Wife and daughters are in Columbus shopping today, so I went to the nearest Chevy dealer to kill some time (they're closed today and not the place I typically go for service). I saw a bright blue (I think it was called 'Blue Topaz') Impala that just stopped me in my tracks. It was an LS! Sticker was $27.6K. I think that's an incredible value. Even the LS has a big rear-seat center armrest, lots of bright trim inside, power driver's seat with power recline and lumbar, and even the passenger seat has power vertical adjustment, standard. I also saw a "2LZ" per the sticker, but said "LTZ" on the back--for $36.7K, including sunroof. That's less than I thought those cost. It was a V6, but was built in the U.S.--at introduction time, the six-cylinder Impalas were built in Canada.
Imidazol, I saw some Malibus. For looks, the LTZ is hard to beat, with its large tires that really fill the wheel openings, and polished wheels, but one I looked at was just under $30K.
Oh, saw my first two '15 Tahoes there. One was $61.9K and the other $66K. Both were 4WD. I thought I was going to pass out right there. They look nice, but...sheesh.
Fun to look. I have tried to avoid doing that, just to avoid frustration.
Got offers for three months free OnStar and three months free satellite radio for my daughter's '09 Cobalt (not bad for a used car I bought on eBay!), so I had both activated before they left this morning....probably about a 250-mile or so round trip. I asked my wife to take that car so it gets some exercise instead of the five-mile-round-trip to and from school it usually gets daily.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Even the LS has a big rear-seat center armrest, lots of bright trim inside, power driver's seat with power recline and lumbar, and even the passenger seat has power vertical adjustment, standard.
I'm still looking for that lack of rear legroom. The driver seat is adjusted for me; passenger, wife. Still legroom for taller folk. More legroom that Optima/Sonata. Almost equal to Accord IIRC.
Note fold down center armrest in rear with a compartment for storage within.
Imidazol97...put that front seat all the way back. Recline it a bit. Raise the front some, and lower the back. That's how I'd have it adjusted for my 6'3" frame.
To GM's credit, however, it looks like they hollowed out the seatback a bit, and it appears to be soft-padded rather than hard plastic. It's a nice looking interior, too. I think that combination of beige and cocoa, or whatever they call it, is really attractive.
I kinda wish I was in the market for a car. I wouldn't mind taking an Impala out for a spin.
I want to drive one in the worst way, but I don't want to be pestered. I'm a bad liar and a bad BS'er.
I had thought that Impalas had a flush-mounted body-colored side molding, except for chrome on the LTZ, but I was wrong on that when I looked today. I've been away too long, I guess. Only the LTZ has a molding of any kind, and it's a raised chrome molding which I like. Still too low to provide any protection, but looks nice.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Saw a commercial tonight advertising an award won by the Buick Encore (can't remember from whom) for being "best sub compact CUV" or something similar to that. Got me wondering, exactly how many other "sub compact CUVs" are out there with which to compete? I can't think of another. Also made me realize that most of Buick's five car fleet are 4-cylinders these days, 4-cyl only for Encore, Verano and Regal and a choice for LaCrosse. Only the Enclave is exclusively 6-cyl. 8 cylinders are MIA. I'll bet the Buick loyalists (if there are any of those left) never saw this day coming.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
I always wondered about the cylinders thing. The one thing six adds over 4 is refinement, but 8 cylinders these days? Nowadays most 4 cyls are stronger than 8 cyls from the '70's, and certainly 6 cylinders of today are much more strong and refined than the 8's of years gone by. Seems to me the only real reason for 8 cylinders would be high torque or just a need for wildly excessive power.
I agree, nice interior colors indeed. I like a lighter color interior to kind of brighten things up without needing the sunroof open. In my area where the skies are so often dreary, it makes a difference.
Regarding V8s, they are on the way out for mainstream models. 2014 is the last year for a non-tuned V8 E-class.
@tlong said:
I always wondered about the cylinders thing. The one thing six adds over 4 is refinement, but 8 cylinders these days? Nowadays most 4 cyls are stronger than 8 cyls from the '70's, and certainly 6 cylinders of today are much more strong and refined than the 8's of years gone by. Seems to me the only real reason for 8 cylinders would be high torque or just a need for wildly excessive power.
Agree on the refinement comment. These days, the game is turbo 4-cylinder engines with more power than 6-cylinders. I always figured that the power was nice, but no 4-cyl could ever touch a 6-cyl in refinement. The 2.0L turbo in my daughter's new Optima may have just about proven me wrong. I feel the engine a bit at idle, but past that this thing is smooth, quiet and very refined. I'm impressed. The base 2.4 naturally aspirated engine, on the other hand, felt more like the 4-cyl engines I'm used to. However, it was still a good bit more refined than the 2.4L in the previous gen Malibu and 2.5L in the Fusion. I haven't sampled the newer 2.5L in the current Malibu.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
pretty sure 99%+ of buick owners never open the hood, so tell them it has anything and they won't know the difference! And frankly, these days I doubt they care as long as the car is smooth, quiet, has enough power, and is reasonably economical.
The 1.8t in my son's Jetta is very smooth. And really scoots when you boot it, without getting thrashy. No, does not sound like a V8, but it does get better mileage while still being pretty darned quick. He does not notice any difference on the highway, or merging, from the TL V6 he used to drive.
@andre1969 said:
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.
Compare the 1954 and 1955 Pontiacs, styling and drivetrain wise, and you'll see that 1955 was the transformational year for that brand, regardless of the marketing. The 1955 was truly all-new, and the term stodgy no longer applied. The performance improvements between the 1954 and 1955 Pontiacs was equivalent to the Chevys for those years, and the styling differences were also comparable.
I've always thought that there were more changes in the industry in '55, and '65, than any other single model years. I would include '77 in there, except the huge change was only for GM. Those other years, all of the Big Three had all-new cars (styling-wise, anyway; '65, the Big Three's 'standard' cars were new).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think 1957 would also be a close runner up. The entire Mopar lineup was new, as well as Buick, Olds, and Cadillac. Ford and Mercury were also new. Chevy and Pontiac weren't all-new, but about as heavily facelifted as those bodies could be. Lincoln was also a carry-over, but only in its second model year, and still looking pretty modern.
However, I don't think there was quite the technology jump in powertrains from 1956-57 as there was from 1954-55. Widespread V-8 and automatic transmission use was the big thing in 1955, plus a lot of cars suddenly breaking the 200 hp barrier. But for 1957, I think it was mainly just a matter of the engines getting bored and stroked. Chrysler had the 3-speed Torquelite, and Chevy had the 3-speed TurboGlide. Ford had a 3-speed automatic, but I can't remember if it was new for '57, or had been introduced earlier. And suddenly the 300 hp barrier wasn't such a lofty goal anymore. Although often, all that horsepower was more the result of the marketing department, than the engineering department.
I do think '77 was a pivotal year as well. Even though it was mainly just GM's big cars that were all-new, they set the wave of the future, for years to come, with downsizing and efficiency.
I guess nowadays, there are too many players in the market, and too many models across various nameplates, to ever have a repeat of 1955, 1957, or 1965. I guess, if GM, Mopar, and Ford all redesigned their trucks at the same time, is the most we'd get. Or if a new Altima, Camry, and Accord happen to debut at the same time.
"I don't recall the old Impala as being particularly troublesome in Consumer Reports' reliability surveys...unless they took a bad turn in more recent years? My biggest beef with them was that I didn't like the interior or cramped back seat of the 2000-2005 model."
As an ex-owner of of a 2000 Impala, yes, I can say that that model of Impala was indeed troublesome. If you don't believe me check out the Impala forums on this very site.
Over the 10 years of ownership I had to deal with a whole laundry list of issues:
Driver's Seat, Coolant sensor, Intake manifold gasket, Warped Rotors, Intermediate Steering Shaft, Engine Cradle, Shift solenoid x 2, Catalytic converter, Gas Tank Slosh @ ½ a tank and less & the Gauge Cluster
The final straw for me was when it could no longer idle without the A/C switched on.
I wouldn't exactly put warped rotors on that list, though. I've seen new high-buck Euro cars that mags complain needed rotors at pretty low mileage..like 20-something.
Boy, apparently imidazol, lemko, and I walk between the raindrops.
I had heard that the 2.2 liter four (not available in the Impala) was prone to intake manifold gasket issues, but I had three, all with over 100K miles and not an issue. I was religious about replacing the Dexcool at five years as recommended, though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
With 4 cylinder motors, as you increase displacement, you reach a point where things get ugly. I'd imagine that anything over 2.5L needs some pretty slick engineering to stay reasonably vibration-free.
You'd be surprised in my Cobalt, shifty. At idle, you very literally cannot tell by sound or feel that it is running. Original plugs and fuel filter at 75K. It is smoother than my daughter's '09 with automatic, though, which had been a fleet car. Probably twice a year I do put a bottle of Techron in it though, just for good measure. It is only a 2.2 liter though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yeah, the vibrational issues are not about the idle but about the rev range, on big displacement 4s. I think...I think...Tatra had a 3.0L 4 cylinder. That must have been a shaker.
"A robust public response is particularly important in wooing first-time customers, who are critical to the company's future profits. "They are thinking, I can either buy this GM car that I know kills people or I can buy something else," he said.
So far, the damage to the company's brand appears to have been minimal online.
Despite the barrage of headlines about federal investigations into GM's decade-long failure to issue the recall, overall sentiment about GM and its brands on Twitter has remained the same since the crisis began. According to an analysis by Crimson Hexagon, a social media analytics firm in Boston, about 26 percent of Twitter messages mentioning the company were positive, 71 percent were neutral and 3 percent were negative."
That first paragraph is pretty dopey, really. I think the recall is the worst one at GM in decades, but it doesn't affect me (although there are three Cobalts in my driveway right now since my daughter's boyfriend is here, and the recall doesn't apply to any of the three), and thus, since I have enjoyed my GM's and trust my dealer, the recall in no way whatsoever by itself would make me go elsewhere. But then, as I'm fond of saying, I'd have bought a new Studebaker in '64.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I don't think the general public much cares about it. They buy what they want to buy. I think most of this is media hysteria, and GM's "crisis" is already over in terms of bad PR. Sure, it's a black mark for them, but everyone over-rates the effect of recalls on sales. The public's attention span for this is very very short.
UA claims didn't kill Toyota sales, fires didn't kill Tesla sales---the list goes on and on.
All the company has to do is respond and start fixing the cars. If they do that, they're fine. Even if they get fined. Even if they dragged their feet. The vast majority of the public simply doesn't worry about this stuff IMO.
If you did exit surveys and asked every shopper what recalls were done in the last 3 months on the brand they just finished looking at in the showroom, 99% wouldn't even know.
For the most part, I just don't like the way 4-cyl engines sound. Not too crazy about the sound of the 3.8 supercharged in my Buick, either. I think in my case though, it simply comes from decades of being used to how a V-8 engine sounds.
As for Buicks and V-8's, I don't think the V-8 has dominated Buick's lineup since perhaps 1984-85, when the last big cars were being weeded out. Buick's last V-8, IIRC, was the 350 in 1980, a choked down unit putting out around 155-160 hp, and banned in California. It was optional that year in the LeSabre, Electra, and Riviera. For 1981, the biggest engine in these cars was an Olds 307.
Buick actually dropped V-8's from their midsized RWD cars for a spell in the 1980's. The 1978-80 Regal/Century depended mainly on Pontiac 301's or Chevy 305's for their power, but I think those engines were dropped for 1981...definitely by 1982. By then, if you wanted power, Buick wanted you to go to a larger 252 4-bbl V-6 with 125 hp, or in Regals, a turbocharged V-6. I think they finally started putting Olds 307's in the Regal as an option in 1985, but then the Regal went FWD for 1988.
V-8 power did stick around though, in the big wagons, and then the 1991-96 Roadmaster. But, these were low-volume, niche cars, and no longer Buick's main focus.
The V-8 made yet another return, when they put the Caddy Northstar under the hood of the 2006-11 Lucerne. And they managed to shove a Chevy 5.3 sideways under the hood of the W-body for a few years, coming up with the Grand Prix GTP, Chevy Impala SS, and Buick LaCrosse Super. But again, these were fairly niche-ey products.
Oh, almost forgot the Rainier. I think you could get a 5.3 in that, although most probably just had that 4.2 inline 6. Whatever became of that inline 6, anyway? I heard it was actually supposed to be a pretty good engine, but it seemed like GM never really capitalized on it.
I miss the sound of a good V8 myself. When I bought my first new car at age 22, an '81 Monte Carlo, I was so turned off by the noise and feel of my parents' V6 '80 Monte Carlo, I looked for a V8. That 'baby' 267 wasn't very hot at all, but at least it sounded and idled like a V8. The V8's were hard-to-find then. At one point in the '81 or '82 model year, I can remember that the price of the optional 267 dropped to only $50 over the standard V6. When my folks got a new '84 Monte Carlo, they were using the 305 4-barrel and it was a $375 option.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
With the types of cars I tend to prefer, it also seems like there's just not that much of a fuel penalty going with the bigger engine. For instance, when I bought my Ram, the choices were a 3.7 V-6, 4.7 V-8, or the 5.7 Hemi. They were all EPA-rated 14/20. I could see seeking out a smaller engine if there was a big price savings, but I got my Hemi at the end of the model year, so it was pretty cheap anyway. I don't know that a 3.7 or 4.7 would have saved much on the purchase price.
There's a bigger difference now, though, as the Ram moved to a 3.6 V-6 with an 8-speed automatic is rated 17/25. The 5.7 Hemi/6-speed is still rated 14/20, but they also offer an 8-speed option on the Hemi that bumps it a bit to 15/22.
I'd be kind of curious to see how the Ram does with the 3.6. I've heard it's actually not much slower than the Hemi/6-speed, although I guess you'd notice it more if you towed or carried a heavy load.
The Dodge Charger, which is fairly high on my list if I went with a new car, is rated 18/27 with the 3.6/5-speed, 19/31 with the 3.6/8-speed, and 15/25 with the Hemi/5-speed. I'm sure the 3.6 does just fine in these cars, but it seems like the Charger just begs for the Hemi.
As for the Impala, it's rated 21/31 with the 2.5 4-cyl, and 18/28 with the 3.6.
With any of these vehicles, it's easy for me to rationalize getting the bigger engine because it won't use all that much more fuel. But, I also drive a bit below average. I had my Ram a year and a half as of yesterday, and it's still just shy of 9,000 miles. Maybe if I had a longer commute and racked up a lot more miles, I'd be more fuel conscious.
@andre1969 said:
The V-8 made yet another return, when they put the Caddy Northstar under the hood of the 2006-11 Lucerne. And they managed to shove a Chevy 5.3 sideways under the hood of the W-body for a few years, coming up with the Grand Prix GTP, Chevy Impala SS, and Buick LaCrosse Super. But again, these were fairly niche-ey products.
I heard a Camaro with a V8 that I suspect had been opened up with optional mufflers or with replacement mufflers. It sent a chill up my leg with memories from the past with the way it sounded. And the guy knew he had it right. He was showing it off to a group at a local cruise in. It was good.
All Tatra T77 and T87 - the famous ones - had small (<3.5L) rear mounted V8s. Cool cars to the nth degree. I like the 77 for it's out-there Buck Rogers-style futurism.
Cool cars, for sure, but I understand they could be a handling nightmare if the heavy back end started to slide around. No electronic stability control on those!
Way off topic now but those are the ones the [non-permissible content removed] famously forbade ranking officers to drive, as the cars had that handling issue. Huge influence on Ferdinand Porsche, no doubt.
1934 - pretty amazing - at least as advanced design-wise as a Chrysler Airflow, with a much weirder powertrain setup:
@hpmctorque said:
I wonder how your Monte Carlo compared with a '55 Chevy with the 265 c.i. V8?
In 1981, either C&D or MT tested a Grand Prix with the Pontiac 265 V-8, which was based on the 301, and had around 120 hp. 0-60 came up in an embarrassing 14.9 seconds. I'd imagine a Monte Carlo with the 267 would be about the same, or maybe a bit better. I think the 267 had a bit more hp and torque, but it was also heavier than a Pontiac 265.
Oddly though, I remember one of those buff rags testing either a 1982 Bonneville G or a Regal sedan, with the Buick 252-4bbl, and getting 0-60 in around 12.9 seconds. The 252 had 125 hp, and the 4-bbl carb might have helped give it a broader torque curve, perhaps? One of them tested a 1981 Malibu sedan with the 267; I remember they compared it to an 810/Maxima. But I can't remember what its 0-60 time was.
I found reference to a test that put a '55 Chevy 265 with a Powerglide at 12.9 seconds, but it didn't mention whether it was the 162 hp 2-bbl or 180 hp 4-bbl. I forget where that test was mentioned. Might have been a Wikipedia article referencing Popular Mechanics.
I don't miss any of those cars. The 80s Bugs, yeah, (on a closed course with no traffic to flatten me) but not even the '53 Buick Special that I learned to drive in when I was 13 makes my blood race. The '57 Chevy that I learned to drive "stick" in (3 on a tree) was the worst. Awful driver but at least it belonged to a girlfriend's father.
All these years I thought the family Ford we had in my late teens was a Galaxie 500 -- visiting my brother this week and he informs me that my dad was too cheap to spring for the Galaxie version and it was a Custom. And here I thought the frugal gene I got came from my mom.
Down here in Chattanooga, everything seems to be booming - three new houses going up in my brother's newer subdivision and there's lots of new commercial stuff going up off his interstate exit. One of my nephews is off in Toronto training for three weeks with his parts supplier employer. I'm sure that a good part of all this is the VW affect.
yes, it was the earlier Tatras that had the big 3L 4 cylinder.
@fintail said:
All Tatra T77 and T87 - the famous ones - had small (<3.5L) rear mounted V8s. Cool cars to the nth degree. I like the 77 for it's out-there Buck Rogers-style futurism.
hpmctorque, I've never driven a 265 Chevy but I'd have to think my 267 would have compared unfavorably with it! I'm too lazy to check, but it was either 115 or 120 hp compared to either 110 or 115 with the V6. At the time I liked the look and feel of Monte Carlos, but the noises that came out of that V6 didn't belong in those cars, I thought at the time!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I just looked it up in my old car book. The 267 started with 125 hp in 1979, but it was cut to 120 for 1980, and down to 115 for 1981-82. The 229 had 115 hp in 1980 but was cut to 110 for 1981-84.
In contrast, a 1955 Chevy 265 had either 162 hp with the 2-bbl carb or 180 with the 4-bbl. But remember, this is gross hp, not net. Those numbers in net terms would probably be around 120 for the 2-bbl and 135 for the 4-bbl.
In theory, the newer car would have the advantage of a 3-speed automatic versus a 2-speed for the 1955. But, the 1955 car would have a much quicker axle ratio. As a rough reference point, in 1957 Mopar tended to use a 3.31:1 axle with the 3-speed Torqueflite and a 3.54:1 with the 2-speed Powerflite. I'd imagine a Powerglide Chevy would be around 3.5X:1. Meanwhile, by the time the late 70's and early 80's rolled around, they were putting long-legged ratios in the cars to eke as much mpg out of them. Usually, a smaller engine would have a quicker ratio, but I wouldn't be surprised if GM didn't slip something like a 2.56:1 or even a 2.41:1 ratio in something like a Chevy 267. I've seen tests of a Buick 231 V-6 with a 2.41:1, and I think the tallest was an '85 Cutlass Supreme that had a 2.14:1! The Cutlass had a 3-speed automatic, but a 307 V-8, so it wasn't too much of a slouch, at least. If you got the 4-speed overdrive, they put a quicker axle in, but it was still most likely just a 2.41 or 2.56.
@andre1969 said:
I just looked it up in my old car book. The 267 started with 125 hp in 1979, but it was cut to 120 for 1980, and down to 115 for 1981-82. The 229 had 115 hp in 1980 but was cut to 110 for 1981-84.
In contrast, a 1955 Chevy 265 had either 162 hp with the 2-bbl carb or 180 with the 4-bbl. But remember, this is gross hp, not net. Those numbers in net terms would probably be around 120 for the 2-bbl and 135 for the 4-bbl.
In theory, the newer car would have the advantage of a 3-speed automatic versus a 2-speed for the 1955. But, the 1955 car would have a much quicker axle ratio...
I looked up the weight of a '55 Chevy Bel Air (4 door) and a '81 Monte Carlo V8, and they're almost identical; 3225 vs. 3212, respectively.
General Motors Company (GM - Analyst Report) received another blow with the federal authorities now investigating whether the pre-bankruptcy General Motors committed bankruptcy fraud by not revealing the ignition switch defect that recently led to the recall of 1.6 million vehicles, according to The New York Times. They are investigating whether the company was aware of the problem during the bankruptcy filing in 2009 but failed to notify the authorities to prevent liability claims.
General Motors knew not only that its ignition switches in 1.62 million now-recalled cars were faulty, it also knew the problem was made worse by the position of the switch where it is easily bumped, says a lawsuit filed by a coalition of law firms on Monday.
As a result, GM's replacement of the switches is an "insufficient" remedy and the cars need an additional fix to shield the key or fob from being bumped by the driver, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
It was nearly five years ago that any doubts were laid to rest among engineers at General Motors about a dangerous and faulty ignition switch. At a meeting on May 15, 2009, they learned that data in the black boxes of Chevrolet Cobalts confirmed a potentially fatal defect existed in hundreds of thousands of cars.
But in the months and years that followed, as a trove of internal documents and studies mounted, G.M. told the families of accident victims and other customers that it did not have enough evidence of any defect in their cars, interviews, letters and legal documents show. Last month, G.M. recalled 1.6 million Cobalts and other small cars, saying that if the switch was bumped or weighed down it could shut off the engine’s power and disable air bags.
A 2015 GMC Yukon burst into flames while on a test drive in Anaheim, CA on Sunday after smoke filled the cabin. Residents of the neighborhood where the driver abandoned the redesigned Yukon reported hearing a series of small explosions (likely the tires, based on the video), according to a report from KTLA and The Los Angeles Times.
Thankfully, cars in general are very safe today and don't blow up near as easily as they used to. For instance, check out this pile-up on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (or an unreasonable facsimile thereof...just ignore the smog, the desert terrain, and occasional palm tree that pops into view) in 1976...
Yes, catching on fire is extremely rare. Although a friend says cars today are more likely to catch fire due to high pressure, I much-more was worried about fires in my old cars and always used a battery cut-off switch when the cars were in my garage.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Good point, about things being under high pressure these days. I guess with cars running hotter these days, there's a greater chance of things igniting, as well.
Not to jab at Honda, but remember the hoopla over the CRV's that would catch on fire when oil sprayed out onto the exhaust manifold, or whatever, when the filter accidentally got "double-gasketed"? Well, every smallblock Mopar I've ever owned, plus my DeSoto, would dump oil all over the exhaust whenever I changed the filter. At one point, my '68 Dart's exhaust got bent, and rubbed against the oil filter, and even burned a small hole in it! But, in all those cases, the oil would just, cook off, rather than ignite.
Oh, as for the "double gasket" thing, I accidentally did that to my Intrepid once. Changed the filter, but the rubber gasket pulled off of the old filter and stuck to the underside of the pump, and I didn't notice it. Put the new filter on, started it up, but it didn't sound quite right. Hard to describe, but it was making squirting noises, almost suggestive in nature, like what you might hear in a naughty cartoon. I shut it off and saw what a mess it made. Took the filer off, and saw that the old gasket was stuck on there. So, it's a mistake that can happen with any car, I guess.
I saw a six-pack Mopar catch fire upon startup at Hershey once. Someone shouted, 'keep cranking it' and it went out. I don't understand the chemistry of that though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My guess is that if you keep cranking, but just don't pump, it'll suck the rest of the fuel on through the carburetor and eventually starve the fire? Dunno...but at the same time, I'd think you'd be pulling air through as you cranked it, so wouldn't that keep the fire going? Or maybe it would just make it burn out quicker?
Looking to me like this will be along the lines of the Toyota UA issues. Reprehensible on the part of both of these companies. In general, it seems to me that the larger the company, the more impersonal they become and the less concerned they become about their customers. It's good we have upstarts in all industries to keep the entrenched players more on their toes.
Looking to me like this will be along the lines of the Toyota UA issues. Reprehensible on the part of both of these companies. In general, it seems to me that the larger the company, the more impersonal they become and the less concerned they become about their customers. It's good we have upstarts in all industries to keep the entrenched players more on their toes.
Agreed. And it looks like nobody will be safe from the gubmint microscope after the GM coverup...
Comments
Wife and daughters are in Columbus shopping today, so I went to the nearest Chevy dealer to kill some time (they're closed today and not the place I typically go for service). I saw a bright blue (I think it was called 'Blue Topaz') Impala that just stopped me in my tracks. It was an LS! Sticker was $27.6K. I think that's an incredible value. Even the LS has a big rear-seat center armrest, lots of bright trim inside, power driver's seat with power recline and lumbar, and even the passenger seat has power vertical adjustment, standard. I also saw a "2LZ" per the sticker, but said "LTZ" on the back--for $36.7K, including sunroof. That's less than I thought those cost. It was a V6, but was built in the U.S.--at introduction time, the six-cylinder Impalas were built in Canada.
Imidazol, I saw some Malibus. For looks, the LTZ is hard to beat, with its large tires that really fill the wheel openings, and polished wheels, but one I looked at was just under $30K.
Oh, saw my first two '15 Tahoes there. One was $61.9K and the other $66K. Both were 4WD. I thought I was going to pass out right there. They look nice, but...sheesh.
Fun to look. I have tried to avoid doing that, just to avoid frustration.
Got offers for three months free OnStar and three months free satellite radio for my daughter's '09 Cobalt (not bad for a used car I bought on eBay!), so I had both activated before they left this morning....probably about a 250-mile or so round trip. I asked my wife to take that car so it gets some exercise instead of the five-mile-round-trip to and from school it usually gets daily.
Even the LS has a big rear-seat center armrest, lots of bright trim inside, power driver's seat with power recline and lumbar, and even the passenger seat has power vertical adjustment, standard.
I'm still looking for that lack of rear legroom. The driver seat is adjusted for me; passenger, wife. Still legroom for taller folk. More legroom that Optima/Sonata. Almost equal to Accord IIRC.
Note fold down center armrest in rear with a compartment for storage within.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Geez, looks nice. Nothing nicer-looking out there now in GM-land than beige leather I think.
I wish we'd see red and blue interiors again, but I'm sure I'm wasting my breath.
Imidazol97...put that front seat all the way back. Recline it a bit. Raise the front some, and lower the back. That's how I'd have it adjusted for my 6'3" frame.
To GM's credit, however, it looks like they hollowed out the seatback a bit, and it appears to be soft-padded rather than hard plastic. It's a nice looking interior, too. I think that combination of beige and cocoa, or whatever they call it, is really attractive.
I kinda wish I was in the market for a car. I wouldn't mind taking an Impala out for a spin.
Imid, I really like the trim colors on your seats. Very nice looking - enjoy your new ride, keep letting us know how it goes!
I want to drive one in the worst way, but I don't want to be pestered. I'm a bad liar and a bad BS'er.
I had thought that Impalas had a flush-mounted body-colored side molding, except for chrome on the LTZ, but I was wrong on that when I looked today. I've been away too long, I guess. Only the LTZ has a molding of any kind, and it's a raised chrome molding which I like. Still too low to provide any protection, but looks nice.
Saw a commercial tonight advertising an award won by the Buick Encore (can't remember from whom) for being "best sub compact CUV" or something similar to that. Got me wondering, exactly how many other "sub compact CUVs" are out there with which to compete? I can't think of another. Also made me realize that most of Buick's five car fleet are 4-cylinders these days, 4-cyl only for Encore, Verano and Regal and a choice for LaCrosse. Only the Enclave is exclusively 6-cyl. 8 cylinders are MIA. I'll bet the Buick loyalists (if there are any of those left) never saw this day coming.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
I always wondered about the cylinders thing. The one thing six adds over 4 is refinement, but 8 cylinders these days? Nowadays most 4 cyls are stronger than 8 cyls from the '70's, and certainly 6 cylinders of today are much more strong and refined than the 8's of years gone by. Seems to me the only real reason for 8 cylinders would be high torque or just a need for wildly excessive power.
I agree, nice interior colors indeed. I like a lighter color interior to kind of brighten things up without needing the sunroof open. In my area where the skies are so often dreary, it makes a difference.
Regarding V8s, they are on the way out for mainstream models. 2014 is the last year for a non-tuned V8 E-class.
Agree on the refinement comment. These days, the game is turbo 4-cylinder engines with more power than 6-cylinders. I always figured that the power was nice, but no 4-cyl could ever touch a 6-cyl in refinement. The 2.0L turbo in my daughter's new Optima may have just about proven me wrong. I feel the engine a bit at idle, but past that this thing is smooth, quiet and very refined. I'm impressed. The base 2.4 naturally aspirated engine, on the other hand, felt more like the 4-cyl engines I'm used to. However, it was still a good bit more refined than the 2.4L in the previous gen Malibu and 2.5L in the Fusion. I haven't sampled the newer 2.5L in the current Malibu.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
pretty sure 99%+ of buick owners never open the hood, so tell them it has anything and they won't know the difference! And frankly, these days I doubt they care as long as the car is smooth, quiet, has enough power, and is reasonably economical.
The 1.8t in my son's Jetta is very smooth. And really scoots when you boot it, without getting thrashy. No, does not sound like a V8, but it does get better mileage while still being pretty darned quick. He does not notice any difference on the highway, or merging, from the TL V6 he used to drive.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Compare the 1954 and 1955 Pontiacs, styling and drivetrain wise, and you'll see that 1955 was the transformational year for that brand, regardless of the marketing. The 1955 was truly all-new, and the term stodgy no longer applied. The performance improvements between the 1954 and 1955 Pontiacs was equivalent to the Chevys for those years, and the styling differences were also comparable.
I've always thought that there were more changes in the industry in '55, and '65, than any other single model years. I would include '77 in there, except the huge change was only for GM. Those other years, all of the Big Three had all-new cars (styling-wise, anyway; '65, the Big Three's 'standard' cars were new).
I think 1957 would also be a close runner up. The entire Mopar lineup was new, as well as Buick, Olds, and Cadillac. Ford and Mercury were also new. Chevy and Pontiac weren't all-new, but about as heavily facelifted as those bodies could be. Lincoln was also a carry-over, but only in its second model year, and still looking pretty modern.
However, I don't think there was quite the technology jump in powertrains from 1956-57 as there was from 1954-55. Widespread V-8 and automatic transmission use was the big thing in 1955, plus a lot of cars suddenly breaking the 200 hp barrier. But for 1957, I think it was mainly just a matter of the engines getting bored and stroked. Chrysler had the 3-speed Torquelite, and Chevy had the 3-speed TurboGlide. Ford had a 3-speed automatic, but I can't remember if it was new for '57, or had been introduced earlier. And suddenly the 300 hp barrier wasn't such a lofty goal anymore. Although often, all that horsepower was more the result of the marketing department, than the engineering department.
I do think '77 was a pivotal year as well. Even though it was mainly just GM's big cars that were all-new, they set the wave of the future, for years to come, with downsizing and efficiency.
I guess nowadays, there are too many players in the market, and too many models across various nameplates, to ever have a repeat of 1955, 1957, or 1965. I guess, if GM, Mopar, and Ford all redesigned their trucks at the same time, is the most we'd get. Or if a new Altima, Camry, and Accord happen to debut at the same time.
"I don't recall the old Impala as being particularly troublesome in Consumer Reports' reliability surveys...unless they took a bad turn in more recent years? My biggest beef with them was that I didn't like the interior or cramped back seat of the 2000-2005 model."
As an ex-owner of of a 2000 Impala, yes, I can say that that model of Impala was indeed troublesome. If you don't believe me check out the Impala forums on this very site.
Over the 10 years of ownership I had to deal with a whole laundry list of issues:
Driver's Seat, Coolant sensor, Intake manifold gasket, Warped Rotors, Intermediate Steering Shaft, Engine Cradle, Shift solenoid x 2, Catalytic converter, Gas Tank Slosh @ ½ a tank and less & the Gauge Cluster
The final straw for me was when it could no longer idle without the A/C switched on.
I wouldn't exactly put warped rotors on that list, though. I've seen new high-buck Euro cars that mags complain needed rotors at pretty low mileage..like 20-something.
Boy, apparently imidazol, lemko, and I walk between the raindrops.
I had heard that the 2.2 liter four (not available in the Impala) was prone to intake manifold gasket issues, but I had three, all with over 100K miles and not an issue. I was religious about replacing the Dexcool at five years as recommended, though.
With 4 cylinder motors, as you increase displacement, you reach a point where things get ugly. I'd imagine that anything over 2.5L needs some pretty slick engineering to stay reasonably vibration-free.
You'd be surprised in my Cobalt, shifty. At idle, you very literally cannot tell by sound or feel that it is running. Original plugs and fuel filter at 75K. It is smoother than my daughter's '09 with automatic, though, which had been a fleet car. Probably twice a year I do put a bottle of Techron in it though, just for good measure. It is only a 2.2 liter though.
Yeah, the vibrational issues are not about the idle but about the rev range, on big displacement 4s. I think...I think...Tatra had a 3.0L 4 cylinder. That must have been a shaker.
"A robust public response is particularly important in wooing first-time customers, who are critical to the company's future profits. "They are thinking, I can either buy this GM car that I know kills people or I can buy something else," he said.
So far, the damage to the company's brand appears to have been minimal online.
Despite the barrage of headlines about federal investigations into GM's decade-long failure to issue the recall, overall sentiment about GM and its brands on Twitter has remained the same since the crisis began. According to an analysis by Crimson Hexagon, a social media analytics firm in Boston, about 26 percent of Twitter messages mentioning the company were positive, 71 percent were neutral and 3 percent were negative."
(economictimes)
That first paragraph is pretty dopey, really. I think the recall is the worst one at GM in decades, but it doesn't affect me (although there are three Cobalts in my driveway right now since my daughter's boyfriend is here, and the recall doesn't apply to any of the three), and thus, since I have enjoyed my GM's and trust my dealer, the recall in no way whatsoever by itself would make me go elsewhere. But then, as I'm fond of saying, I'd have bought a new Studebaker in '64.
I don't think the general public much cares about it. They buy what they want to buy. I think most of this is media hysteria, and GM's "crisis" is already over in terms of bad PR. Sure, it's a black mark for them, but everyone over-rates the effect of recalls on sales. The public's attention span for this is very very short.
UA claims didn't kill Toyota sales, fires didn't kill Tesla sales---the list goes on and on.
All the company has to do is respond and start fixing the cars. If they do that, they're fine. Even if they get fined. Even if they dragged their feet. The vast majority of the public simply doesn't worry about this stuff IMO.
If you did exit surveys and asked every shopper what recalls were done in the last 3 months on the brand they just finished looking at in the showroom, 99% wouldn't even know.
For the most part, I just don't like the way 4-cyl engines sound. Not too crazy about the sound of the 3.8 supercharged in my Buick, either. I think in my case though, it simply comes from decades of being used to how a V-8 engine sounds.
As for Buicks and V-8's, I don't think the V-8 has dominated Buick's lineup since perhaps 1984-85, when the last big cars were being weeded out. Buick's last V-8, IIRC, was the 350 in 1980, a choked down unit putting out around 155-160 hp, and banned in California. It was optional that year in the LeSabre, Electra, and Riviera. For 1981, the biggest engine in these cars was an Olds 307.
Buick actually dropped V-8's from their midsized RWD cars for a spell in the 1980's. The 1978-80 Regal/Century depended mainly on Pontiac 301's or Chevy 305's for their power, but I think those engines were dropped for 1981...definitely by 1982. By then, if you wanted power, Buick wanted you to go to a larger 252 4-bbl V-6 with 125 hp, or in Regals, a turbocharged V-6. I think they finally started putting Olds 307's in the Regal as an option in 1985, but then the Regal went FWD for 1988.
V-8 power did stick around though, in the big wagons, and then the 1991-96 Roadmaster. But, these were low-volume, niche cars, and no longer Buick's main focus.
The V-8 made yet another return, when they put the Caddy Northstar under the hood of the 2006-11 Lucerne. And they managed to shove a Chevy 5.3 sideways under the hood of the W-body for a few years, coming up with the Grand Prix GTP, Chevy Impala SS, and Buick LaCrosse Super. But again, these were fairly niche-ey products.
Oh, almost forgot the Rainier. I think you could get a 5.3 in that, although most probably just had that 4.2 inline 6. Whatever became of that inline 6, anyway? I heard it was actually supposed to be a pretty good engine, but it seemed like GM never really capitalized on it.
I miss the sound of a good V8 myself. When I bought my first new car at age 22, an '81 Monte Carlo, I was so turned off by the noise and feel of my parents' V6 '80 Monte Carlo, I looked for a V8. That 'baby' 267 wasn't very hot at all, but at least it sounded and idled like a V8. The V8's were hard-to-find then. At one point in the '81 or '82 model year, I can remember that the price of the optional 267 dropped to only $50 over the standard V6. When my folks got a new '84 Monte Carlo, they were using the 305 4-barrel and it was a $375 option.
With the types of cars I tend to prefer, it also seems like there's just not that much of a fuel penalty going with the bigger engine. For instance, when I bought my Ram, the choices were a 3.7 V-6, 4.7 V-8, or the 5.7 Hemi. They were all EPA-rated 14/20. I could see seeking out a smaller engine if there was a big price savings, but I got my Hemi at the end of the model year, so it was pretty cheap anyway. I don't know that a 3.7 or 4.7 would have saved much on the purchase price.
There's a bigger difference now, though, as the Ram moved to a 3.6 V-6 with an 8-speed automatic is rated 17/25. The 5.7 Hemi/6-speed is still rated 14/20, but they also offer an 8-speed option on the Hemi that bumps it a bit to 15/22.
I'd be kind of curious to see how the Ram does with the 3.6. I've heard it's actually not much slower than the Hemi/6-speed, although I guess you'd notice it more if you towed or carried a heavy load.
The Dodge Charger, which is fairly high on my list if I went with a new car, is rated 18/27 with the 3.6/5-speed, 19/31 with the 3.6/8-speed, and 15/25 with the Hemi/5-speed. I'm sure the 3.6 does just fine in these cars, but it seems like the Charger just begs for the Hemi.
As for the Impala, it's rated 21/31 with the 2.5 4-cyl, and 18/28 with the 3.6.
With any of these vehicles, it's easy for me to rationalize getting the bigger engine because it won't use all that much more fuel. But, I also drive a bit below average. I had my Ram a year and a half as of yesterday, and it's still just shy of 9,000 miles. Maybe if I had a longer commute and racked up a lot more miles, I'd be more fuel conscious.
I heard a Camaro with a V8 that I suspect had been opened up with optional mufflers or with replacement mufflers. It sent a chill up my leg with memories from the past with the way it sounded. And the guy knew he had it right. He was showing it off to a group at a local cruise in. It was good.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
4s. I think...I think...Tatra had a 3.0L 4 cylinder. That must have been a shaker.
Some front engine Porsches (the 944s) had 2.7 and 3.0 fours. Don't know whether the balance shafts compensated for the displacement.
Didn't some rear engine Tatras have V8s?
I wonder how your Monte Carlo compared with a '55 Chevy with the 265 c.i. V8?
All Tatra T77 and T87 - the famous ones - had small (<3.5L) rear mounted V8s. Cool cars to the nth degree. I like the 77 for it's out-there Buck Rogers-style futurism.
Cool cars, for sure, but I understand they could be a handling nightmare if the heavy back end started to slide around. No electronic stability control on those!
Way off topic now
but those are the ones the [non-permissible content removed] famously forbade ranking officers to drive, as the cars had that handling issue. Huge influence on Ferdinand Porsche, no doubt.
1934 - pretty amazing - at least as advanced design-wise as a Chrysler Airflow, with a much weirder powertrain setup:
Love the fin
In 1981, either C&D or MT tested a Grand Prix with the Pontiac 265 V-8, which was based on the 301, and had around 120 hp. 0-60 came up in an embarrassing 14.9 seconds. I'd imagine a Monte Carlo with the 267 would be about the same, or maybe a bit better. I think the 267 had a bit more hp and torque, but it was also heavier than a Pontiac 265.
Oddly though, I remember one of those buff rags testing either a 1982 Bonneville G or a Regal sedan, with the Buick 252-4bbl, and getting 0-60 in around 12.9 seconds. The 252 had 125 hp, and the 4-bbl carb might have helped give it a broader torque curve, perhaps? One of them tested a 1981 Malibu sedan with the 267; I remember they compared it to an 810/Maxima. But I can't remember what its 0-60 time was.
I found reference to a test that put a '55 Chevy 265 with a Powerglide at 12.9 seconds, but it didn't mention whether it was the 162 hp 2-bbl or 180 hp 4-bbl. I forget where that test was mentioned. Might have been a Wikipedia article referencing Popular Mechanics.
I think we should change this topic the The State of the U.S. 50's Auto Market!
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
I don't miss any of those cars. The 80s Bugs, yeah, (on a closed course with no traffic to flatten me) but not even the '53 Buick Special that I learned to drive in when I was 13 makes my blood race. The '57 Chevy that I learned to drive "stick" in (3 on a tree) was the worst. Awful driver but at least it belonged to a girlfriend's father.
All these years I thought the family Ford we had in my late teens was a Galaxie 500 -- visiting my brother this week and he informs me that my dad was too cheap to spring for the Galaxie version and it was a Custom. And here I thought the frugal gene I got came from my mom.
Down here in Chattanooga, everything seems to be booming - three new houses going up in my brother's newer subdivision and there's lots of new commercial stuff going up off his interstate exit. One of my nephews is off in Toronto training for three weeks with his parts supplier employer. I'm sure that a good part of all this is the VW affect.
yes, it was the earlier Tatras that had the big 3L 4 cylinder.
hpmctorque, I've never driven a 265 Chevy but I'd have to think my 267 would have compared unfavorably with it! I'm too lazy to check, but it was either 115 or 120 hp compared to either 110 or 115 with the V6. At the time I liked the look and feel of Monte Carlos, but the noises that came out of that V6 didn't belong in those cars, I thought at the time!
I just looked it up in my old car book. The 267 started with 125 hp in 1979, but it was cut to 120 for 1980, and down to 115 for 1981-82. The 229 had 115 hp in 1980 but was cut to 110 for 1981-84.
In contrast, a 1955 Chevy 265 had either 162 hp with the 2-bbl carb or 180 with the 4-bbl. But remember, this is gross hp, not net. Those numbers in net terms would probably be around 120 for the 2-bbl and 135 for the 4-bbl.
In theory, the newer car would have the advantage of a 3-speed automatic versus a 2-speed for the 1955. But, the 1955 car would have a much quicker axle ratio. As a rough reference point, in 1957 Mopar tended to use a 3.31:1 axle with the 3-speed Torqueflite and a 3.54:1 with the 2-speed Powerflite. I'd imagine a Powerglide Chevy would be around 3.5X:1. Meanwhile, by the time the late 70's and early 80's rolled around, they were putting long-legged ratios in the cars to eke as much mpg out of them. Usually, a smaller engine would have a quicker ratio, but I wouldn't be surprised if GM didn't slip something like a 2.56:1 or even a 2.41:1 ratio in something like a Chevy 267. I've seen tests of a Buick 231 V-6 with a 2.41:1, and I think the tallest was an '85 Cutlass Supreme that had a 2.14:1! The Cutlass had a 3-speed automatic, but a 307 V-8, so it wasn't too much of a slouch, at least. If you got the 4-speed overdrive, they put a quicker axle in, but it was still most likely just a 2.41 or 2.56.
I looked up the weight of a '55 Chevy Bel Air (4 door) and a '81 Monte Carlo V8, and they're almost identical; 3225 vs. 3212, respectively.
General Motors Company (GM - Analyst Report) received another blow with the federal authorities now investigating whether the pre-bankruptcy General Motors committed bankruptcy fraud by not revealing the ignition switch defect that recently led to the recall of 1.6 million vehicles, according to The New York Times. They are investigating whether the company was aware of the problem during the bankruptcy filing in 2009 but failed to notify the authorities to prevent liability claims.
General Motors knew not only that its ignition switches in 1.62 million now-recalled cars were faulty, it also knew the problem was made worse by the position of the switch where it is easily bumped, says a lawsuit filed by a coalition of law firms on Monday.
As a result, GM's replacement of the switches is an "insufficient" remedy and the cars need an additional fix to shield the key or fob from being bumped by the driver, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
It was nearly five years ago that any doubts were laid to rest among engineers at General Motors about a dangerous and faulty ignition switch. At a meeting on May 15, 2009, they learned that data in the black boxes of Chevrolet Cobalts confirmed a potentially fatal defect existed in hundreds of thousands of cars.
But in the months and years that followed, as a trove of internal documents and studies mounted, G.M. told the families of accident victims and other customers that it did not have enough evidence of any defect in their cars, interviews, letters and legal documents show. Last month, G.M. recalled 1.6 million Cobalts and other small cars, saying that if the switch was bumped or weighed down it could shut off the engine’s power and disable air bags.
A 2015 GMC Yukon burst into flames while on a test drive in Anaheim, CA on Sunday after smoke filled the cabin. Residents of the neighborhood where the driver abandoned the redesigned Yukon reported hearing a series of small explosions (likely the tires, based on the video), according to a report from KTLA and The Los Angeles Times.
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/03/24/2015-gmc-yukon-test-drive-fire-video/#continued
Thankfully, cars in general are very safe today and don't blow up near as easily as they used to. For instance, check out this pile-up on the Pennsylvania Turnpike (or an unreasonable facsimile thereof...just ignore the smog, the desert terrain, and occasional palm tree that pops into view) in 1976...
Fire...
Heck, I think that Rambler police car blew up twice! Once in the passenger cabin just before the other car hit it, and then again in the gas tank.
Yes, catching on fire is extremely rare. Although a friend says cars today are more likely to catch fire due to high pressure, I much-more was worried about fires in my old cars and always used a battery cut-off switch when the cars were in my garage.
Good point, about things being under high pressure these days. I guess with cars running hotter these days, there's a greater chance of things igniting, as well.
Not to jab at Honda, but remember the hoopla over the CRV's that would catch on fire when oil sprayed out onto the exhaust manifold, or whatever, when the filter accidentally got "double-gasketed"? Well, every smallblock Mopar I've ever owned, plus my DeSoto, would dump oil all over the exhaust whenever I changed the filter. At one point, my '68 Dart's exhaust got bent, and rubbed against the oil filter, and even burned a small hole in it! But, in all those cases, the oil would just, cook off, rather than ignite.
Oh, as for the "double gasket" thing, I accidentally did that to my Intrepid once. Changed the filter, but the rubber gasket pulled off of the old filter and stuck to the underside of the pump, and I didn't notice it. Put the new filter on, started it up, but it didn't sound quite right. Hard to describe, but it was making squirting noises, almost suggestive in nature, like what you might hear in a naughty cartoon. I shut it off and saw what a mess it made. Took the filer off, and saw that the old gasket was stuck on there. So, it's a mistake that can happen with any car, I guess.
I saw a six-pack Mopar catch fire upon startup at Hershey once. Someone shouted, 'keep cranking it' and it went out. I don't understand the chemistry of that though.
My guess is that if you keep cranking, but just don't pump, it'll suck the rest of the fuel on through the carburetor and eventually starve the fire? Dunno...but at the same time, I'd think you'd be pulling air through as you cranked it, so wouldn't that keep the fire going? Or maybe it would just make it burn out quicker?
This is a pretty damning and sad article:
nytimes.com/2014/03/25/business/carmaker-misled-grieving-families-on-a-lethal-flaw.html
Looking to me like this will be along the lines of the Toyota UA issues. Reprehensible on the part of both of these companies. In general, it seems to me that the larger the company, the more impersonal they become and the less concerned they become about their customers. It's good we have upstarts in all industries to keep the entrenched players more on their toes.
Agreed. And it looks like nobody will be safe from the gubmint microscope after the GM coverup...
http://www.leftlanenews.com/after-toyota-win-feds-promise-to-expand-hunt-to-other-industries.html