Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
There's a light blue I've seen on the Corvette, called "Carlisle Blue", I think, that I really like. Not really a traditional sports car color, but I still think it's pretty eye-catching.
But it doesn't look right on certain cars. Cruze yes, Corvette no.
But it doesn't look right on certain cars. Cruze yes, Corvette no.
I always thought a white Corvette convertible with bright red interior was a great combination. I had a 96 Vette with Camel interior, and it was pleasing, but I think I would have enjoyed it more if the interior had been red.
I wonder if they'll start doing matte colors on the 'Vette? Gunmetal grey looks pretty good in matte.
I like that or Jetstream Blue also.
Regards,
OW
I like something on a Corvette that doesn't scream "Hey, look here! I'm a Corvette!!!".
To me, that's bright red or bright yellow, mostly, that would do that.
I gotta say, I miss red interiors in cars though. I'd probably have to go with white to get that, though...no exterior red for me.
A coworker and I were working in Nashville in '06, on a really boring job, and we played hooky one day by going to Bowling Green for a tour. I called them and they said the last tour was in an hour and we made it! Fun tour, cheap, and the Corvette Museum next door was neat and that was where folks were picking up their new cars via 'factory delivery'. There was a mural about GM designer Bill Mitchell and I liked how it included that he grew up in my tiny hometown of Greenville, PA, too.
We also played hooky once by taking off for an afternoon tour of Jack Daniel distillery. That's a great tour even if you don't drink and all the employees were very polite there.
There's a regular that eats breakfast at the same place I do, and he owns a hideous yellow Corvette with a white removable top. I don't know the model year, not that it would make any difference.
My 328 convertible is Sapphire black with red leather interior, and I really do like the way it looks.
I think both black and white exterior colors sort of "sap" some of the high energy out of the red interior, creating a bit of balance and equilibrium.
Like you, I think my days of owning red exterior cars is over, unless someone makes me a deal I simply can't refuse. Never say never...
Last I heard Lynchburg was still in a dry county so there's no free samples anyway.
Should have tried for a Saturn tour back in the day.
Oh come on, if there's anything designed specifically for obnoxious "look at me!" colors it's a Corvette!
I think they should offer Garrulous Green Metallic, Obnoxious Orange Metallic, Boisterous Blue Metallic, Rambunctious Red Metallic, Vociferous Violet Metallic, Bawdy Black Metallic, and of course Wild White Pearl Metallic. :shades:
There's just all kinds of fun that can be had with car color names. :shades:
link title
There is no way an Edsel was any worse than anything else offered at the time, and I'm squinting hard to see those panel gaps in the Saturn Ion pic but can't quite see them. My younger B-I-L has one and they never complain about it. I do dislike the instrument cluster look.
I'll take dent-resistant panels to micro-panel gaps anytime. I wish they were available today. And they hold up, based on the 20-plus year old vans and Camaros I see today in rusty NE OH. The same can't be said for same-age anything else.
The Mustang II and the Cimarron, like them or not, were not bad quality cars of their era, either. If you were there then, you know that.
Based on their criteria, I'd put the Cube, Juke, and original Element on the list.
Over on the Studebaker Drivers' Club forum, we routinely mock lists of this ilk--no one ever tries to post them as an authoritative list....only here.
Everytime GM gets bad scores, you routinely dismiss whatever criteria it is based on.
The fact is since C-11 rescue, GM has LOST market share. No smoke and mirrors.
Regards,
OW
On Monday, Toyota said that it sold a record 9.75 million vehicles last year. Detroit-based General Motors Co. sold 9.29 million vehicles over the same period.
GM had been the top-selling automaker for more than seven decades before losing the title to Toyota in 2008. GM retook the sales crown in 2011, when Toyota's production was hurt by the quake and tsunami in northeastern Japan.
This FACT is directly related to how GM remains trapped in it's own diseases internally despite the blind loyalty some wish to bestow on a lost leader.
Regards,
OW
Thought I'd give the old gang a hello. Just purchased another GM product to replace my 2000 Grand Prix GTP that was totaled a few weeks back with a 2003 Grand Prix GTP with 21K. Got the deal of the decade on it and will be here this week. :shades:
-Rocky
The Edsel definitely had its problems, but I think the biggest reason it failed was simply that it was conceived in more optimistic times, when everybody thought the prosperity would go on forever, but by the time it was launched, the economy was in recession, the middle-price market was too crowded, and buyers were starting to shun cars with big, powerful, thirsty engines.
I've heard that quality was bad on them, because they didn't have a dedicated assembly plant. Rather, the smaller models were built on a sped-up Ford assembly line, while the bigger ones, like the Corsair, were built on a sped-up Mercury assembly line. The result was that they were typically built more sloppy than an equivalent Ford or Mercury. Supposedly that Speed-Racer type "Teletouch" electric pushbutton transmission control was troubleprone as well.
Standard engine on the Ford-based models was a 361 with 303 hp. On the bigger models, they used a monstrous 410 CID unit with 345 hp. Consumer Reports tested an Edsel (forget the series), but at the time, they said it was the fastest car they had ever tested at that point, in 0-60 at least. Now granted, CR didn't test things like Chrysler 300 Letter Series cars, Dodge D-501s, Fuelie Corvettes, and so on. So no doubt, there were faster cars out there. But, at their price point, I think the Edsels might have been the most powerful cars out there at the time. For instance, in 1958, Buick's most powerful cars only had 300 hp. Olds topped out at 312. Desoto topped out at 305 in its mass-produced cars, although the Adventurer got 345 hp out of a 361, 355 with fuel injection. Chrysler's much more expensive New Yorker, priced about $600-700 more than the top Edsel (and back when $600-700 was a lot of money!) got the same 345 hp, out of a 392 Hemi.
I think Ford got caught with their pants down earlier in the 1950's, with regards to the mid-priced field, but by the time they got serious about it, they were building exactly the type of car the public did NOT want. Mercury had a similar problem, fielding cars that were big, heavy, and thirsty. Top engine in a Mercury for '58 was a 430 with 400 hp! Sounds great today, but I imagine trying to sell one of those in 1958 was about as much fun as trying to sell a big-block anything in 1974
Congratulations. Good to see you post here. Come back more often.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Seems like people complain that GM focuses on volume, then complain even more when they don't!
So basically GM is junk/dying/on its way out is it's not in first place.
But GM is doing mostly fleet sales, which it shouldn't be doing as fleet sales are a sign of weakness/the same old thing/don't make a profit...
Essentially GM sucks no matter what it does, in your mind.
Far worse things out there than an Edsel (I wouldn't kick a mint loaded senior Edsel out of my garage) or Ion. The Aztek wasn't even terrible as a vehicle, just terrible looking.
Don't forget the front end design that many thought looked like part of the female anatomy, which was compounded in that most car buying decisions back then were made by men.
Lots of jokes were made about that front end design...
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/0,28757,1658545,00.html
Even more disturbing, is that GM almost took some inspiration from the Edsel! Before the all-new 1959 models came out, GM was planning on getting one more year out of the '58 models. For Chevy, they were thinking in terms of a "central theme", along the lines of the Edsel's grille, or the Tucker's third headlight.
Maye it's a good thing that the '58 body wasn't used one more year! I thought the '58 Chevy was actually quite handsome, and it's kind of hard to imagine GM screwing it up. But then, look at the '58 Olds and Buick, compared to the '57 models, which were the same basic design.
Took a look. What were they thinking. Could be the children or grandchildren of the stylists for the 1958 models did the Pontiac Aztek in more recent times.
On 58 Olds and Buick, wonder if these are on lists of 10, or 50 worst styled cars of all time. Seeing the last post mentioning "gruesome", the word "grotesque" comes to mind when looking at the Buick, Olds.
It became a punch line, but owners actually liked them. Problem is, there were too few of those.
Even the Aztek wasn't a total loser. It begat the Buick Rendezvous, which was fairly popular for a few years, and a lot easier on the eye.
My guess is they are cheap to buy.
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130128/OEM01/130129906#ixzz2JJHObWcf
Oddly these are usually accompanied by xxx,xxx jobs created, so I wonder if the automation will actually displace jobs?
No, GM is continuing to loose market share regardless of being 1st or 2nd place.
But GM is doing mostly fleet sales, which it shouldn't be doing as fleet sales are a sign of weakness/the same old thing/don't make a profit...
No, 27%-30% are fleet sales. Imagine their market share without it. In addition, their profit margins do not lead.
Essentially GM sucks no matter what it does, in your mind.
No, GM sucks regardless of what is in my mind. Some refuse to admit the facts that point to GM not being a leader at really anything! :P
Regards,
OW
I've seen these in the same driveways for many, many years. I'm guessing original owners as I remember commenting they must have been the only two sold in greater Boston.
That's the way I read it. The investment is in a new paint shop and press to replace the existing ones.
Nobody likes people losing jobs. The problem is that keeping more people on than needed ruins your competitiveness vs. other companies. And then you fail and people lose jobs, anyway.
Let's hope GM works to improve their inefficiency. That saved labor could go into better quality vehicles, or maybe just being profitable...