Cars That Could Have Been Great, But Missed

andre1969 · April 2010

The Fairmont was basically just next in line of Ford's compacts, replacing the Maverick. It was meant to compete with the likes of the Nova, Aspen/Volare, etc., although since GM downsized their intermediates that same year, it competed with them a bit too.

Ford really didn't have an answer to the Honda Accord at the time, unless you want to count the Pinto. They were both subcompacts, but that's about where the similarities ended.

Although marketed as a compact, the Fairmont WAS big enough to pass of as an intermediate. The 1981-82 Granada/Cougar and '83-86 small LTD/Marquis were basically Fairmonts with nicer interiors and more pretentious (Granada) or modern-looking (LTD) sheetmetal.

The Fairmont was a hot seller when it came out for 1978, and popular enough that they were often in short supply. Unfortunately, they were also plagued with recalls. I think they got sorted out for 1979, but then when the FWD Citation came out as a 1980 model in April 1979, it suddenly made every old-school RWD domestic compact look obsolete. And by 1980, people were afraid to buy Fords and Mopars for fear of being stuck with an orphan (it was a bigger concern with Mopar, but Ford wasn't too far behind) while GM was still in that stage where they could do no wrong in the public's eye.

The Fairmont had its good points, though. I think it was considered a decent handler for the time. It was fairly space-efficient, although suffered from a huge driveshaft/tranny hump and oddly shaped, shallow trunk. And thanks to its light weight, it would get good economy and performance with the right engine, and could make do with smaller engines than, most of its competition. I think a 1978 Fairmont started around 2500 lb, while a 1979 Nova was probably more like 3300-3400.

Unfortunately, the "good" engines went away pretty quickly. I think you could only get the 302 in 1978-79. There was a tiny 112 hp 255 V-8 offered a couple years that sucked in the bigger cars, but might not have been too horrible in a Fairmont. I think most Fairmonts just had the 88 hp 200 straight six, although you could also get the 2.3 Pinto 4. The straight-six was reliable, if dull. I imagine these cars were pretty quick with a 302.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2010

GM had horrific labor problems at the Vega plant. Legendary. Heaven knows what went on in there.

hpmctorque · April 2010

I don't know whether the Fairmont/Zephyr were designed to compete with the Volvo, but one of the leading car mags featured a Fairmont in Euro trim (don't recall what they called that trim level) and a Volvo on the cover. The gist of the feature article was that the 4 cylinder Fairmont with 4-on-the-floor was the American Volvo. Those that was that you now, finally, could get a domestic Volvo-like car for less money. The problem with that Ford I-4, though, is that it was a real slug, even at that time. Not that the 4 cylinder Volvo was quick, because it surely wasn't, but it could blow the doors off of the 2.3 Fairmont.

I think it was kind of a stretch to compare the Fairmont with the Volvo. Each had its good and not-so-good points.

I also second everything that andre wrote about the Fairmont. I guess the Fairmont competed against a broader spectrum of compact and mid side cars than either the Maverick or the Granada. I think the fairmont was better than either of those Ford cars. I also think the best engine choice was the 200 c.i. I-6 because the I-4 had no performance, even with a manual, and the V8 made the car front end heavy, compromising handling. Ford must have recognized that issue, because while the weight distribution of the '85-86 LTD V8 was probably similar to that of the Fairmont V8, the LTD handled somewhat better.

sooththetruth · May 2010

I bought an 86 XR4Ti, and I have NEVER bought another Ford, but the real reason is that the love affair burned hot. The car was fast for it's time, roomy, drove like a sports car, and was a hatchback, making it super practical.

The radio was junk, the rotors were made of aluminum, and the pads and rotors had to be micrometered into place, or the rotors would warp in 2000 miles from the uneven heat build up if not aligned perfectly. Initial brakes lasted 17,000 miles, and then under warranty the brakes were replaced every 2,500 miles, and I was driving the car with unsafe brakes for the last 500 miles before the repair.

The rotors were aluminum to keep the weight down. The turbocharged 4 cylinder had a check engine light turn on every 2,000 miles. The warranty was 36,000 miles, and at 34,000 I sold the car, at a dramatic loss in value.

I drove it on long trips, and it was my first experience with a German built sports car, as it was build in Cologne, Germany. THAT part of the car was a religious experience.

What can I say, 10/10 times I would have bought that car after I experienced the first drive at the dealership, and took it out on the highway.

I wrote to Ford to complain, and they gave me a $1000 dollar coupon for my next Ford, if I were to buy one within a year. Let's see, that car was purchased in 1986, and I have never bought another Ford, because it's the only way to let them know the cost of bringing out a car so poorly designed.

I know that Ford is NOT the same company it was in 1986, but I haven't the stomach to buy another...yet. But I won't say I'll never again buy a Ford, only that it was the passion the car evoked that made the cliff so high when I realized what the company had done to me.

omarman · May 2010

under warranty the brakes were replaced every 2,500 miles

Just curious. The dealer replaced the brakes on your XR4Ti for free? 6 or 7 times? Was this a warranty issue or a maintenance plan regarding all the brake work?

Seems like if it was a brake design defect that kept recurring within the 36K warranty then could there have been a lemon law resolution instead of a $1000 coupon?

fintail · May 2010

It's weird that the XR4Ti was so problematic here, but it (Sierra) was eventually loved in Europe. The content of the cars must have been completely different.

sooththetruth · May 2010

I honestly don't think the lemon laws in Ohio went into effect until after that time, and yes, my brakes were replaced 6 times under warranty. :lemon: And just to make things worse, at the time Ford demanded that warranty work be done at the dealership the car was purchased at, and it was 45 minutes from my home. There were no loaners, so I would have to beg someone to pick me up, and drop me off, because they never once did the job while I waited.

The Sierra in Europe was a 6 cylinder car, and was sold for it's spaciousness and practicality, not for sport. The Sierra did not have the Aluminum rotors, nor any turbocharger. It did not have the side cladding, nor the large double wing on the back. It shared some sheet metal, but the car was totally different in set up.

It was always a bit startling in the XR4Ti to see the the amount of tubing in the engine compartment, because of the turbo.

Remarkably, I went to Europe in '89, rented a car and they gave me a Sierra. It was a low torque, low horsepower 6 cylinder, with a much more conservative finish. It did not break down on me once in the 10 days I had it, so I was impressed.

uplanderguy · May 2010

I just came upon this thread. I think some cars with great potential but missed it by a little..or a lot:

1) Vega (already discussed here I see). They were the darling of every buff magazine, won every award there was, and were tested as being better than a Pinto and a Gremlin, with more body styles available and the neat "GT" package. Someone mentioned a '74 with rusty A pillars in two years in CA. I never saw that even in NW PA where we lived (and I'd have noticed). I do remember the odd '71 or '72 looking like that in four or five years. By '75-76 the rustproofing and overheating woes were primarily remedied, but it was too late.

2) Citation and other X-cars...again, loved by the motoring press. Done in by poor quality control when demand was so high they were blowing them out the doors. I have a friend who waited seven months for one on order.

3) '78 Malibu and related sibling cars. While I don't think they were bad cars, they started out in '78 with the best styling (IMHO) and the 305 V8 available in the Malibu in all states, then styling upgrades, and I think QC, went downhill after that, and most ended up with noisy V6's or baby V8's. I'd still like a nice '78 Malibu Classic Coupe, black with the neat, dished plastic 'honeycomb' wheel covers, optional round Monte Carlo gauge cluster, F41 suspension, and 50/50 split seats with center armrests. They were really a much quieter, more elegant car than the Fairmont and siblings...but were priced higher.

Hmmm... all GM cars I'm sad to say.

Bill

fintail · May 2010

Europe got a ton of Sierra configurations - several 4s (but I don't think any were the same as ours), V6, diesel, 4WD option, in several bodystyl;es. I think their equivalent to the XR4Ti, the XR4i, had the cladding and the wing..I had a few toys of those when I was a kid. I have to believe the Euro cars didn't have the same brakes though...your car explains why the model failed on this side of the pond. Of course, the weird name didn't help either.

When I was a kid, I thought Merkurs were pretty sharp, them being German and offbeat...but I rarely see them anymore, and I have no itch to buy one.

hpmctorque · May 2010

Speaking of the Malibu's related siblings, I owned a '78 LeMans with the 305 V8. It was a good car, overall. Unfortunately, mine was demolished at 114,000 miles by a by a pickup truck, driven by an illegal alien who had no insurance.

I agree that the those down sized mid-size GM intermediates were notably quieter and more elegant than the Fairmont/Zephyr. The most serious deficiency of those GM cars is that most or maybe all of them shared their 3-speed automatic with the Chevette.

hpmctorque · May 2010

You're correct about the European 4 and the one that came to our shores were different. I'm not sure whether or not they were the same basic engine design, but, in any event, the 4 in the Sierras was smaller and naturally aspirated, as I recall.

The XR4Ti was the Lincon-Mercury Division's answer to the BMW 3-Series.

uplanderguy · May 2010

Good point about the THM200--when we got our new '77 Impala Coupe in Nov. '76, I loved the car and the attention it got at red lights and supermarket parking lots. It drove much tighter and quieter than our '74 Impala it replaced and the 305 was peppier than the 350 in the '74.

However, I immediately felt the THM200 had a definitely different shift 'feel' that took some getting used to.

I think two areas where the '78 intermediates 'fell down' was the no-roll-down rear windows in sedans, and the space-saver spare which became ubiquitous throughout the industry.

Bill

hpmctorque · May 2010

The back windows that didn't roll down and the donut spare were both marketed as space savers. Since they were consistent with the idea of down sizing, I tolerated them. Many owners didn't, though.

Yeah, the THM200 shifted in a sloppy way, which was really annoying. Although it wasn't rugged, and had low tolerance for abuse, if maintained properly and driven reasonably, it generally held up better than its reputation suggested. If you were an aggressive driver or had a rough driving style, though, forget it.

bhill2 · May 2010

I would like to nominate the AMC AMX. When they came out I thought they were a great idea; a moderately priced two seater personal coupe (although no sports car), more than decent power, decent handling, good comfort, and cute as hell. As far as I now there was nothing wrong with them as far as reliability goes. I would have expected them to be popular. I would have bought one had I had any money (I was a student, so I didn't). I think that AMC was just too small and the cars not well known enough for it to get into people's sights.

omarman · May 2010

It's a shame that a car which had so much versatility and staying power elsewhere didn't "translate" well in America. I too wonder about the brakes in the US-only XR4Ti. Maybe they were entirely different than the Sierra brakes but wonder why they had to be?

Re: Europe got a ton of Sierra configurations

I always wondered what those 200-hp Sierra Cosworth Turbos would be like!

South Africa got their own 5.0 liter V-8 version of the Sierra. And apparently the Sierra XR8 is still alive and well in Durban.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2010

My friend owned an XR4Ti and I drove it many times. It was fun, fast, etc.---but man, that engine was as rough as an old washing machine. If one had any initial illusions that he was driving a "sophisticated European car", that was quickly dispelled when you turned the ignition key.

It might be true that a turbo can make give any engine more power but that doesn't mean the engine will like it. These things must have had the life expectancy of a front line infantryman at Gettysburg.

fintail · May 2010

I bet there was some cost-cutting involved, somehow. Things always get dumbed down in some way or another for the NA market.

That V8 model must be a handful to drive. Funny that traditional American style cars never really died off in South Africa and Oz.

The Sierra is a fairly important car, design wise...mass market 80s aerodynamics. It must have had some influence on the aero T-Bird and Tempo, and the Scorpio that it led to was no doubt studied by Taurus designers.

sooththetruth · May 2010

The Sierra is a fairly important car, design wise...mass market 80s aerodynamics. It must have had some influence on the aero T-Bird and Tempo, and the Scorpio that it led to was no doubt studied by Taurus designers.

I always thought the Scorpio was a really cool car, but they never sold much, and obviously didn't least long. I don't know the experience of many people with the vehicle, but I did know of one person who kept the car for 100,000 miles, and maintained it beautifully, because they liked it more than their previous Mercedes. I hope to hear more about that car. Had nice perforated leather in it, I know, and was really roomy inside.

Drove well, I heard all the time. That car did have a 6 cylinder, if I remember correctly.

andre1969 · May 2010

3) '78 Malibu and related sibling cars. While I don't think they were bad cars, they started out in '78 with the best styling (IMHO)

I think the Malibu and its siblings managed to be hit and miss, all at the same time. GM had expected them dominate the midsized car market just as the downsized B- and C-bodies dominated the full-sized market a year earlier. And, that just didn't happen. While popular for the most part, and tending to be sales leaders, they just didn't see the sales explosion that the 1977 downsized big cars did.

Part of the problem might have just been that 1977 was a really good year, compared to 1976. And the downsized big cars were really like nothing we'd seen before...full-sized interior room in a body that was smaller than most of the outgoing intermediates. In contrast the downsized intermediates weren't quite as drastic. They improved in some critical dimensions, such as trunk space, headroom, and rear seat legroom in the coupe. But in other areas, they definitely felt tighter...IMO at least. I have a '76 Grand LeMans coupe, and have owned an '80 Malibu coupe, '82 Cutlass Supreme coupe, and '86 Monte Carlo, and the '76 definitely feels roomier and more comfortable up front. Larger footwells, less intrusion from the frame rails, transmission hump, and dashboard. The center section of the front seat is actually useable, IMO. While I've had 3 across in the downsized cars, I really wouldn't recommend it for more than a few minutes!

While the big cars, when they were downsized, suffered the same problem with more intrusive transmission humps, dashboards, rear wheel wells, etc, it wasn't as noticeable, since they were still big, roomy cars overall.

The intermediates also suffered a bit of cost cutting, like the compact spare tires and stationary rear windows on the 4-doors, as previously mentioned. And another problem was the loss of larger engines...not just the big-blocks, but even engines in the 350-400 CID range. Olds did manage to slip their 350 into a handful of Cutlass Supreme Hurst models around 1979, and an occasional Chevy 350 found its way into the 1978-79 Malibu. But by and large, you were stuck with Pontiac 301's and Chevy 305's at best in these cars.

As for sales, the biggest winners were the personal luxury coupe models...Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Regal, Cutlass Supreme. The Malibu was also a strong seller. The Lemans, alas, was not. Pontiac was expecting it to be a smash hit. It did sell about 50% more than the 1977 model...aorund 120,000 units compared to 80,000 for 1977, but still awfully low for what had once been a mainstream model capable of 200-300K units annually. And Olds/Buick really screwed up with those clunky "aeroback" Centurys and Cutlass Salons. Buyers stayed away in droves,although the wagon versions sold well.

As for reliability, it often depended on what engine you got. The Chevy engines were pretty good, both V-6 and V-8. The Pontiac 301, unfortunately, was not. And the Buick 231 was spotty in those years. The Olds 260 V-8 was pretty much bulletproof as expected, but slow, with only 100-110 hp depending on the year. Transmissons were a mix of the THM200 and THM350, and sometimes they could be an odd mix. While it was common to put a THM200 behind a 305 V-8, my '82 Cutlass ended up with a THM350!

Reliability was generally good on the cars in 1978-79, though. It took a drop in 1980, but was still one of the better cars around. 1981-82 was probably rock-bottom, with clunky emissions controls, strangled engines, over-reliance on the Buick 231, scarce availablity of the 305 and 307 (thank God the 301 went away though), and primitive ECU modules that tended to fail early.

In 1980, Buick and Olds went to a more formal roofline on the 4-door models, reminiscent of the '75-79 Seville, and sales took off, which was impressive considering the crumbling economy. The coupes kept that aeroback look, and then were dumped after 1980. The LeMans and Malibu took that same formal roof for 1981, and IMO the look improved as well. Although the back windows in the sedans were still stationary, even though they had enough room, probably, to roll down about half-way if it weren't for those recessed armrests.

For 1983, things started to improve. The engines were getting better, performing better, even if the hp numbers weren't changing. The 305 and 307 were more widely available. And performance even started coming back, with the HO 305 in the Monte SS, HO 307 in the 442, and ever increasing power out of the Buick 231.

But then, GM kinda just let these cars coast along, riding on past successes, without really updating them, and phasing out models here and there. LeMans gave way to a "downsized" Bonneville for 1982, but lost the coupe along the way. Likewise, the Malibu coupe went away for '82. The Century became the Regal sedan and wagon. Then, wagons were dropped after '83, along with the Malibu entirely. Regal sedan was dropped after 1984. Bonneville sedan after 1986. Regal and Grand Prix coupes and Cutlass Supreme sedan after 1987, leaving just the Cutlss Supreme "Classic" and Monte Carlo to hold out for a few months as 1988 models.

One way to look at just how much staying power these downsized A/G bodies had, though was the fact that it took THREE tries for GM to replace them! First, the FWD A-body Celebrity et/al was suppoed to replace them for 1982. But GM held onto the RWD models and they outsold the FWD models, and even in 1983 continued to sell. The N-body was supposed to replace the personal luxury coupe versions, but we all know how well that didn't go over. And then, finally, for 1988, the W-body (GM10 back then) replaced the models that were left.

So overall, I think these GM cars, while spotty here and there, were a hit for the most part. However, they had the potential to be an even bigger hit!

Mr_Shiftright · May 2010

They may have been a sales hit at times, but they would never be regarded as a "great" car. Too much mediocrity built it. Maybe one needed mediocrity to succeed back then, don't know. Perhaps "good enough" was good enough? After all, in 1980 the foreign competition wasn't all that great, either, at least not in the affordable family sedan category. You had the Accord, which was pretty small back then, the BMW 320i, which was pretty crappy, the Audi 100 LS (gimme a break), and various French and British catastrophes. Benz was too expensive to compete in this bracket, Lexus was yet a dream.

fintail · May 2010

I see more Scorpios on the road than XRs...that might be more of a testament to the (lack of) durability of the earlier cars rather than merits, though. I remember years ago, someone where I worked had one, white with bolstered perforated seats. I think they had a sub-3 liter V6.

This is from 1985, pretty modern for the time...the father of the Taurus:

fintail · May 2010

That makes me think of something...what was the best family sedan in 1980? No Camry, tiny Accord, expensive or finicky Euros...I guess the full size American cars or maybe the Cressida were the best on the market.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2010

Exactly. Competition improves the breed, and in 1980 American family sedans that were affordable had very little competition.

It was in small cars and in luxury cars that American automakers were getting the stuffing beaten out of them (or were about to, at any rate).

omarman · May 2010

So Birmingham looks like that across the water too?

edited to add: just kidding

lilengineerboy · May 2010

I think that is something that is forgotten when looking back. If you compare a XR4ti to something like a BMW 318 of the early 80s, the Merkur does favorably. Once BMW got the 325i with its 189 hp inline 6, it was much harder to match that smoothness. It was also considerably faster than a Audi 4000s or MBZ 190E.

The Scorpio, with its hatch, was more comparable to a Saab 9000 in my mind (yes my opinion). It seemed comparable in a lot of ways

The x-car's claim to fame was in packaging. The Citation hatchback held a LOT of cargo. Mostly spare parts for itself, but held a lot none the less.

Has the Fiero, the quintessential GM miss, been discussed already?

Mr_Shiftright · May 2010

yes we discussed Fiero. There was no real consensus on whether it could have been successful no matter what, but most thought it was too little too late.

Sports cars from GM always run into the same barrier---they are not allowed to approach the performance stats of the Corvette or compete in that price range---given that directive, they are relegated to a niche market of "two seat hardtops" which is a rather slim market indeed. The MR2 never really caught on, either, nor the Honda CRX.

I doubt GM would have developed the Fiero to compete with the Porsche Boxster, which is a $40K on up car these days.

uplanderguy · May 2010

Great overview, Andre, on the '78 and later "A" bodies! I never thought anybody but me paid that much attention to them!

I do like the squared-off sedan roofline of '81 on the Malibu better than the earlier roofline, although at the time I took issue to the vertical slant of the vent window not being parallel to the vertical slant of the rear of the door--a bit of Caddy Fleetwood goin' on there! I got over that though, and it did 'formalize' the car nicely.

Matter of fact, I like the '81 Malibu grille, taillights and interior better than the '79 and '80, and I like the expansion of the glossy 'piano black' trim on the dash of the Malibu Classic. The Monte Carlo looked much better in '81 than '80, I think. In fact, my first new car was a two-tone light jade hood and roof over dark jade '81 Monte Carlo 267 V8, no air, and positraction. It got stolen a year later and I never saw it again.

I agree with you whole-heartedly that the line improved in '83 over '81 and '82, with their issues about Computer Command Control and plugged catalytic converters. The 305 with 4-barrel made its return to the Chevy "A"'s that year and what an improvement! I also liked the non-glossy instrument panel woodgrain with gold-colored outlining that year, as opposed to the bright, obviously fake 'wood from test tube' look of the '82 dash. My parents bought a new '84 Monte Carlo V8 and it was a very nice car.

Bill

wjtinatl · May 2010

One of the forgotten Euro's of the early '80's, the Coupe GT was the Quattro body shell with the Audi 5000's 5 cylinder front-drive powertrain. It was an extremely handsome car, with a very nice interior and decent power. The handling was the Audi's strong suit and in it's day was the equal of the early BMW 3 series. Reliability was improving, but Audi was still fighting the "unintended acceleration" debacle of the time. A college friend owned one and it was a great car. The 4000 Quattro that came along a bit later was equally good, although not at all unique looking. It's almost impossible to find a decent Coupe GT today, unfortunately.

explorerx4 · May 2010

here you go

Mr_Shiftright · May 2010

The Coupe Quattro Turbo is a collector's item nowadays, and can bring $10-$12K, but not the GT.

fintail · May 2010

I have to believe those are dramatic money pits too...parts availability is horrible for old Audis. Super cool cars, but be sure you know a specialist.

jrosasmc · May 2010

From my standpoint - how about the Volvo 760? I just had to comment because I'm a Volvo enthusiast at heart, and I always had my suspicions about this model. Even when they were new back in the mid to late '80s I hardly ever saw them - I always saw 240s and 740s of various stripes. I believe that the 760 was Volvo's second attempt to capture a foothold in the mid-to-upper luxury car market (the first being the lame 164 of the '70s), but it fared no better than its predecessor. And a lot of them came with the wimpy PRV 2.7-liter V6.

fintail · May 2010

Ha, I didn't even notice that until you made the joke. Good one! :shades:

That Scorpio is a stark contrast to the boxy Granada it replaced, seen at left. Like an 85 LTD compared to an 86 Taurus.

hpmctorque · May 2010

Thanks for that old Motor trend article on the Audi Coupe GT, explorer. The most interesting part of that article for me was the last part, where it discusses the 4-wheel drive system. Here it is, for those who may not have seen it...

"Differential Equations

The Quattro is unique in the world of 4-wheel drive in that it uses a special concentric driveshaft design in conjunction with a center differential to send equal amounts of torque to both sets of axles. The shaft-within-a-shaft system eliminates the conventional transfer case/secondary output shaft or viscous coupling devices required on other all-wheel-drive cars. By doing away with this componentry, Audi engineers were able to create a package that greatly reduces losses from internal friction, is considerably lighter than any standard 4-wheeldrive system (only 16S lb more than Audi's normal front-drive mechanicals), and which substantially lowers the Quattro s center of gravity. Besides ensuring an even disbursal of power to both the front and rear wheels, the Quattro's center differential provides several other benefits, the most salient being the elimination of both tire scrub and the tendency for the front and rear wheels to fight each other when the car is in a corner. The differential also works to minimize aquaplaning and brake lockup,

Quattro's system is a study in space and energy utilization. Engine power passes into the transaxle and then on to the center differential through a tubular transmission output shaft, Half of the power is then shipped back to the front wheels through the enclosed pinion shaft. A conventional 2-piece driveshaft sends the remaining power from the center to the rear differential, where it is distributed normally to the aft half shafts.

Audi incorporates a servo-activated mechanical locking system for the Quattro's center and rear differentials, The locks can be engaged at any time or at any road speed by merely pulling on a dash-mounted lever. The devices are spring-loaded and require some differential action before they will lock up. Any winding, slick, or uneven road surface is generally sufficient to activate the mechanism.

Using the differential locks on dry pavement adversely affects mileage and tire wear. Like a racer with a locked rearend, the trailing tires tend to chatter and scrub in a corner. But on slippery surfaces it's an entirely different matter. The Quattro has demonstrated the ability to climb gradients twice the magnitude of those a 2-wheeldrive car can master. The locking differentials also permit the Quattro to continue onward until any three of its tires lose traction (a conventional 4-wheel-drive vehicle can get stuck if any two wheels lose their grip).

Under normal conditions, with the differentials unlocked, the Quattro's low-drag 4-wheel drive inflicts a mere 3% mechanical penalty as compared to a regular Audi front-drive design. But at normal road speeds the Quattro actually becomes more efficient than a comparable performance car. This happens because, as vehicle velocity increases, the frictional losses for a freerolling wheel become greater than for an equivalent driven wheel. In its present state of development, at speeds up to 40 mpg the Quattro suffers a 2% penalty in mileage as compared to an average 2-wheel-drive performance car. Beyond that break-even point, the Quattro driveline assumes a 1% edge in efficiency.

The system is still being massaged in the engineering labs, and Audi projects that, with a little bit of work, the parity speed could be cut to at least 30 mph, and perhaps even less."

I found the last two paragraphs especially interesting, because I was under the perception that all the "penalty" of 4 wheel drive couldn't be overcome.

As some of you know I sold my old 3-Series recently. I reluctantly deferred to my wife's preference for an Audi A4, and bought a well maintained '07 Quattro 2.0T with 37,000 miles from a private individual. My wife will be the primary driver of this car. Although I like the way this Audi drives, especially on the highway, my reluctance to buy an Audi was due to its spotty reliability record, and the high cost-to-repair when something breaks. My research suggests that Audi's reliability has improved in recent year. Maybe the newer ones are just less unreliable. We'll find out. Ours is warranteed until January 3 or 50,000, but in our case the expiration date will come up first.

texases · May 2010

That MT article's about the Quattro, not the Coupe GT, right? The Coupe lacked the fender flairs, the turbo, and (I think) the Quattro system. I thought of it (just in general terms) as a jumbo 1st-gen Scirocco:

hpmctorque · May 2010

About your question, sorry but I don't know the answer.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2010

Volvos back then were really "closet" American cars. They grew soft and poofy, with the typical American "three box" styling and no radical technology to speak of; only the Volvo wagon maintained any kind of Swedish identity IMO.

andre1969 · May 2010

Great overview, Andre, on the '78 and later "A" bodies! I never thought anybody but me paid that much attention to them!

Well, I liked the three that I had over the years. My 1980 Malibu, which had a 229 V-6, wasn't a bad car, and the '86 Monte, with a 305 V-8, was a great car! Now the '82 Cutlass Supreme, with a 231 V-6 and THM350C transmission, was the biggest piece of crap I ever had, but I still liked it alot. It was the only car I've owned where both the transmission (~62000 miles) and engine (~73000 miles) went out on me. Can't totally blame GM though, as the car was 11 years old, with 61K miles, when I bought it, and it was only $800. And in all fairness, I might have been able to get by without a total transmission rebuild. It was starting to act up, shifting funny and holding the gears way too long. Transmission shop said that it had a lot of metal shavings in it, and that they could clean it out real good, service it, etc, get it working right again for about $140. But they couldn't guarantee that the problem wouldn't come back within a year. Or, I could have the thing rebuilt for about $675. I figured I'd keep the car for a long, long time, so I had the rebuild done.

And, the engine was still running when I got rid of it. The oil light came on one morning and wouldn't go off, so I shut it off, and then had a friend look at it. He changed the gears in the oil pump for me, and the light went away, but he said from the way the gears were chewed up, and all the metal crap that ended up in the oil, it was on borrowed time.

That car was a light, silvery green. I'm not sure it was the light Jadestone, or a similar color they had at the time which was called simply "Silver-Green". The two look similar to me on the online color charts, and with the way those scans can vary from the real thing, it's hard to tell. It had a matching light green cloth interior, although the dashboard was dark green. And it also had a matching light green landau roof and Rally wheels. I'm sure I have some pics around somewhere. One day I'll scan 'em in.

The Monte Carlo was a 2-tone, dark gray over silver, with a burgundy cloth interior. It had 179,000 miles on it when my Mom gave it to me, but still ran pretty well. Got fairly good fuel economy too, I thought, for its age, displacement, and technology. I'd get around 15 mpg around town, but I also delivered pizzas, which could kill economy. I never had a good, long trip on it where a whole tank of fuel was highway mileage, but I did get around 22-23 mpg a few times. It was EPA-rated 17/25.

Speaking of fake woodgrain interiors, my grandparents had a 1982 Malibu Classic Estate wagon, and I remember the woodgrain on its dash was a bit much. Plus, in the pattern, I could see this one shape that looked like the face of some kind of hideous pig-monster! I think the woodgrain was at least a fairly natural looking brown, though. Their '85 LeSabre Limited sedan had this ploodgrain that had a slight orange-ish tint to it, and had sort of a glow-in-the-dark radioactive look to it!

The Monte just had the blackout trim, which I thought was okay. Cutlass Supreme had fake woodgrain, but they kept it to a tasteful minimum as I recall. And the Malibu was just a base model, so no fake wood, thankfully. It did have some thin chromed plastic trim strips in the door panels though...the stuff that peels off and looks white as it ages.

hpmctorque · May 2010

That's true. I would add that Volvo deserves credit for doing research on safety, and incorporating its findings in its cars before the competition, before it mattered much to most car owners, and before some safety features were government mandated.

andre1969 · May 2010

When did that 740/760 style of Volvo come out, anyway? Something like 1982 or 1983? I always thought it had sort of a GM-ish look to it, kind of like a Chevy Celebrity, although Volvo did a good job of making the style look upscale. And it certainly didn't FEEL like a Celebrity...very solid, well-built car, it seemed.

My neighbors had an '89 740 wagon that they bought used in 1992. It was a really nice car, but didn't age well. Still looked good, but it got to the point that it had to go back to the dealer about once a month, and was costing about $1,000 each visit. And none of the local independent shops at the time wanted to mess with it...which perplexes me a bit. They weren't THAT "furrin" to work on, were they? I know the shop I used at the time wouldn't touch it, but then it was run by two old guys who loved messing with my DeSoto, because they worked on cars like that when it was new!

Mr_Shiftright · May 2010

Also the leather on Swedish cars of that era was substandard. It's the rare Volvo or Saab from the 80s that you'd see ten years later without a shredded interior. Their interiors in general were cheesy, rattly and short-lived. Nothing like a Benz.

lemko · May 2010

Volvo interiors were like Ikea - cheap and minimalist.

fintail · May 2010

The 700 cars hit the US market as a 1983 model, although few sold until the turbo came out the next year. It also existed in a diesel variant for a couple years. I remember the "intercooler" badge on the back of those, which to my young eyes seemed exotic and cool, and it went with the severe angular body. Those cars weren't bad when brand new, but within several years aged terribly, falling apart inside and not holding together well under the hood either.

texases · May 2010

" It's the rare Volvo or Saab from the 80s that you'd see ten years later without a shredded interior."

I had a 'know-it-all' acquaintance at work back around '86 whose Saab 900S was the 'greatest car ever built, much better quality' (or something like that). I had to wonder, though, when he'd open the door and I'd see his cloth seat all worn through after about 3 years. :confuse:

Mr_Shiftright · May 2010

Actually he would have had better luck with a 900S than with the 900 Turbo, and his "low line" interior might have held up better than the Swedish gecko skin or whatever they used back then.

The 80s Volvos weren't bad cars----if you had some super glue, felt shims, extra knobs and switches, and seat covers, you could deal with the interior. Mechanically they were okay--except for the exhaust systems falling off.

lilengineerboy · May 2010

The Coupe Quattro Turbo is a collector's item nowadays, and can bring $10-$12K, but not the GT.

The '82-85 UrQuattro is a dream car of mine, but the ones that are close to my price range require too much restoration. Also, fintail's comments about Audi legacy parts support is spot on. Going through the parts microfiche shows a lot of NLA.

fintail · May 2010

A coworker of mine had an 02 A6 with the 4.2. The thing had around 100K on it, and was developing so many needs that they just dumped it for what they could get out of it - not worth dealing with. It's a very rare day when a pre-1993 or so Audi is spotted anywhere. It seems MBs and BMWs don't age so abruptly. However, to Audi's defense...their 2005+ models seem to be a lot better,

Speaking of Quattros, when I was driving on a country road outside of Stuttgart, I saw one of the SWB models out for a drive. I had never seen one of those before.

lilengineerboy · May 2010

Audi is spotty. The early to mid-80s was kind of their peak, the 90s sucked, and they pulled through with the '96/97 A4, especially the 1.8Tq. That said, they have all kinds of sludge issues with that motor, and the early A4 suspension was a maintenance nightmare.
The cool thing about the UrQ is it was kind of the grandfather of AWD performance cars. i don't think we would have Lancer EVOs (or Eclipse GSXs) and Subaru WRXs if it wasn't for the UrQ. The AMC Eagle was a truck-based 4wd and so were most of the early Subarus.

hpmctorque · May 2010

I think below average reliability, or the perception that it doesn't measure up in this area, is Audi's primary weakness. Audi management has announced ambitious plans to become the #1 luxury brand, but it's hard to see how they can reach that goal unless its reputation for longevity and reliability improves significantly.

fintail · May 2010

Audi is going to have a dark age of 15-20 years where most of the products don't survive...from right after (or even during) the UR until almost the present day. Where at the same time, 20 years later, you can't throw a ball without hitting a W126 or an E30.

There was one of those GT coupes for sale here a few years back on Craigslist...sat around for ages for something like $1200, and it looked to be in very nice condition (but I think it didn't run right).

Cars That Could Have Been Great, But Missed

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles