Howdy, Stranger!

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





General Motors discussions

13940424445930

Comments

  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    I understand your confusion. You are a long time poster here, and GM bodies have been discussed extensively before. I have never liked the letter designations though, as they only group a set of cars together and do not identify a platform. So I have always said the Aurora platform when I was discussing the 1995 FWD platform used for the 95 Aurora and Riviera. In 1997 the Buick Park Avenue was moved to this platform with some upgrades. In 1998 the Seville moved onto this platform with a shorter wheelbase. I think that the Seville was also upgraded from the Park Avenue version. In 2000 the Bonneville and LeSabre was moved onto the same wheelbase as the Seville, but I think that they got a lighter weight version of the platform. The 2000 Deville got a longer wheelbase version and was probably similar to the Seville for refinement.

    So, what I am getting at is that the 95 Aurora platform was developed into 3 distinct grades of refinement. I think the old B & C body names were GM's way of lumping similar body designs into a set of manuals for repair purposes. However, the letters do not mean much regarding a platform. The Park Avenue up to 1985 was RWD, from 1985 to 1990 it was a first generation FWD platform. In 1991 the Park Avenue was restyled and I think the platform was upgraded some. From 1997 forward, the Park Avenue was on the 95 Aurora platform. I do not know if any of these platforms had a name other than C-body and then G-body.
  • What so you mean generic?

    I'm not sure that is a complete sentence, but we'll leave that issue for another forum.

    What I mean by generic was probably best expressed by my business friend who said:
    "They all look like jelly beans. You can have cheap little jelly beans. Or big expensive jelly beans. But they look like jelly beans. Boring".

    If you like the repetitive jelly bean look of Toyota products, then that is your privilege. Certainly there are some worse looking cars. And certainly some better.

    Jelly beans are fine - but not for my personal vehicle.
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    Well the one thing that I will say about the Asians (and even the European makes) is although they may have bland styling, at least they don't have many truly ugly cars.

    Huh?

    Honda Ridgeline. Honda Element. Toyota Yaris. Toyota Echo. Toyota LandCruiser. The Scion XB. This forthcoming Toyota FJ thing. Nissan 350Z. Nissan Versa. Fiat Multipla. Almost every one of the Kei cars deemed even by the Japanese too ugly to export to the US. Renault Megane. That square Benz truck that Dodge imports as a Swift. The Bangle Butt BMW 7 and 5 Series.

    These are all butt ugly cars. And this is only off the top of my head.
  • martianmartian Posts: 220
    a pretty good looking car! By then end of the line (2004) they had gotten pretty much all of the bugs out, and the version with the 3.5 liter engine was quite reliable.
    Again, the shame of GM-just when they get a product right, they kill the line. I was looking for a late-model Aurora, ans they were hard to find..imagine how much money GM would have saved if they just kept the Aurora going as a Buick! :blush:
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    I've never owned one and don't work for them but that new Camry is a good looking car!

    Agreed. Avalon and Prius look good also as do many Lexi.

    Last Aurora was nice looking. Too bad it could not have been saved and then evolved, if not Olds name, in some other GM division.

    GM is doing better than in recent past and has some nice styled cars, but still too many such as Malibu, Monte Carlo, Aveo, Lucerne, Grand Prix, GTO, that are not.

    Ford, Chrysler and GM do have a number of cars with good styling. Europeans, such as Audi and VW, are going backwards in styling. As example, latest issue of Automobile has picture of Audi A8, with drooping mouth tongue-out front end with heavy vertical bars. Not much they could add to add more grossness except perhaps mount a set of steer horns on front of hood. Maybe Audi thinks that ugly is in and "bland" and "elegance" are passe. Another example of gross is big Mercedes S sedan with dramatized front and rear fender lines, kind of like a Mitsubishi SUV.
  • squeaksqueak Posts: 1
    I doubt it! The quality is not getting better.Another thing,i was comparing the silverado and f150 on edmunds, and ford rated and tested better and i dont see where gm is slashing sticker prices??? Anyone have more info on the price slashing,atleast on the trucks.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    Well, the RX-8 and Mini aren't jellybeans, nosiree. It's definately possible if you have the desire and get the hell out of the way of the artists and designers and let them do what they fell is best.

    The FJ is a great example - virutally identical to the concept model. Toyota has a Wrangler and Xterra killer on its hands. The RX-8 is, well, it's a $30K car for $25K if you haggle that blows away most of the competition in driving and looks. And, no, it's not a true sportscar like the 350Z, despite its looks. It's a coupe looking sports sedan that does 90% of that the Z does. Heh.

    So there are good examples.

    The easy way to pick a winner? If it can be rented, pass on it. Every last car built for fleets is a compromise-designed jellybean. Just say no to fleet models and you'll be fine.
  • gsemikegsemike Long Island, NYPosts: 1,778
    "the shame of GM-just when they get a product right, they kill the line"

    The shame of it is that they put cars out thinking that they've got a couple of years to get it right.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    "And how is Fiat's good fortune good for GM"

    That basically, it's possible for a company to run itself into the ground in its home market, but save itself before dying completely.
  • irnmdnirnmdn Posts: 240
    Lutz's finger prints are all over the GTO
    Slapping Grand Am front-end on Holden Murano was Bob's brilliant idea. It single handedly kick started neo-muscle car resurgence of 00s;)
  • kodenamekodename Posts: 141
    "It single handedly kick started neo-muscle car resurgence of 00s;)"

    HUH?...the GTO?...Not even close.(maybe your joking?)

    With January and February traditionally slow sales months, it seems like GM is going way overboard advertising on prime time TV. Tonight (Sunday) it seemed like all the major networks were airing those "Chevy sells more cars than any other brand" ads, along with the "we've lowered prices on all our models" ads. Is that a wise choice of spending ad dollars? I'm asking because who else runs an extensive ad program during what is actually the slowest time of the year? If results are what counts(we all know they are) I guess the January-February sales figures will tell the tale. Bill C.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Yeah, I know. Funny how the GTO is not a bad car, yet it meet a certain fate the way it was introduced. Why did they not drop one of the loser divisions, and add Holdens as imports, perhaps sold through Saturn. Yeah, no Pontiac nose required. And no, the GTO was not an Australian car. The car is OK, but not the nameplate and marketing ( price ). The Corvette engine belongs on Corvettes. A good Holden selling with a V8 at under $30K, as an import may be a good thing. Should be sold alongside the Opel line.

    A muscles car is more like the Mustang, which is to cram a large engine in an existing car, and add some sporty theme to it. The Holden car won't sell well in the $35K plus range, as there are too many others to choose from.

    Maybe Mr. Lutz should have re-introduced the 2000 Camaro SS. Now that is a muscular car. Maybe Bob will do something brilliant and amaze one and all ! Is he suppose to be that good? Taking GM designs out of the doldrums is a rather lofty task indeed. How long has the old boy been at GM during this latest effort with this company?

    Loren
  • sensaisensai Posts: 129
    The Corvette engine belongs on Corvettes. A good Holden selling with a V8 at under $30K, as an import may be a good thing.

    Wait, so getting a 400hp Corvette engine on the current GTO/Holden for just over 30k is a bad thing :confuse:
  • irnmdnirnmdn Posts: 240
    Maybe Bob will do something brilliant and amaze one and all !
    If Bob resigns before getting fired will amaze us all.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The muscle cars of the early 60's started with the GTO, which was then a midsize car with a performance tuned full sized car engine. The Mustang was Ford's idea for a cheap coupe with flashy styling. It was not a Muscle car, but did offer a small V8 as an option. I do not recall if the big V8 was an option on the first Mustang's or not. GM introduced the Firebird and Camaro to compete with the Mustang and they were similar cars with a six standard and a small V8 optional. I think that they probably started the big V8 option.

    The current GTO is a basic Holden product as sold in Australia, including the "Corvette" engine. The Monaro's changes to make it a GTO are the Pontiac grill and other modifications to meet US standards. The Corvette engine was already standard.
  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    Not quite. The Holden Monaro comes with the 5.7L LS1 from the late Camaro as the top-end optional engine (thus the 2004 GTO also had it). The 2005 GTO got the Corvette's 6.0L LS2 to boost sales, but if you want the LS2 in Australia you have to go to HSV (Holden Special Vehicles- a semi-affiliated performance house, sorta like AMG before MB took them in).
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,382
    Early Mustangs had a 260 or 265 v8. Then 1967 had a 289 v8 and in that period a Shelby version had larger motors and were available in limited quantities. Then it was off the races. The Camaroes in 1968 had a 350 cu in motor.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    While the tuning may be slightly different, the 5.7 Holden engine is very similar to the Corvette V8. It is true that Holden is still using the 5.7 instead of the 6.
  • sls002sls002 Posts: 2,788
    The early Mustangs had only a small block V8. I think that the Camaro also started with a small block V8 as an option. At some point the big block V8s were available.

    Someone has dropped a V8 into the Solstice.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,382
    For 64-64 the 260 was the Mustang's 8 and a six was available. In 66 the 289 was offered. In 1967 the 390 was available. In 1968 the 428 was available and in 1969 the Boss 429 was available.

    For the Camaro 1967 was the first year with the largest motor the 396 and the 302 was in a Z-28. In 1969 the 425 was available in certain versions.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 34,003
    Wasn't the 289 available in 65? I know the earlies had the 260. Before I could drive I found an untouched 63.5 Falcon Sprint with a 260 in it...I was quite smitten with the car but couldn't convince the owner to part with it. It was very cool, red on red, very straight but in need of serious detailing. I could have brought it back to life.

    302 replaced the 289 in 68 I believe...my dad's 68 Fairlane had a 289, but there was a local old lady original owner of a 68 Torino (the year Torino was the top Fairlane trim level) with a 302. 351 came out around 69 too IIRC, I am pretty sure those made it into Mustangs. The Bullitt car was a 390 IIRC.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,196
    ...that Caroll Shelby isn't in some way involved with the new Mustang. I'm sure a Shelby version of the new Mustang would really be desirable.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,382
    I was just listing the big motors in response to the earlier post. I used the list from Musclecars.com

    http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-timeline.shtml

    I had a 302 or whatever in a 70 Mustang. Real dog because of attempts at pollution control with retarded time at low motor speed/idle.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    The Corvette engine belongs on Corvettes. A good Holden selling with a V8 at under $30K, as an import may be a good thing.

    Wait, so getting a 400hp Corvette engine on the current GTO/Holden for just over 30k is a bad thing


    reply:

    Yes. I guess they could lower the price on the Corvette to say $34,999. If you are paying best, it should be exclusive the car it was designed for. You should not expect Neiman Marcus quality at Wal Mart prices.

    Loren
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Yes, I owned a 289 V8 Stang of the 1965 model year.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla MarylandPosts: 701
    Is this a 1960's Muscle Car forum or a 2006 GM Styling forum?

    Come on people, discussing the merits of muscle cars is fine, if you debate whether it will be good for GM or not.

    :mad:
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,065
    I'm not sure, but I think the "1964.5" Mustang only had a 170 CID inline 6 standard, with a 260 CID V-8 optional. The 260 put out around 164 hp, and I think the 170 had around 120. When the "proper" 1965 models came out, I think the 200-inline six was standard, and a 289 optional, with both a 2- and 4-bbl. I'd have to dig out my auto encyclopedia to be sure, and I'm not in the mood right now! :P
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,065
    but I went car shopping with one of my buddies today, and he narrowed it down to an Xterra and an Equinox. Now, here's the real shocker...the Equinox actually impressed him well enough that he doesn't know which one to go with!

    We went to the Nissan dealer first, because he's really smitten with the Xterra. He and the salesguy went out together, while I just hung around the lot. My friend came back from the drive, really in love with it.

    Well, just to give it a fair chance, we went to a Chevy dealer next and checked out an Equinox. My buddy has always liked them, ever since they came out, but just kind of forgot about it once he started noticing the Xterra. I had a feeling that the Xterra was going to make the Equinox look like a total piece of crap, but surprisingly, that didn't happen!

    I rode along on the test drive with the Equinox, and afterwards really wished I had with the Xterra as well, so I could have compared them better. Anyway, when it comes to stuff like interior quality, fit and finish, etc, Nissan really has nothing over Chevy. Orange peel is just as bad, the fit of the body panels is no better, there's just as much hard plastic inside, etc. Actually, I think I liked the Equinox a bit better, because the fabric on the seats was nicer, and it also had matching fabric on the door panels, where the Xterra was just a mix of soft and hard plastics.

    When we went for the drive, the 3.4 V-6 didn't sound nearly as noisy or unsophisticated as I expected it to, and the 5-speed automatic tranny seemed to shift just fine. It had adequate power, and even merging onto a highway with 3 of us on board seemed fine. I'm sure the Xterra was better in this regard, but the Equinox was still nothing to be embarrassed about.

    Now, the Equinox wasn't without its faults. For one thing, I wasn't overly impressed with the fact that it had drum brakes on the back. Even on the LT model, which was supposedly upscale. And I see what other posters have commented about, with the poor layout of the cargo area. It seems like the suspension/strut area robs a lot of cargo space. Just eyeballing it, the Xterra seemed like it had a better cargo area.

    As for interior comfort, the Xterra seemed wider, but the Equinox had better legroom, both front and rear. The Xterra was adequate for me, but the Equinox seemed downright generous, and there aren't many vehicles I say that about! Also, while the Xterra was better in the back seat than its published dimensions might suggest, the wheel cutouts and door openings made it hard to get into and out of.

    Oh, and the Equinox had a nicer color selection! :surprise: And slightly better EPA estimates. (18/24 versus 16/21 IIRC) But then the Xterra had a better warranty, something like 5yr/60K miles on the powertrain and 3yr/36K on everything else, while the Equinox was just 3/36 for EVERYTHING.

    As for price, both stickered in the $26K range. Without even trying, the Chevy guy said we could get the Equinox for around $23K. We really didn't talk price much on the Xterra, although they had a $500 rebate and $500 markdown, which brought it into the $25K range. I'm sure both could be had for less, but I doubt they'd come down a whole lot more on the Xterra since they're a hotter item.

    In the end, my buddy just doesn't know which one he wants. For him, the Xterra still has the coolness factor going for it. But his practical side is leaning toward the Equinox, and in his opinion, it's still "cool" enough!

    I'll keep you guys posted!
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    A new Camaro retro style, if done in high production levels, and sold in a price range of the Stang, could help GM more, IMHO, than an overpriced specialty car selling for $35K or more. It would say Chevy is back as the Heartbeat of America, instead of a car for the elite classes. That said, yes, GM could style and price cars for very high price, making new models like a New Camaro in very high HP and all the goodies, selling them to the richer amongst us. But, this also means a much smaller GM. If they want to lower production levels, and sell fewer cars at higher prices, that is fine by me. It may count me out, but if they think it represents a new GM, and a profitable one, then that is fine. Personally, I don't see it working. The GTO and overpriced convertible truck, did not work out too swiftly for GM. I DO think GM could sell Camaro for a slightly higher price than the Stang if they put a really good engine, like the CTS engine in V6 3.6 liter form. Decent HP, and more upscale than the Mustang. Sell this car for $21K, on up, with only the basics in the car, like disc brakes and air conditioning and leave the other stuff as an upgrade pkg. for $3K additional cost. Add a V8 as well for somewhere around $5K which includes the upgrade package. Make this car relatively small, and light weight. And for heavens sake, drop the door window sills down a few inches so I can hang an elbow out. Offer a third package with a V8 of 350HP, and leave the 400HP one for the Corvette. Personally, I would like a Vette with the V6.

    :shades: Loren
This discussion has been closed.