News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

The Sorry State of Affairs in Automobilia in the 1970s, 80s and 90s

Started by Max Rockatansky, April 30, 2016, 11:49:55 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD


Henry

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

GCrites

You're right, it wasn't a hard cutoff at either end. I remember that and the "Classics".

Takumi

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: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

formulanone

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.

Max Rockatansky

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.

Max Rockatansky

#107
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:


GCrites

But XR4tis/Sierras are cool except for the T9 transmission.

Max Rockatansky

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.

Takumi

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: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

jwolfer

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

Max Rockatansky

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.

PHLBOS

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).
GPS does NOT equal GOD

Max Rockatansky

#114
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.

Henry

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?
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jwolfer

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

GCrites

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.

PHLBOS

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.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

GCrites

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.

PHLBOS

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) would be an example of such.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

GCrites

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/

SteveG1988

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.
Roads Clinched

I55,I82,I84(E&W)I88(W),I87(N),I81,I64,I74(W),I72,I57,I24,I65,I59,I12,I71,I77,I76(E&W),I70,I79,I85,I86(W),I27,I16,I97,I96,I43,I41,

formulanone

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.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.