Are you a current or recent car shopper who bought an EV and then installed solar – or who had solar already, making the decision to go electric easier?
OR
Are you a recent EV buyer (past 3 months) as a result of manufacturer incentives and dealer discounts on these vehicles, including year-end deals? Were you convinced to buy an EV after finding a good end-of-year deal, or due to uncertainty around which EVs will no longer qualify for full/partial EV tax credits in 2024? A national business reporter is interested in speaking with you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/15 if interested in sharing your story.
OR
Are you a recent EV buyer (past 3 months) as a result of manufacturer incentives and dealer discounts on these vehicles, including year-end deals? Were you convinced to buy an EV after finding a good end-of-year deal, or due to uncertainty around which EVs will no longer qualify for full/partial EV tax credits in 2024? A national business reporter is interested in speaking with you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 12/15 if interested in sharing your story.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
The XR4Ti was the Lincon-Mercury Division's answer to the BMW 3-Series.
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
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.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
This is from 1985, pretty modern for the time...the father of the Taurus:
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).
edited to add: just kidding
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?
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.
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
That Scorpio is a stark contrast to the boxy Granada it replaced, seen at left. Like an 85 LTD compared to an 86 Taurus.
"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.
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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).