Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





What Will Be a Future Classic?

11516171921

Comments

  • corvettecorvette United StatesPosts: 4,092
    Typical Detroit, shove it out before its ready, over due the cost cutting, and then act dumbfounded at the consequences.

    Yep. I remember when Dodge introduced the Charger. It was highly touted that they all came standard with a 3.5 liter V6, ABS, stability control, and side airbags. Then, the next year, Dodge introduced a version with a woefully inadequate 2.7 liter V6, no ABS, no stability control, no side airbags (and goodness knows what else they deleted). This is progress? This new, fleet-friendly model still had the triple-flashing turn signals, which were probably pulled from the Mercedes parts bin.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Because of Car and Driver accolades, I too test drove a Contour and did like its handling. But, that was all. The interior looked cheap and was tight. Took a pass on it and bought a new Honda.

    Owning 2 Hondas for 11 years at time of driving Contour, my standards were higher. Other downsides to a possible Contour purchase were some negative experiences with previous Fords.
  • boomchekboomchek Vancouver, BC, CanadaPosts: 5,108
    still had the triple-flashing turn signals, which were probably pulled from the Mercedes parts bin.

    Many parts on the LX platform cars (Magnum, Charger, and 300) are from the Mercedes Parts bin. There's more parts shared in other cars too.

    You're correct the turn signals, cruise control, and wiper stalks are straight out of a Benz. The EVIC (electronic vehicle info centre) on those cars and the Grand Cherokees that scrolls through fuel economy, programmable door locks, etc are also from Mercedes.

    Not to mention a whole car was pillaged from the Mercedes Benz obsolete parts bin and rebadged a Chrysler.

    Anyone care to remember the Crossfire? It will probably have the same "classic" status as the modern T Bird.

    2007 BMW 328i Sports Pkg, 1993 Honda Accord EXR (my 33rd car).

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,577
    I knew immediately that the Crossfire was doomed. WAY too expensive for a Chrysler coupe of modest power and questionable styling. You are right, they made the same *exact* errors as Ford did with the new T-Bird.

    MODERATOR

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,587
    I remember when the Crossfire first came out, I went down the local dealer to look at it. It had a $10K ADM... I am pretty sure I laughed out loud.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,577
    Consider the grim reality that someone probably paid it. :(

    MODERATOR

  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,587
    I remember they were doing the same for the PT Cruiser too...in 2000 a loaded one would bring nearly 30K!
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 28,017
    Couple of member recently report paying $17K-$18K for new '08 Crossfires... with $38K MSRPs... :surprise:

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • fezofezo Posts: 9,328
    The bonus version of the Worst cars of the year list. Same cars but in the Car and Driver version you get all the reader comments. Some are great! Heck, there's even a guy in there claiming that the Mustang II wasn't bad. Yes it was. Monstrously so.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,577
    Yeah and there are people who think Hitler was misunderstood, too. :P

    MODERATOR

  • texasestexases Posts: 5,537
    Here's what she said (from an alternate car universe):
    'Well, I guess I'm one of the "most socially inept enthusiasts," because I still love my Mustang II...and yes, it is the "despicable 1975 Mustang II Ghia notchback coupe with the half-vinyl roof!" Sure, it never had any power...but, it's still the most stylish car in the parking lot whenever I go to the supermarket!"
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,577
    Depends where you shop I guess.

    MODERATOR

  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 28,017
    Wow.... this really takes me back..

    My first new car was a '77 Mustang Cobra II with a 302-V8.. For '77, it was very quick.. But.. .probably the worst piece of crap ever produced.. By the time I sold it in 1982, with still under 50K, it was totally worn out..

    On another note, my girlfriend had one of the Mustang II Ghias with the landau roof.. White over red.. She sure was cute..

    The girl.. not the car.. :surprise:

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • gussguss Posts: 1,181
    I can't believe I am sticking up fot the '97 Malibu, but it was not a bad car.

    Back in '97 I had a choice for a company car . It was between a Taurus, Intrepid and a Contour. I went with the Malibu because it was totally new and seemed closest to being a Accord beater than anything Detroit ever made.

    Well, it was boring. It did not do anything great, but it did not do anything badly either. The v-6 was adequate, for 5 hp more than the 4 though it made a huge difference .

    It did like to eat lower control arms. I think I had them replaced 4 times in 60k miles.

    But as far as worst cars ever, no it does not belong on that list.
  • corvettecorvette United StatesPosts: 4,092
    The V6 had a good bit more torque than the four, which didn't hurt either. And, it was quieter. The four-cylinder was GM's Quad Four, which was regularly pilloried for its lack of refinement. Doubt it will be a future classic, though.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,537
    I agree, Malibu wasn't a bad car. The article was about how it shouldn't have gotten a 'car of the year' type of award.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,909
    I had a 2001 Malibu for a rental once. I didn't really like it, but it seemed okay for a rental car. The 3.1 V-6, which was up to around 170 hp by that time, was good for, say, a 0-60 launch, but didn't like higher-speed passing on the interstate. It was too plasticky inside for my tastes, and I think there was a squeak and rattle here and there. I also remember that when I closed the trunk lid, I could see the rear seatback jiggle.

    When I bought my 2000 Intrepid in November 1999, I looked at a few Malibus they had on the lot (it was a Chevy/Dodge/Isuzu dealer). They also had a 2000 Dodge Stratus that I looked at, and a couple 2000 Impalas. I liked the Stratus. It was about the same price as the Intrepid, but better equipped (sunroof, alloy wheels, a few extra things inside, etc). But I preferred the Intrepid's size, plus it had an engine that was both more powerful (200 hp versus around 165) and more economical (20/29 versus something like 19/27). I also didn't like the fact that the Stratus used a Mitsubishi 2.5 V-6, although in retrospect, I hear that turned out to be a pretty decent engine. I remember the Malibu just seemed cheap in comparison to either of those two, although the ones on the lot were a couple thousand $ less. The only Impalas were loaded LS models stickering around $25-26K, and they just didn't seem worth it to me. Plus I didn't like the Impala's cramped back seat (I don't care what the published specs say, it's CRAMPED!), high beltline, or interior design. I know a guy who drives a Dodge shouldn't rag on GM's interiors, but I swear the Intrepid, and Stratus, had much nicer interiors than the Malibu or Impala! Funny how these days it's just the opposite. GM has really gotten their act together with interior quality, while Mopar started slipping.

    I think for 1997 standards the car was a giant leap forward, especially compared to cars like the Chevy Lumina and the Corsica. And by 1997 standards, it probably stacked up well to the foreign competition. The Camry, which was new for 1997, seemed cheapened compared to the 1992-96 model. I think the 1994-97 Accord was a bit nicer than the Malibu...but it's not like it blew it out of the water or anything.

    But suddenly, it was 1998 and a new, improved Accord came out. Then we got a new Camry and Altima for 2002 and yet another Accord for 2003.

    GM has a habit of doing that...coming out with a car that seems as good as what the competition is offering, maybe even better in some respects, but then suddenly the competition redesigns and improves, and GM is left with a has-been. It happened with the first Saturn S-series. Happened with the 1997 Malibu. The 2008 Malibu seems like a nice change, but I hope it's not just a repeat of this cycle.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,587
    I always thought the Malibu was benchmarked on the 1994 Accord and to a lesser extent the Camry of the same period. The bad part about that is that the Camry was renewed in 1997, and a very new Accord was introduced for 1998. Simply benchmarking the current models of the competition is never a good idea - by the time the Malibu hit the street, it was indeed a has-been. And then GM made the thing for way too long, in a fit of arrogance and shortsightedness.

    I remember a Malibu rental from that time too...the "hot" light was on the whole time, the radio didn't work, and the materials seemed pretty cheesy.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,577
    You hit it right on the head. Detroit is always designing against the competitors LAST model, and no sooner do they do so successfully, then the competition rolls out the next generation, vastly improved. A good older example of this was the Cadillac Allante, which was designed against the already totally obsolete Mercedes 560SL.

    MODERATOR

  • gussguss Posts: 1,181
    at the time I think Motor Trend broke their Car into Import Car of the Year and Domestic Car of the Year. I agree the Malibu did not deserve an award, but in the context of 1997 it was one of the best new domestic offerings.

    What else was substantially new that could of beat the Malibu? The Chrysler triplets Cirrus,Stratus,Breeze were not better,and Fords Contour/Mystique would probably be tied with the Malibu.

    Would the C-5 Corvette have been out by then ? If so, then mistakes were made.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 28,017
    1997 was first year for C5

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,909
    The Chrysler "cloud cars" came out for 1995, as did the Contour/Mystique, so neither of them would have been eligible for "Car of the Year".

    The Pontiac Grand Prix and Buick Century/Regal were new for 1997. I have more respect for those cars than I do the 1997 Malibu. But other than that and the C5 Corvette, I don't think there was really anything new on the domestic front.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    I had a 1995 Accord. I test drove a 1998 in Feb,1998 and traded in 95 immediately. The 1998 V6 EX or LX was great improvement over a very excellent 95 model. Every mfr was and still is chasing the Honda "standard".
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,192
    I read that Chevy will discontinue the Cobalt SS. This is another example GM killing a model after they finally get it right. The SS, which is available as a sedan for '09, in addition to the coupe which was introduced in '08, is generally regarded as the best Cobalt model, by a wide margin.

    This begs the question, then, of whether the Cobalt SS will one day be a collectible. It's fast, handles well, and relatively few of them will have been made before it goes out of production.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,577
    Well it's an "interesting" car, and it goes like stink, so my feeling is that ANY car that goes fast will be somewhat collectible to someone, just for the fun value.

    But the Cobalt SS does not possess a number of important traits that any "strong collectible" should have---a) loved when new by many people b) prestigious or iconic image; c) interesting or attractive styling. The only attribute it DOES have is "performance or interesting engineering".

    MODERATOR

  • corvettecorvette United StatesPosts: 4,092
    I can't imagine that developing a Cruze SS with a higher-boost turbo, revised suspension, larger brakes/wheels/tires, and body kit would cost that much. But, when you're on the dole, every expenditure will be scrutinized by the public.

    If GM and Chrysler become American Leyland (government owned), they'll probably kill off anything remotely exciting, including the Corvette.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Posts: 1,653
    The Corvette is an American icon. I can't imagine that it would get the ax when there are so many other easy targets.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 44,577
    It would never "get the ax". What would happen in the worst scenario is that the Corvette name would be sold off to a private concern that would continue building them.

    This is probably what is going to happen to Viper---which sells only about 1/3 as many cars as Corvette.

    MODERATOR

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,192
    The other thing that could happen to the Corvette if it remains a Chevy model is that GM may not allocate resources to introduce the next generation of this iconic model. I sure hope this won't happen, but it wouldn't be surprising if that's what happens.
  • oregonboyoregonboy Posts: 1,653
    I don't think that it would be the end of the world to let the 'vette "coast" for a few years with only detail improvements. The current generation is pretty highly regarded. Does it really need to be any faster? :shades:
Sign In or Register to comment.