You know, an enterprising dealer would look at the age of the cars in the airbag recall and devise a program to get these folks into a new car. The cars in the recall are 10+ years old, after all...
I've seen a few. On the road they look like a better executed Avalon. They got the details right. It's just better executed.
At a quick glance, from certain angles, the Impala makes me think a bit of those hunchback things that started making the scene a few years ago, although with much better proportioning. They make me think a bit of an Audi A7, which I think got that hunchback look just right. Thankfully, they didn't go the other route, which would make me think of the Honda Crosstour and whatever random jumble of letters they threw together for the Acura version!
I don't really get all that excited by new cars anymore. But, I think the 2014 Impala has grabbed my attention more than any Chevy in recent memory.
That might be worth it just to have the last of a dying breed. Big, V8 sedans may soon become a thing of the past, with 54.5 CAFE staring us in the eye.
Oh, I've been thinking about it. I think the only reservation I'd have is that I'd want a sunroof. I could live with no leather. Guess I could always buy one of those stripper R/Ts and have a sunroof put in.
The thing is, I've been reading about the demise of the V-8 engine since the 1970's, yet they are still available.
Personally, I doubt few, if any, people thought back in 1975 you would be able to purchase a 500 HP V-8 Mustang, Camaro or any other V-8 equipped vehicle in the 21st Century...
As long as there is enough demand for a V-8, some company will make them. They might be pricey, but they'll still be around...
General Motors has released more information on the 4.3-liter V6 available in the 2014 GMC Sierra. The engine will serve up 285 horsepower and 305 pound-feet of torque, with a six-speed automatic transmission, and giving the V6 Sierra a maximum tow rating of 7,200 pounds in regular cab, short bed four-wheel drive configuration. GM claims that figure is 500 pounds more than the equivalent Ford F-150 equipped with a 3.7-liter V6, and 700 pounds more than the Ram 1500 with its 3.6-liter V6. Buyers can expect to see the 2014 GMC Sierra with the 4.3-liter engine start at $25,085 including destination.
While the engine does deliver more torque than either of its main competitors, it falls short on the horsepower front. The 3.7-liter V6 in the F-150 develops 302 hp while the 3.6-liter V6 in the Ram 1500 yields 305 hp. GM says fuel economy estimates for its newest entry will land later this year.
They sure are. And even some 4-cyl engines are catching up! The 1964 GTO, which is credited with kicking off the musclecar craze, was good for 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds, with the base 389-4bbl and a stick shift. Now, the Tri-Power was a bit more impressive, at 6.6 seconds, but the vast majority sold were just the base 389.
Nowadays, a Charger with the V-6 is probably about as quick as that base GTO. And that's with an automatic transmission, improved emissions, a lot more weight, air conditioning (nobody bought musclecars with a/c in the 1960s) and all sorts of other features that add weight.
I think I've seen tests of 4-cyl Altimas (dunno about the current one, but the previous generation) that have put it in the 7 second range for 0-60.
what product made by a U.S. carmaker I would buy, if I were ta buy new. I would buy and orange Dodge Challenger. With a factory black stripe down the middle (you can request one just off to the side a tad, yes?) or a silver stripe down the middle or just off ta the side.
That is what I would buy. Dodge nailed it with that car. Beautiful. And armed with some information from Edmunds.com when you go in to talk a deal you can probably score a good deal now. What engines do they avail for you with that car? 318 V6? I'm shooting in the dark here.
Also, I have learned from owning and driving my 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS that the automatic CVT is a great way ta go. I'm talking about a stick shift versus an automatic CVT. For one thing, if someone doesn't know how ta drive stick they can drive your Lancer or Charger. For another thing, you can drive the Lancer in CVT and chirp the tires if that's what floats your boat. Mitsubishi engineers did a fantastic job with this CVT. No kidding. I can derive the same pleasure (it's true purist stick-shifters will only want a clutch and I understand. I am starting to get a strong hankering for a 1959-1968 VW Bug, white with a 4-speed stick to be able to drive stick again) by driving this Lancer GTS with its automatic CVT that one can with a stick.
Well, it may not have to do with the stick vs. automatic at all. I understand the stick-shift purist's stance here, I was taught by my Dad at 15 1/2 ta drive stick, and it was in a baby blue 1966 VW Fastback. That car was quick and easy ta shift. I want a VW Fastback '66 or a VW Bug '66, either one will do. Because I've never driven a Bug I may have to get one of those to satisfy me.
But as far as the Dodge Challenger goes, andre1969, if I were you I would concentrate on one of those. I realize you wouldn't listen ta me if I told you to go test drive a Mitsubishi Lancer, because you love American cars more and you always will. But I respect your knowledge of the American car market, and the new Dodge Challenger absolutely rocks. I almost want one of those but I don't want to spend that much money. Too many New Mexican pesos for one of them.
The '59-'67 VW Bugs range from about $3,000 to even $20,000. I may never get one but want one right now. As for old American cars, I still love the '62-'65 Chevy Nova class. Delicious body design. Oh no!
I had several Bugs and a SuperBeetle and really enjoyed them. Thought about finding one in Boise 5 or 6 years ago. Then some guy my age died in a relatively minor fender bender in a restored one that he had picked up.
There's a lot to be said for airbags and crash testing.
The new pickup engines all have alloy blocks, DI, and cylinder deactivation, so they're modern.
But they're still pushrod, sawed-off 90-degree V-8's! :P
Seriously though, as long as they do the job and are competent, I wouldn't care if they were flatheads.
I wonder though, why GM chose to develop this new V-6, rather than simply use the existing 3.6 in the trucks? Seems to me that would be cheaper, although to their credit, I'm sure this new 4.3 has a lot more torque than the 3.6 would. And, since the 4.3 is based on the V-8's, maybe it wasn't all that expensive to develop. It uses the same 92mm bore as the 5.3 and 6.2 V-8's, but a different stroke, so doing the math, it won't come out to exactly 3/4 of an existing V-8's displacement, such as how the older 262/4.3 was 3/4 of a 350/5.7 (or the old 229/305 or 200/267)
I'll have to drive very carefully or learn how to put a driver's airbag into a '66 Bug. It may have been done before. I'll have to network and find out! :P
what'd ya mean? A sand rail? Provide a picture if you can. Some kind of skateboard thing? We're in Alamogordo, NM. I almost typed Alamogordo, TX. The Texas influence is strong around here.
Yep, and the V-6 model will probably beat about 90% of the classic musclecars out there in 0-60. And those that it couldn't beat, it would still have a higher top speed, because to get the best times, those musclecars had really short gearing, which would boost acceleration but limit top speed.
Consumer Reports once tested a 1968 or 69 Mopar intermediate. Can't remember now if it was a Charger, Coronet, or Roadrunner. But I do remember it had a 440, Torqueflite automatic, and 3.23:1 axle, which was a good "middle of the road" if you wanted to balance top speed and acceleration. They got 0-60 in 7 seconds flat. I think it had 350 gross hp, which would translate to around 260-270 net? The reason that one sticks in my mind is that it's more of a "civilized" musclecar than a '64 GTO would be (automatic, less radical gearing, etc). Needless to say, Consumer Reports hated it though, because it was too powerful and ate tires. Of course, they were probably putting it through its paces a bit differently than they would a Rambler or base Falcon!
I've heard that a compact, like a Dart/Demon or A-body Barracuda, with a 340, automatic, and 3.23:1 axle could do 0-60 in about 6 seconds, but have never seen a test to back that up. www.zeroto60times.com shows a 1970 Duster listed at 5.7 seconds, but it doesn't list the engine or transmission combo.
There's also an infamous test that either MT or C&D did, with a 1965 Catalina 2+2 that did 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. But, I'd take that one with a grain of salt! I think the original idea was to compare a '65 Pontiac GTO with a Ferrari GTO, but at the last minute they couldn't get ahold of one so they had to substitute a Catalina 2+2 instead.
There's also an infamous test that either MT or C&D did, with a 1965 Catalina 2+2 that did 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. But, I'd take that one with a grain of salt! I think the original idea was to compare a '65 Pontiac GTO with a Ferrari GTO, but at the last minute they couldn't get ahold of one so they had to substitute a Catalina 2+2 instead.
A Catalina 2+2 is a gorgeous car, of which I'd love to own one of any model year, '64 to '67, but that said, with Jim Wangers of Pontiac involved in promotion, I'd be a little skeptical. I think I heard that he stopped just short of saying that a 421 or two was put into GTO's and palmed off as a 389, for magazine test purposes.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yeah, some of those cars were specially prepped back in the day. That's actually one reason I appreciate some of the Consumer Reports tests from back then...they simply went out to a dealer, paid MSRP for a car off the lot, and that was it.
Oh, one other reason that some of those older 0-60 times weren't so hot by today's standards was probably the tires. Those old bias-ply tires probably spun out really easily. And, even with radials, it's easy to make some of those old, powerful cars spin out, whereas the modern ones with traction control simply dig in and take off.
I guess the transmissions of the day were probably a handicap, as well. For instance, the Torqueflite that was in that late 60's 440 musclecar that CR tested would have just had a 2.45:1 first gear, 1.45:1 second, and 1.00:1 direct drive, with the 3.23:1 rear axle.
But, in my 2012 Ram, which uses a 3.21:1 axle, the ratios are as follows (according to Wikipedia at least): 1st 3.00:1 2nd 1.67:1 3rd 1.50:1 4th 1.00:1 5th 0.75:1 6th 0.67:1
So, if you could take one of those old engines, but give it the benefit of extra gears like today's engines have, I wonder if that would do much to improve performance?
I'm looking at a different house to rent, real close to my work. But after moving in there and then getting settled down a bit, I would consider getting a VW Bug to restore. I would have more control of what parts are going into it, do some of the work that I could do myself, and farm out the rest of the work. Alamogordo or even Las Cruces, NM, would have enough available mechanics that would be able to work on Bugs that I would be able to get the whole car restored eventually. I would consider a '66 VW Fastback, too. You guys wouldn't believe how you could toss that car around...it was light and the shifter worked great. That was such a fun car to drive. Which is what I'm after with the Bug. Fun. I'm stuck on white for a color but it wouldn't have to be white. Red and white is a decent combo. :shades:
But, in my 2012 Ram, which uses a 3.21:1 axle, the ratios are as follows (according to Wikipedia at least): 1st 3.00:1 2nd 1.67:1 3rd 1.50:1 4th 1.00:1 5th 0.75:1 6th 0.67:1
I'm kind of surprised regarding the first few ratios.
And my drive ratio is 3.73. It definitely makes pulling a heavy boat up a steep ramp a breeze and also getting a heavy trailer underway from a dead stop.
I'll have to look up what the Ram 8 speed has for ratios.
Oh, one other reason that some of those older 0-60 times weren't so hot by today's standards was probably the tires. Those old bias-ply tires probably spun out really easily.
Back in the day at the drag strip, it was imperative to take a set of drag slicks with you on track day...even for dead stock cars! Those crappy old tires!
Kia Optima SX - 4cyl - 0-60 6.4 sec./ 1/4 in 15.0 sec.
I just rented an Equinox LT on a business trip. I've never driven one and thought it would be interesting to try out.
I find the size sort of in-between - bigger than a compact SUV but not overly huge. The outside was a nice red and the interior was black with sort of an off-white trim. The seats were leather (at least I think it was leather; could have been vinyl as not obviously a really nice leather). The seats were the nicest part of the interior as the black plastic was all hard, but with chrome trim rings, etc. Somehow this combo doesn't ring my "wow that's nice" meter - it's definitely not the cheapest interior I've ever seen, but not all that great, either.
The driving was pretty decent. The engine was reasonably refined although not tremendously so. The steering was sort of in the same category. An all around competent but uninspiring ride. Decent, but nothing great.
The ergonomics were decent in most respects - I could set a good seating position and the electric seat had lots of adjustments. The steering wheel looked sort of cheap to me. Perhaps those more familiar with GM would find some of the controls just fine, but to me there were a couple of ergonomic messes. I figured out that I could control the center CRT and Onstar with the steering wheel buttons, but the menu was pretty laggy - you hit the button and wait a half second or so for the cursor to step down to the next item. So you get ahead of the thing and end up overshooting the menu you want. I then tried to figure out how to reset the trip odo/mpg meter in the center of the gauge cluster. I was in the car, in the rental lot, getting things set up before starting the engine. I must have spent 5 minutes looking for the way to reset this darn display. Well then I look over to the center console, and there are a few innocuous buttons in the center stack that do this! So the steering wheel in front of you manages the CRT to the right of you, and the buttons to the right of you manage the display in front of you! Not very intuitive at all.
All in all, it was a competent but uninspiring vehicle. In fairness I've not driven it's competitors except for the Mazda CX-5, which handled and steered far better and IMHO had a nicer interior as well. But I suspect the Equniox is more spacious.
I suspect the Equinox could be bought for less (MSRP's be damned), and for those who drive a lot, the extra powertrain warranty could be a consideration.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
They are fun, but I'd rather take my chances in a Miata. I don't trust old Mustangs with their drop in gas tanks either.
Funny... As we get older, and farther down the road from cars that had no safety features to speak of, some us us start to realize how much of a death trap some of our older cars could be at times...
I used to tell folks that if I was in an accident in my 41 Dodge coupe, they'd just drag my body out, hose down the dash and sell it to the next guy...
I used to tell folks that if I was in an accident in my 41 Dodge coupe, they'd just drag my body out, hose down the dash and sell it to the next guy..
I've used that line in reference to my '57 DeSoto, as well.
I wonder what death rates were for those old Mustangs and the Falcons they were based on, anyway? Even though their tanks leaked and fuel got into the trunk and passenger compartment with little effort, it seems like Ford really didn't catch fire for its dangerous ways until the Pinto came out. And even then, I think it was because some study got leaked, where they put a value of something like $100,000 on a human life, figured they could cut corners and save a couple bucks per car, and running their calculations, estimated that even with deaths and lawsuits, they'd still come out ahead.
And, for all the Pinto infamy, I've read that overall, its death rates were slightly better than similar small cars of the era. So, your chances of getting killed in some manner were about the same whether you chose a Pinto, Vega, Colt, Cricket, Corolla, 210, or whatever.
I'm guessing they didn't keep statistics back in the 60's, but I wonder how a Mustang/Falcon would have compared with a Chevy II/Camaro, or a Dart/Valiant/Barracuda, with regards to overall death rates? A Chevy II, Dart, or Valiant feel like more substantial cars than a Falcon in general...to me at least. And I'm sure the Mustang was beefed up compared to a Falcon, although it still has that Achilles heel gas tank.
I never did answer your question about driving the 305 hp V6 in the new Impala. I'd like to, but not in the market at all, I don't want phone harrassment afterwards! LOL
Today I drove by the nearest Chevy dealer again. I spied a silver Impala up on the hill on their lot, and I drove in and it was the $27,535.00 LS model. Of course today, no one approached me at all there!
My honest assessment from walking around the car:
It's almost hard to believe how much car you get for that sticker price.
The LS has wheelcovers, but they to me are designed to look like the aluminum wheels on the LT.
The interior has a smaller screen in the center of the instrument panel. Still a big rear-seat center armrest, glossy black trim on the panel and onto the doors, good amount of brightwork on the shifter and around it and around instruments, etc. I was pleasantly surprised to see power vertical adjustment standard on even the right front passenger seat.
EPA is 21 city, 31 highway for the four...a couple better highway than the 305 hp V6.
The other Impala they have is an LTZ which is nearly $12K more expensive. Looks-wise, it has a nice leather interior with contrasting piping, but I sure as hell don't see $12K of difference.
I figured if I saw the salesman I sort-of know there, I'd say, "Park this out front and it'll be sold by the end of the week".
66% U.S./Canada content, engine built in U.S., transmission built in U.S., final assembly in Detroit.
I sure like what I see, although didn't drive it.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
We of a certain age all rode in cars with no seat belts, overloaded, in back of pickup trucks...and here we are.
I far-more worry today about inattentive drivers, or those who can't see the back of a car without a center brake light, than I think I worried about things when I started driving in 1974.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Thanks for your report. Agree the car looks great. Compared to the fleet Impala, you can see why I am so impressed. I'd go for the V-6 but agree the price is far to dear. $40K for an Impala is as bad as the same price for the new Kia Cadenza.
GM is behind still but catching up steadily. I think Buick needs a boost and Caddy has pushed the design too far to the "edge", if you get my drift. The new CTS could change that but I saw an ATS and XTS and not impressed. The Impala was far better, aesthetically.
We had safety glass, dual chamber brake master cylinders and safety-latch doors.
I remember seeing pics as a kid of wrecks with passengers protruding through the plate-glass windshields... Not a pleasant sight.
I also remember many acquaintances over my first 15-20 years that were either killed or maimed badly in accidents that, if in a car made today, they probably would have walked away from after the same accident.
It does seem that modern day drivers are more distracted than ever.
I think the only "safety feature" that my '57 DeSoto has, is that the steering box is mounted aft of the front axle, so it actually takes a pretty hard hit to shove the non-collapsible steering column back at you like a spear. Oh, and turn signals. It has turn signals. But not 4-way flashers.
I know someone who, as a little kid was playing with his friends around a parked Caddy from the early 60's. He tripped and fell against one of the fins, leaving a nice big gash above his eye. It never did heal right and left a scar. So even sitting still, those old cars could hurt you!
I thought the Equinox was a comfortable and quiet car after renting it. It is a little tight in luggage room compared to some of the others, but if you don't have back row pax you can move the second row seat forward, or flip it down. The one thing I did notice though was that it had that GM cruise control sickness where it sometimes seems to have trouble holding its speed on even slight uphill or downhill runs. I don't mean a mph or so, I'm talking 3-5 mph sometimes. The other thing, which some will like and others won't, is that there is maybe a bit too much bolstering on the sides of the two front seats. The boards here seem to have a fair number of mechanical complaints about them though.
It does seem that modern day drivers are more distracted than ever.
You never met my older sister, who had something like 12 wrecks just in her high school years. :shades:
People still hate to ride with although she improved (some) with age. Want to keep time with the radio beat by tapping the accelerator pedal? That was her in high school. Still seems to have very little situational awareness even when she's not fiddling with something.
Berri, the problem boards for the Equinox are busy, but Chevy sells a lot of them (~20k a month) so I'm not sure if they really are outside the norm.
Berri, the problem boards for the Equinox are busy, but Chevy sells a lot of them (~20k a month) so I'm not sure if they really are outside the norm.
That's a good point. But I think what worries me a bit is that there seem to be more serious issue posts like engine and transmission matters than say something like a CRV. However, I suppose that might be because there are other CRV focused forums on the web, whereas I'm not sure there are for the Equinox.
One of the safest old cars is probably a fintail - they were engineered with passive safety in mind. First mass produced specifically engineered crumple zones, padded and breakaway interior components, etc.
$40K for an Impala is as bad as the same price for the new Kia Cadenza.
First new Impala I saw--where the dealer told me 'it's not for sale' (!)--was a V6 with a sticker price of $31,700. There sure is a wide swing in prices in the new Impala line, that is for certain.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
How did the old Pontons compare to the Fintails, safety-wise? While I'm sure the Fintails were better, I imagine there was some effort put into the Pontons as well.
Almost forgot...the DeSoto does have safety glass, at least. And a padded dashboard was optional. I don't know how much good it would have done though, because it was just a thinly padded layer of vinyl over a thick, metal dash.
I think pontons crashed well too - some of the crumple zone tech was started with them, but not developed as much as on the later cars. They didn't have padded dashes or any safety thought in the switchgear though.
American Motors really played up the safety angle in the 1950's, with their unitized cars. But, I wonder how safe they truly were? For instance, I think I saw a 1957 Nash brochure that bragged about it being "twice as strong as other cars", and, oddly predictive, stating that "one day, all cars will be built this way".
The mechanic that has my DeSoto had a 1959 or 60 Rambler American in his shop though, up on a lift, and even though it was unitized instead of body-on-frame, to me it just looked like a random bunch of pieces welded together without a whole lot of rhyme or reason.
American Motors really played up the safety angle in the 1950's, with their unitized cars. But, I wonder how safe they truly were? For instance, I think I saw a 1957 Nash brochure that bragged about it being "twice as strong as other cars", and, oddly predictive, stating that "one day, all cars will be built this way".
I remember folks my parent's age around that time being highly skeptical of unitized construction, and much preferring a full frame vehicle.
So, I suspect the "real" advantage, from the manufacturer's standpoint, was less nuts and bolts, more spot welding, more efficient production and less production costs. The safety angle was most likely used to sell buyers on a different construction technique, as I doubt the first unitized cars provided any safer ride for the occupants inside the vehicle.
Back then, with a few exceptions, most safety gear was bolt on/add on, like seat belts, padded dashes, and compressing steering columns. Without the ability of computer modeling, crumple zone engineering was mainly trial and error in design, and observation of real-life crash inspections.
Comments
For some reason, I thought you lived someplace south and west of Atlanta? Did you move, or do I have you confused with somebody else?
GM said it knew of two trunk fires related to the condition but added that there were no injuries or crashes as a result of the issue.
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130506/OEM11/130509915#ixzz2SY07Yalb
At a quick glance, from certain angles, the Impala makes me think a bit of those hunchback things that started making the scene a few years ago, although with much better proportioning. They make me think a bit of an Audi A7, which I think got that hunchback look just right. Thankfully, they didn't go the other route, which would make me think of the Honda Crosstour and whatever random jumble of letters they threw together for the Acura version!
I don't really get all that excited by new cars anymore. But, I think the 2014 Impala has grabbed my attention more than any Chevy in recent memory.
Oh, I've been thinking about it. I think the only reservation I'd have is that I'd want a sunroof. I could live with no leather. Guess I could always buy one of those stripper R/Ts and have a sunroof put in.
Personally, I doubt few, if any, people thought back in 1975 you would be able to purchase a 500 HP V-8 Mustang, Camaro or any other V-8 equipped vehicle in the 21st Century...
As long as there is enough demand for a V-8, some company will make them. They might be pricey, but they'll still be around...
General Motors has released more information on the 4.3-liter V6 available in the 2014 GMC Sierra. The engine will serve up 285 horsepower and 305 pound-feet of torque, with a six-speed automatic transmission, and giving the V6 Sierra a maximum tow rating of 7,200 pounds in regular cab, short bed four-wheel drive configuration. GM claims that figure is 500 pounds more than the equivalent Ford F-150 equipped with a 3.7-liter V6, and 700 pounds more than the Ram 1500 with its 3.6-liter V6. Buyers can expect to see the 2014 GMC Sierra with the 4.3-liter engine start at $25,085 including destination.
While the engine does deliver more torque than either of its main competitors, it falls short on the horsepower front. The 3.7-liter V6 in the F-150 develops 302 hp while the 3.6-liter V6 in the Ram 1500 yields 305 hp. GM says fuel economy estimates for its newest entry will land later this year.
They sure are. And even some 4-cyl engines are catching up! The 1964 GTO, which is credited with kicking off the musclecar craze, was good for 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds, with the base 389-4bbl and a stick shift. Now, the Tri-Power was a bit more impressive, at 6.6 seconds, but the vast majority sold were just the base 389.
Nowadays, a Charger with the V-6 is probably about as quick as that base GTO. And that's with an automatic transmission, improved emissions, a lot more weight, air conditioning (nobody bought musclecars with a/c in the 1960s) and all sorts of other features that add weight.
I think I've seen tests of 4-cyl Altimas (dunno about the current one, but the previous generation) that have put it in the 7 second range for 0-60.
Is that GM's answer (finally) to the Ford Ecoboost? They always seem to be catching up rather than leading the pack.
They didn't change the look much, but under the skin they made significant improvements. MPG is class leading.
That is what I would buy. Dodge nailed it with that car. Beautiful. And armed with some information from Edmunds.com when you go in to talk a deal you can probably score a good deal now. What engines do they avail for you with that car? 318 V6? I'm shooting in the dark here.
Also, I have learned from owning and driving my 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS that the automatic CVT is a great way ta go. I'm talking about a stick shift versus an automatic CVT. For one thing, if someone doesn't know how ta drive stick they can drive your Lancer or Charger. For another thing, you can drive the Lancer in CVT and chirp the tires if that's what floats your boat. Mitsubishi engineers did a fantastic job with this CVT. No kidding. I can derive the same pleasure (it's true purist stick-shifters will only want a clutch and I understand. I am starting to get a strong hankering for a 1959-1968 VW Bug, white with a 4-speed stick to be able to drive stick again) by driving this Lancer GTS with its automatic CVT that one can with a stick.
Well, it may not have to do with the stick vs. automatic at all. I understand the stick-shift purist's stance here, I was taught by my Dad at 15 1/2 ta drive stick, and it was in a baby blue 1966 VW Fastback. That car was quick and easy ta shift. I want a VW Fastback '66 or a VW Bug '66, either one will do. Because I've never driven a Bug I may have to get one of those to satisfy me.
But as far as the Dodge Challenger goes, andre1969, if I were you I would concentrate on one of those. I realize you wouldn't listen ta me if I told you to go test drive a Mitsubishi Lancer, because you love American cars more and you always will. But I respect your knowledge of the American car market, and the new Dodge Challenger absolutely rocks. I almost want one of those but I don't want to spend that much money. Too many New Mexican pesos for one of them.
The '59-'67 VW Bugs range from about $3,000 to even $20,000. I may never get one but want one right now. As for old American cars, I still love the '62-'65 Chevy Nova class. Delicious body design. Oh no!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
There's a lot to be said for airbags and crash testing.
But they're still pushrod, sawed-off 90-degree V-8's! :P
Seriously though, as long as they do the job and are competent, I wouldn't care if they were flatheads.
I wonder though, why GM chose to develop this new V-6, rather than simply use the existing 3.6 in the trucks? Seems to me that would be cheaper, although to their credit, I'm sure this new 4.3 has a lot more torque than the 3.6 would. And, since the 4.3 is based on the V-8's, maybe it wasn't all that expensive to develop. It uses the same 92mm bore as the 5.3 and 6.2 V-8's, but a different stroke, so doing the math, it won't come out to exactly 3/4 of an existing V-8's displacement, such as how the older 262/4.3 was 3/4 of a 350/5.7 (or the old 229/305 or 200/267)
I feel exactly the same way.
I'm more interested in the vehicle's performance, economy and reliability, rather than how many (if any) cylinders it has...
A quick check here at Edmunds gave the following results:
Altima 7.8 secs 6.2 secs
Camry 8.4 secs 6.6 secs
Accord 7.5 secs 6.1 secs
Mazda6 N/A 6.5 secs
This is 4 cylinder followed by V6, 0-60 times. All 2013 models, all automatic transmission or CVT (Altima and Accord).
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
So the base model, slowest Accord sold today, matches the 1964 GTO our parents lusted after.
Funny.
Consumer Reports once tested a 1968 or 69 Mopar intermediate. Can't remember now if it was a Charger, Coronet, or Roadrunner. But I do remember it had a 440, Torqueflite automatic, and 3.23:1 axle, which was a good "middle of the road" if you wanted to balance top speed and acceleration. They got 0-60 in 7 seconds flat. I think it had 350 gross hp, which would translate to around 260-270 net? The reason that one sticks in my mind is that it's more of a "civilized" musclecar than a '64 GTO would be (automatic, less radical gearing, etc). Needless to say, Consumer Reports hated it though, because it was too powerful and ate tires. Of course, they were probably putting it through its paces a bit differently than they would a Rambler or base Falcon!
I've heard that a compact, like a Dart/Demon or A-body Barracuda, with a 340, automatic, and 3.23:1 axle could do 0-60 in about 6 seconds, but have never seen a test to back that up. www.zeroto60times.com shows a 1970 Duster listed at 5.7 seconds, but it doesn't list the engine or transmission combo.
There's also an infamous test that either MT or C&D did, with a 1965 Catalina 2+2 that did 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. But, I'd take that one with a grain of salt! I think the original idea was to compare a '65 Pontiac GTO with a Ferrari GTO, but at the last minute they couldn't get ahold of one so they had to substitute a Catalina 2+2 instead.
A Catalina 2+2 is a gorgeous car, of which I'd love to own one of any model year, '64 to '67, but that said, with Jim Wangers of Pontiac involved in promotion, I'd be a little skeptical.
Oh, one other reason that some of those older 0-60 times weren't so hot by today's standards was probably the tires. Those old bias-ply tires probably spun out really easily. And, even with radials, it's easy to make some of those old, powerful cars spin out, whereas the modern ones with traction control simply dig in and take off.
I guess the transmissions of the day were probably a handicap, as well. For instance, the Torqueflite that was in that late 60's 440 musclecar that CR tested would have just had a 2.45:1 first gear, 1.45:1 second, and 1.00:1 direct drive, with the 3.23:1 rear axle.
But, in my 2012 Ram, which uses a 3.21:1 axle, the ratios are as follows (according to Wikipedia at least):
1st 3.00:1
2nd 1.67:1
3rd 1.50:1
4th 1.00:1
5th 0.75:1
6th 0.67:1
So, if you could take one of those old engines, but give it the benefit of extra gears like today's engines have, I wonder if that would do much to improve performance?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
1st 3.00:1
2nd 1.67:1
3rd 1.50:1
4th 1.00:1
5th 0.75:1
6th 0.67:1
I'm kind of surprised regarding the first few ratios.
The 6 speed in my expedition is
1st 4.17:1
2nd 2.34:1
3rd 1.52:1
4th 1.14:1
5th .86:1
6th .69:1
And my drive ratio is 3.73. It definitely makes pulling a heavy boat up a steep ramp a breeze and also getting a heavy trailer underway from a dead stop.
I'll have to look up what the Ram 8 speed has for ratios.
Back in the day at the drag strip, it was imperative to take a set of drag slicks with you on track day...even for dead stock cars! Those crappy old tires!
Kia Optima SX - 4cyl - 0-60 6.4 sec./ 1/4 in 15.0 sec.
I find the size sort of in-between - bigger than a compact SUV but not overly huge. The outside was a nice red and the interior was black with sort of an off-white trim. The seats were leather (at least I think it was leather; could have been vinyl as not obviously a really nice leather). The seats were the nicest part of the interior as the black plastic was all hard, but with chrome trim rings, etc. Somehow this combo doesn't ring my "wow that's nice" meter - it's definitely not the cheapest interior I've ever seen, but not all that great, either.
The driving was pretty decent. The engine was reasonably refined although not tremendously so. The steering was sort of in the same category. An all around competent but uninspiring ride. Decent, but nothing great.
The ergonomics were decent in most respects - I could set a good seating position and the electric seat had lots of adjustments. The steering wheel looked sort of cheap to me. Perhaps those more familiar with GM would find some of the controls just fine, but to me there were a couple of ergonomic messes. I figured out that I could control the center CRT and Onstar with the steering wheel buttons, but the menu was pretty laggy - you hit the button and wait a half second or so for the cursor to step down to the next item. So you get ahead of the thing and end up overshooting the menu you want. I then tried to figure out how to reset the trip odo/mpg meter in the center of the gauge cluster. I was in the car, in the rental lot, getting things set up before starting the engine. I must have spent 5 minutes looking for the way to reset this darn display. Well then I look over to the center console, and there are a few innocuous buttons in the center stack that do this! So the steering wheel in front of you manages the CRT to the right of you, and the buttons to the right of you manage the display in front of you! Not very intuitive at all.
All in all, it was a competent but uninspiring vehicle. In fairness I've not driven it's competitors except for the Mazda CX-5, which handled and steered far better and IMHO had a nicer interior as well. But I suspect the Equniox is more spacious.
Funny... As we get older, and farther down the road from cars that had no safety features to speak of, some us us start to realize how much of a death trap some of our older cars could be at times...
I used to tell folks that if I was in an accident in my 41 Dodge coupe, they'd just drag my body out, hose down the dash and sell it to the next guy...
I've used that line in reference to my '57 DeSoto, as well.
I wonder what death rates were for those old Mustangs and the Falcons they were based on, anyway? Even though their tanks leaked and fuel got into the trunk and passenger compartment with little effort, it seems like Ford really didn't catch fire for its dangerous ways until the Pinto came out. And even then, I think it was because some study got leaked, where they put a value of something like $100,000 on a human life, figured they could cut corners and save a couple bucks per car, and running their calculations, estimated that even with deaths and lawsuits, they'd still come out ahead.
And, for all the Pinto infamy, I've read that overall, its death rates were slightly better than similar small cars of the era. So, your chances of getting killed in some manner were about the same whether you chose a Pinto, Vega, Colt, Cricket, Corolla, 210, or whatever.
I'm guessing they didn't keep statistics back in the 60's, but I wonder how a Mustang/Falcon would have compared with a Chevy II/Camaro, or a Dart/Valiant/Barracuda, with regards to overall death rates? A Chevy II, Dart, or Valiant feel like more substantial cars than a Falcon in general...to me at least. And I'm sure the Mustang was beefed up compared to a Falcon, although it still has that Achilles heel gas tank.
Today I drove by the nearest Chevy dealer again. I spied a silver Impala up on the hill on their lot, and I drove in and it was the $27,535.00 LS model. Of course today, no one approached me at all there!
My honest assessment from walking around the car:
It's almost hard to believe how much car you get for that sticker price.
The LS has wheelcovers, but they to me are designed to look like the aluminum wheels on the LT.
The interior has a smaller screen in the center of the instrument panel. Still a big rear-seat center armrest, glossy black trim on the panel and onto the doors, good amount of brightwork on the shifter and around it and around instruments, etc. I was pleasantly surprised to see power vertical adjustment standard on even the right front passenger seat.
EPA is 21 city, 31 highway for the four...a couple better highway than the 305 hp V6.
The other Impala they have is an LTZ which is nearly $12K more expensive. Looks-wise, it has a nice leather interior with contrasting piping, but I sure as hell don't see $12K of difference.
I figured if I saw the salesman I sort-of know there, I'd say, "Park this out front and it'll be sold by the end of the week".
66% U.S./Canada content, engine built in U.S., transmission built in U.S., final assembly in Detroit.
I sure like what I see, although didn't drive it.
I far-more worry today about inattentive drivers, or those who can't see the back of a car without a center brake light, than I think I worried about things when I started driving in 1974.
GM is behind still but catching up steadily. I think Buick needs a boost and Caddy has pushed the design too far to the "edge", if you get my drift. The new CTS could change that but I saw an ATS and XTS and not impressed. The Impala was far better, aesthetically.
We had safety glass, dual chamber brake master cylinders and safety-latch doors.
I remember seeing pics as a kid of wrecks with passengers protruding through the plate-glass windshields... Not a pleasant sight.
I also remember many acquaintances over my first 15-20 years that were either killed or maimed badly in accidents that, if in a car made today, they probably would have walked away from after the same accident.
It does seem that modern day drivers are more distracted than ever.
I know someone who, as a little kid was playing with his friends around a parked Caddy from the early 60's. He tripped and fell against one of the fins, leaving a nice big gash above his eye. It never did heal right and left a scar. So even sitting still, those old cars could hurt you!
You never met my older sister, who had something like 12 wrecks just in her high school years. :shades:
People still hate to ride with although she improved (some) with age. Want to keep time with the radio beat by tapping the accelerator pedal? That was her in high school. Still seems to have very little situational awareness even when she's not fiddling with something.
Berri, the problem boards for the Equinox are busy, but Chevy sells a lot of them (~20k a month) so I'm not sure if they really are outside the norm.
Oh, great....
I simply can't stand riding with pulsating-pedal-pushers that seem to be constantly exercising their right foot while driving down the highway.
That's a good point. But I think what worries me a bit is that there seem to be more serious issue posts like engine and transmission matters than say something like a CRV. However, I suppose that might be because there are other CRV focused forums on the web, whereas I'm not sure there are for the Equinox.
First new Impala I saw--where the dealer told me 'it's not for sale' (!)--was a V6 with a sticker price of $31,700. There sure is a wide swing in prices in the new Impala line, that is for certain.
Almost forgot...the DeSoto does have safety glass, at least. And a padded dashboard was optional. I don't know how much good it would have done though, because it was just a thinly padded layer of vinyl over a thick, metal dash.
The mechanic that has my DeSoto had a 1959 or 60 Rambler American in his shop though, up on a lift, and even though it was unitized instead of body-on-frame, to me it just looked like a random bunch of pieces welded together without a whole lot of rhyme or reason.
I remember folks my parent's age around that time being highly skeptical of unitized construction, and much preferring a full frame vehicle.
So, I suspect the "real" advantage, from the manufacturer's standpoint, was less nuts and bolts, more spot welding, more efficient production and less production costs. The safety angle was most likely used to sell buyers on a different construction technique, as I doubt the first unitized cars provided any safer ride for the occupants inside the vehicle.
Back then, with a few exceptions, most safety gear was bolt on/add on, like seat belts, padded dashes, and compressing steering columns. Without the ability of computer modeling, crumple zone engineering was mainly trial and error in design, and observation of real-life crash inspections.