgotten. The Vega/Monza kind of sort had a similar following to the Chevette but those have tracked off this past decade...or at least I don't see them in car shows anymore.
Every year at the Chevy (formerly GM) Nationals in Carlisle, PA; there are small sections on the grounds devoted to those who bring their Vegas/Monzas, Chevettes & Citations. At times, those areas can generate more foot traffic than the other areas due to the curiosity factor & the fact that these vehicles aren't around nor as common as they once were.
What about the Cavaliers? The early models (1982-87) are getting rarer by the day, and therefore would make great additions to these shows. Not to mention the great run of success that their namesake sports teams have experienced lately (with Cleveland winning the NBA championship in 2016, and UVA winning the national championship in men's basketball last year).
I should tell my cousins in Cleveland to get one... I had a second generation J-Car in form of a Sun Bird as my first car. My brother had a first generation Cavalier Z24. I seem to recall even the people who had those cars back then absolutely hated them, or at least my brother did. I thought my Sun Bird was pretty solid but I had one with an LH0 3.1L V6. I was definitely pulling enough power back in high school to have among the quicker cars among the people I knew. I ended up giving it to my Dad and taking his Silverado a year later because he wanted fuel economy, I wanted a V8.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2020, 02:12:12 PMI really want to get something basic that doesn't have a ton of electronics (particularly fuel management) and a manual transmission. My niece just moved in with us and is approaching driving age, I rather teach her to drive in a car that requires some actual skill.
Having had a late-1970's car with carburetor as my first vehicle, I've decided any car with a carburetor is a hard No for me. I want it to start first time without fuss and without needing to do weird stuff with the accelerator pedal.
For your niece, I'd recommend a Saturn S-Series. They are dirt cheap in California, do not require smog tests after 25 years, are easy to find with manual transmission, handle well with a high fun-to-drive factor compared to other small cars of the same vintage (especially when equipped with the DOHC engine--the SOHC is intended more for grocery-getting), and not only are easy to fix but are also good for teaching a teenager shadetree mechanic skills.
I had a 1998 Cavalier 2 door. Tough little bastard. I put it through hell and back and it kept going. A pothole on a county road in Posey Hollow, AR damaged the transmission and that's what did the car in. It wasn't fancy or fast or particularly sporty, but it was a great car.
Quote from: bugo on March 04, 2020, 05:01:10 PM
I had a 1998 Cavalier 2 door. Tough little bastard. I put it through hell and back and it kept going. A pothole on a county road in Posey Hollow, AR damaged the transmission and that's what did the car in. It wasn't fancy or fast or particularly sporty, but it was a great car.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 04, 2020, 11:51:04 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 03, 2020, 02:12:12 PMI really want to get something basic that doesn't have a ton of electronics (particularly fuel management) and a manual transmission. My niece just moved in with us and is approaching driving age, I rather teach her to drive in a car that requires some actual skill.
Having had a late-1970's car with carburetor as my first vehicle, I've decided any car with a carburetor is a hard No for me. I want it to start first time without fuss and without needing to do weird stuff with the accelerator pedal.
A good carburetor from the pre-electronic era is a whole different animal from the computerized carburetors from the 1970s. I've had several cars with carburetors and when they are tuned properly, they run as well as fuel injected cars do.
The first "computerized" carb was in the California 1980 models, 1981 in the rest of the country. CCC or Computer Command System. It had a feedback solenoid in the top plate. So yes in California there was a "computerized" carb in fall 1979.
Quote from: bugo on March 04, 2020, 05:03:03 PMA good carburetor from the pre-electronic era is a whole different animal from the computerized carburetors from the 1970s. I've had several cars with carburetors and when they are tuned properly, they run as well as fuel injected cars do.
Yes, I have heard that, but never personally observed it as a driver (the oldest car I've driven was a 1978 model). And, frankly, I'm happy to leave tune-ups by the wayside.
My personal gold standard is sequential multipoint electronic fuel injection with closed-loop feedback control. I have had an engine so equipped flood when cranked on only one occasion, and that was because the battery was so weak the engine failed to fire before the PCM went into "not starting, fuel up, up, up" mode. Electronic ignition is basically maintenance-free, spark plugs are nearly so, fuel injectors last basically forever, and even the fuel filter has become a lifetime part.
One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?
I understand it takes skill to drive in it. But even today with all the new features of skid control & etc, It can still fail. I couldn't imagine what a heavy ass 1960 chevy would do in 5 inches of snow.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 01:14:18 AMOne thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?
Snow tires (including studded ones), tire chains, limited-slip differential (GM called posi-traction) if one's car was equipped with such and/or higher-profile tires with a narrower stance. Growing up in MA during the 70s and 80s; a twice-a-year ritual in my family was to put on and remove the vehicles' snow tires. I changed my first car tire during one of these rituals as a kid. Since most of the cars back then were RWD-based, only the rear tires needed to be changed.
Additionally, heavier vehicles were actually better in snow
provided that the weight-distribution was more even; many of the then-popular mid-size personal luxury coupes fell way short in the latter category with their long hood-short deck/trunk design. Many would place either sand bags or cement blocks in their trunks during the winter as a means to help the vehicles get better traction. Similar was also done on 2WD pick-up trucks (sandbag/cement blocks on the truck's bed).
Also, too-much horsepower in snow and/or mud is not necessarily a good thing. Since many of the common vehicles of the 70s and 80s had less power; many of them, the FWD-based small cars in particular, weren't too shabby in snow as a result.
Since there were a higher percentage of vehicles with manual transmissions back then; using the lower gears when driving in snow helped greatly. Automatics, typically 3 or 4-speeds back then, had lower gear shift settings as well for driving in snow and/or mud; but not everybody used those settings. One going from a manual to an automatic in a multi-vehicle household; the forced-downshift move came more naturally/instinctively. Utilizing a lower gear on today's vehicles still helps as well.
Reasons why many of today's cars, even FWD-based ones, don't do as well in snow compared to their older predecessors are:
1. Many of the standard tires are of the lower-profile, wider stance variety. While such are great for handling, their disadvantages are when driving in snow & mud. In short, the narrower the tire foot-print, the better. Even AWD vehicles with the large, lower-profile tires are garbage in snow. Case & point: my brother's '98 Sable wagon with 16" tires did better in the snow than his 2003 Taurus (same platform & drivetrain as the older Sable) with 17-inchers.
2. Many of today's all-season tires are realistically not much better than what used to be referred to as summer tires.
3. Since roadways, especially side-streets, weren't always plowed down to the pavement; the snow tires of that era featured a more aggressive tread design across the board. Today, one has to pick and choose which snow tire has the best design for traction. My brother, who still resides in MA, placed a pair of Blizzak snow tires on his 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis and he noticed major improvements in terms of traction in snow (his driveway's on a steep incline).
4. Even the most basic of engines in today's smallest of cars perform better powerwise than their older predecessors. However, that advantage actually becomes a detriment when driving in snow or mud. A friend of mine had a FWD '81 Buick Skylark that went through snow
like it was a Jeep, his words.
_____________________________________________
People back then & as a whole also didn't head out with a false sense of security (i.e.
got cocky) because their vehicles had such-and-such. I can not tell you the number of times in recent years where someone with either a 4WD or AWD vehicle thinks they're invincible only to see them get stuck on either the embankment or the median during the winter months. One December day following a snowstorm that hit much of the northeast the night before about 10 years ago, while driving along I-84 eastbound through CT (in my '97 Crown Victoria); I counted at least three later-model AWD Subarus at different locations along that 97 mile stretch that were off the road & abandoned in the snow.
Features aren't a substitute for common-sense driving. Such is just as much true today as it was then... if not more so.
Quote from: PHLBOS on March 06, 2020, 09:44:40 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 01:14:18 AMOne thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?
Snow tires (including studded ones), tire chains, limited-slip differential (GM called posi-traction) if one's car was equipped with such and/or higher-profile tires with a narrower stance. Growing up in MA during the 70s and 80s; a twice-a-year ritual in my family was to put on and remove the vehicles' snow tires. I changed my first car tire during one of these rituals as a kid. Since most of the cars back then were RWD-based, only the rear tires needed to be changed.
Additionally, heavier vehicles were actually better in snow provided that the weight-distribution was more even; many of the then-popular mid-size personal luxury coupes fell way short in the latter category with their long hood-short deck/trunk design. Many would place either sand bags or cement blocks in their trunks during the winter as a means to help the vehicles get better traction. Similar was also done on 2WD pick-up trucks (sandbag/cement blocks on the truck's bed).
Also, too-much horsepower in snow and/or mud is not necessarily a good thing. Since many of the common vehicles of the 70s and 80s had less power; many of them, the FWD-based small cars in particular, weren't too shabby in snow as a result.
Since there were a higher percentage of vehicles with manual transmissions back then; using the lower gears when driving in snow helped greatly. Automatics, typically 3 or 4-speeds back then, had lower gear shift settings as well for driving in snow and/or mud; but not everybody used those settings. One going from a manual to an automatic in a multi-vehicle household; the forced-downshift move came more naturally/instinctively. Utilizing a lower gear on today's vehicles still helps as well.
Reasons why many of today's cars, even FWD-based ones, don't do as well in snow compared to their older predecessors are:
1. Many of the standard tires are of the lower-profile, wider stance variety. While such are great for handling, their disadvantages are when driving in snow & mud. In short, the narrower the tire foot-print, the better. Even AWD vehicles with the large, lower-profile tires are garbage in snow. Case & point: my brother's '98 Sable wagon with 16" tires did better in the snow than his 2003 Taurus (same platform & drivetrain as the older Sable) with 17-inchers.
2. Many of today's all-season tires are realistically not much better than what used to be referred to as summer tires.
3. Since roadways, especially side-streets, weren't always plowed down to the pavement; the snow tires of that era featured a more aggressive tread design across the board. Today, one has to pick and choose which snow tire has the best design for traction. My brother, who still resides in MA, placed a pair of Blizzak snow tires on his 2005 Mercury Grand Marquis and he noticed major improvements in terms of traction in snow (his driveway's on a steep incline).
3. Even the most basic of engines in today's smallest of cars perform better powerwise than their older predecessors. However, that advantage actually becomes a detriment when driving in snow or mud. A friend of mine had a FWD '81 Buick Skylark that went through snow like it was a Jeep, his words.
_____________________________________________
People back then & as a whole also didn't head out with a false sense of security (i.e. got cocky) because their vehicles had such-and-such. I can not tell you the number of times in recent years where someone with either a 4WD or AWD vehicle thinks they're invincible only to see them get stuck on either the embankment or the median during the winter months. One December day following a snowstorm that hit much of the northeast the night before about 10 years ago, while driving along I-84 eastbound through CT (in my '97 Crown Victoria); I counted at least three later-model AWD Subarus at different locations along that 97 mile stretch that were off the road & abandoned in the snow.
Features aren't a substitute for common-sense driving. Such is just as much true today as it was then... if not more so.
Holy shit. Thanks for the info P.
One thing I don't understand is the people who do 70+ in rain or snow!??!
I understand better tires give you more traction but one slip & your whole car will be in a ditch or barrier. I cant count how many times Ive seen cars in a ditch during a snow storm like you said or cars that have sped by me only to see them in a ditch or crashed into another car ahead.
From the info you gave above cars weren't just hunks of metal even in the 70's & 80's. Tv has a way of making it seem like that. Good to know cars were built with some common sense & people had common sense when driving.
So Snow tires really do work? I never thought they did since they look just like regular tires.
iPhone
To that end by the time I was in high school in Michigan back the late MDOT created a stir by banning chains and studded tires on State Trunklines. To that end they had improved greatly in terms of plowing and treating state maintained roadways. Local roads there more of a crap shoot and you still often had to employee many of the methods described above. I actually used both chains and studded tires on my truck with relative frequency to shuttle people to school (for a fee of course) because the Township wouldn't cancel school but expect everyone to get there somehow when the buses weren't running.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 06, 2020, 10:58:01 AM
To that end by the time I was in high school in Michigan back the late MDOT created a stir by banning chains and studded tires on State Trunklines. To that end they had improved greatly in terms of plowing and treating state maintained roadways. Local roads there more of a crap shoot and you still often had to employee many of the methods described above. I actually used both chains and studded tires on my truck with relative frequency to shuttle people to school (for a fee of course) because the Township wouldn't cancel school but expect everyone to get there somehow when the buses weren't running.
God damn Max how old are you.
You have knowledge & wisdom. From low to high, you have plenty of stories.
You ever think of getting into office?
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 01:14:18 AMOne thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?
First of all, once one takes appropriate measures to address reduced visibility and the possibility of hydroplaning on ponded water, driving in rain is not that much different from driving in the dry.
As for snow and ice, the main thing that is different is that older cars tended to have rear wheel drive while front wheel drive is the norm nowadays. FWD makes it a little easier to avoid skidding through corners and to avoid getting stuck. However, RWD works just fine in snow as long as you remain conscientious about keeping friction demand low. Larger cars in the 1970's and 1980's also had higher ground clearance.
For me, it is in the dry that the performance differences between older and newer cars are the most apparent. In the old days, RWD cars tended to have overboosted steering and double-wishbone suspension in the front. As a result, they tend to glide around corners very nimbly, but once the shocks wear out in the front, they have great difficulty following sweeping curves, such as on a long ramp in the middle of a freeway-to-freeway interchange. Nowadays, FWD cars have steering boost that is less aggressive and that often varies (under electronic control) according to vehicle speed, and MacPherson struts in the front are so forgiving of wear that they are virtually a lifetime part. As a result, a modern FWD car tends to "want" to plow straight ahead when confronted with curves and corners, but once you crank the wheel for a bend, you typically don't have to make frequent corrections to stay on track.
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 11:44:36 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 06, 2020, 10:58:01 AM
To that end by the time I was in high school in Michigan back the late MDOT created a stir by banning chains and studded tires on State Trunklines. To that end they had improved greatly in terms of plowing and treating state maintained roadways. Local roads there more of a crap shoot and you still often had to employee many of the methods described above. I actually used both chains and studded tires on my truck with relative frequency to shuttle people to school (for a fee of course) because the Township wouldn't cancel school but expect everyone to get there somehow when the buses weren't running.
God damn Max how old are you.
You have knowledge & wisdom. From low to high, you have plenty of stories.
You ever think of getting into office?
iPhone
37 actually. I grew up in Michigan and in turn worked on cars my entire life. My Dad actually taught me how to drive when I was 9 on the family property. I ended up working for a couple garages and even a race team in high school.
One thing I do know after a lengthy career in government work is that I'm not cut out for politics. Now...if someone wanted to pay me for telling stories about roads and cars I'd jump on that in a second.
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?
I understand it takes skill to drive in it. But even today with all the new features of skid control & etc, It can still fail. I couldn't imagine what a heavy ass 1960 chevy would do in 5 inches of snow.
That's easy. You just didn't drive it like you stole it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 06, 2020, 12:12:48 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 01:14:18 AMOne thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?
First of all, once one takes appropriate measures to address reduced visibility and the possibility of hydroplaning on ponded water, driving in rain is not that much different from driving in the dry.
As for snow and ice, the main thing that is different is that older cars tended to have rear wheel drive while front wheel drive is the norm nowadays. FWD makes it a little easier to avoid skidding through corners and to avoid getting stuck. However, RWD works just fine in snow as long as you remain conscientious about keeping friction demand low. Larger cars in the 1970's and 1980's also had higher ground clearance.
For me, it is in the dry that the performance differences between older and newer cars are the most apparent. In the old days, RWD cars tended to have overboosted steering and double-wishbone suspension in the front. As a result, they tend to glide around corners very nimbly, but once the shocks wear out in the front, they have great difficulty following sweeping curves, such as on a long ramp in the middle of a freeway-to-freeway interchange. Nowadays, FWD cars have steering boost that is less aggressive and that often varies (under electronic control) according to vehicle speed, and MacPherson struts in the front are so forgiving of wear that they are virtually a lifetime part. As a result, a modern FWD car tends to "want" to plow straight ahead when confronted with curves and corners, but once you crank the wheel for a bend, you typically don't have to make frequent corrections to stay on track.
Ahh thats a pretty nice history on the vehicles.
But I still dont feel safe while driving in rain, maybe its my tires. I sometimes feel the car drift in the rain when it hits ponded water on a highway & it baffles me to see a car going 70 past me while im doing 55.
I tend to not go out in rainy or snowy weather anymore. It's just not worth the risk. If I dont have anything important to do & it's gonna rain or snow all day im in the house.
Now when I was younger I would drive my 98 Acura Tl in the 1 foot snow.
Shit I just found out that bigger tires & 4WD isnt better in snow. Go figure huh
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 06:57:50 PMBut I still dont feel safe while driving in rain, maybe its my tires. I sometimes feel the car drift in the rain when it hits ponded water on a highway & it baffles me to see a car going 70 past me while im doing 55.
How are your tires doing on tread depth? When the car loses directional stability as it hits ponded water, that is often a sign the tires are getting close to needing replacement. Plus, even for new tires, tread patterns vary somewhat in how efficient they are at cutting through water.
I think I am myself getting close to needing new tires on at least one axle, so I am not pushing it as hard in the rain as I might be otherwise.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 27, 2020, 10:37:04 AM
Corrupt Senator
When I see this van I think of a start of "Walmart families" & road trips. Kinda peaceful actually however also the start of a new era.
iPhone
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 01:19:52 PM
I kind of dig the look of the Citation, it fits the stereotype of a cheap 70s car...which was sold in the 1980s.
The Citation was an example of what most auto manufacturers and enthusiasts thought of as a car of the 1980s, before Ford came out with the aerodynamic Thunderbird, and Audi came out with the C3-Type 5000 sedan.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 28, 2020, 12:21:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 02, 2020, 01:19:52 PM
I kind of dig the look of the Citation, it fits the stereotype of a cheap 70s car...which was sold in the 1980s.
The Citation was an example of what most auto manufacturers and enthusiasts thought of as a car of the 1980s, before Ford came out with the aerodynamic Thunderbird, and Audi came out with the C3-Type 5000 sedan.
The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2. I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.
So many different model names in the 80s and 90s.
Citation
Spirit
Daytona
Celebrity
Chevette
Horizon
Reliant
1000
Grand Am
Grand Prix
Bonneville
LeSabre
Park Avenue
AstroVan
Previa
Loyale
Lebaron
Imperial
Roadmaster
Country Squire
Grand National
New Yorker
Grand Caravan
Cirrus
Sundance
Town & Country
Voyager
Just to name many.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 28, 2020, 10:18:30 PM
So many different model names in the 80s and 90s.
Citation
Spirit
Daytona
Celebrity
Chevette
Horizon
Reliant
1000
Grand Am
Grand Prix
Bonneville
LeSabre
Park Avenue
AstroVan
Previa
Loyale
Lebaron
Imperial
Roadmaster
Country Squire
Grand National
New Yorker
Grand Caravan
Cirrus
Sundance
Town & Country
Voyager
Just to name many.
I'll add to this list:
Cavalier, Caprice, Parisienne, Phoenix, Sunbird, Sunfire, J2000, 6000, Ciera, Omega, Calais, Achieva, Delta 88, Ninety Eight, Touring Sedan, 442, Firenza, Cimarron, Fleetwood, Seville, Aries, Acclaim, Omni, Conquest, Laser, Fifth Avenue, Shadow, Stratus, Breeze, Pulsar, Stanza, Prelude, Tercel, 323, 626, 929, RX7, Scirocco, Galant and Justy
^There's that many crossover names today but nobody cares. Not even Karen or Megan.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2020, 12:32:10 AM
The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2. I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.
Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 04, 2020, 10:51:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2020, 12:32:10 AM
The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2. I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.
Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.
Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2020, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 04, 2020, 10:51:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2020, 12:32:10 AM
The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2. I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.
Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.
Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.
Pontiac got their version of the Chevette earlier in Canada with the Acadian. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1980-Pontiac-Acadian-Brochure/index.html
Same with the Vega version, the Astre. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?
I understand it takes skill to drive in it. But even today with all the new features of skid control & etc, It can still fail. I couldn't imagine what a heavy ass 1960 chevy would do in 5 inches of snow.
iPhone
Put sandbags or something else heavy in the trunk.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on April 28, 2020, 12:21:35 AM
The Citation was an example of what most auto manufacturers and enthusiasts thought of as a car of the 1980s, before Ford came out with the aerodynamic Thunderbird, and Audi came out with the C3-Type 5000 sedan.
The true Ford of the future was the 1986 Taurus. The styling was highly influential and in some ways, it was more like the Citation than the 1983 Thunderbird, which was based on the RWD 1978 Fairmont (Fox platform.) The '83 Thunderbird's styling was an early look at the Taurus. The Fox body cars were RWD with a live rear axle and were evolutionary dead ends.
Quote from: bugo on May 07, 2020, 03:50:25 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on March 06, 2020, 01:14:18 AM
One thing I would like to know. How did those who were driving in the 70's & 80's able to drive these older model heavy steel cars in snow & rain?
I understand it takes skill to drive in it. But even today with all the new features of skid control & etc, It can still fail. I couldn't imagine what a heavy ass 1960 chevy would do in 5 inches of snow.
iPhone
Put sandbags or something else heavy in the trunk.
I know about the old snow or sandbag trick. But when you have a nice clean car you want nothing in the trunk, Or in the car. I know yall hate stuff moving around when driving. Its the worse.
iPhone
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 05, 2020, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2020, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 04, 2020, 10:51:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2020, 12:32:10 AM
The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2. I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.
Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.
Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.
Pontiac got their version of the Chevette earlier in Canada with the Acadian. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1980-Pontiac-Acadian-Brochure/index.html
Same with the Vega version, the Astre. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html
IMHO, the 2001 Aztek was a clue that Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque. Remember, the offerings from all the other divisions were inspired by Chevy in one way or another, and still are today.
In a similar vein, Cadillac lost its own credibility as a GM marque with the 1982 Cimarron. At least it got away with making the 1975 Seville look very different from the Nova and its related counterparts, which is remarkable in its own unique way.
Quote from: Henry on May 07, 2020, 10:15:45 AM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 05, 2020, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2020, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 04, 2020, 10:51:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2020, 12:32:10 AM
The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2. I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.
Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.
Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.
Pontiac got their version of the Chevette earlier in Canada with the Acadian. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1980-Pontiac-Acadian-Brochure/index.html
Same with the Vega version, the Astre. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html
IMHO, the 2001 Aztek was a clue that Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque. Remember, the offerings from all the other divisions were inspired by Chevy in one way or another, and still are today.
In a similar vein, Cadillac lost its own credibility as a GM marque with the 1982 Cimarron. At least it got away with making the 1975 Seville look very different from the Nova and its related counterparts, which is remarkable in its own unique way.
What was worse to me was that Pontiac started to turn it around a short time after the disaster of the Aztec but got the axe anyways. The GTO while just a rebadged Holden was unique in the GM lineup but more so was the Solstice before Saturn got it's own variant. Had I been kick for the day I would have picked Pontiac to save over Buick, but the latter was much better shape as a division.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2020, 10:58:18 AM
What was worse to me was that Pontiac started to turn it around a short time after the disaster of the Aztec but got the axe anyways. The GTO while just a rebadged Holden was unique in the GM lineup but more so was the Solstice before Saturn got it's own variant. Had I been kick for the day I would have picked Pontiac to save over Buick, but the latter was much better shape as a division.
Has anyone else ever thought GM could have saved all the divisions if they just had fewer models per division (and therefore less re-badging)? Same for Ford and Chrysler.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 07, 2020, 11:28:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2020, 10:58:18 AM
What was worse to me was that Pontiac started to turn it around a short time after the disaster of the Aztec but got the axe anyways. The GTO while just a rebadged Holden was unique in the GM lineup but more so was the Solstice before Saturn got it's own variant. Had I been kick for the day I would have picked Pontiac to save over Buick, but the latter was much better shape as a division.
Has anyone else ever thought GM could have saved all the divisions if they just had fewer models per division (and therefore less re-badging)? Same for Ford and Chrysler.
The problem was that it was never in the business model of GM not to platform share, even back in the heydays of the 1960s. All the effort that went into developing fuel economy and emissions technologies had to be spread to each division during the 1970s and 1980s. If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant. As different as the GTO and Kappa Cars were they didn't sell not had good enough margins to justify their existence over something like trucks or Buick.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2020, 11:37:58 AM
If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.
GM was actually doing a lot of consolidating since the 1980s though.
-1980, the GMC Truck and Motor Coach Division stopped selling the Intercity Coach Buses.
-1987, GM sells all their heavy trucks to Volvo, and Rapid Transit Series and Classic Buses to MCI.
-1990, they started making Saturns.
-2003, they stopped making school buses.
-2004, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, but also sold off the Electro-Motive Diesel trains.
-2009, they stopped making medium-duty trucks (Remember when GMC's slogan was "The Truck People from General Motors?")
-2010, they stopped making Pontiacs and rebadged Isuzu truck, and failed to sell Saturn to Penske.
There have been people who say that "as GM goes, so goes the country." The White Stripes once had a song called "The Big Three Killed My Baby." I say the Big Three killed
themselves.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2020, 06:12:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2020, 11:37:58 AM
If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.
GM was actually doing a lot of consolidating since the 1980s though.
-1980, the GMC Truck and Motor Coach Division stopped selling the Intercity Coach Buses.
-1987, GM sells all their heavy trucks to Volvo, and Rapid Transit Series and Classic Buses to MCI.
-1990, they started making Saturns.
-2003, they stopped making school buses.
-2004, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, but also sold off the Electro-Motive Diesel trains.
-2009, they stopped making medium-duty trucks (Remember when GMC's slogan was "The Truck People from General Motors?")
-2010, they stopped making Pontiacs and rebadged Isuzu truck, and failed to sell Saturn to Penske.
There have been people who say that "as GM goes, so goes the country." The White Stripes once had a song called "The Big Three Killed My Baby." I say the Big Three killed themselves.
But brands didn't start disappearing largely until the 2000s. Once divisions didn't have their own engines anymore what was the point of rebadging platform-mate cars? There was hardly a difference between say a Lumina versus a Grand Prix. That whole progression of starting at a Chevy and working up to a Cadillac didn't mean a damn thing when all the cars shared engines on the same platform.
Quote from: Henry on May 07, 2020, 10:15:45 AM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on May 05, 2020, 11:40:03 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 05, 2020, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: GCrites80s on May 04, 2020, 10:51:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2020, 12:32:10 AM
The GM G-Bodies has some niece (IMO) aero packages too like the Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix 2+2. I really wanted the Monte Carlo SS in particular since it really did resemble a stock car, the T-Bird has the same vibe.
Apparently the Grand Prix 2+2's aeroback was very poorly done, even worse than an ASC convertible conversion from the late '70s-mid '80s.
Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque when they started making their version of the Chevette, the 1000.
Pontiac got their version of the Chevette earlier in Canada with the Acadian. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1980-Pontiac-Acadian-Brochure/index.html
Same with the Vega version, the Astre. http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Pontiac/1973%20Pontiac%20Astre%20Brochure/index.html
IMHO, the 2001 Aztek was a clue that Pontiac lost all credibility as a GM marque. Remember, the offerings from all the other divisions were inspired by Chevy in one way or another, and still are today.
In a similar vein, Cadillac lost its own credibility as a GM marque with the 1982 Cimarron. At least it got away with making the 1975 Seville look very different from the Nova and its related counterparts, which is remarkable in its own unique way.
I think it was earlier than that. Like when they made the Montana (Chevy Venture).
One could also argue the end of GM originality came with the formation of NUMI and the Geo marque.
They should have just called those cars the Chevy Camry and Chevy Corolla. They're exactly the same.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2020, 06:12:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2020, 11:37:58 AM
If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.
GM was actually doing a lot of consolidating since the 1980s though.
-1980, the GMC Truck and Motor Coach Division stopped selling the Intercity Coach Buses.
-1987, GM sells all their heavy trucks to Volvo, and Rapid Transit Series and Classic Buses to MCI.
-1990, they started making Saturns.
-2003, they stopped making school buses.
-2004, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, but also sold off the Electro-Motive Diesel trains.
-2009, they stopped making medium-duty trucks (Remember when GMC's slogan was "The Truck People from General Motors?")
-2010, they stopped making Pontiacs and rebadged Isuzu truck, and failed to sell Saturn to Penske.
There have been people who say that "as GM goes, so goes the country." The White Stripes once had a song called "The Big Three Killed My Baby." I say the Big Three killed themselves.
Chrysler had this exact same problem too, especially from the early 1970s to 2000, when Dodges and Plymouths looked exactly alike, cosmetic changes aside. Its business model was very backwards, as although Dodge was supposed to be the entry-level brand (a la Ford and Chevy), Plymouth was actually cheaper and less sporty as well. And the namesake division was an extremely cheap competitor to Cadillac (and to some extent, Lincoln), which didn't bode well at all for its image. The one thing that saved Chrysler from total extinction was the acquisition of bankrupt AMC, as Jeep has now become its strongest asset. As Eagle was too similar to Plymouth, it was mercifully dropped in 1998. FWIW, the Prowler and Voyager should've ended production when their brand did instead of being rebadged as Chryslers, which further damaged their new brand's reputation as a luxury marque. However, it was a stroke of genius to remake the erstwhile Dodge Ram into its own brand, so there you go.
Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed. This is also true for 90-2003 but 2000's is not listed.
If the vehicle is not a Honda or Toyota it will not be drivable today
The most infamous for this is a 1997 Ford F150 & anything Chrysler. I noticed Acura TL from this time also had transmission issues which I believe is due to the heavy body.
iPhone
My first car was a 1996 Ford Focus Escort that I bought in 1998. It died in traffic in 2007. I had it towed to my mechanic, and he refused to fix it. He said it was totaled and that these Ford Focuses (Foci?) Escorts don't last long. I kept my eye out and saw at least one or two of the cars still on the road for about a year after.
This was just a few months after I had him replace all the burnt out lights behind the dash, which required the removal and reattachment of the speedometer cable, at no little expense. After this, it whined whenever I went over 60 in cold weather. I was worried about dealing with that again next winter, but it was not a problem. Previously, I replaced the alternator and replaced the catalytic converter. (It did not convert my car into a Cadillac.) I expected to keep it for a while.
Edit: Whoops, my second car was a 2001 Ford Focus.
Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2020, 10:36:16 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on May 11, 2020, 06:12:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2020, 11:37:58 AM
If anything GM should have started consolidating brands as early as the 1980s when it first became apparent that most of the brands were redundant.
GM was actually doing a lot of consolidating since the 1980s though.
-1980, the GMC Truck and Motor Coach Division stopped selling the Intercity Coach Buses.
-1987, GM sells all their heavy trucks to Volvo, and Rapid Transit Series and Classic Buses to MCI.
-1990, they started making Saturns.
-2003, they stopped making school buses.
-2004, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, but also sold off the Electro-Motive Diesel trains.
-2009, they stopped making medium-duty trucks (Remember when GMC's slogan was "The Truck People from General Motors?")
-2010, they stopped making Pontiacs and rebadged Isuzu truck, and failed to sell Saturn to Penske.
There have been people who say that "as GM goes, so goes the country." The White Stripes once had a song called "The Big Three Killed My Baby." I say the Big Three killed themselves.
Chrysler had this exact same problem too, especially from the early 1970s to 2000, when Dodges and Plymouths looked exactly alike, cosmetic changes aside. Its business model was very backwards, as although Dodge was supposed to be the entry-level brand (a la Ford and Chevy), Plymouth was actually cheaper and less sporty as well. And the namesake division was an extremely cheap competitor to Cadillac (and to some extent, Lincoln), which didn't bode well at all for its image. The one thing that saved Chrysler from total extinction was the acquisition of bankrupt AMC, as Jeep has now become its strongest asset. As Eagle was too similar to Plymouth, it was mercifully dropped in 1998. FWIW, the Prowler and Voyager should've ended production when their brand did instead of being rebadged as Chryslers, which further damaged their new brand's reputation as a luxury marque. However, it was a stroke of genius to remake the erstwhile Dodge Ram into its own brand, so there you go.
2001: Last model year for any car to have a three speed automatic transmission (Cavalier)
2008: Analog OnStar service ends.
2009: Kills off Hummer.
2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.
2010: Production of the F35 manual transmission ends, the last m/t made by GM, though they didn't make many in-house.
2011: Kills off Saab. Auto brand is sold to a Chinese company. Saab Jets is still going strong.
Early 2010s: phases out the last of it's V6 engines.
Late 2010s: kills off every passenger sedan stateside.
Quote from: ErmineNotyours on May 12, 2020, 09:59:56 PM
My first car was a 1996 Ford Focus Escort that I bought in 1998. It died in traffic in 2007. I had it towed to my mechanic, and he refused to fix it. He said it was totaled and that these Ford Focuses (Foci?) Escorts don't last long. I kept my eye out and saw at least one or two of the cars still on the road for about a year after.
This was just a few months after I had him replace all the burnt out lights behind the dash, which required the removal and reattachment of the speedometer cable, at no little expense. After this, it whined whenever I went over 60 in cold weather. I was worried about dealing with that again next winter, but it was not a problem. Previously, I replaced the alternator and replaced the catalytic converter. (It did not convert my car into a Cadillac.) I expected to keep it for a while.
Edit: Whoops, my second car was a 2001 Ford Focus.
Yea sedans aint exactly Fords strong suit. But god damn that car lasted a while did you drive alot or get regular maintenance on everything?
I know some vehicles can withstand the test of time when others cant.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PMAnyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed. This is also true for 90-2003 but 2000's is not listed.
I have never heard of such a correlation. What I do know is that the ATFs of the time were based on Dexron II/III, which shears down rapidly if it is formulated out of conventional ("dino") basestocks. Once the viscosity goes down, shifts start to bang and wear goes way, way up. Some manufacturers recommended ATF drains and fills for their models, but many did not, and owners frequently skip this service anyway since they don't understand the need for it.
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PMIf the vehicle is not a Honda or Toyota it will not be drivable today
It really depends on design and maintenance. I have a 1994 Saturn with an automatic transmission that is considered pretty unforgiving of neglect. The factory requires a drain and fill with Saturn ATF (conventional, based on Dexron II with a friction modifier) every 30,000 miles, and one service had been skipped by the time it fell into my hands. I drained and filled the transmission with Castrol TranSynd (Amsoil Torque-Drive is spectographically identical and works too) and shifts are still well-timed and butter-smooth at about 160,000 miles. I get well-modulated shifts even if I have the throttle pedal almost all the way to the floor. Because TranSynd is a synthetic ATF and extremely shear-stable, it is effectively lifetime fill.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 13, 2020, 12:26:19 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PMAnyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed. This is also true for 90-2003 but 2000's is not listed.
I have never heard of such a correlation. What I do know is that the ATFs of the time were based on Dexron II/III, which shears down rapidly if it is formulated out of conventional ("dino") basestocks. Once the viscosity goes down, shifts start to bang and wear goes way, way up. Some manufacturers recommended ATF drains and fills for their models, but many did not, and owners frequently skip this service anyway since they don't understand the need for it.
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PMIf the vehicle is not a Honda or Toyota it will not be drivable today
It really depends on design and maintenance. I have a 1994 Saturn with an automatic transmission that is considered pretty unforgiving of neglect. The factory requires a drain and fill with Saturn ATF (conventional, based on Dexron II with a friction modifier) every 30,000 miles, and one service had been skipped by the time it fell into my hands. I drained and filled the transmission with Castrol TranSynd (Amsoil Torque-Drive is spectographically identical and works too) and shifts are still well-timed and butter-smooth at about 160,000 miles. I get well-modulated shifts even if I have the throttle pedal almost all the way to the floor. Because TranSynd is a synthetic ATF and extremely shear-stable, it is effectively lifetime fill.
The second gen H bodies are notoriously long-lasting.
N bodies arguably have the worst powertrain options.
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PM
Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90’s do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90’s transmission is completely trashed. This is also true for 90-2003 but 2000’s is not listed.
If the vehicle is not a Honda or Toyota it will not be drivable today
The most infamous for this is a 1997 Ford F150 & anything Chrysler. I noticed Acura TL from this time also had transmission issues which I believe is due to the heavy body.
iPhone
The '90s and 2000s were also peak times for timing belts, which had a burdensome service interval that many low-income and unsympathetic owners skipped. Many a car was scrapped as the timing belt failed and the pistons immediately collided with the valves, turning a skipped $mid-three digit maintenance bill into a $four-digit engine rebuild. It was more of a small car thing than a big sedan or truck thing though as many of those stayed with timing chains. Some manufacturers still managed to screw up chains even with crummy guides, followers and bogey wheels in this era.
Whether or not you like the Pontiac Fieros, this is bad news for collectors:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/fieros-forever-giving-away-tools-and-rare-pontiac-parts-after-flood-ruins-shop/ar-BB14IC5z?ocid=spartan-dhp-feeds
Quote from: Henry on May 12, 2020, 10:36:16 AM
Chrysler had this exact same problem too, especially from the early 1970s to 2000, when Dodges and Plymouths looked exactly alike, cosmetic changes aside. Its business model was very backwards, as although Dodge was supposed to be the entry-level brand (a la Ford and Chevy), Plymouth was actually cheaper and less sporty as well. And the namesake division was an extremely cheap competitor to Cadillac (and to some extent, Lincoln), which didn't bode well at all for its image. The one thing that saved Chrysler from total extinction was the acquisition of bankrupt AMC, as Jeep has now become its strongest asset. As Eagle was too similar to Plymouth, it was mercifully dropped in 1998. FWIW, the Prowler and Voyager should've ended production when their brand did instead of being rebadged as Chryslers, which further damaged their new brand's reputation as a luxury marque. However, it was a stroke of genius to remake the erstwhile Dodge Ram into its own brand, so there you go.
Plymouth was introduced in 1928 as Chrysler's low priced marque, which position it held until it was discontinued in 2001. Dodge was a medium priced make. Later on, Dodge became Chrysler's "sporty" division, similar to Pontiac. The classic Chrysler ladder from 1955-1961 was Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial. Plymouth competed with Chevrolet and Ford, Dodge competed with Pontiac and low-end Mercury, DeSoto competed with Buick and higher end Mercury, Chrysler competed with Buick and Edsel and Imperial competed with Cadillac and Lincoln.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 13, 2020, 12:24:58 AM
2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.
The 2011 Chevrolet HHR had a 4 speed automatic.
Quote from: bugo on June 01, 2020, 02:06:00 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 13, 2020, 12:24:58 AM
2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.
The 2011 Chevrolet HHR had a 4 speed automatic.
And Toyota had kept a 4-speed automatic in the 2009 Corolla.
I think you forgot something here...
Quote from: bugo on June 01, 2020, 01:55:36 AM
Plymouth was introduced in 1928 as Chrysler's low priced marque, which position it held until it was discontinued in 2001. Dodge was a medium priced make. Later on, Dodge became Chrysler's "sporty" division, similar to Pontiac. The classic Chrysler ladder from 1955-1961 was Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, Chrysler and Imperial. Plymouth competed with Chevrolet and Ford, Dodge competed with Pontiac and low-end Mercury, DeSoto competed with Buick, Oldsmobile and higher end Mercury, Chrysler competed with Oldsmobile, Buick and Edsel and Imperial competed with Cadillac and Lincoln.
Otherwise, you hit it right on the nose.
Quote from: bugo on June 01, 2020, 02:06:00 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 13, 2020, 12:24:58 AM
2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.
The 2011 Chevrolet HHR had a 4 speed automatic.
My 2012 Colorado has a 4-speed automatic.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 13, 2020, 12:24:58 AM
2009: Kills off Hummer.
GM is reviving Hummer as a EV subbrand of GMC. I believe the new Hummer was supposed to be revealed by now, but then corona happened.
I once took on the challenge of drawing my dream car, so I took inspiration from the mid-90s Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and made it more aerodynamic and intended it as something that could be all-electric or a plug-in-electric hybrid.
I called it the "OC," for lack of a better name. It's also the icon I'm using on the forum these days.
(https://imgur.com/ay9hFgO.png)
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PM
Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.
Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks. But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos. Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6. They both still run and are drivable.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 05, 2020, 12:52:51 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PM
Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.
Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks. But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos. Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6. They both still run and are drivable.
Yuk. Three speed auto boxes.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 05, 2020, 12:52:51 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PM
Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.
Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks. But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos. Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6. They both still run and are drivable.
It seems to be more of a late 90's issue or different use of cheaper material.
Also it could be how well the person took care of the car.
But my god the amount of destroyed transmissions on 98-2000 cars ive seen is amazing. There are more cars from the 80s running.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on July 05, 2020, 01:17:02 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 05, 2020, 12:52:51 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PM
Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.
Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks. But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos. Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6. They both still run and are drivable.
It seems to be more of a late 90's issue or different use of cheaper material.
Also it could be how well the person took care of the car.
But my god the amount of destroyed transmissions on 98-2000 cars ive seen is amazing. There are more cars from the 80s running.
In some cases, the engines were mated to transmissions that weren't able to handle their power output. In the case of turn of the century Hondas, they had introduced a manual shift mode for many of their automatic cars, mainly V6s, but a bad internal design caused them to fail prematurely when said mode was used.
Should we said goodbye to Mitsubishi soon?
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/06/mitsubishi-in-america-slow-fade-out-ahead/
Quote
Mitsubishi watched as its U.S. and Canadian volumes rose steadily over the past several years – growth hampered by a limited product lineup and so-so vehicle quality. Still, it was growth, and Mitsu made sure to celebrate each year-over-year sales increase.
Well, that was then, and this is now. As a member of an alliance dominated by Renault and Nissan and hit hard, like many others, by the coronavirus pandemic, the future holds a different strategy for the Japanese automaker. For the U.S., it also seems to hold fewer Mitsubishis.
Previously, Mitsu targeted North America and China for its future growth. Now, with its alliance partners insisting on a concerted, collective effort in which each member capitalizes on individual strengths in a limited number of markets, Mitsu now plans to abandon its previous growth plan.
In a shareholders meeting last week (reported on by Automotive News), the automaker's CEO, Takao Kato, announced a turn away from North America and China. The company's focus will now be on Southeast Asia and Pacific nations.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on July 05, 2020, 04:53:08 PM
Should we said goodbye to Mitsubishi soon?
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/06/mitsubishi-in-america-slow-fade-out-ahead/
Quote
Mitsubishi watched as its U.S. and Canadian volumes rose steadily over the past several years – growth hampered by a limited product lineup and so-so vehicle quality. Still, it was growth, and Mitsu made sure to celebrate each year-over-year sales increase.
Well, that was then, and this is now. As a member of an alliance dominated by Renault and Nissan and hit hard, like many others, by the coronavirus pandemic, the future holds a different strategy for the Japanese automaker. For the U.S., it also seems to hold fewer Mitsubishis.
Previously, Mitsu targeted North America and China for its future growth. Now, with its alliance partners insisting on a concerted, collective effort in which each member capitalizes on individual strengths in a limited number of markets, Mitsu now plans to abandon its previous growth plan.
In a shareholders meeting last week (reported on by Automotive News), the automaker's CEO, Takao Kato, announced a turn away from North America and China. The company's focus will now be on Southeast Asia and Pacific nations.
What does turning away from North America look like compared to their barely-existent foot print now?
I have a Mitsu dealer a town over from me. They advertise locally and try to talk up the cars hard, but the dealer lot is 3/4 used cars of a different make. I think they've known the writing on the wall for a while now.
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 02, 2020, 08:48:12 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 01, 2020, 02:06:00 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 13, 2020, 12:24:58 AM
2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.
The 2011 Chevrolet HHR had a 4 speed automatic.
My 2012 Colorado has a 4-speed automatic.
The 2020 Dodge Journey STILL comes with a 4-speed automatic.
I think we'll see Infiniti close before Mitsubishi leaves the US. Infiniti's sales are even more dire.
Quote from: JREwing78 on July 05, 2020, 05:59:26 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on June 02, 2020, 08:48:12 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 01, 2020, 02:06:00 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 13, 2020, 12:24:58 AM
2010: Kills off all remaining 4-speed automatics.
The 2011 Chevrolet HHR had a 4 speed automatic.
My 2012 Colorado has a 4-speed automatic.
The 2020 Dodge Journey STILL comes with a 4-speed automatic.
My Sister has one of those as a work take home car. She loves it because it hauls thing and family...like a Minivan would. It even looks like a Minivan aside from the lack of sliding doors.
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 06:43:02 PM
I think we'll see Infiniti close before Mitsubishi leaves the US. Infiniti's sales are even more dire.
Infiniti? What will soccer moms & teens with daddy money that make 50-70k per year drive!??!??!!
iPhone
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 04:39:07 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 05, 2020, 01:17:02 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 05, 2020, 12:52:51 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on May 12, 2020, 09:49:47 PM
Anyone know if there is a correlation between heavy bodies on cars & weak transmissions being the reason cars in the 90's do not last at all.
It seems any used vehicle in the 90's transmission is completely trashed.
Hmm. I have two early nineties Buicks. But both have the more durable three speed THM 125 versus later four speed autos. Both have the more durable Buick V-6 versus the later weaker 60 degree V-6. They both still run and are drivable.
It seems to be more of a late 90's issue or different use of cheaper material.
Also it could be how well the person took care of the car.
But my god the amount of destroyed transmissions on 98-2000 cars ive seen is amazing. There are more cars from the 80s running.
In some cases, the engines were mated to transmissions that weren't able to handle their power output. In the case of turn of the century Hondas, they had introduced a manual shift mode for many of their automatic cars, mainly V6s, but a bad internal design caused them to fail prematurely when said mode was used.
Yea that makes sense. It seems cars/trucks have really rebounded in the current years. The only issue now is the added cost of electronics & motors that can burn out & will be costly to replace. Ex; the new 2021 GMC. Luxury but many things to replace if they break.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on July 05, 2020, 07:09:40 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 06:43:02 PM
I think we'll see Infiniti close before Mitsubishi leaves the US. Infiniti's sales are even more dire.
Infiniti? What will soccer moms & teens with daddy money that make 50-70k per year drive!??!??!!
Lexus
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 09:06:10 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 05, 2020, 07:09:40 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 06:43:02 PM
I think we'll see Infiniti close before Mitsubishi leaves the US. Infiniti's sales are even more dire.
Infiniti? What will soccer moms & teens with daddy money that make 50-70k per year drive!??!??!!
Lexus
Thats a good substitute. I rest my case.
iPhone
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on July 05, 2020, 04:53:08 PM
Should we said goodbye to Mitsubishi soon?
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/06/mitsubishi-in-america-slow-fade-out-ahead/
Quote
Mitsubishi watched as its U.S. and Canadian volumes rose steadily over the past several years – growth hampered by a limited product lineup and so-so vehicle quality. Still, it was growth, and Mitsu made sure to celebrate each year-over-year sales increase.
Well, that was then, and this is now. As a member of an alliance dominated by Renault and Nissan and hit hard, like many others, by the coronavirus pandemic, the future holds a different strategy for the Japanese automaker. For the U.S., it also seems to hold fewer Mitsubishis.
Previously, Mitsu targeted North America and China for its future growth. Now, with its alliance partners insisting on a concerted, collective effort in which each member capitalizes on individual strengths in a limited number of markets, Mitsu now plans to abandon its previous growth plan.
In a shareholders meeting last week (reported on by Automotive News), the automaker's CEO, Takao Kato, announced a turn away from North America and China. The company's focus will now be on Southeast Asia and Pacific nations.
The Charleston area (a rather large metropolitan area) has no Mitsubishi dealerships, and hasn't had one for over a year. The one that was open closed because they had defrauded banks and falsified down payments.
https://abcnews4.com/news/crime-news/fbi-charleston-hoover-mitsubishi
Kia, meanwhile, has two very popular dealerships.
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 09:06:10 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 05, 2020, 07:09:40 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 06:43:02 PM
I think we'll see Infiniti close before Mitsubishi leaves the US. Infiniti's sales are even more dire.
Infiniti? What will soccer moms & teens with daddy money that make 50-70k per year drive!??!??!!
Lexus
Except they won't splurge for the optional turn signals...
Quote from: thenetwork on July 06, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 09:06:10 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 05, 2020, 07:09:40 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 05, 2020, 06:43:02 PM
I think we'll see Infiniti close before Mitsubishi leaves the US. Infiniti's sales are even more dire.
Infiniti? What will soccer moms & teens with daddy money that make 50-70k per year drive!??!??!!
Lexus
Except they won't splurge for the optional turn signals...
You're thinking of BMWs.
Quote from: Takumi on July 06, 2020, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 06, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
Except they won't splurge for the optional turn signals...
You're thinking of BMWs.
I never understood why people with fancy cars often forego the use of turn signals. You would think, if people want to show off their fancy cars, they'd want to show off all the features. "Look at my fancy turn signals on my fancy car," is what I would have thought they would think.
I'm surprised Chrysler didn't just buy Mitsubishi in the 90s when they started sharing power trains.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 06, 2020, 01:42:49 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 06, 2020, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 06, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
Except they won't splurge for the optional turn signals...
You're thinking of BMWs.
I never understood why people with fancy cars often forego the use of turn signals. You would think, if people want to show off their fancy cars, they'd want to show off all the features. "Look at my fancy turn signals on my fancy car," is what I would have thought they would think.
Too fancy to use the turn signal. The turn signal is only for decoration
iPhone
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2020, 04:50:46 PM
I'm surprised Chrysler didn't just buy Mitsubishi in the 90s when they started sharing power trains.
Still would have cost a considerable amount of money for an outright buyout. Still, I wonder though if that would have put Chrysler in a worse position if they bet big on smaller vehicles? Trucks and CUVs/SUVs really are all the rage right now in the automotive market. Chrysler was one of the first automaker to essentially bail on passenger cars which is now becoming something everyone else is copying. As bad as the Daimler/Chrysler the latter sure got their money's worth out of the LX cars.
Quote from: Tonytone on July 06, 2020, 05:29:51 PMToo fancy to use the turn signal. The turn signal is only for decoration
If you put your finger on the turn signal stalk to use it, it eventually starts showing wear and then the nice lovely BMW is no longer pristine.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 06, 2020, 07:32:25 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 06, 2020, 05:29:51 PMToo fancy to use the turn signal. The turn signal is only for decoration
If you put your finger on the turn signal stalk to use it, it eventually starts showing wear and then the nice lovely BMW is no longer pristine.
Holy shit you're right & then it goes to auction & sells for half the price.
Remember folks get a good luxury car from an auction or 3rd party seller for 80% the original price.
Unless you have the money to buy a car out fully. Id do that too.
iPhone
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 06, 2020, 07:32:25 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 06, 2020, 05:29:51 PMToo fancy to use the turn signal. The turn signal is only for decoration
If you put your finger on the turn signal stalk to use it, it eventually starts showing wear and then the nice lovely BMW is no longer pristine.
As opposed to the almost total lack of detailing most BMW owners do on their exteriors? I've seen some mighty bad BMW paint fade of roof panels out west.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 06, 2020, 05:48:32 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 06, 2020, 04:50:46 PM
I'm surprised Chrysler didn't just buy Mitsubishi in the 90s when they started sharing power trains.
Still would have cost a considerable amount of money for an outright buyout. Still, I wonder though if that would have put Chrysler in a worse position if they bet big on smaller vehicles? Trucks and CUVs/SUVs really are all the rage right now in the automotive market. Chrysler was one of the first automaker to essentially bail on passenger cars which is now becoming something everyone else is copying. As bad as the Daimler/Chrysler the latter sure got their money's worth out of the LX cars.
To be clear I'm only talked my about Mitsubishi Motors, not the whole company. I don't want Chrysler making cheap TVs and jetskiis
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 06, 2020, 01:42:49 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 06, 2020, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 06, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
Except they won't splurge for the optional turn signals...
You’re thinking of BMWs.
I never understood why people with fancy cars often forego the use of turn signals. You would think, if people want to show off their fancy cars, they'd want to show off all the features. "Look at my fancy turn signals on my fancy car," is what I would have thought they would think.
It's more about being able to drive fast and not care what anyone else thinks. Definitely depends on the area; in my neck of the woods, you don't see as much of that, though it's usually by somebody in their locomotive-shaped pickup with a YETI sticker on the back who doesn't understand why you're not entirely on the ass of the vehicle in front.
Though I think late-model (since 2010?) Mustang owners like to show off their sequential signal lights. I see some recent Audis have it, too.
Quote from: formulanone on July 07, 2020, 09:05:57 PM
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 06, 2020, 01:42:49 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 06, 2020, 11:00:10 AM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 06, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
Except they won't splurge for the optional turn signals...
You're thinking of BMWs.
I never understood why people with fancy cars often forego the use of turn signals. You would think, if people want to show off their fancy cars, they'd want to show off all the features. "Look at my fancy turn signals on my fancy car," is what I would have thought they would think.
It's more about being able to drive fast and not care what anyone else thinks. Definitely depends on the area; in my neck of the woods, you don't see as much of that, though it's usually by somebody in their locomotive-shaped pickup with a YETI sticker on the back who doesn't understand why you're not entirely on the ass of the vehicle in front.
Though I think late-model (since 2010?) Mustang owners like to show off their sequential signal lights. I see some recent Audis have it, too.
+1 great explanation.
iPhone
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
Grandpa cars, especially the Roadmaster. It's a shame too since the B Body was a great platform to build a sleeper car on. A lot of Caprices have been tarted out to Impala SS replicas.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2020, 11:19:47 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
Grandpa cars, especially the Roadmaster. It's a shame too since the B Body was a great platform to build a sleeper car on. A lot of Caprices have been tarted out to Impala SS replicas.
Definitely. Buick went down hill, but they have come back in recent years.
I see caprices are the new undercover cop cars nowadays.
Cars like the Impala SS are beautiful. With the right set of rims & mods it can be a nice vehicle.
If I had the money I would put hydraulics on that impala oldschool.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
-H body
-C Body
-Epsilon body
-S body (NUMMI platform shared with Toyota for the Geo Prizim and Toyota Camry)
Avoid:
U body (minivan platform)
W-Body (ie Chevy Luminas. They were built very poorly.)
GMT 330
Check for defects:
N-bodies
J-bodies
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
-H body
-C Body
-Epsilon body
-S body (NUMMI platform shared with Toyota for the Geo Prizim and Toyota Camry)
Avoid:
U body (minivan platform)
W-Body (ie Chevy Luminas. They were built very poorly.)
GMT 330
Check for defects:
N-bodies
J-bodies
You forgot about the A, B, E, F, T and X bodies. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say buy for the B, E and F, avoid for the T and X, and check for defects for the A.
Quote from: Henry on July 10, 2020, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
-H body
-C Body
-Epsilon body
-S body (NUMMI platform shared with Toyota for the Geo Prizim and Toyota Camry)
Avoid:
U body (minivan platform)
W-Body (ie Chevy Luminas. They were built very poorly.)
GMT 330
Check for defects:
N-bodies
J-bodies
You forgot about the A, B, E, F, T and X bodies. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say buy for the B, E and F, avoid for the T and X, and check for defects for the A.
I've found the F Body cars have a lot of build quality issues no matter the generation. But then again a Camaro and/or Firebird will always be desirable.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2020, 12:57:46 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 10, 2020, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
-H body
-C Body
-Epsilon body
-S body (NUMMI platform shared with Toyota for the Geo Prizim and Toyota Camry)
Avoid:
U body (minivan platform)
W-Body (ie Chevy Luminas. They were built very poorly.)
GMT 330
Check for defects:
N-bodies
J-bodies
You forgot about the A, B, E, F, T and X bodies. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say buy for the B, E and F, avoid for the T and X, and check for defects for the A.
I've found the F Body cars have a lot of build quality issues no matter the generation. But then again a Camaro and/or Firebird will always be desirable.
The SBC/LS/LT are second to none when it comes to modifications and cheap reliable power. (I didn't get one myself because I simply prefer the sound of a turbocharged Toyota straight 6.) It's just everything else about the cars that are problematic
Quote from: Henry on July 10, 2020, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
-H body
-C Body
-Epsilon body
-S body (NUMMI platform shared with Toyota for the Geo Prizim and Toyota Camry)
Avoid:
U body (minivan platform)
W-Body (ie Chevy Luminas. They were built very poorly.)
GMT 330
Check for defects:
N-bodies
J-bodies
You forgot about the A, B, E, F, T and X bodies. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say buy for the B, E and F, avoid for the T and X, and check for defects for the A.
I was only covering platforns in use from the 90s-early 2000s.
Quote from: Takumi on July 10, 2020, 02:23:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2020, 12:57:46 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 10, 2020, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
-H body
-C Body
-Epsilon body
-S body (NUMMI platform shared with Toyota for the Geo Prizim and Toyota Camry)
Avoid:
U body (minivan platform)
W-Body (ie Chevy Luminas. They were built very poorly.)
GMT 330
Check for defects:
N-bodies
J-bodies
You forgot about the A, B, E, F, T and X bodies. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say buy for the B, E and F, avoid for the T and X, and check for defects for the A.
I've found the F Body cars have a lot of build quality issues no matter the generation. But then again a Camaro and/or Firebird will always be desirable.
The SBC/LS/LT are second to none when it comes to modifications and cheap reliable power. (I didn't get one myself because I simply prefer the sound of a turbocharged Toyota straight 6.) It's just everything else about the cars that are problematic
The powertrains across the entire 4th Generation F-Body Line were all really good. I don't know too much about the problems the 3.4L 60 degree V6 had 93-95 though. The 3.4L was replaced by the way more notable 3800 Series II relatively quickly.
All I know about the 3.4 is that it's a direct drop-in for the Fiero's 2.8. The 3800 is a good engine. I was planning to swap in a supercharged version into my Fiero, but I've moved away from that and am now planning an Ecotec forced-induction 4-banger. I know it's a bit odd going from a V6 to a 4 cylinder, but the 3800 requires a lot of fabrication work to fit, while the Ecotec can fit more easily and still has at least 200 HP in the lesser supercharged variant.
Quote from: Tonytone on July 06, 2020, 07:34:59 PM
Holy shit you're right & then it goes to auction & sells for half the price.
Remember folks get a good luxury car from an auction or 3rd party seller for 80% the original price.
I would never buy a luxury car that wasn't under warranty. They are often complex and troublesome, and parts and labor, especially for German cars, is ridiculously expensive.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2020, 02:49:30 PM
The powertrains across the entire 4th Generation F-Body Line were all really good. I don't know too much about the problems the 3.4L 60 degree V6 had 93-95 though. The 3.4L was replaced by the way more notable 3800 Series II relatively quickly.
I drove a 1994 Firebird with a 3.4L engine and a 1999 with a 3.8 engine, both with automatics. The difference between the two was stark. The 3.4L car was slow, sluggish, lazy, gutless and not pleasant at all. The 3.8, in comparison, was powerful and responsive. It had good acceleration off the line and it also had a lot of passing power. Night and day. I drove the 1994 before I drove the 1999. I expected the 1999 to be slow like the 1994 but I was nicely surprised when I got on it. That Buick V6 was a good engine.
Quote from: bugo on July 15, 2020, 04:51:25 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 06, 2020, 07:34:59 PM
Holy shit you're right & then it goes to auction & sells for half the price.
Remember folks get a good luxury car from an auction or 3rd party seller for 80% the original price.
I would never buy a luxury car that wasn't under warranty. They are often complex and troublesome, and parts and labor, especially for German cars, is ridiculously expensive.
[/quote]
If you have a solid mechanic or know how to do the work yourself having a luxury car is easy to maintain or maintenance.
Auction & used cars are great ways to find deals for 60% less then what it originally went for.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on July 15, 2020, 11:39:02 AM
If you have a solid mechanic or know how to do the work yourself having a luxury car is easy to maintain or maintenance.
Parts for expensive cars are always expensive, even if you do the work yourself.
Quote from: bugo on July 15, 2020, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 15, 2020, 11:39:02 AM
If you have a solid mechanic or know how to do the work yourself having a luxury car is easy to maintain or maintenance.
Parts for expensive cars are always expensive, even if you do the work yourself.
Of course they are especially OEM parts. But would you rather pay 100% or 50%?
iPhone
Quote from: bugo on July 15, 2020, 04:57:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 10, 2020, 02:49:30 PM
The powertrains across the entire 4th Generation F-Body Line were all really good. I don't know too much about the problems the 3.4L 60 degree V6 had 93-95 though. The 3.4L was replaced by the way more notable 3800 Series II relatively quickly.
I drove a 1994 Firebird with a 3.4L engine and a 1999 with a 3.8 engine, both with automatics. The difference between the two was stark. The 3.4L car was slow, sluggish, lazy, gutless and not pleasant at all. The 3.8, in comparison, was powerful and responsive. It had good acceleration off the line and it also had a lot of passing power. Night and day. I drove the 1994 before I drove the 1999. I expected the 1999 to be slow like the 1994 but I was nicely surprised when I got on it. That Buick V6 was a good engine.
Regarding the Buick 3.8L I was always pleasantly surprised how good that engine was even in latter natural aspirated years. My sister had a Grand Prix with a 3.8 in it back when she was in college. That thing was a lot of fun to drive and had some very adequate power. I tried for years to find a GTP with the supercharged 3.8 on the cheap to no available.
Quote from: Tonytone on July 15, 2020, 05:14:30 PM
Of course they are especially OEM parts. But would you rather pay 100% or 50%?
I would rather spend 5% of that amount on a part for a less expensive (and, likely, more reliable) car. I've heard some horror stories about 5 figure oil changes. Another disadvantage to owning a luxury car is that it's harder to get parts and service in certain places. You will probably be OK if you live in a.city and don't stray too far, but if you break down in Hays, Kansas or Deer Lodge, Montana you might have problems finding somebody to work on them.
I read an interview with a top Ferrari executive who said something like "A GM power window switch will work 1 million times. A Ferrari power window switch might only work 500 times, but the switch feels more expensive and is a delight to touch."
Quote from: bugo on July 15, 2020, 07:16:02 PM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 15, 2020, 05:14:30 PM
Of course they are especially OEM parts. But would you rather pay 100% or 50%?
I would rather spend 5% of that amount on a part for a less expensive (and, likely, more reliable) car. I've heard some horror stories about 5 figure oil changes. Another disadvantage to owning a luxury car is that it's harder to get parts and service in certain places. You will probably be OK if you live in a.city and don't stray too far, but if you break down in Hays, Kansas or Deer Lodge, Montana you might have problems finding somebody to work on them.
I read an interview with a top Ferrari executive who said something like "A GM power window switch will work 1 million times. A Ferrari power window switch might only work 500 times, but the switch feels more expensive and is a delight to touch."
Ergo why cars like the Corvette and to a less extent the 911 to me are far more appealing to me. Ferrari tends to be a luxury piece people secret away rather than drive. It doesn't help you can't really work on a Ferrari without being independently wealthy.
With a luxury car, even one from a marque known for reliability, you also run the risk of esoteric components becoming long-term maintenance liabilities--for example, you can get a Lexus with pneumatic suspension.
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 15, 2020, 08:41:01 PM
With a luxury car, even one from a marque known for reliability, you also run the risk of esoteric components becoming long-term maintenance liabilities--for example, you can get a Lexus with pneumatic suspension.
A couple years back one of my employees had an A4. One of the headlights went out and the owners manual simply said to take it in for service. Turns out said service cost about $400 dollars because it was a way overly complicated ordeal that involved taking out the air intake to remove the bulb. He found the bulb needed at an Autozone and I helped him change it at the parking lot after work.
I always admired supercars with ordinary engines. The De Tomaso Pantera is an Italian exotic that has a Ford 351 Cleveland V8 engine. American overhead valve engines are bone simple and easy to work on. It's an Italian sports car that I can work on. I imagine the rest of the car is a nightmare to work on and maintain, but the engine can be repaired by a novice.
I gotta comment and ask--
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
I seriously miss my 1986 Pontiac Grand Prix Brougham with the V-8. It took a ton of repairs to get it working properly back when I had it in the early 2000s, but once it was running well, it was amazing! So, someone stole it, and it was never seen again by anyone I know.
Quote
-Epsilon body
Didn't this start in the early 2000s? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Epsilon_platform Or is Wikipedia wrong? My current ride is a 2009 Chevy Malibu. It's boring, has underwhelming mid-range acceleration, and has a terrible turning radius, but it works. It hasn't been immune to needing expensive repairs, though.
Quote
Avoid:
U body (minivan platform)
I
loved the look of the first-generation "Dustbusters," and I thought the seating concept was quite clever. It's too bad they were made so poorly, from what I hear. The original Pontiac Trans Sport concept from the 80s was so stunningly sleek and futuristic, it's too bad they couldn't have made
that and made it good and long-lasting.
Quote
W-Body (ie Chevy Luminas. They were built very poorly.)
My previous car was a 1999 Buick Century. I
loved it! It was faster than most people would believe; I could easily change lanes on a busy freeway and jump from around 30 or 40 MPH to around 60 or 70 MPH almost instantaneously without even flooring it, which my 2009 Malibu doesn't seem to want to do. And despite its length, it had a nice, tight turning radius that made every maneuver and U-turn I would ever need to make practically effortless, which was helped by the fact that the smooth steering allowed me to perform fast hand-over-hand action, which is another thing my Malibu doesn't like. And the best part of all was the front bench seat, which let me just slide across to easily enter and exit from the passenger side when I was parked on the side of a busy street or somewhere where using the driver's side would be more difficult. Most newer cars put the damn console with the big gear shift lever right on the middle, so you have to awkwardly climb over it and probably scuff up the dashboard with your feet if you want to use the passenger side for exit and entry. The fold-down console and column shifter was always a superior interior design, at least for automatics--not sure about manuals, TBH.
But there was one
serious problem with that car that I
do not miss at all: the shitty power windows! They failed several times over the course of my having that car. When it was the motor, that just meant I couldn't use the window, but when it was the regulator, that meant the window wouldn't even stay up, so I
had to get that one fixed, unless I wanted to just drive around with a plastic bag taped over it forever. And I've seen other W-body cars from that generation with window problems, so I'm pretty sure it wasn't just mine. The cost to replace those parts really added up: $300 or so for each regulator, $400 or so for each motor. It ruined the experience of what was otherwise a very fun car.
Quote from: stridentweasel on July 16, 2020, 07:28:43 AM
I gotta comment and ask--
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
I seriously miss my 1986 Pontiac Grand Prix Brougham with the V-8. It took a ton of repairs to get it working properly back when I had it in the early 2000s, but once it was running well, it was amazing! So, someone stole it, and it was never seen again by anyone I know.
Speaking of G bodies, we had a 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with a 307 and a 4 barrel carburetor that was a lovely car that was in beautiful condition and a delight to drive. But it was a gutless Cutlass. It had terrible acceleration. If I hadn't known better, I would have thought it was a V6. The 5.0L supposedly put out 140 horsepower, but the car didn't feel like it had more than 110 or 120. It only weighed about 3300 pounds, and 140 horsepower should be enough to make it at least peppy. But it was as slow as our 1978 Ford Mustang II fastback with a 2.8L V6 which had glacial acceleration. At least the 307 was smooth, unlike the standard V6 engine. The Mustang had dual exhaust with glasspacks and it was really, really loud. It was probably as loud as a Harley. V8 engines with glasspacks usually sound great, but the 171 V6 sounded awful. It had a whiny nasal drone to it that wasn't pleasant at all. You could hear the engine from several blocks away. I always knew when my dad drive over because I could hear the droney V6 which had an unmistakable sound. We also had a 1975 Mustang II with a 302/5.0 V8 that was a whole different beast. It was powerful and had pretty good acceleration for a 1975 car. When we had these Mustangs, I was 14 or 15 and had a driver's permit and I loved smoking the tires in that little Mustang. It had tiny 13" wheels on it and you could spin them on dry pavement as far as you wanted to. There were many black marks right outside our house. Now, I realize I was being a dick, but I thought it was so cool at the time. The last time I saw the '75, it was in a junkyard with the front suspension missing. Back in the day, Mustang II front suspension was used in a lot of hot rod style custom cars. It was a sad end to a fun car.
Quote from: bugo on July 16, 2020, 08:25:17 AM
Speaking of G bodies, we had a 1986 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with a 307 and a 4 barrel carburetor that was a lovely car that was in beautiful condition and a delight to drive. But it was a gutless Cutlass. It had terrible acceleration. If I hadn't known better, I would have thought it was a V6. The 5.0L supposedly put out 140 horsepower, but the car didn't feel like it had more than 110 or 120. It only weighed about 3300 pounds, and 140 horsepower should be enough to make it at least peppy. But it was as slow as our 1978 Ford Mustang II fastback with a 2.8L V6 which had glacial acceleration.
I
think my '86 Grand Prix V8 was supposed to have 150 horsepower (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_Grand_Prix , see "Fourth Generation"), but I'm having a hard time finding the exact specs, and I don't have the same understanding of engine design that you seem to. Mine wasn't slow, but I'm sure there were much faster cars around at the time, probably including the "2+2 Aero Coupe" and the Buick Grand National. The funny thing about my '86 Grand Prix Brougham, however, was that the manual said to use regular unleaded (probably 87 octane), but I often had engine knocking and difficulty accelerating until I one day decided to switch to "super" unleaded (89 octane, I think), and it never had an acceleration problem again.
My '99 Buick Century with a V6 was
at least as fast, however, ran fine on regular unleaded, and got better gas mileage, so at least that part of it was a better deal, but we're also talking about a 13-year difference. It was probably what the "Regular Car Reviews" people would describe as "slow-car fast."
Edit: Found word omission typos, dang it!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2020, 08:59:55 PMA couple years back one of my employees had an A4. One of the headlights went out and the owners manual simply said to take it in for service. Turns out said service cost about $400 dollars because it was a way overly complicated ordeal that involved taking out the air intake to remove the bulb. He found the bulb needed at an Autozone and I helped him change it at the parking lot after work.
I have heard horror stories of lighting elements for headlamps (not just bulbs, but also HID components) that cannot be replaced without going through the front wheel well or taking off the bumper cover.
The complexity of modern air intake plumbing (which I have found to be especially true on Japanese cars; I have no experience with German ones) is part of the reason I do most of my own routine maintenance and get really nervous when I have to take a car to a shop for professional repair. It tends to be pretty hit and miss whether all the small-diameter hoses are reconnected correctly, even with colored paint marks on the hose ends to help.
The Buick Grand National was far, far faster and more powerful than the Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS, the Pontiac Grand Prix 2+2 or the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 442. The GN had a blown V6, while the other G-bodies came with lopo V8s. The other three were made for just cruising around looking good. but the Buick was a real high performance car that had the heart of a race car. The 1987 Buick GNX was even faster and more powerful than the Grand National. The GNX is probably my favorite car of the 1980s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 15, 2020, 08:59:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 15, 2020, 08:41:01 PM
With a luxury car, even one from a marque known for reliability, you also run the risk of esoteric components becoming long-term maintenance liabilities--for example, you can get a Lexus with pneumatic suspension.
A couple years back one of my employees had an A4. One of the headlights went out and the owners manual simply said to take it in for service. Turns out said service cost about $400 dollars because it was a way overly complicated ordeal that involved taking out the air intake to remove the bulb. He found the bulb needed at an Autozone and I helped him change it at the parking lot after work.
I notice it depends on the type of vehicle you have & how easy or complex it is to change the lightbulb no matter what brand or luxury it is.
However we cannot lie & say we dont feel the difference when buy a luxury car compared to a non luxury car, even though many low end cars are now very luxury on the inside. The engine & materials used can be noticed as sub par or of low quality.
Drive a benz & then after drive a ford. Youll notice a difference.
iPhone
I recently saw an old Ford commercial on YouTube for the late-1970's LTD, and they were comparing it to the Rolls-Royce insisting it was almost as quite as a Rolls. Somebody posted a comment saying the Ford was the quieter car.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2020, 11:19:47 PM
Grandpa cars, especially the Roadmaster. It's a shame too since the B Body was a great platform to build a sleeper car on. A lot of Caprices have been tarted out to Impala SS replicas.
So have Buick Roadmasters and Olds Custom Cruisers, sadly.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2020, 11:50:30 PM
I recently saw an old Ford commercial on YouTube for the late-1970's LTD, and they were comparing it to the Rolls-Royce insisting it was almost as quite as a Rolls. Somebody posted a comment saying the Ford was the quieter car.
Oh no doubt would a 1970's LTD do better then a rolls royce. Thats a time when they built cars like tanks & they also killed like tanks.
Looking at the picture of a 1978 LTD & the 1978 Rolls Royce, it looks like the rolls royce is small & built shitty, while the LTD looks like a real strong built car.
Quote from: Tonytone on July 16, 2020, 11:58:01 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2020, 11:50:30 PM
I recently saw an old Ford commercial on YouTube for the late-1970's LTD, and they were comparing it to the Rolls-Royce insisting it was almost as quite as a Rolls. Somebody posted a comment saying the Ford was the quieter car.
Oh no doubt would a 1970's LTD do better then a rolls royce. Thats a time when they built cars like tanks & they also killed like tanks.
Looking at the picture of a 1978 LTD & the 1978 Rolls Royce, it looks like the rolls royce is small & built shitty, while the LTD looks like a real strong built car.
Yes, but check out the 1980 version, though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlOIU3v3RFU
The year before this Ford downsized the LTD.
For some reason the name "LTD" always makes me think of a deli sandwich. I'll have an LTD with no Mayo to go please...
That isn't always true. For example, Chevrolet and Cadillac use the same LT engine in their cars and trucks.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 17, 2020, 12:05:47 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 16, 2020, 11:58:01 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2020, 11:50:30 PM
I recently saw an old Ford commercial on YouTube for the late-1970's LTD, and they were comparing it to the Rolls-Royce insisting it was almost as quite as a Rolls. Somebody posted a comment saying the Ford was the quieter car.
Oh no doubt would a 1970's LTD do better then a rolls royce. Thats a time when they built cars like tanks & they also killed like tanks.
Looking at the picture of a 1978 LTD & the 1978 Rolls Royce, it looks like the rolls royce is small & built shitty, while the LTD looks like a real strong built car.
Yes, but check out the 1980 version, though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlOIU3v3RFU
The year before this Ford downsized the LTD.
Hmm, I wonder if this is due to the absence of Noise cancellation technology or better sound proofing in cars. Luxe's cars such as RR & Bentley use advanced technology & air suspension, something I assume was not available at that time so anything in a RR would be simply mechanical or design at that time in 1980.
iPhone
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2020, 12:12:41 AM
That isn't always true. For example, Chevrolet and Cadillac use the same LT engine in their cars and trucks.
Chevrolet & Cadillac is like comparing Acura & Honda.
It's the same thing.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on July 17, 2020, 12:23:44 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2020, 12:12:41 AM
That isn't always true. For example, Chevrolet and Cadillac use the same LT engine in their cars and trucks.
Chevrolet & Cadillac is like comparing Acura & Honda.
It's the same thing.
You said:
Quote
However we cannot lie & say we dont feel the difference when buy a luxury car compared to a non luxury car, even though many low end cars are now very luxury on the inside. The engine & materials used can be noticed as sub par or of low quality.
The 6.2L V8 in the Cadillac Escalade is exactly the same 6.2L V8 in the Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon. The V8 engines that Cadillac uses are identical to the V8 engines found in Chevrolets. Your claim does not hold water.
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2020, 01:50:52 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 17, 2020, 12:23:44 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2020, 12:12:41 AM
That isn't always true. For example, Chevrolet and Cadillac use the same LT engine in their cars and trucks.
Chevrolet & Cadillac is like comparing Acura & Honda.
It's the same thing.
You said:
Quote
However we cannot lie & say we dont feel the difference when buy a luxury car compared to a non luxury car, even though many low end cars are now very luxury on the inside. The engine & materials used can be noticed as sub par or of low quality.
The 6.2L V8 in the Cadillac Escalade is exactly the same 6.2L V8 in the Chevrolet Suburban, Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon. The V8 engines that Cadillac uses are identical to the V8 engines found in Chevrolets. Your claim does not hold water.
Woah woah BUDDY.
I didnt compare Cadillac to Benz. I said Chevy &. Cadillac is the same.
Compare Benz & BMW & now we are talkin.
iPhone
Cadillacs and Chevys use the same engines. What's controversial about that statement?
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2020, 08:13:06 PM
Cadillacs and Chevys use the same engines. What's controversial about that statement?
Yea you compared two similar brands when I said
You can feel the difference in non luxury & luxury vehicles.
Cadillac is a luxury vehicle. But it wont be as luxury as a Benz, BMW, RR, Bently & etc.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on July 26, 2020, 08:17:43 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 26, 2020, 08:13:06 PM
Cadillacs and Chevys use the same engines. What's controversial about that statement?
Yea you compared two similar brands when I said
You can feel the difference in non luxury & luxury vehicles.
Cadillac is a luxury vehicle. But it wont be as luxury as a Benz, BMW, RR, Bently & etc.
iPhone
Wasn't a large point of the Northstar V8 to have a technologically superior DOHC engine for the Cadillac brand? I seem to recall that Cadillac pushed back harder than the other GM divisions over keeping their own brand engines. Wasn't Oldsmobile somehow involved in the development of the Northstar?
Oldsmobile got a "detuned" version of the Northstar in the Aurora but whether or not it was developed by Olds seems to be in dispute.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 17, 2020, 12:05:47 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 16, 2020, 11:58:01 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 16, 2020, 11:50:30 PM
I recently saw an old Ford commercial on YouTube for the late-1970's LTD, and they were comparing it to the Rolls-Royce insisting it was almost as quite as a Rolls. Somebody posted a comment saying the Ford was the quieter car.
Oh no doubt would a 1970's LTD do better then a rolls royce. Thats a time when they built cars like tanks & they also killed like tanks.
Looking at the picture of a 1978 LTD & the 1978 Rolls Royce, it looks like the rolls royce is small & built shitty, while the LTD looks like a real strong built car.
Yes, but check out the 1980 version, though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlOIU3v3RFU
The year before this Ford downsized the LTD.
Actually, the 1980 model was a year
after the downsizing.
Additionally, Ford's been comparing its full-sizes with Rolls-Royces since 1965.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZOjo7dHLZs
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 10, 2020, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on July 10, 2020, 01:24:13 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on July 08, 2020, 10:19:13 PM
So under the buick line up from 90 2000 generation what do you guys think about them?
I think they are the last car to have that old school look on them but they are 100% cop stoppers now a days, I dont know how people looked at them back then.
They are definitely a good car if they are clean & nice even though I prefer the 80s box model more.
iPhone
In general with GM
Buy:
-G body
-H body
-C Body
-Epsilon body
-S body (NUMMI platform shared with Toyota for the Geo Prizim and Toyota Camry)
Avoid:
U body (minivan platform)
W-Body (ie Chevy Luminas. They were built very poorly.)
GMT 330
Check for defects:
N-bodies
J-bodies
You forgot about the A, B, E, F, T and X bodies. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say buy for the B, E and F, avoid for the T and X, and check for defects for the A.
I was only covering platforns in use from the 90s-early 2000s.
The final year of the RWD G-bodies was 1988 (Monte Carlo/Monte Carlo SS/Cutlass Supreme Classic).
The final year of the FWD A-bodies was 1996 (Buick Century/Olds Cutlass Ciera).
The final year of the RWD B-bodies (Caprice/Impala SS & Roadmaster) was also 1996.
Production of the F-bodies continued through 2002.
The first year of the T-body/Dustbuster-nosed minivans was 1990.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 07, 2020, 11:28:24 AMHas anyone else ever thought GM could have saved all the divisions if they just had fewer models per division (and therefore less re-badging)?
Actually, during the early 80s; there was a short-lived plan at GM to do just that. Have Chevy & Pontiac sell only smaller cars with Buick, Olds & Cadillac sell the larger ones.
Such was
one (but not the only) reason why Pontiac initially bowed out of the full-size car market early on in '82 when it cancelled its B-bodied Catalina/Bonneville line. Ponitac would have to back-peddle somewhat when its Canadian & later US market still wanted a full-size Pontiac; which was why the Parisienne, a name previously used on the Canadian equivalent of the Bonneville, made its mid-season debut in both the US & Canadian markets as a poorly-disguised Caprice. Later vintages of the Parisienne would eventually lose its
Caprice-in-Drag look and appear more Pontiac/Bonneville-like with its exterior.
Such was also one reason why both Buick & Olds received their FWD H-bodied versions of the LeSabre & Delta 88 first for the '86 model year. While Ponitac would get their version a year later, replacing both the B-bodied Parisienne & the G-bodied Bonneville; Chevy never did receive a version of the H-body. Of course, Chevy didn't care at the time because its RWD full-sizes (just Caprices by this time) were experiencing upticks in sales due to lower gas prices & an improved economy.
While the above-separation plan would've reduced product overlapping; consumers, back then still had more of a brand-loyalty mindset. In their eyes & for better/for worse, they would just like to shop at one place for their new cars regardless of type & size.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 08, 2020, 12:25:46 PM
While the above-separation plan would've reduced product overlapping; consumers, back then still had more of a brand-loyalty mindset. In their eyes & for better/for worse, they would just like to shop at one place for their new cars regardless of type & size.
Interesting. Well, that sure explains why the Cadillac Cimarron was a thing! Honestly, if I was a car collector, I'd totally want one of those. :)
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 08, 2020, 04:21:51 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 08, 2020, 12:25:46 PM
While the above-separation plan would've reduced product overlapping; consumers, back then still had more of a brand-loyalty mindset. In their eyes & for better/for worse, they would just like to shop at one place for their new cars regardless of type & size.
Interesting. Well, that sure explains why the Cadillac Cimarron was a thing! Honestly, if I was a car collector, I'd totally want one of those. :)
$1,450 to make the dream happen:
https://www.smartmotorguide.com/L49434543
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2020, 08:39:22 PM
$1,450 to make the dream happen:
https://www.smartmotorguide.com/L49434543
And more thousands of dollars to get it in good condition! Stop tempting me! :P
I'll put a bumper sticker on it that says "Everyone else wants a DeLorean."
Quote from: stridentweasel on August 08, 2020, 10:50:57 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2020, 08:39:22 PM
$1,450 to make the dream happen:
https://www.smartmotorguide.com/L49434543
And more thousands of dollars to get it in good condition! Stop tempting me! :P
I'll put a bumper sticker on it that says "Everyone else wants a DeLorean."
I've been telling my wife for awhile that I want the most horrible running Chevette I can find. The trouble is just finding one at all, the price seems to be cheap enough even on good examples.
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
That CVT is a major reason why alot of people dont like nissan anymore. I had a nissan altima 2015 for 3 years it was a good car. That CVT was bad tho. I hated it.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
That CVT is a major reason why alot of people dont like nissan anymore. I had a nissan altima 2015 for 3 years it was a good car. That CVT was bad tho. I hated it.
iPhone
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don’t buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can’t even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the “halo” GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. Other than some cosmetic changes and making the turbos crank out more power it’s pretty much the same car today. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there’s a replacement finally in the works.
Quote from: Takumi on August 19, 2020, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don't buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there's a replacement finally in the works.
And that's the thing, I remember when the 350Z and GT-R were both hot performance cars to have. Nissan never did anything to keep them relevant and they ended up surpassed by competitors. The same phenomenon can be seen with everything Nissan makes. The Altima used to be competitive with other Mid-Size cars but now isn't relevant at all. The Titan was competitive the first years it was out and has long faded into obscurity.
Quote from: Takumi on August 19, 2020, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don't buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. Other than some cosmetic changes and making the turbos crank out more power it's pretty much the same car today. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there's a replacement finally in the works.
Atleast honda didnt put a CVT in every single vehicle. Its ok to have 1 or 2 but every single car NAH.
iPhone
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2020, 12:16:26 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 19, 2020, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don't buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there's a replacement finally in the works.
And that's the thing, I remember when the 350Z and GT-R were both hot performance cars to have. Nissan never did anything to keep them relevant and they ended up surpassed by competitors. The same phenomenon can be seen with everything Nissan makes. The Altima used to be competitive with other Mid-Size cars but now isn't relevant at all. The Titan was competitive the first years it was out and has long faded into obscurity.
Yeah, I remember several years ago now, in an import-focused automotive magazine (remember those? Just off the top of my head there were Import Tuner, DSport, and Super Street) there was a concept of a next generation GT-R that was, essentially, a front-engined version of the new Acura NSX, which itself was still a concept at the time, with hybrid motors assisting a revised version of the TT V6. I don't know what happened there, but I haven't seen a single thing about it since.
Quote from: Tonytone on August 19, 2020, 12:20:00 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 19, 2020, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don't buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. Other than some cosmetic changes and making the turbos crank out more power it's pretty much the same car today. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there's a replacement finally in the works.
Atleast honda didnt put a CVT in every single vehicle. Its ok to have 1 or 2 but every single car NAH.
iPhone
For comparison sake CVTs by default aren't necessarily shitty. They are just as acceptable as any other automatics in my Impreza and my wife's Forester. In the handful of Altima's I've rented over the last five years I wouldn't even say the CVT would be on my top five complaints about the car.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2020, 12:25:30 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 19, 2020, 12:20:00 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 19, 2020, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don't buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. Other than some cosmetic changes and making the turbos crank out more power it's pretty much the same car today. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there's a replacement finally in the works.
Atleast honda didnt put a CVT in every single vehicle. Its ok to have 1 or 2 but every single car NAH.
iPhone
For comparison sake CVTs by default aren't necessarily shitty. They are just as acceptable as any other automatics in my Impreza and my wife's Forester. In the handful of Altima's I've rented over the last five years I wouldn't even say the CVT would be on my top five complaints about the car.
My '19 Forester has a CVT. For the most part it's been OK, but it sometimes has this stuttering/jerking when accelerating from a stop. It's not often enough where it's been a real concern, but I do notice it. I can see it's a common complaint.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 19, 2020, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2020, 12:25:30 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 19, 2020, 12:20:00 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 19, 2020, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don't buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. Other than some cosmetic changes and making the turbos crank out more power it's pretty much the same car today. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there's a replacement finally in the works.
Atleast honda didnt put a CVT in every single vehicle. Its ok to have 1 or 2 but every single car NAH.
iPhone
For comparison sake CVTs by default aren't necessarily shitty. They are just as acceptable as any other automatics in my Impreza and my wife's Forester. In the handful of Altima's I've rented over the last five years I wouldn't even say the CVT would be on my top five complaints about the car.
My '19 Forester has a CVT. For the most part it's been OK, but it sometimes has this stuttering/jerking when accelerating from a stop. It's not often enough where it's been a real concern, but I do notice it. I can see it's a common complaint.
That's exactly the issue. Ive had problems where my old 15' nissan altima would go into limp mode going up a hill in the city or like roadrunner said it would jerk/stutter from stop/go. Very laggy on peddle response & the gear shifts were to abnormal.
It was ok on the highway, but city driving it really should its faults.
Dont get me wrong CVTS are ok & can be a good transmission but they need more work & tweaking on them in order to make them work well.
If nissan switches some of their vehicles back to regular transmissions they will see a big boost.
iPhone
Quote from: Tonytone on August 19, 2020, 11:49:39 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 19, 2020, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2020, 12:25:30 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 19, 2020, 12:20:00 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 19, 2020, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don't buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. Other than some cosmetic changes and making the turbos crank out more power it's pretty much the same car today. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there's a replacement finally in the works.
Atleast honda didnt put a CVT in every single vehicle. Its ok to have 1 or 2 but every single car NAH.
iPhone
For comparison sake CVTs by default aren't necessarily shitty. They are just as acceptable as any other automatics in my Impreza and my wife's Forester. In the handful of Altima's I've rented over the last five years I wouldn't even say the CVT would be on my top five complaints about the car.
My '19 Forester has a CVT. For the most part it's been OK, but it sometimes has this stuttering/jerking when accelerating from a stop. It's not often enough where it's been a real concern, but I do notice it. I can see it's a common complaint.
That's exactly the issue. Ive had problems where my old 15' nissan altima would go into limp mode going up a hill in the city or like roadrunner said it would jerk/stutter from stop/go. Very laggy on peddle response & the gear shifts were to abnormal.
It was ok on the highway, but city driving it really should its faults.
Dont get me wrong CVTS are ok & can be a good transmission but they need more work & tweaking on them in order to make them work well.
If nissan switches some of their vehicles back to regular transmissions they will see a big boost.
iPhone
I haven't felt the same jerkiness in my wife's 19 Forester. If anything her Forester seems way more powerful than my Impreza does. I don't notice anything weird with the CVT in my Impreza, I just wish that it had the same 2.5L that the Forester does since the 2.0L feels under powered.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 20, 2020, 12:06:36 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 19, 2020, 11:49:39 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on August 19, 2020, 11:44:29 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 19, 2020, 12:25:30 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 19, 2020, 12:20:00 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 19, 2020, 12:13:33 AM
Quote from: Tonytone on August 18, 2020, 03:40:43 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on August 18, 2020, 03:07:56 PM
Nissan kicked out Carlos Ghosn (and they got implied in a scandal referred as "Ghosngate". Then some Japanese officials wanted to see Honda and Nissan merged together. Honda really dodged a bullet.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2020/08/report-nissan-honda-tie-up-didnt-makes-it-to-the-first-date/
I see Honda taking over nissan as a good thing. First thing Honda would do is get rid of that damn CVT transmission that nissan loves so much.
Uh...don't buy a non-manual 1.5T Honda then. They have CVTs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 18, 2020, 04:02:56 PM
Nissan just did a CVT bad but the bigger issue is that they are way behind all their competitors in almost every facet of the automotive market. Nissans feel old and look the part too. I can't even think of a single Nissan vehicle that I would even consider buying in any market segment. Even the "halo" GT-R feels old and outclassed by competitors.
The GT-R actually is very old. I think it debuted in 2008. Other than some cosmetic changes and making the turbos crank out more power it's pretty much the same car today. The 370Z is also a decade old by now, but unlike the GT-R there's a replacement finally in the works.
Atleast honda didnt put a CVT in every single vehicle. Its ok to have 1 or 2 but every single car NAH.
iPhone
For comparison sake CVTs by default aren't necessarily shitty. They are just as acceptable as any other automatics in my Impreza and my wife's Forester. In the handful of Altima's I've rented over the last five years I wouldn't even say the CVT would be on my top five complaints about the car.
My '19 Forester has a CVT. For the most part it's been OK, but it sometimes has this stuttering/jerking when accelerating from a stop. It's not often enough where it's been a real concern, but I do notice it. I can see it's a common complaint.
That's exactly the issue. Ive had problems where my old 15' nissan altima would go into limp mode going up a hill in the city or like roadrunner said it would jerk/stutter from stop/go. Very laggy on peddle response & the gear shifts were to abnormal.
It was ok on the highway, but city driving it really should its faults.
Dont get me wrong CVTS are ok & can be a good transmission but they need more work & tweaking on them in order to make them work well.
If nissan switches some of their vehicles back to regular transmissions they will see a big boost.
iPhone
I haven't felt the same jerkiness in my wife's 19 Forester. If anything her Forester seems way more powerful than my Impreza does. I don't notice anything weird with the CVT in my Impreza, I just wish that it had the same 2.5L that the Forester does since the 2.0L feels under powered.
It could be a model to model thing with the CVTS.
I just know nissan lost a lot of people putting CVTS in everywhere. People say it everytime Nissan is brought up. Its an issue, & they need to fix the current issues or go back to regular transmissions.
iPhone
I generally look to keep a car running for several hundreds of thousands of miles without having to open the engine or transmission, so the long-term durability of CVTs--especially "rubber-band" designs--is a concern for me.
Seems that Dodge is trying to put it out there that they will need to get away from the V8 and internal combustion engine:
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/dodge-warns-regulations-killing-v8-174500736.html
That said with GM and California trying to commit to electric vehicles by 2035 are we in for another 70s-80s-90s-like Malaise Era?
North America will only have the VW Golf R and GTI, VW dropped the base model.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2021/01/qotd-vw-golf-gonna-miss-me-when-im-gone/
I wonder if we'll see car ads like this again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phu-DEEfDkc
Would the target market even know what Speed Racer is nowadays?
Quote from: Henry on February 01, 2021, 08:02:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2021, 10:40:49 AM
Oldsmobile Bravada
The anti-Enclave, as I see it...
Everything wrong with Badge Engineering incarnate.
Incidentally quip about how boring Indiana can get almost made me choke on my breakfast because I started laughing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2021, 08:19:04 PM
Everything wrong with Badge Engineering incarnate.
Incidentally quip about how boring Indiana can get almost made me choke on my breakfast because I started laughing.
Speaking of badge engineering, there's an interesting article about it featuring a old cover of Fortune magazine from 1983 where a picture is worth 1000 words.
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2021/02/03/how-a-single-magazine-cover-photo-changed-the-course-of-auto-design-at-gm-in-the-eighties
And there's more obscures rebadges around the world.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/obscure-rebadges-from-around-the-world/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/obscure-rebadges-from-around-the-world-part-2/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/obscure-rebadges-from-around-the-world-part-6/
i don't know, maybe i'm persnickety or old or something..
but..
cars that leave various things on after you shut the car off, or the auto-headlights. i just bought a 99 camry, and the headlight switch seems to do nothing. the lights are on all the time, but at reduced brightness. the only time i touch it is flicking from high to low beams.
i have always had cars that when you shut something off, it stays off until you turn it on again. this car leaves the lights on until the key is pulled and a door is opened. plus the dome light stays on for like a minute after you shut the door and slowly dims...
i like bluetooth and while my car doesn't have it, i occasionally drive the vehicle(s) of one my neighbors, both of which are bluetoothable. i was driving one of his the other day, following him in his other car so he could take it for service. every time we stopped at a light, he could hear the music i was playing until he got too far away. plus it steals my phone call every time i go within 33 feet of either one, if they're on.
you know what? i am old...
not even here lol...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 01, 2021, 10:40:49 AM
Oldsmobile Bravada
That version of the Bravada was horrible. However, the succeeding version at the time was a nice departure from the last.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 08, 2020, 12:02:47 PM
Actually, the 1980 model was a year after the downsizing.
True, but I saw the video for the '80 LTD, not the '79.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 08, 2020, 12:02:47 PM
Additionally, Ford's been comparing its full-sizes with Rolls-Royces since 1965.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZOjo7dHLZs
Impressive. I'll bet both versions are quieter than a 2002 Toyota Camry or a 1999 Honda Accord, hands down.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on March 13, 2021, 10:56:28 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 08, 2020, 12:02:47 PM
Actually, the 1980 model was a year after the downsizing.
True, but I saw the video for the '80 LTD, not the '79.
My above-comment was in response to the
last sentence of your earlier-comment reposted below:
Quote from: D-Dey65 on July 17, 2020, 12:05:47 AM
Yes, but check out the 1980 version, though:
*video snipped*
The year before this Ford downsized the LTD.
One unfamiliar with the full-size Ford's history could misinterpret your comment & imply that the car didn't downsize until after the 1980 model year.
I bet the '65 Ford with the 427 engine wasn't as quiet as a Rolls Royce.
Quote from: bugo on March 16, 2021, 04:22:33 AM
I bet the '65 Ford with the 427 engine wasn't as quiet as a Rolls Royce.
And the 1965-66 Ford Galaxie body was made in Brazil to the early 1980s however only available in 4-door sedan.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/cohort-outtake-ford-landau-circa-1980-the-1966-fords-second-life-in-brazil/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cohort/cohort-picks-of-the-day-1972-ford-ltd-landau-and-1973-ltd-brazilian-style/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtAttR-JB1A
The 427 was not available in the Brazilian LTD. The big Brazilian Fords originally used 272 and 292 Y block V8 engines, and in the 1970s, the 302 Windsor replaced the ancient Y block engines. The 427 was available (in 1965) in the Custom, Custom 500, Galaxie 500, Galaxie 500 LTD and Galaxie 500/XL. Many of the 427 engines wound up in Customs because they were lighter than the Galaxies and therefore better for racing, but were available across the board. I have seen pictures of a '65 LTD 2 door hardtop with a 427 and a 4 speed manual. They didn't build many of them, but they must have been quite the sleeper when they were new.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on March 16, 2021, 09:20:44 AM
And the 1965-66 Ford Galaxie body was made in Brazil to the early 1980s however only available in 4-door sedan.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-outtake/cohort-outtake-ford-landau-circa-1980-the-1966-fords-second-life-in-brazil/
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-cohort/cohort-picks-of-the-day-1972-ford-ltd-landau-and-1973-ltd-brazilian-style/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtAttR-JB1A
Nice update to the earlier
cat commercial promoting the 1963 Ford (US market).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNBtWlicxEc
Quote from: bugo on March 16, 2021, 04:22:33 AM
I bet the '65 Ford with the 427 engine wasn't as quiet as a Rolls Royce.
and my 99 camry is pretty quiet, really. you don't really hear the engine at all unless you put your foot in it, and even then its pretty quiet.
I like to think of my 2019 Equinox as a very quiet car, especially when compared to the gas-guzzling '98 Tahoe I had before that.
Quote from: Henry on March 18, 2021, 09:53:45 AM
I like to think of my 2019 Equinox as a very quiet car, especially when compared to the gas-guzzling '98 Tahoe I had before that.
My 02 Ford Mustang sounded loud and wheezy like a Ford Ranger. I suspect that had everything to do with the horrible 3.8L V6 that came with the base model.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on March 18, 2021, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: bugo on March 16, 2021, 04:22:33 AM
I bet the '65 Ford with the 427 engine wasn't as quiet as a Rolls Royce.
Did you just compare a 427 Galaxie to a fucking Camry?
and my 99 camry is pretty quiet, really. you don't really hear the engine at all unless you put your foot in it, and even then its pretty quiet.
Quote from: bugo on June 24, 2021, 07:03:19 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on March 18, 2021, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: bugo on March 16, 2021, 04:22:33 AM
I bet the '65 Ford with the 427 engine wasn't as quiet as a Rolls Royce.
Did you just compare a 427 Galaxie to a fucking Camry?
and my 99 camry is pretty quiet, really. you don't really hear the engine at all unless you put your foot in it, and even then its pretty quiet.
i did. *hangs head in shame*
I think the sacrifices imposed by emissions controls in the 70s were worth it. They gave us much cleaner air and crippled the anti-car movement. Look at how Europe is moving ahead with banning cars from city centers with smog concerns as an excuse whereas such views are well on the fringe in the United States where our tailpipe emissions are much cleaner.
Quote from: kernals12 on July 09, 2021, 08:12:05 AM
I think the sacrifices imposed by emissions controls in the 70s were worth it. They gave us much cleaner air and crippled the anti-car movement. Look at how Europe is moving ahead with banning cars from city centers with smog concerns as an excuse whereas such views are well on the fringe in the United States where our tailpipe emissions are much cleaner.
The Malaise Era did nothing to slow car sales or stop people from using limited access highways. It did lead to more efficient vehicles becoming hugely popular. FWD and four cylinder vehicles were barely even a thing in the U.S. before the 1970s.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on March 18, 2021, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: bugo on March 16, 2021, 04:22:33 AM
I bet the '65 Ford with the 427 engine wasn't as quiet as a Rolls Royce.
and my 99 camry is pretty quiet, really. you don't really hear the engine at all unless you put your foot in it, and even then its pretty quiet.
Really? Because my 02 Camry is fairly loud. When I'm on the phone, people know when I'm in my car.
Then again, I tend to put my foot into it when I'm on the Interstate,
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 17, 2021, 05:34:27 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on March 18, 2021, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: bugo on March 16, 2021, 04:22:33 AM
I bet the '65 Ford with the 427 engine wasn't as quiet as a Rolls Royce.
and my 99 camry is pretty quiet, really. you don't really hear the engine at all unless you put your foot in it, and even then its pretty quiet.
Really? Because my 02 Camry is fairly loud. When I'm on the phone, people know when I'm in my car.
Then again, I tend to put my foot into it when I'm on the Interstate,
mine's pretty quiet, it's the 4-cylider version. it tends to wind out the gears a little harder when the a/c is on and will go to 3000-3500 rpms when starting from stop. without it on, it might touch 3000. i tend to drive my car gently and keep rpms low except for when i'm passing someone.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2021, 02:05:07 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on July 09, 2021, 08:12:05 AM
I think the sacrifices imposed by emissions controls in the 70s were worth it. They gave us much cleaner air and crippled the anti-car movement. Look at how Europe is moving ahead with banning cars from city centers with smog concerns as an excuse whereas such views are well on the fringe in the United States where our tailpipe emissions are much cleaner.
The Malaise Era did nothing to slow car sales or stop people from using limited access highways. It did lead to more efficient vehicles becoming hugely popular. FWD and four cylinder vehicles were barely even a thing in the U.S. before the 1970s.
That is actually not true, as when the very first cars were built, there were no six- or eight-cylinder engines available (those would come a little bit later). As far as FWD, we can thank Cord for bringing it to America, and of course, the current wave was started in the mid-60s by a pair of GM personal luxury coupes with rhyming names (Toronado and Eldorado).
Quote from: Henry on August 18, 2021, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2021, 02:05:07 PM
The Malaise Era did nothing to slow car sales or stop people from using limited access highways. It did lead to more efficient vehicles becoming hugely popular. FWD and four cylinder vehicles were barely even a thing in the U.S. before the 1970s.
That is actually not true, as when the very first cars were built, there were no six- or eight-cylinder engines available (those would come a little bit later). As far as FWD, we can thank Cord for bringing it to America, and of course, the current wave was started in the mid-60s by a pair of GM personal luxury coupes with rhyming names (Toronado and Eldorado).
I think he was referring to postwar cars. All rules go out the window when talking about cars built before circa 1950. That era was full of experimentation with different types of engines and drive systems and other mechanicals. There were indeed front wheel drive cars, but most of them were technological dead ends, with the noticeable exception of the Citroen Traction Avant, which led to the 2CV and many other FWD French and European cars. After the war, cars became rather conservative mechanically and most American cars conformed to the paradigm of V8 in the front and live axle in the rear. The front wheel drive shift in the 1980s was a radical departure for American cars, but import cars had been using it for years. The Toronado was engineered significantly differently than future FWD cars, with a longitudinally mounted engine and a chain drive. Car design was incredibly diverse in the years prior to 1950, but now it's almost completely homogenized.
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on August 18, 2021, 10:41:29 AM
mine's pretty quiet, it's the 4-cylider version. it tends to wind out the gears a little harder when the a/c is on and will go to 3000-3500 rpms when starting from stop. without it on, it might touch 3000. i tend to drive my car gently and keep rpms low except for when i'm passing someone.
Hey, you have the 4-cylinder in yours too?
The ride is fairly solid though. It's got a tougher than expected chassis, which a lot of Toyotas were known for having since they first imported them from Japan.
Quote from: bugo on August 18, 2021, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 18, 2021, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2021, 02:05:07 PM
The Malaise Era did nothing to slow car sales or stop people from using limited access highways. It did lead to more efficient vehicles becoming hugely popular. FWD and four cylinder vehicles were barely even a thing in the U.S. before the 1970s.
That is actually not true, as when the very first cars were built, there were no six- or eight-cylinder engines available (those would come a little bit later). As far as FWD, we can thank Cord for bringing it to America, and of course, the current wave was started in the mid-60s by a pair of GM personal luxury coupes with rhyming names (Toronado and Eldorado).
I think he was referring to postwar cars. All rules go out the window when talking about cars built before circa 1950. That era was full of experimentation with different types of engines and drive systems and other mechanicals. There were indeed front wheel drive cars, but most of them were technological dead ends, with the noticeable exception of the Citroen Traction Avant, which led to the 2CV and many other FWD French and European cars. After the war, cars became rather conservative mechanically and most American cars conformed to the paradigm of V8 in the front and live axle in the rear. The front wheel drive shift in the 1980s was a radical departure for American cars, but import cars had been using it for years. The Toronado was engineered significantly differently than future FWD cars, with a longitudinally mounted engine and a chain drive. Car design was incredibly diverse in the years prior to 1950, but now it's almost completely homogenized.
To clarify, I was referring to the Post War Era.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on August 19, 2021, 11:20:46 PM
Quote from: zachary_amaryllis on August 18, 2021, 10:41:29 AM
mine's pretty quiet, it's the 4-cylider version. it tends to wind out the gears a little harder when the a/c is on and will go to 3000-3500 rpms when starting from stop. without it on, it might touch 3000. i tend to drive my car gently and keep rpms low except for when i'm passing someone.
Hey, you have the 4-cylinder in yours too?
The ride is fairly solid though. It's got a tougher than expected chassis, which a lot of Toyotas were known for having since they first imported them from Japan.
there is a cattle guard not far from me that i have to cross whenever i go to town. my mother's car, it will make the cd player skip. my car, you don't really even notice it other than the noise of crossing it.
i feel like it rides nicely, and has a surprising amount of room, considering i'm a rather big fella, and i don't feel cramped in it at all.
A sorry state of affairs that the domestic market didn't get a version of the Holden Adventra TVC:
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a15955603/holden-adventra-pontiac/?src=socialflowFBRAT&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowR%26T&fbclid=IwAR0XEUZH0HZv8TfvRlE9Imul2fapKmDGr55VjOF3PHJTdroK-7mmet7hPoQ
I was thinking that maybe enough time has gone by since this thread was created to finally look at some not so fantastic cars (or automotive decisions) from the 00s?
Quote from: bugo on August 18, 2021, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Henry on August 18, 2021, 11:31:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2021, 02:05:07 PM
The Malaise Era did nothing to slow car sales or stop people from using limited access highways. It did lead to more efficient vehicles becoming hugely popular. FWD and four cylinder vehicles were barely even a thing in the U.S. before the 1970s.
That is actually not true, as when the very first cars were built, there were no six- or eight-cylinder engines available (those would come a little bit later). As far as FWD, we can thank Cord for bringing it to America, and of course, the current wave was started in the mid-60s by a pair of GM personal luxury coupes with rhyming names (Toronado and Eldorado).
I think he was referring to postwar cars. All rules go out the window when talking about cars built before circa 1950. That era was full of experimentation with different types of engines and drive systems and other mechanicals. There were indeed front wheel drive cars, but most of them were technological dead ends, with the noticeable exception of the Citroen Traction Avant, which led to the 2CV and many other FWD French and European cars. After the war, cars became rather conservative mechanically and most American cars conformed to the paradigm of V8 in the front and live axle in the rear. The front wheel drive shift in the 1980s was a radical departure for American cars, but import cars had been using it for years. The Toronado was engineered significantly differently than future FWD cars, with a longitudinally mounted engine and a chain drive. Car design was incredibly diverse in the years prior to 1950, but now it's almost completely homogenized.
Except for Honda, Toyota, Nissan (back then known as Datsun) and Mazda was mainly RWD. Toyota introduced the FWD Tercel in 1980, Nissan replaced the 210 and 510 with the Sentra and Stanza in 1982-83. Mazda introduced their FWD GLC in 1981 and the FWD 626 in 1983.
Btw, enjoy some vintage ads. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7P6V2lHEgM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBCp1LSrDlk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jBMEPXzY4Y
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2022, 09:36:57 PM
A sorry state of affairs that the domestic market didn't get a version of the Holden Adventra TVC:
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a15955603/holden-adventra-pontiac/?src=socialflowFBRAT&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowR%26T&fbclid=IwAR0XEUZH0HZv8TfvRlE9Imul2fapKmDGr55VjOF3PHJTdroK-7mmet7hPoQ
I was thinking that maybe enough time has gone by since this thread was created to finally look at some not so fantastic cars (or automotive decisions) from the 00s?
The attempts to market Holden offerings in the US flopped. Both the '04-'06 Pontiac GTO and the later Caprice? PPV failed. The GTO should have had "retro" styling, instead of that of a sterile jelly bean, and the later PPV floundered in a sea of trucks and SUV's.
Quote from: DJStephens on March 30, 2022, 10:43:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2022, 09:36:57 PM
A sorry state of affairs that the domestic market didn't get a version of the Holden Adventra TVC:
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a15955603/holden-adventra-pontiac/?src=socialflowFBRAT&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowR%26T&fbclid=IwAR0XEUZH0HZv8TfvRlE9Imul2fapKmDGr55VjOF3PHJTdroK-7mmet7hPoQ
I was thinking that maybe enough time has gone by since this thread was created to finally look at some not so fantastic cars (or automotive decisions) from the 00s?
The attempts to market Holden offerings in the US flopped. Both the '04-'06 Pontiac GTO and the later Caprice? PPV failed. The GTO should have had "retro" styling, instead of that of a sterile jelly bean, and the later PPV floundered in a sea of trucks and SUV's.
The Caprice was never sold to the general public. Any that make it into private hands are former police cars. The Caprice and SS were primarily produced to fill manufacturing contracts. It's why marketing for the SS was almost nonexistent.
Quote from: Takumi on March 31, 2022, 11:05:08 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 30, 2022, 10:43:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2022, 09:36:57 PM
A sorry state of affairs that the domestic market didn't get a version of the Holden Adventra TVC:
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a15955603/holden-adventra-pontiac/?src=socialflowFBRAT&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowR%26T&fbclid=IwAR0XEUZH0HZv8TfvRlE9Imul2fapKmDGr55VjOF3PHJTdroK-7mmet7hPoQ
I was thinking that maybe enough time has gone by since this thread was created to finally look at some not so fantastic cars (or automotive decisions) from the 00s?
The attempts to market Holden offerings in the US flopped. Both the '04-'06 Pontiac GTO and the later Caprice? PPV failed. The GTO should have had "retro" styling, instead of that of a sterile jelly bean, and the later PPV floundered in a sea of trucks and SUV's.
The Caprice was never sold to the general public. Any that make it into private hands are former police cars. The Caprice and SS were primarily produced to fill manufacturing contracts. It's why marketing for the SS was almost nonexistent.
All the same, the SS is a pretty nice car. My uncle has one in green, he bought it as a collectors item given the low production run. The SS along with the G8 stacked up well with the likes of the LX cars from Chrysler.
Old cars in general are just terrible. Even a 1960s Chevrolet Impala with a V8 engine would get crushed by my 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid, to say nothing of how much further my car will go on a gallon of gas. Today's automotive engineers have vast amounts of inexpensive computing power at their disposal for controlling fuel and valves, that allows them to get lots of power from small engines.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 03, 2022, 01:25:27 PM
Old cars in general are just terrible. Even a 1960s Chevrolet Impala with a V8 engine would get crushed by my 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid, to say nothing of how much further my car will go on a gallon of gas. Today's automotive engineers have vast amounts of inexpensive computing power at their disposal for controlling fuel and valves, that allows them to get lots of power from small engines.
Convert net horsepower back to gross the the modern numbers would be pretty shockingly high by Muscle Car era standards. The conversion from SAE gross to SAE net horsepower ratings occurred in 1972.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 03, 2022, 01:25:27 PM
Old cars in general are just terrible. Even a 1960s Chevrolet Impala with a V8 engine would get crushed by my 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid, to say nothing of how much further my car will go on a gallon of gas. Today's automotive engineers have vast amounts of inexpensive computing power at their disposal for controlling fuel and valves, that allows them to get lots of power from small engines.
I don't think a 1960s Impala is a great performance yardstick, other comparative than sales numbers.
Older vehicles are easier and cheaper to make them faster, but after accounting for appearance/style (which is subjective), or just being a totally different experience, there's little they can do better than a modern car. But few are using them for daily drivers, so the point is moot.
Quote from: formulanone on April 04, 2022, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 03, 2022, 01:25:27 PM
Old cars in general are just terrible. Even a 1960s Chevrolet Impala with a V8 engine would get crushed by my 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid, to say nothing of how much further my car will go on a gallon of gas. Today's automotive engineers have vast amounts of inexpensive computing power at their disposal for controlling fuel and valves, that allows them to get lots of power from small engines.
I don't think a 1960s Impala is a great performance yardstick, other comparative than sales numbers.
Older vehicles are easier and cheaper to make them faster, but after accounting for appearance/style (which is subjective), or just being a totally different experience, there's little they can do better than a modern car. But few are using them for daily drivers, so the point is moot.
One thing older cars, especially pre-1974 do better is styling. 1974 is when all the 5 MPH law came into affect and manufacturers suddenly had to consider safety over appearance. It's hard to make a modern car appealing visually whereas those older car designers had almost free reign to do what they wanted. Even now, all these decades after the 1990s cars and CUVs still end up more or less looking jelly bean-like.
The 5 mph bumper law went away in 1983 for a 2.5 mph bumper law. Trucks, SUVs and minivans have no bumper regulations at all. It was more of an insurance company thing really since insurance companies didn't want to pay out for when a '60s Jaguar got hit at 3 mph while in a mall parking lot or whatever and essentially melted.
Chevy Monza, lots of 1970s era ads in this video:
I actually really like how some of the early 2+2s looked. I've seen a couple Monza Mirages floating around car shows now and then over the years.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 03, 2022, 01:25:27 PMEven a 1960s Chevrolet Impala with a V8 engine would get crushed by my 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid
Quite literally - I never tire of sharing this video whenever someone says that old cars were built like tanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 03, 2022, 11:06:29 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 03, 2022, 01:25:27 PMEven a 1960s Chevrolet Impala with a V8 engine would get crushed by my 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid
Quite literally - I never tire of sharing this video whenever someone says that old cars were built like tanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
That's always painful to me to watch a 1959 bat wing style Chevy get destroyed for the sake of selling up the safety attributes of an Elipson platform Malibu.
Speaking of a lack or a safety, I'm always intrigued by Central American variants of cars. Most of the newer lower tier cars I see in Mexico only have two air bags. The prices usually are somewhere under $20,000 USD.
The life and death of SAAB.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2022, 11:18:05 AM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 03, 2022, 11:06:29 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 03, 2022, 01:25:27 PMEven a 1960s Chevrolet Impala with a V8 engine would get crushed by my 2017 Honda Accord Hybrid
Quite literally - I never tire of sharing this video whenever someone says that old cars were built like tanks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
That's always painful to me to watch a 1959 bat wing style Chevy get destroyed for the sake of selling up the safety attributes of an Elipson platform Malibu.
Speaking of a lack or a safety, I'm always intrigued by Central American variants of cars. Most of the newer lower tier cars I see in Mexico only have two air bags. The prices usually are somewhere under $20,000 USD.
That is painful to watch that 1959 Chevy destroyed.
The story of the Hillman Avenger who did a short journey here as the Plymouth Cricket.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lbJavfCfI8
1991 Car and Driver sports sedan comparison:
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a36053183/1991-american-performance-sedan-comparison-test/?utm_campaign=socialflowFBCD&utm_source=facebook&src=socialflowFBCAD&utm_medium=social-media&fbclid=IwAR0gF2L4-Tg63Eth2bc_ouB4GXkvZucGKzP_qqhXRcAiAfdQ41bmJ_xFtUM&fs=e&s=cl
Holy crap the Dodge Spirit R/T was fast for the time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2022, 10:51:02 AM
Chevy Monza, lots of 1970s era ads in this video:
I actually really like how some of the early 2+2s looked. I've seen a couple Monza Mirages floating around car shows now and then over the years.
In 1975, the 305 V8 was available in the Monza. The 305 couldn't pass California emissions testing, so the optional V8 in that state was a 350. It was rated at a mere 125 horsepower and 235 lb-ft, so it wasn't a beast. Hoever, those engines could easily be made much more powerful, and a 350 that could actually breathe in a light Monza would have made a pocket rocket.
Found a big green unicorn turd for sale locally.
https://richmond.craigslist.org/cto/d/beaverdam-monte-carlo-diesel-1982/7511992714.html
Quote from: bugo on August 02, 2022, 08:33:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2022, 10:51:02 AM
Chevy Monza, lots of 1970s era ads in this video:
I actually really like how some of the early 2+2s looked. I've seen a couple Monza Mirages floating around car shows now and then over the years.
In 1975, the 305 V8 was available in the Monza. The 305 couldn't pass California emissions testing, so the optional V8 in that state was a 350. It was rated at a mere 125 horsepower and 235 lb-ft, so it wasn't a beast. Hoever, those engines could easily be made much more powerful, and a 350 that could actually breathe in a light Monza would have made a pocket rocket.
There was a tiny 262 cubic inch Chevrolet engine, in the mid seventies. Am of belief that was the engine that went into the Monza, and not the 350. There were 305 cubic inch Chev engines in them, as well, possibly '77 to '80, after which the H body was killed.
Quote from: DJStephens on October 31, 2023, 11:27:08 AM
There was a tiny 262 cubic inch Chevrolet engine, in the mid seventies. Am of belief that was the engine that went into the Monza, and not the 350. There were 305 cubic inch Chev engines in them, as well, possibly '77 to '80, after which the H body was killed.
No, it was a 350. It's well-known and well-documented that the 350 was available in the Monza in California.
(https://i.imgur.com/mpeXDHy.jpg)
But those still didn't weigh any less than a 350? The advantage of all these other small displacement V8s like the 289/302 Ford, 301 Olds, 301 Pontiac (not the same) and 215 Buick is that they all weighed a lot less than a full size SBC. With stuff like 283 and 305 Chevy's you don't get that.
The 262ci was indeed a Chevy Small Block just as the 305ci and 350ci. The weight difference between the displacements would have been negligible. If anything the larger displacements probably weighed slightly less.
Quote from: GCrites80s on October 31, 2023, 09:40:48 PM
But those still didn't weigh any less than a 350? The advantage of all these other small displacement V8s like the 289/302 Ford, 301 Olds, 301 Pontiac (not the same) and 215 Buick is that they all weighed a lot less than a full size SBC. With stuff like 283 and 305 Chevy's you don't get that.
All Pontiac engines used the same block from the original 287 to the 455. There's no such thing as a "small block Pontiac" or "big block Pontiac" engine, except in Canada where Pontiacs used Chevrolet-sourced engines, so there were 409 Grand Parisiennes and 327 Laurentians.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 04, 2022, 10:29:37 AM
One thing older cars, especially pre-1974 do better is styling. 1974 is when all the 5 MPH law came into affect and manufacturers suddenly had to consider safety over appearance. It's hard to make a modern car appealing visually whereas those older car designers had almost free reign to do what they wanted. Even now, all these decades after the 1990s cars and CUVs still end up more or less looking jelly bean-like.
1973 for front bumpers, 1974 for rear bumpers. This is why the 1972 Corvette has steel front and rear bumpers, the 1973 has rubber front and steel rear bumpers, and the 1974 has plastic bumpers front and rear.
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2023, 09:59:00 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on October 31, 2023, 09:40:48 PM
But those still didn't weigh any less than a 350? The advantage of all these other small displacement V8s like the 289/302 Ford, 301 Olds, 301 Pontiac (not the same) and 215 Buick is that they all weighed a lot less than a full size SBC. With stuff like 283 and 305 Chevy's you don't get that.
All Pontiac engines used the same block from the original 287 to the 455. There's no such thing as a "small block Pontiac" or "big block Pontiac" engine, except in Canada where Pontiacs used Chevrolet-sourced engines, so there were 409 Grand Parisiennes and 327 Laurentians.
Yes. That was part of the appeal of B/O/P over Chevrolet is the block weight savings.
Quote from: GCrites80s on November 01, 2023, 10:15:52 AM
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2023, 09:59:00 PM
Quote from: GCrites80s on October 31, 2023, 09:40:48 PM
But those still didn't weigh any less than a 350? The advantage of all these other small displacement V8s like the 289/302 Ford, 301 Olds, 301 Pontiac (not the same) and 215 Buick is that they all weighed a lot less than a full size SBC. With stuff like 283 and 305 Chevy's you don't get that.
All Pontiac engines used the same block from the original 287 to the 455. There's no such thing as a "small block Pontiac" or "big block Pontiac" engine, except in Canada where Pontiacs used Chevrolet-sourced engines, so there were 409 Grand Parisiennes and 327 Laurentians.
Yes. That was part of the appeal of B/O/P over Chevrolet is the block weight savings.
Don't forget that the Buick 215 had an aluminum block, which partially explains why it was lighter than the typical iron block V8 of its day. The 300 small block weighed 80 pounds more than the aluminum 215. The 215 was modified by Oldsmobile and used in the Olds F85. The Buick version was also used in the 1961-62 Pontiac Tempest, which came with a rear transaxle.
Then Rover started making it and I think it wound up in some Fiats? Crazy left turn there near the end
I don't know of a Fiat with the Rover engine, but the MGB-GT used it.
Probably that.
Quote from: bugo on October 31, 2023, 04:15:46 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on October 31, 2023, 11:27:08 AM
There was a tiny 262 cubic inch Chevrolet engine, in the mid seventies. Am of belief that was the engine that went into the Monza, and not the 350. There were 305 cubic inch Chev engines in them, as well, possibly '77 to '80, after which the H body was killed.
No, it was a 350. It's well-known and well-documented that the 350 was available in the Monza in California. (https://i.imgur.com/mpeXDHy.jpg)
That must have been a 1975 sales brochure, meaning summer/fall of '74. The 305 was introduced for 1976 Chevrolet models, with an Aug/Sept '75 roll out. There was no small displacement V-8 from Chevrolet in '74 or '75 model years, other than the 262. Meaning no 307, or no 305. The displacements are all in litres, even then. The 4.3 L option was the 262. Shows availability with a stick shift manual trans (Saginaw, most likely). There was no manual trans offered with the 5.7, according to that literature, likely due to California emissions standards. There is an original Monza Mirage and or Spyder here in Las Cruces. Mid to late seventies. I don't know the exact year, or the owner, but am guessing it has a 305 engine, if the original power plant is in it. Interesting posting, maybe the 5.7 availability was for one or two years. Good information.
The brochure the image I posted was dated May, 1975. A brochure for the Monza 2+2 is dated September, 1974, and doesn't mention the California 350. It does say that the 262 came with the 4 speed manual standard. Here is a link to all of the 1975 Chevrolet brochures that are available on oldcarbrochures.com (https://oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Chevrolet/1975-Chevrolet/index.html). This is an incredibly useful website, containing thousands of car brochures, mostly from the US, from as early as the 1900s. It's easy to waste a lot of time looking through these old brochures.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2022, 11:18:05 AM
Speaking of a lack or a safety, I'm always intrigued by Central American variants of cars. Most of the newer lower tier cars I see in Mexico only have two air bags. The prices usually are somewhere under $20,000 USD.
South American cars are fascinating as well. One of the most interesting is the 1966-1981 Argentine IKA/Renault Torino. If you look closely at the roof, you will see that it was based on an American Rambler American with unique front and rear sheetmetal (The infamous AMC SC/Rambler used the same bodyshell). The European style dashboard was unique to the Torino. IKA stood for "Industrias Kaiser Argentina". In 1970, IKA was purchased by Renault, and the Torino eventually got Renault badges. The Torino was available as a 2 door hardtop or a 4 door sedan. The engine is perhaps the most interesting part of the car. It used the Kaiser Tornado engine which was introduced in mid-1962 and was used in Jeeps in North America. This was an unusual design for the day, as it was an overhead cam inline six cylinder engine, when the vast majority of American sixes were either flathead or overhead valve engines. This engine made up to 248 horsepower in a Torino, which made for excellent performance.
Here is an IKA Torino.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52386736860_9265f1be28_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7031/6497945995_47c7e88db8_o.jpg)
Here is a Renault Torino. The Torino was one of the only front engine, rear wheel drive Renaults ever built.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4117/4795255018_711bd0cc5b_o.jpg)