@uplanderguy said:
I agree--the backseat of the previous Impala was way too small for the size of the car. I actually thought the styling aged pretty well...I'd have gotten whatever model left the spoiler off, but gave you those razor-sharp-looking polished aluminum wheels that were on upper-end models earlier on but migrated down in later years. I'd have considered a '12 or '13 with 3.6 and column-shift.
You really should drive a new Impala. I did with the 2.5L. It was larger than I wanted but performed well. The drive was controlled much more than the previous generation Impala. I seriously considered an Impala used from a local dealer. The full bench seat was attractive to me. I'd ridden in one and knew its ride was a modern Buick like ride: very comfortable.
Used cars in this area with low mileage are fairly pricey, although I'd be afraid to wave a much lower amount if I really wasn't ready to buy--they might take it or come back with a slightly higher price. But the premium for a new Malibu was low enough I really wanted it equipped the way I would like. That's no sunroof, no nav, et cetera, and safety including rear cross traffic--except it doesn't shake the seat like Cadillac does for side alert when backing out.
@imidazol97 said:
You really should drive a new Impala. I did with the 2.5L. It was larger than I wanted but performed well.
So did performance seem adequate, even with the 2.5 4-cyl? I've been kinda curious as to how something like that would perform...seems a bit over-matched for a car that weighs about two tons. I wonder what its 0-60 time would be.
Interestingly, at one time, 200 hp in a 4000 lb car would have been considered pretty good. But, in those days it also came with a lot more torque so the engine didn't have to strain too hard. My '57 DeSoto weighs about two tons, and probably has about 200 hp net (270 gross). But, it has a 341 CID Hemi V-8 (~5.6 Liters) to move it along. The only road test I ever saw of a '57 Firedome put 0-60 in about 9.7 or 9.8 seconds. Consumer Reports griped about the car being over-powered. Yet today, a car taking that long to hit 60 mph would probably be laughed at. I wonder if there's even anything that slow left in the US market?
days it also came with a lot more torque so the engine didn't have to strain too hard. My '57 DeSoto weighs about two tons, and probably has about 200 hp net (270 gross). But, it has a 341 CID Hemi V-8 (~5.6 Liters) to move it along.
My thinking is that it's the torque at 2000 - 2500 for many drivers like myself who are fairly smooth driveres that makes the feeling of power. A little higher torque converter stall speed and little higher final drive ratio along with the 6-speed automatic in the Impala/Malibu makes a difference.
A salesman who sneaked up on my at another local dealer when I was browsing said some say the 2.5 in Malibu feels like the 3.6L in the Impala when they drove them. He's a serious guy--I'd talked to him when their store had a 2010 Cobalt I liked except for the color and price asked. I should look at final drive ratios and weight for the Impala and Malibu. And tire size as well.
I never found the old Impala to be that bad of a rental. Not sure how they carried that frequent tight rear seat over to the newer Malibu's though?
Bad news doesn't get better with age AND procrastination is a very frequent, and often daily frustration for those in leadership positions having to repeatedly deal with it!
I'm sure a 4 cyl Impala is adequate. I've read somewhere the 0-60 is around 8 seconds. That's certainly not slow. But if I'm buying a car like the Impala, I want effortless power, so I woudln't want the 2.5. Plus I've yet to be impressed by a GM 4 cyl, particularly when pushed.
I'd be curious how it performs with a full load of passengers, that's probably where the 4cyl would strain particularly at highway speeds. I find my wife's '13 v6 Taurus adequate and it feels slow compared to my Ram, though the reality is they are likely similar 0-60. The difference is the Ram has better gearing and a lot of power at lower rpm, so accelration feels effortless. The Taurus is geared tall, even with the 6 speed, and for whatever reason, it doesn't have a lot of power until over 4k rpm.
It's amazing what gearing can do. A 4cyl Impala is quicker than a 3800 Lucerne.
I do like the new Impala. Though only in LTZ trim. I see a silver LTZ with tinted windows almost daily, and I like it. I don't care for the lower trim models nearly as much.
@uplanderguy said:
I agree--the backseat of the previous Impala was way too small for the size of the car. I actually thought the styling aged pretty well...I'd have gotten whatever model left the spoiler off, but...
I don't like rear spoilers either, especially on sedans. We're probably in the minority, though.
@andre1969 said:
The only road test I ever saw of a '57 Firedome put 0-60 in about 9.7 or 9.8 seconds. Consumer Reports griped about the car being over-powered. Yet today, a car taking that long to hit 60 mph would probably be laughed at. I wonder if there's even anything that slow left in the US market?
I think the '57 Firedome would easily beat a 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage.
@uplanderguy said:
The two best pieces of advice I ever got from bosses are these:
1) If someone asks you a question via email or phone, get with them before you go home, to at least say, "I'm working on it".
2) "Bad news doesn't get better with age".
My guess is the revolving door of GM CEO's the past several years probably exacerbated this issue. I don't think that was Toyota's issue at all, but who knows.
Great pieces of advice.
Wagoner was at GM for a long time, and the problem was known during his tenure.Who knows whether the problem was surfaced during the BK, but it was probably not on those CEO's list to surface at a time that GM was fighting for survival. So I blame the old guard.
The boss who gave me advice #1, returning calls/emails by the end of the day, was the CEO of the company I worked for then, a much-despised character, but that was an excellent piece of advice. The boss who said "Bad news doesn't get better with age" was my immediate boss at a different company. He was tough at first but I got to enjoy him. He had been career military before he came to work at the company after he retired, still a reasonably-young guy.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Imidazol, I know what you mean about 'high used car prices in this area'. I was stunned at what used Cobalts were bringing when I bought my daughter's '09 for $5,500 on eBay several months back. It had 57K miles and is a 1LT, auto, PW, PDL, satellite radio, no ABS, clean CarFax. They were thousands more than that at dealers. Funny, her boyfriend has an '08 Cobalt. Sometimes all three of ours are sitting in the driveway here. None of are part of the recall.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@dieselone said:
I'm sure a 4 cyl Impala is adequate. I've read somewhere the 0-60 is around 8 seconds. That's certainly not slow. But if I'm buying a car like the Impala, I want effortless power, so I woudln't want the 2.5. Plus I've yet to be impressed by a GM 4 cyl, particularly when pushed.
I'd be curious how it performs with a full load of passengers, that's probably where the 4cyl would strain particularly at highway speeds.
It's amazing what gearing can do. A 4cyl Impala is quicker than a 3800 Lucerne.
I'd also be curious to see how the Impala would perform with a full load. That is an area where a lot of older, torquier cars had an advantage. Even if they didn't do so hot in the 0-60 test, you had to really load them up before you'd see a big drop in performance. I remember the first time I had four people in my 2000 Intrepid and tried to merge onto the highway, it's a miracle I didn't get rear-ended! But with just one or two people on board, it was fine. The Intrepid also didn't have a very broad torque curve. I think peak torque came on around 4900 rpm, and peak hp was around 5900 rpm. But at lower speeds there wasn't much muscle. That 2.5, according to the charts Imidazol97 posted, seems to have a fairly decent torque curve. So add that to the extra gears in the transmission, and it looks like GM did a pretty good job of getting a decent time out of the 4-cyl Impala, despite its weight.
Most 0-60 times I've seen for my old Intrepid, a ~3400 lb car with a 2.7 V-6, 200 hp, 190 ft-lb of torque, put it around 9.5 seconds. Definitely seemed more than adequate at the time, but when you start driving quicker cars, you get used to them and the "quicker" just doesn't seem so impressive anymore.
I think the Lucerne with the 3800 was also listed at around 9.5 seconds. I wonder if the 3900 they replaced that engine with was much better? I think it had about 30 more hp (~227 versus ~197) and more torque as well.
When they were newly out, I remember seeing 4-cyl. Impalas that I'd be proud to have in my driveway, inside and out, sticker for $27.5K. Seemed like a lot of car to me. I do wish you could get the chromed side molding of the LTZ on the lesser models though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The 10 Worst Cars of All Time - well, we all know these lists are pretty subjective. Still, people other than the posters in this forum have put 5 of the 10 cars listed as GM vehicles:
Also note the mention of a 1974 Vega, in California, with severe rust problems. I've posted in the past about my friend's brand-new 1974 Vega GT, also in Southern California, that rusted around the windows in only a couple of years. Some posters doubted my story. Apparently the author of this article saw a Vega with the same issue . It was a very common problem.
Hopefully GM will never have any of its newer cars on this type of list. Let Toyota or some other make take that badge of honor.
No offense, but I still doubt that story. Years have a way of making good things spectacular and bad things even worse. I lived in salt-laden western PA, and I was a student of Vegas then (LOL). I never even saw a '71 Vega with holes around the windshield in two years. Four? Maybe...and that's inexcusable. But we can agree to disagree. You say 'rust around the windows' now, but I'm thinking you said 'holes around the windshield within two years' previously. Those can be a couple of different things.
I've seen people claim they remember holes in Vegas in less than one year. Simply did not happen. In fact, my grandparents in our town bought the very first new Vega our dealer got in. It sat out all the time. It was very low-mileage, and it did have one small bubble on the top of the LF fender in about five years.
Also, one can dislike the Cimarron or the Aztek, but 'worst cars'? Hardly.
In old cars, I like Studebakers because they're unusual, but with similar criteria as this list you referenced, a list of history's "best cars" would probably include more GM's than any other manufacturer. I could easily see '55-57 Chevys, Pontiac GTO's, early Camaros, Chevelle SS's, and multiple Corvettes on such a list.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@uplanderguy said:
When they were newly out, I remember seeing 4-cyl. Impalas that I'd be proud to have in my driveway, inside and out, sticker for $27.5K. Seemed like a lot of car to me. I do wish you could get the chromed side molding of the LTZ on the lesser models though.
I hadn't paid much attention to the Impala options like the chrome lower molding. Looking at the cars on the lot, I didn't look at LTZ's and hadn't noticed the molding. In the pictures in the brochure, I see it AND I like it.
It is available on other models if you are determined enough. Order the part through your body shop guy and have him install it as an aftermarket item. I assume it's a stickon piece. or uses stick on clips to which it snaps.
Reminds me of my 1980 Mustang. I wanted a rear sway bar for the extra flatness cornering and driving without ordering the heavy duty suspension which I had done on my 67. I ordered the pieces and installed it myself.
@uplanderguy said:
I've seen people claim they remember holes in Vegas in less than one year. Simply did not happen. In fact, my grandparents in our town bought the very first new Vega our dealer got in. It sat out all the time. It was very low-mileage, and it did have one small bubble on the top of the LF fender in about five years.
The story I've always heard is that you could start seeing rust in the fender tops after 1-2 harsh winters. It was years later that I heard about the A-pillar rust. We used to see a Vega pretty regularly at the Hershey car show, and it looked good for the most part. But, I seem to remember it having some pretty nasty looking rust under the hood, in that area that braces up the fenders.
@uplanderguy said:
Also, one can dislike the Cimarron or the Aztek, but 'worst cars'? Hardly.
They were definitely marketing flops, and I think the Aztek in particular stands out because of that show "Breaking Bad". I started watching it a couple months ago, and seeing the main character with an Aztek that was missing a hubcap caught my attention immediately. I didn't realize that show was that popular, but apparently it is. Or was, as I think it wrapped up. Plus, with all the constant coverage on the internet, the fact that the Aztek was a failure simply will not die. Just imagine what things would have been like if we had internet back when the Cimarron or Vega came out!
Truth be told, I think the failure of the Edsel is something that gets blown out of proportion. Their original goal was to sell 100,000 of them for 1958. They ended up at around 63,000. Meanwhile, from 1957-58, brands like Mercury, Dodge, and DeSoto fell by half or more. Chrysler fell by nearly half, and I think Edsel actually outsold them. The mid-price market got hammered particularly hard in that recession, as Buick and Pontiac were also hit hard. Oldsmobile, was relatively unscathed, which perplexes me a bit, because I always thought they were pretty homely looking.
Anyway, Ford had moved Mercury upscale for 1957, to clear some room for Edsel. So in a way it was actually Mercury that was moving into unforged territory, not Edsel. Edsel was gone a couple months into the 1960 model year, and for 1961 Mercury moved back downscale, to where it had been. So you could argue that the bigger, more expensive Mercurys were a flop, maybe moreso than the Edsel. After all, Ford didn't abandon that price class of car, they simply changed it from Mercury to Edsel and then back again.
But, "Edsel" became synonymous with focus group failures, marketing mishaps, etc. And yes, to a degree, it was the wrong car at the wrong time, coming into an over-crowded market during a recession year, with oversized engines and poor quality control. So, the car itself was nothing to crow about. But I'd still say it was more of a marketing failure, than any real fault of the car itself.
Andre, I agree totally--other than the Teletouch shift control, why would an Edsel be any worse than a Ford or Mercury of a similar year? Marketing flop? Yes. Bad car? No worse than anything else from Ford at the time.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Was that Vega at Hershey kind of a purply-blue, light color? A '73? That's one I remember seeing there. At cruise-ins near here, a guy regularly shows his one-owner '72 Vega Kammback, bone-stock, red with black Custom Cloth interior (extremely nicer than the taxicab-variant standard interior). He worked at Lordstown and bought it new. It looks nice, although I'm weird in that I like 'big bumper' Vegas better 'cause some features of the first Vegas look a little too dainty for me.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Considering I detest the Juke and Cube, ironically it's Nissans over the years that I've considered best-looking Japanese models. I like the late '80's (I think), smooth, simple-lined Maxima that had a wall-to-wall taillight lens across the back; first car I ever saw in a pearlescent white. I also like the '02 Altima, the car that IMHO started the trend of putting chrome accents inside taillight lenses.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The only thing on Odysseys, historically, I've thought was sort-of goofy, styling-wise, was horizontal taillights on a tall minivan--although it is original. I wasn't a fan of the shift lever sticking out of the dash, either. This current Odyssey, though--the rear-third looks like it's ready to fall off IMHO!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
So you could argue that the bigger, more expensive Mercurys were a flop, maybe moreso than the Edsel
That's an interesting point. I can only speak based on growing up in the Chicago area and someone else might have different perceptions, but back in the 50's and 60's Ford dealers seemed very promotional and generally sold for less than a Chevy. Even back then, Mercury (and Lincoln for that matter) didn't seem to have all that much appeal in our area. So it seemed like when someone who owned a Ford went upscale, it was usually over to GM, like a Pontiac or Buick. Plymouth seemed to be more a small, but loyal pool of buyers. So when they went upscale it was often a Chrysler. However, Mopar lost some of them when they downsized in 62.
I think Ford was trying to improve their mid-priced standing when they introduced Edsel and tried to move Mercury from a Pontiac or lower end Olds to a Buick competitor. While a lot of people zoom in on some of Edsel's unusual looks and features, they forget it was the space ship era of 1957-59. I think two things that hurt Edsel. First, there was a lot of hype and sneak previews for the car before it came out. That raised potential buyer expectations and the actual car maybe didn't live up to all of that. Now, the press panned it's looks, but they dumped on Olds and Buick that year too. Rather, I think the second thing may have been that like many new things, the initial Edsel's had a lot of quality and performance issues on the early models (Ironically, the 59 had a decent quality reputation). Hudson and Nash were recently departed, Studebaker was in trouble, and rumors of Desoto's demise had surfaced already. So all of this led potential buyers to fear ending up with an orphan. Combined this with the recession and why not play it safe with a Chevy or Pontiac.
Also, it didn't help things for Edsel that it was introduced at a time when most car buying decisions were made by men/husbands, and the front of the vehicle was often compared to a certain part of female anatomy.
The Odyssey certainly isn't the best looking van from the outside, but they are nice to drive and ride in. My sister has a brand new Oddy and is nice to ride in and seems well laid out on the inside.
We're 750 miles into our drive to Orlando. So far the Ram has been flawless. Yesterday, I drove 75-85 mph the a 15+mph head wind. Computer said 18.5 mpg, actual was 17.7 mpg. I'm good with that. Today so far it says 21 mpg avg, daughter has been driving with cruise set at 72. Nice having the 32 gal fuel tank. We've driven 307 miles on this tank and still have nearly 1/2 a tank with an estimated range of 293 miles. Not bad IMO for nearly 400hp and well over 6,000l of truck, 4 people and a bed full of luggage.
Anyway, man is traffic heavy. Every other vehicle is a minivan. For whatever reason, been a lot of vehicles with flat tires. While going through Tennessee, nearly every vehicle was from either Indiana, Michigan, or Ohio.
The older Odysseys were a bit better than the new ones, and better than the new Quests, but they're minivans anyway. Not a lot you can do with slabs. I rather like the Element and Cube and the Juke is okay too.
Something else I forgot about, regarding the Edsel. IIRC, they didn't have a dedicated assembly plant. As a result, the smaller Ranger/Pacer were put together on a Ford assembly line, while the larger Corsair/Citation were built on a Mercury line. And both lines were sped up, so the Edsels were rushed out the door a bit quicker than their Ford or Mercury counterparts. That probably hurt quality control compared to a Ford or Mercury. And, Ford's was pretty bad that year. I don't know about Mercury though...I don't recall hearing too much horrible about them, except they weren't very hot sellers.
@uplanderguy said:
No offense, but I still doubt that story. Years have a way of making good things spectacular and bad things even worse. I lived in salt-laden western PA, and I was a student of Vegas then (LOL). I never even saw a '71 Vega with holes around the windshield in two years. Four? Maybe...and that's inexcusable. But we can agree to disagree. You say 'rust around the windows' now, but I'm thinking you said 'holes around the windshield within two years' previously. Those can be a couple of different things.
First of all, the specimen that my friend had was a '74 Vega GT, hatchback, navy blue mettalic, four speed. Not a '71. I seem to remember seeing more Vegas of the '74 type vintage (the ones with the newer bumper style) that had the rust and holes, as compared to the earlier models. Another friend had a '71 Vega wagon and during the time I knew him I don't remember ever seeing any rust at all. I did say rust in this last post, but I meant "rust and holes". I didn't say holes here but I can guarantee you that there were plenty of holes along both the bottom of the windshield and rear hatch window. However, I didn't heare about or see any floorboard issues as the article suggests.
As far as the time frame, his car was a '74, and we commuted to college together in the years '76-77.. I don't remember exactly what year the holes first appeared, but they were holes and not just rust during a portion of that time. I also don't know when he bought the car - it could have been late '73,, so if that were the case, then the holes were present at least 3 or 4 years into the car's life. Since holes were present, I suspect that rust alone was present even sooner than that.
front of the vehicle was often compared to a certain part of female anatomy.
Haha Busiris, but that didn't seem to hurt the sales of some similarly grilled European models! Of course, if your into abstract art I suppose you can also argue that the pair of headlamp encasements were...
Andre, you're right that they split assembly plants along those lines even though they restructured the company along a Ford vs. MEL Division structure. Had to undo all of that too when Edsel folded.
Trust me tlong, the rustproofing wasn't better with the '71's and went downhill with the '74's.
In fact, in '74 the rustproofing improved significantly with the addition of inner fenders mid-year, for one thing. I suspect, as I think most people who know the cars at all would, that there would be no difference in windshield mounting or surrounding sheetmetal from '71 through '74. Whatever anyone believes, I think we can all agree that cars shouldn't have holes there even in four or five years. The '76 brochure mentions improvements made there:
@tlong said:
Well, congrats on the new car. It was good you went for a more upscale trim than a rental would have provided. You keep cars a long time and will live with this for a while - you should be enjoying it! Good luck with the new ride.
Thanks. I don't think I saw this post earlier. I appreciate your good wishes.
So did performance seem adequate, even with the 2.5 4-cyl?
I don't think I directly answered that. It was adequate for me; I drive like an old man around the countryside. That's why I'm so happy with my 3800 leSabre. But I am sure there's a difference with the 3.6 VVT engine in the Impala. Car was bigger than I wanted or needed. I actually was interested in a Cruze or Verano or something that size.
I think Uplander commented about the chrome accent along the bottom of the Impala. I hadn't noticed it because I was looking at Impalas that were parked with 2 feet between them in the lineup gallery at the dealer.
I like the accent chrome.
I just realize my Malibu has an accent piece on the middle of the door. It is the same color as the car. It's part of one of the packages that I wanted for something else. I see that even the same color piece changes the appearance. I wonder if I could get it in chrome? Hmmmmmm.
I hate that, at Chevy anyway, you can't get side protection on any model except the Malibu. I'd have to have that molding on one. The chrome trim on the Impala is for decoration; too low to be of any protection. The LS and LT Impalas have a body-colored molding there...in fact, I believe it's recessed. Does your Malibu have those wheels? I've seen some with them; look nice IMHO.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@uplanderguy said:
Does your Malibu have those wheels? I've seen some with them; look nice IMHO.
This is the color and wheels of mine. 18 inch. I had to go through about 8 large dealers to find one with a correct picture for a 2LT in black with the side molding. It looked like most 2LTs were sold when we were looking. Must be a good price point for leasing as well as the total price point.
These pictures are better than average for the ones shot at dealers. But they're still not good. Why do they think they can use a cell phone camera? It needs to be shot at a focal length of about 100.
@berri said: front of the vehicle was often compared to a certain part of female anatomy.
Haha Busiris, but that didn't seem to hurt the sales of some similarly grilled European models! Of course, if your into abstract art I suppose you can also argue that the pair of headlamp encasements were...
Andre, you're right that they split assembly plants along those lines even though they restructured the company along a Ford vs. MEL Division structure. Had to undo all of that too when Edsel folded.
Well, the Europeans have never had the extreme Puritan-like hang ups about sex and the human body like we've had (and still do, btw) here in the US.
As an example: Mixed-sex saunas in some of the hotels I've stayed at in Western Europe. Folks sit in them nude, both men and women, and no one gives it a second thought. Some folks even bring their kids with them. It's just normal behavior there.
Women attendants in the men's rooms at restaurants, hotels, etc. are also the norm...
berri, I largely agree with your assessment of the Edsel, but a lot of folks don't seem to be aware that Studebaker had its most profitable year of its 114-year existence building vehicles, in 1959. The auto division was profitable again in '60 and as late as the '62 model year, still built over 100,000 vehicles which exceeded Edsel's first year, even with a long strike at South Bend.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I knew that the initial couple of years of Lark's were popular, but I didn't realize Studebaker had made record profits. With companies like Hudson and Nash going out of business in 57, I think consumers were still a bit frightened of buying an potential orphan new (made some good deals used though). They'd pop for a base 6 cylinder Rambler, but seemed much more reluctant to purchase a loaded one or an Ambassador.
I was always impressed how GM managed to maintain all of those BOP mid priced brands for so long. I think by the latter 50's it was pretty obvious that Ford was going to have to make due with Mercury in that bracket and really the Chrysler brand was expanding to handle it for Mopar. Dodge was always a bit of an oddball back then to me. Not really a clean fit into mid priced or low priced back then, but ultimately outlasted Plymouth. Even in the mid 60's when the lower priced brands expanded into LTD, Caprice, and upper line Fury, BOP kept moving merrily along. In fact back in the 70's I think Cutlass was the top seller some years. Maybe this was all a reflection of a strong GM dealership organization besides good brand advertising and product?
I think one reason GM might have done so well at differentiating those divisions is that they all existed outside of GM. Olds, Buick, Cadillac, Oakland (Pontiac) and Chevrolet were all companies that were forged on their own, and ultimately acquired by GM. Even under GM management, they were all fairly autonomous, although would become more and more alike as the years went by.
In contrast, while Ford bought Lincoln, Mercury and Edsel were divisions that were brought out by the company. And with Chrysler, while Chrysler did acquire the Dodge Brothers, DeSoto and Plymouth were brands launched by the company, and then in later years they tried to spin Imperial off on its own. As a result, I don't think the various Ford or Mopar divisions ever had the autonomy that the GM divisions did.
GM did start to falter a bit in the 1970's, however. By that time, instead of there being a hierarchy from Chevy on up to Cadillac, suddenly the lower four brands were trying to be all things to all people. And Pontiac seemed to be trying the hardest of all, with cheap cars like the Astre on one end, and the Electra/98 wanna-be Grand Ville at the top. Once the economy began to recover from the first oil embargo, big car sales in general started to recover, but it was a recovery that left Pontiac behind. The Grand Prix was a strong seller, but traditionally popular cars like the LeMans, Catalina, and Bonneville faired pretty poorly. By the late 70's, I think Pontiac's biggest sellers were the Grand Prix, Firebird/Trans Am, and Sunbird.
When the second fuel crisis hit, Pontiac plunged again, and by 1983, GM was seriously considering dropping them. But, for 1984 they were reborn, as they tried to return to their performance/sporty car heritage. Then, in the later 80's, it seemed like Buick stumbled a bit, and then it was Oldsmobile...only Olds never recovered.
berri, the '59 profit was $28.5 million at Studebaker, a record, but the '60 profit was down to $708,000 due to the Big Three compacts and dualled dealers being pressured to dump their Studebaker franchises at that point. Still, a profit in '60. In '62, though not profitable, they built 110K Larks, Hawks, and Champ pickups, and some larger trucks. They were down to about 91K '63 Larks, Hawks, Avanti, and Champs, and some larger trucks; and '64 they were down to about 47K cars and trucks. Trucks, Hawks, and Avantis were discontinued in Dec. '63 ('64 model year).
RE: GM--I think one reason all the middle divisions at GM did well for so long, was there was differentiation between the lines for a good bit.
My hometown had an excellent Chevy-Cadillac dealer when I was growing up, where I bought my first two new Chevys, my Dad always bought, and my grandfather always bought. I remember them running a newspaper ad that had their name (Dart) and had Cadillac written above Chevrolet. Between 'Cadillac' and 'Chevrolet', it said, "There's really nothing in between". What a slam to B-O-P! Ironically, in the mid-eighties they added Buick and Olds when that dealer retired.
I've read that the Chevrolet dealer was generally the strongest dealer in any given town in the postwar prosperity years; Ford was next, and so forth. By the '60's, usually the weakest dealer in town was the Studebaker dealer. We had one for 40 years run by the same family, and their market share in our county was better than Studebaker's nationally, but it was a comparatively small building. The last Studebaker dealer in the small city I live in now was simultaneously a body shop, "radiator expert", and camper sales place--right through '66! They didn't sign with Studebaker until '62, when the previous dealer got out. The franchise was then moved to a different building.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
@andre1969 said:
I think one reason GM might have done so well at differentiating those divisions is that they all existed outside of GM.
In my youth, I recall that Pontiac was a performance car just a notch above Chevy. But the Oldsmobile carried its 1950's performance image with the Rocket symbolic as being a faster, better car than Pontiac. And Buick was a premium brand for those not quite up to spending on a Cadillac.
I recall somewhere in the the time of the Wide Track image for Pontiac that Pontiac was being nurtured to distinguish them from Chevy and Oldsmobile both.
GM was quite brilliant for a while there in differentiating their products. Chevy was the affordable (but not cheap) brand, then came the more "youthful" Pontiac (at least after 1955), then Buick and Olds for the successful younger professional on the way up, and then Cadillac for the person who has "made it".
Ford tried to position the Edsel in such a hierarchy but there was no room in their pricing structure between Ford and Mercury. Im not sure Ford ever got the general public to understand their brand hierarchy, even though there was one.
Chrysler's cachet was "engineering".
Studebaker was for 'thrifty" people generally, who wanted more for less. They competed with Nash/ AMC
Packard didn't know what it was anymore, after WW II
The Independents didn't have the capital to field a wide array of brands so they got creative and made do with what they had.
From what I've heard, Pontiac's transformation to the performance division started in 1957, the year they got rid of Exner's old "Silver Streak". Prior to that, I think it had started to develop a bit of a stodgy image. One of my old car books said it became a car for retired doctors and such. 1959, though, seems to be the year that Pontiac was truly cast as the performance division.
When GM started aligning their platforms a bit more for 1959, it seemed like Buick and Olds became more or less level in terms of prestige, IMO at least. Before that, the top Olds 98 was still on the B-body, same as all the 88 models as well as the Buick Special and Century. The 98 was on a longer wheelbase, 126" versus 122" for the others, But, it was still just a stretch of a shorter body, whereas the Buick Super and Roadmaster were on the same C-body platform as the Cadillac.
For 1959, the 98, Electra, and Cadillacs were all on the same platform, so I'd imagine that gave the 98 a bit of a prestige boost.
Also, interestingly, while Buick tended to be considered upscale from Oldsmobile, the Special actually undercut the cheapest 88 in price. I remember seeing an old road test from 1955 or 1956 where they put a Special in a comparison with a Chevy Bel Air, Plymouth Belvedere, and Ford Fairlane. Equipped similarly, there wasn't a huge price difference. And, as I recall, the Buick didn't do especially well. The smaller, lighter cars with optional V-8's were better performers than the base Buick with its somewhat weak V-8.
I remember seeing an old road test from 1955 or 1956 where they put a Special in a comparison with a Chevy Bel Air, Plymouth Belvedere, and Ford Fairlane. Equipped similarly, there wasn't a huge price difference.
When I was shopping for my 1977 Cutass, I recall using Edmunds paperback book
to compare the prices for the Buick and the Pontiac. IIRC, when adding in the options that were not on the others for what I was looking at in a Cutlass Supreme coupe, they were within $50 of each other. Now the engine in the 350 Oldsmobile was a lighter engine and higher performance in torque or horsepower as I remember comparing.
The Olds and Chevy engine both adapted to emissions controls better than the Buick and Pontiac 350's (dumb trivia...if you do the math, the Pontiac engine is actually a 353 or something like that). But, as you stated, the Olds 350 was lighter than the others (more nickel in the block, which made it stronger yet lighter), so that probably helped a bit.
As for torque, well I know an Olds 307 from 1985 has more torque at a lower rpm than a Chevy 305. So I guess it's not too much of a stretch to think an Olds 350 might be torquier than a Chevy 350.
Comments
You really should drive a new Impala. I did with the 2.5L. It was larger than I wanted but performed well. The drive was controlled much more than the previous generation Impala. I seriously considered an Impala used from a local dealer. The full bench seat was attractive to me. I'd ridden in one and knew its ride was a modern Buick like ride: very comfortable.
Used cars in this area with low mileage are fairly pricey, although I'd be afraid to wave a much lower amount if I really wasn't ready to buy--they might take it or come back with a slightly higher price. But the premium for a new Malibu was low enough I really wanted it equipped the way I would like. That's no sunroof, no nav, et cetera, and safety including rear cross traffic--except it doesn't shake the seat like Cadillac does for side alert when backing out.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So did performance seem adequate, even with the 2.5 4-cyl? I've been kinda curious as to how something like that would perform...seems a bit over-matched for a car that weighs about two tons. I wonder what its 0-60 time would be.
Interestingly, at one time, 200 hp in a 4000 lb car would have been considered pretty good. But, in those days it also came with a lot more torque so the engine didn't have to strain too hard. My '57 DeSoto weighs about two tons, and probably has about 200 hp net (270 gross). But, it has a 341 CID Hemi V-8 (~5.6 Liters) to move it along. The only road test I ever saw of a '57 Firedome put 0-60 in about 9.7 or 9.8 seconds. Consumer Reports griped about the car being over-powered. Yet today, a car taking that long to hit 60 mph would probably be laughed at. I wonder if there's even anything that slow left in the US market?
Besides my '99 Quest you mean? It's around 10-something iirc.
Seems like a Prius is in the same ballpark.
Laugh away.
days it also came with a lot more torque so the engine didn't have to strain too hard. My '57 DeSoto weighs about two tons, and probably has about 200 hp net (270 gross). But, it has a 341 CID Hemi V-8 (~5.6 Liters) to move it along.
My thinking is that it's the torque at 2000 - 2500 for many drivers like myself who are fairly smooth driveres that makes the feeling of power. A little higher torque converter stall speed and little higher final drive ratio along with the 6-speed automatic in the Impala/Malibu makes a difference.
A salesman who sneaked up on my at another local dealer when I was browsing said some say the 2.5 in Malibu feels like the 3.6L in the Impala when they drove them. He's a serious guy--I'd talked to him when their store had a 2010 Cobalt I liked except for the color and price asked. I should look at final drive ratios and weight for the Impala and Malibu. And tire size as well.
Here's the 3800 in the Lucerne:
Northstar in Lucerne:
2.5L in Impala:
2.5L in Malibu:
3.6L in Impala:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
i love that piece of advice!
2) "Bad news doesn't get better with age"."
I never found the old Impala to be that bad of a rental. Not sure how they carried that frequent tight rear seat over to the newer Malibu's though?
Bad news doesn't get better with age AND procrastination is a very frequent, and often daily frustration for those in leadership positions having to repeatedly deal with it!
I'm sure a 4 cyl Impala is adequate. I've read somewhere the 0-60 is around 8 seconds. That's certainly not slow. But if I'm buying a car like the Impala, I want effortless power, so I woudln't want the 2.5. Plus I've yet to be impressed by a GM 4 cyl, particularly when pushed.
I'd be curious how it performs with a full load of passengers, that's probably where the 4cyl would strain particularly at highway speeds. I find my wife's '13 v6 Taurus adequate and it feels slow compared to my Ram, though the reality is they are likely similar 0-60. The difference is the Ram has better gearing and a lot of power at lower rpm, so accelration feels effortless. The Taurus is geared tall, even with the 6 speed, and for whatever reason, it doesn't have a lot of power until over 4k rpm.
It's amazing what gearing can do. A 4cyl Impala is quicker than a 3800 Lucerne.
I do like the new Impala. Though only in LTZ trim. I see a silver LTZ with tinted windows almost daily, and I like it. I don't care for the lower trim models nearly as much.
I don't like rear spoilers either, especially on sedans. We're probably in the minority, though.
I think the '57 Firedome would easily beat a 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage.
Great pieces of advice.
Wagoner was at GM for a long time, and the problem was known during his tenure.Who knows whether the problem was surfaced during the BK, but it was probably not on those CEO's list to surface at a time that GM was fighting for survival. So I blame the old guard.
The boss who gave me advice #1, returning calls/emails by the end of the day, was the CEO of the company I worked for then, a much-despised character, but that was an excellent piece of advice. The boss who said "Bad news doesn't get better with age" was my immediate boss at a different company. He was tough at first but I got to enjoy him. He had been career military before he came to work at the company after he retired, still a reasonably-young guy.
Imidazol, I know what you mean about 'high used car prices in this area'. I was stunned at what used Cobalts were bringing when I bought my daughter's '09 for $5,500 on eBay several months back. It had 57K miles and is a 1LT, auto, PW, PDL, satellite radio, no ABS, clean CarFax. They were thousands more than that at dealers. Funny, her boyfriend has an '08 Cobalt. Sometimes all three of ours are sitting in the driveway here. None of are part of the recall.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/honda-builds-20-millionth-vehicle-on-us-soil.html
I just looked it up at http://www.zeroto60times.com/Chevrolet-Chevy-0-60-mph-Times.html and yup, the 4-cyl Impala is good for 0-60 in 7.9 seconds. The 3.6 is listed at 6.1!
I'd also be curious to see how the Impala would perform with a full load. That is an area where a lot of older, torquier cars had an advantage. Even if they didn't do so hot in the 0-60 test, you had to really load them up before you'd see a big drop in performance. I remember the first time I had four people in my 2000 Intrepid and tried to merge onto the highway, it's a miracle I didn't get rear-ended! But with just one or two people on board, it was fine. The Intrepid also didn't have a very broad torque curve. I think peak torque came on around 4900 rpm, and peak hp was around 5900 rpm. But at lower speeds there wasn't much muscle. That 2.5, according to the charts Imidazol97 posted, seems to have a fairly decent torque curve. So add that to the extra gears in the transmission, and it looks like GM did a pretty good job of getting a decent time out of the 4-cyl Impala, despite its weight.
Most 0-60 times I've seen for my old Intrepid, a ~3400 lb car with a 2.7 V-6, 200 hp, 190 ft-lb of torque, put it around 9.5 seconds. Definitely seemed more than adequate at the time, but when you start driving quicker cars, you get used to them and the "quicker" just doesn't seem so impressive anymore.
I think the Lucerne with the 3800 was also listed at around 9.5 seconds. I wonder if the 3900 they replaced that engine with was much better? I think it had about 30 more hp (~227 versus ~197) and more torque as well.
When they were newly out, I remember seeing 4-cyl. Impalas that I'd be proud to have in my driveway, inside and out, sticker for $27.5K. Seemed like a lot of car to me. I do wish you could get the chromed side molding of the LTZ on the lesser models though.
The 10 Worst Cars of All Time - well, we all know these lists are pretty subjective. Still, people other than the posters in this forum have put 5 of the 10 cars listed as GM vehicles:
autos.yahoo.com/news/10-worst-cars-of-all-time-revisited-012257791.html
Also note the mention of a 1974 Vega, in California, with severe rust problems. I've posted in the past about my friend's brand-new 1974 Vega GT, also in Southern California, that rusted around the windows in only a couple of years. Some posters doubted my story. Apparently the author of this article saw a Vega with the same issue
. It was a very common problem.
Hopefully GM will never have any of its newer cars on this type of list. Let Toyota or some other make take that badge of honor.
No offense, but I still doubt that story. Years have a way of making good things spectacular and bad things even worse. I lived in salt-laden western PA, and I was a student of Vegas then (LOL). I never even saw a '71 Vega with holes around the windshield in two years. Four? Maybe...and that's inexcusable. But we can agree to disagree. You say 'rust around the windows' now, but I'm thinking you said 'holes around the windshield within two years' previously. Those can be a couple of different things.
I've seen people claim they remember holes in Vegas in less than one year. Simply did not happen. In fact, my grandparents in our town bought the very first new Vega our dealer got in. It sat out all the time. It was very low-mileage, and it did have one small bubble on the top of the LF fender in about five years.
Also, one can dislike the Cimarron or the Aztek, but 'worst cars'? Hardly.
In old cars, I like Studebakers because they're unusual, but with similar criteria as this list you referenced, a list of history's "best cars" would probably include more GM's than any other manufacturer. I could easily see '55-57 Chevys, Pontiac GTO's, early Camaros, Chevelle SS's, and multiple Corvettes on such a list.
I hadn't paid much attention to the Impala options like the chrome lower molding. Looking at the cars on the lot, I didn't look at LTZ's and hadn't noticed the molding. In the pictures in the brochure, I see it AND I like it.
It is available on other models if you are determined enough. Order the part through your body shop guy and have him install it as an aftermarket item. I assume it's a stickon piece. or uses stick on clips to which it snaps.
Reminds me of my 1980 Mustang. I wanted a rear sway bar for the extra flatness cornering and driving without ordering the heavy duty suspension which I had done on my 67. I ordered the pieces and installed it myself.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The story I've always heard is that you could start seeing rust in the fender tops after 1-2 harsh winters. It was years later that I heard about the A-pillar rust. We used to see a Vega pretty regularly at the Hershey car show, and it looked good for the most part. But, I seem to remember it having some pretty nasty looking rust under the hood, in that area that braces up the fenders.
They were definitely marketing flops, and I think the Aztek in particular stands out because of that show "Breaking Bad". I started watching it a couple months ago, and seeing the main character with an Aztek that was missing a hubcap caught my attention immediately. I didn't realize that show was that popular, but apparently it is. Or was, as I think it wrapped up. Plus, with all the constant coverage on the internet, the fact that the Aztek was a failure simply will not die. Just imagine what things would have been like if we had internet back when the Cimarron or Vega came out!
Truth be told, I think the failure of the Edsel is something that gets blown out of proportion. Their original goal was to sell 100,000 of them for 1958. They ended up at around 63,000. Meanwhile, from 1957-58, brands like Mercury, Dodge, and DeSoto fell by half or more. Chrysler fell by nearly half, and I think Edsel actually outsold them. The mid-price market got hammered particularly hard in that recession, as Buick and Pontiac were also hit hard. Oldsmobile, was relatively unscathed, which perplexes me a bit, because I always thought they were pretty homely looking.
Anyway, Ford had moved Mercury upscale for 1957, to clear some room for Edsel. So in a way it was actually Mercury that was moving into unforged territory, not Edsel. Edsel was gone a couple months into the 1960 model year, and for 1961 Mercury moved back downscale, to where it had been. So you could argue that the bigger, more expensive Mercurys were a flop, maybe moreso than the Edsel. After all, Ford didn't abandon that price class of car, they simply changed it from Mercury to Edsel and then back again.
But, "Edsel" became synonymous with focus group failures, marketing mishaps, etc. And yes, to a degree, it was the wrong car at the wrong time, coming into an over-crowded market during a recession year, with oversized engines and poor quality control. So, the car itself was nothing to crow about. But I'd still say it was more of a marketing failure, than any real fault of the car itself.
I have no idea as to reliability, but the Aztek has to be one of the ugliest cars ever made.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
Right up there with the Cube and Juke, IMHO.
Andre, I agree totally--other than the Teletouch shift control, why would an Edsel be any worse than a Ford or Mercury of a similar year? Marketing flop? Yes. Bad car? No worse than anything else from Ford at the time.
Was that Vega at Hershey kind of a purply-blue, light color? A '73? That's one I remember seeing there. At cruise-ins near here, a guy regularly shows his one-owner '72 Vega Kammback, bone-stock, red with black Custom Cloth interior (extremely nicer than the taxicab-variant standard interior). He worked at Lordstown and bought it new. It looks nice, although I'm weird in that I like 'big bumper' Vegas better 'cause some features of the first Vegas look a little too dainty for me.
Considering I detest the Juke and Cube, ironically it's Nissans over the years that I've considered best-looking Japanese models. I like the late '80's (I think), smooth, simple-lined Maxima that had a wall-to-wall taillight lens across the back; first car I ever saw in a pearlescent white. I also like the '02 Altima, the car that IMHO started the trend of putting chrome accents inside taillight lenses.
The Element, Cube, Odyssey have to have some of the worst designs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The only thing on Odysseys, historically, I've thought was sort-of goofy, styling-wise, was horizontal taillights on a tall minivan--although it is original. I wasn't a fan of the shift lever sticking out of the dash, either. This current Odyssey, though--the rear-third looks like it's ready to fall off IMHO!
So you could argue that the bigger, more expensive Mercurys were a flop, maybe moreso than the Edsel
That's an interesting point. I can only speak based on growing up in the Chicago area and someone else might have different perceptions, but back in the 50's and 60's Ford dealers seemed very promotional and generally sold for less than a Chevy. Even back then, Mercury (and Lincoln for that matter) didn't seem to have all that much appeal in our area. So it seemed like when someone who owned a Ford went upscale, it was usually over to GM, like a Pontiac or Buick. Plymouth seemed to be more a small, but loyal pool of buyers. So when they went upscale it was often a Chrysler. However, Mopar lost some of them when they downsized in 62.
I think Ford was trying to improve their mid-priced standing when they introduced Edsel and tried to move Mercury from a Pontiac or lower end Olds to a Buick competitor. While a lot of people zoom in on some of Edsel's unusual looks and features, they forget it was the space ship era of 1957-59. I think two things that hurt Edsel. First, there was a lot of hype and sneak previews for the car before it came out. That raised potential buyer expectations and the actual car maybe didn't live up to all of that. Now, the press panned it's looks, but they dumped on Olds and Buick that year too. Rather, I think the second thing may have been that like many new things, the initial Edsel's had a lot of quality and performance issues on the early models (Ironically, the 59 had a decent quality reputation). Hudson and Nash were recently departed, Studebaker was in trouble, and rumors of Desoto's demise had surfaced already. So all of this led potential buyers to fear ending up with an orphan. Combined this with the recession and why not play it safe with a Chevy or Pontiac.
Also, it didn't help things for Edsel that it was introduced at a time when most car buying decisions were made by men/husbands, and the front of the vehicle was often compared to a certain part of female anatomy.
The Odyssey certainly isn't the best looking van from the outside, but they are nice to drive and ride in. My sister has a brand new Oddy and is nice to ride in and seems well laid out on the inside.
We're 750 miles into our drive to Orlando. So far the Ram has been flawless. Yesterday, I drove 75-85 mph the a 15+mph head wind. Computer said 18.5 mpg, actual was 17.7 mpg. I'm good with that. Today so far it says 21 mpg avg, daughter has been driving with cruise set at 72. Nice having the 32 gal fuel tank. We've driven 307 miles on this tank and still have nearly 1/2 a tank with an estimated range of 293 miles. Not bad IMO for nearly 400hp and well over 6,000l of truck, 4 people and a bed full of luggage.
Anyway, man is traffic heavy. Every other vehicle is a minivan. For whatever reason, been a lot of vehicles with flat tires. While going through Tennessee, nearly every vehicle was from either Indiana, Michigan, or Ohio.
The older Odysseys were a bit better than the new ones, and better than the new Quests, but they're minivans anyway. Not a lot you can do with slabs. I rather like the Element and Cube and the Juke is okay too.
Something else I forgot about, regarding the Edsel. IIRC, they didn't have a dedicated assembly plant. As a result, the smaller Ranger/Pacer were put together on a Ford assembly line, while the larger Corsair/Citation were built on a Mercury line. And both lines were sped up, so the Edsels were rushed out the door a bit quicker than their Ford or Mercury counterparts. That probably hurt quality control compared to a Ford or Mercury. And, Ford's was pretty bad that year. I don't know about Mercury though...I don't recall hearing too much horrible about them, except they weren't very hot sellers.
First of all, the specimen that my friend had was a '74 Vega GT, hatchback, navy blue mettalic, four speed. Not a '71. I seem to remember seeing more Vegas of the '74 type vintage (the ones with the newer bumper style) that had the rust and holes, as compared to the earlier models. Another friend had a '71 Vega wagon and during the time I knew him I don't remember ever seeing any rust at all. I did say rust in this last post, but I meant "rust and holes". I didn't say holes here but I can guarantee you that there were plenty of holes along both the bottom of the windshield and rear hatch window. However, I didn't heare about or see any floorboard issues as the article suggests.
As far as the time frame, his car was a '74, and we commuted to college together in the years '76-77.. I don't remember exactly what year the holes first appeared, but they were holes and not just rust during a portion of that time. I also don't know when he bought the car - it could have been late '73,, so if that were the case, then the holes were present at least 3 or 4 years into the car's life. Since holes were present, I suspect that rust alone was present even sooner than that.
front of the vehicle was often compared to a certain part of female anatomy.
Haha Busiris, but that didn't seem to hurt the sales of some similarly grilled European models! Of course, if your into abstract art I suppose you can also argue that the pair of headlamp encasements were...
Andre, you're right that they split assembly plants along those lines even though they restructured the company along a Ford vs. MEL Division structure. Had to undo all of that too when Edsel folded.
Trust me tlong, the rustproofing wasn't better with the '71's and went downhill with the '74's.
In fact, in '74 the rustproofing improved significantly with the addition of inner fenders mid-year, for one thing. I suspect, as I think most people who know the cars at all would, that there would be no difference in windshield mounting or surrounding sheetmetal from '71 through '74. Whatever anyone believes, I think we can all agree that cars shouldn't have holes there even in four or five years. The '76 brochure mentions improvements made there:
http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Chevrolet/1976_Chevrolet/1976_Chevrolet_Vega_Brochure/1976-Chevrolet-Vega-02-03
Thanks. I don't think I saw this post earlier. I appreciate your good wishes.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So did performance seem adequate, even with the 2.5 4-cyl?
I don't think I directly answered that. It was adequate for me; I drive like an old man around the countryside. That's why I'm so happy with my 3800 leSabre. But I am sure there's a difference with the 3.6 VVT engine in the Impala. Car was bigger than I wanted or needed. I actually was interested in a Cruze or Verano or something that size.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think Uplander commented about the chrome accent along the bottom of the Impala. I hadn't noticed it because I was looking at Impalas that were parked with 2 feet between them in the lineup gallery at the dealer.
I like the accent chrome.
I just realize my Malibu has an accent piece on the middle of the door. It is the same color as the car. It's part of one of the packages that I wanted for something else. I see that even the same color piece changes the appearance. I wonder if I could get it in chrome? Hmmmmmm.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I hate that, at Chevy anyway, you can't get side protection on any model except the Malibu. I'd have to have that molding on one. The chrome trim on the Impala is for decoration; too low to be of any protection. The LS and LT Impalas have a body-colored molding there...in fact, I believe it's recessed. Does your Malibu have those wheels? I've seen some with them; look nice IMHO.
This is the color and wheels of mine. 18 inch. I had to go through about 8 large dealers to find one with a correct picture for a 2LT in black with the side molding. It looked like most 2LTs were sold when we were looking. Must be a good price point for leasing as well as the total price point.
These pictures are better than average for the ones shot at dealers. But they're still not good. Why do they think they can use a cell phone camera? It needs to be shot at a focal length of about 100.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well, the Europeans have never had the extreme Puritan-like hang ups about sex and the human body like we've had (and still do, btw) here in the US.
As an example: Mixed-sex saunas in some of the hotels I've stayed at in Western Europe. Folks sit in them nude, both men and women, and no one gives it a second thought. Some folks even bring their kids with them. It's just normal behavior there.
Women attendants in the men's rooms at restaurants, hotels, etc. are also the norm...
berri, I largely agree with your assessment of the Edsel, but a lot of folks don't seem to be aware that Studebaker had its most profitable year of its 114-year existence building vehicles, in 1959. The auto division was profitable again in '60 and as late as the '62 model year, still built over 100,000 vehicles which exceeded Edsel's first year, even with a long strike at South Bend.
I knew that the initial couple of years of Lark's were popular, but I didn't realize Studebaker had made record profits. With companies like Hudson and Nash going out of business in 57, I think consumers were still a bit frightened of buying an potential orphan new (made some good deals used though). They'd pop for a base 6 cylinder Rambler, but seemed much more reluctant to purchase a loaded one or an Ambassador.
I was always impressed how GM managed to maintain all of those BOP mid priced brands for so long. I think by the latter 50's it was pretty obvious that Ford was going to have to make due with Mercury in that bracket and really the Chrysler brand was expanding to handle it for Mopar. Dodge was always a bit of an oddball back then to me. Not really a clean fit into mid priced or low priced back then, but ultimately outlasted Plymouth. Even in the mid 60's when the lower priced brands expanded into LTD, Caprice, and upper line Fury, BOP kept moving merrily along. In fact back in the 70's I think Cutlass was the top seller some years. Maybe this was all a reflection of a strong GM dealership organization besides good brand advertising and product?
I think one reason GM might have done so well at differentiating those divisions is that they all existed outside of GM. Olds, Buick, Cadillac, Oakland (Pontiac) and Chevrolet were all companies that were forged on their own, and ultimately acquired by GM. Even under GM management, they were all fairly autonomous, although would become more and more alike as the years went by.
In contrast, while Ford bought Lincoln, Mercury and Edsel were divisions that were brought out by the company. And with Chrysler, while Chrysler did acquire the Dodge Brothers, DeSoto and Plymouth were brands launched by the company, and then in later years they tried to spin Imperial off on its own. As a result, I don't think the various Ford or Mopar divisions ever had the autonomy that the GM divisions did.
GM did start to falter a bit in the 1970's, however. By that time, instead of there being a hierarchy from Chevy on up to Cadillac, suddenly the lower four brands were trying to be all things to all people. And Pontiac seemed to be trying the hardest of all, with cheap cars like the Astre on one end, and the Electra/98 wanna-be Grand Ville at the top. Once the economy began to recover from the first oil embargo, big car sales in general started to recover, but it was a recovery that left Pontiac behind. The Grand Prix was a strong seller, but traditionally popular cars like the LeMans, Catalina, and Bonneville faired pretty poorly. By the late 70's, I think Pontiac's biggest sellers were the Grand Prix, Firebird/Trans Am, and Sunbird.
When the second fuel crisis hit, Pontiac plunged again, and by 1983, GM was seriously considering dropping them. But, for 1984 they were reborn, as they tried to return to their performance/sporty car heritage. Then, in the later 80's, it seemed like Buick stumbled a bit, and then it was Oldsmobile...only Olds never recovered.
berri, the '59 profit was $28.5 million at Studebaker, a record, but the '60 profit was down to $708,000 due to the Big Three compacts and dualled dealers being pressured to dump their Studebaker franchises at that point. Still, a profit in '60. In '62, though not profitable, they built 110K Larks, Hawks, and Champ pickups, and some larger trucks. They were down to about 91K '63 Larks, Hawks, Avanti, and Champs, and some larger trucks; and '64 they were down to about 47K cars and trucks. Trucks, Hawks, and Avantis were discontinued in Dec. '63 ('64 model year).
RE: GM--I think one reason all the middle divisions at GM did well for so long, was there was differentiation between the lines for a good bit.
My hometown had an excellent Chevy-Cadillac dealer when I was growing up, where I bought my first two new Chevys, my Dad always bought, and my grandfather always bought. I remember them running a newspaper ad that had their name (Dart) and had Cadillac written above Chevrolet. Between 'Cadillac' and 'Chevrolet', it said, "There's really nothing in between". What a slam to B-O-P! Ironically, in the mid-eighties they added Buick and Olds when that dealer retired.
I've read that the Chevrolet dealer was generally the strongest dealer in any given town in the postwar prosperity years; Ford was next, and so forth. By the '60's, usually the weakest dealer in town was the Studebaker dealer. We had one for 40 years run by the same family, and their market share in our county was better than Studebaker's nationally, but it was a comparatively small building. The last Studebaker dealer in the small city I live in now was simultaneously a body shop, "radiator expert", and camper sales place--right through '66! They didn't sign with Studebaker until '62, when the previous dealer got out. The franchise was then moved to a different building.
In my youth, I recall that Pontiac was a performance car just a notch above Chevy. But the Oldsmobile carried its 1950's performance image with the Rocket symbolic as being a faster, better car than Pontiac. And Buick was a premium brand for those not quite up to spending on a Cadillac.
I recall somewhere in the the time of the Wide Track image for Pontiac that Pontiac was being nurtured to distinguish them from Chevy and Oldsmobile both.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM was quite brilliant for a while there in differentiating their products. Chevy was the affordable (but not cheap) brand, then came the more "youthful" Pontiac (at least after 1955), then Buick and Olds for the successful younger professional on the way up, and then Cadillac for the person who has "made it".
Ford tried to position the Edsel in such a hierarchy but there was no room in their pricing structure between Ford and Mercury. Im not sure Ford ever got the general public to understand their brand hierarchy, even though there was one.
Chrysler's cachet was "engineering".
Studebaker was for 'thrifty" people generally, who wanted more for less. They competed with Nash/ AMC
Packard didn't know what it was anymore, after WW II
The Independents didn't have the capital to field a wide array of brands so they got creative and made do with what they had.
From what I've heard, Pontiac's transformation to the performance division started in 1957, the year they got rid of Exner's old "Silver Streak". Prior to that, I think it had started to develop a bit of a stodgy image. One of my old car books said it became a car for retired doctors and such. 1959, though, seems to be the year that Pontiac was truly cast as the performance division.
When GM started aligning their platforms a bit more for 1959, it seemed like Buick and Olds became more or less level in terms of prestige, IMO at least. Before that, the top Olds 98 was still on the B-body, same as all the 88 models as well as the Buick Special and Century. The 98 was on a longer wheelbase, 126" versus 122" for the others, But, it was still just a stretch of a shorter body, whereas the Buick Super and Roadmaster were on the same C-body platform as the Cadillac.
For 1959, the 98, Electra, and Cadillacs were all on the same platform, so I'd imagine that gave the 98 a bit of a prestige boost.
Also, interestingly, while Buick tended to be considered upscale from Oldsmobile, the Special actually undercut the cheapest 88 in price. I remember seeing an old road test from 1955 or 1956 where they put a Special in a comparison with a Chevy Bel Air, Plymouth Belvedere, and Ford Fairlane. Equipped similarly, there wasn't a huge price difference. And, as I recall, the Buick didn't do especially well. The smaller, lighter cars with optional V-8's were better performers than the base Buick with its somewhat weak V-8.
I remember seeing an old road test from 1955 or 1956 where they put a Special in a comparison with a Chevy Bel Air, Plymouth Belvedere, and Ford Fairlane. Equipped similarly, there wasn't a huge price difference.
When I was shopping for my 1977 Cutass, I recall using Edmunds paperback book
to compare the prices for the Buick and the Pontiac. IIRC, when adding in the options that were not on the others for what I was looking at in a Cutlass Supreme coupe, they were within $50 of each other. Now the engine in the 350 Oldsmobile was a lighter engine and higher performance in torque or horsepower as I remember comparing.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Olds and Chevy engine both adapted to emissions controls better than the Buick and Pontiac 350's (dumb trivia...if you do the math, the Pontiac engine is actually a 353 or something like that). But, as you stated, the Olds 350 was lighter than the others (more nickel in the block, which made it stronger yet lighter), so that probably helped a bit.
As for torque, well I know an Olds 307 from 1985 has more torque at a lower rpm than a Chevy 305. So I guess it's not too much of a stretch to think an Olds 350 might be torquier than a Chevy 350.