By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I imagine a good number of Catalina, Bonneville, LeSabre and Delta cross- shopped the Caprice, since the Caprice was comparable to those more prestigious GM models, or at least considered the top-of-the-line Chevy.
The Malibu's more reliable AND less expensive!
Comparo: 2013 Fusion, Malibu, Optima
Here are the Sales YTD 2013/(2012):
Fusion: 136,833 (241,263)
Malibu: 89,812 (210,951)
Optima: 68,859 (152,399)
The 2013 Kia Optima and the 2013 Chevy Malibu are both well-equipped and safe vehicles, but in comparison the Kia has a stronger engine, better gas mileage and offers more cabin and trunk space, which makes it the ideal midsize sedan.
I just like the style of the Charger better. More sporty and less formal.
Likely, but that doesn't matter to me - they did the impossible, turned it around without assistance, and other than their stupid partnership with Microsoft, produce a great product now. The Toyota tech package doesn't do everything the Sync system does, but it does most of it, and it works!
Anyway, whether I buy another Ford or not, I admire them, and I won't buy a GM product, period.
The Malibu's more reliable AND less expensive!
Well, at least less expensive.
I don't really think Washington had a choice on GM, or Wall Street at that point in time
I disagree on those points. I think it is much simpler. Bush did the bailouts because he had a huge ego and didn't want the stain of a failed GM on his tenure in office.
Obama did the bailouts simply because analysts told him he'd win re-election with the help of Michigan and Ohio battleground States at re-election time.
I don't think the interest of the people (99%), or the greater good ever came into play here.
Arguing there "was no other choice for Washington" is the same fear-mongering argument at the other choice was so bad, that it is unthinkable and not up for worthy consideration (too big to fail argument).
I like the idea of "containing the damage" of too big to fail companies that can and do (and did) fail. Containing the damage could include bailouts to the collaterally damaged companies, like suppliers. Of course, I think they were stupid for relying their business model upon the credit worthiness of a GM in 2008.
The other choice was simply letting all the failed companies fail, and letting the scavengers pick and choose the winners and losers, rather than the gov't.
Camry = 93
Accord = 90
Sonata = 89
Legacy 3.6R LTD = 88
Fusion = 87
Mazda 6 = 86
Altima 3.5 SL = 84
Optima SX = 84
Malibu 1LT = 83
Fusion SE (T) = 82
Passat SEL = 82
Optima LX = 81
VW CC Sport = 81
Altima 2.5 S = 81
Legacy 2.5i = 81
Passat TDI SE = 80
Fusion 2.0T Titanium = 78
Malibu ECO = 76
Passat SE 2.5 = 76
Sonata Hybrid = 69
Chrysler 200 LTD V-6 = 52
Dodge Avenger SXT (4cyl) = 43 :lemon:
But the FDIC didn't exist back then did it? In fact, wasn't it created because of it?
Dodge Avenger SXT (4cyl) = 43
CR is spot-on again. Based on my two recent rentals (although I had the 4 cylinder version of the 200), I would say those scores about right on point. I'd give the 4-cyl 200 a score in between; say 47.
It's like CR can read my mind! Psychic.
I guess they haven't fixed the structural instability issue my 95' Neon had when the windshield split in half for no apparent reason other than Chrysler design and engineering faults. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
:lemon: :lemon:
That's a fair statement, but the FDIC is particularly valuable because it protects the 99%.
There are other examples of differences in today's age that make 1929 unlikely to have repeated in 2008.
If that car didn't catch fire, no car should. I suppose I could allow 1 "witnessed" car to be excused though.
I actually shopped that car when it first came out---I thought "Hey, this car is cute, seems to perform well and is affordable---it's the new Alfa Sprint from the 1950s!"
Wrong
It is really curious though, that the Neon 2.0 was so self-destructive. It was based on the older 2.2/2.5 engines, which were designed by the same guy who did the slant six.
Now, I had an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe that got a warped head and blew a head gasket, but that was around the 118,000 mile mark at least. And by that time, my ex-wife had it a few years, and it had been stolen a couple times, so at least it had *some* excuse!
The 2.0 still used an iron block and aluminum head, so that might have been part of the problem, as the expansion/contraction rates of the different materials would play hell with the head gasket. Still, other manufacturers figured out how to do it.
**Edit: just looked up on Wikipedia. It seems that one problem with the 2.0 is that Chrysler made the head bolts too short. They probably did that because it looked good "on paper" (just like the 100,000 mile service interval on a 1979 GM THM200 transmission looked good "on paper), and probably saved them a little bit of money in production. However, time and time again, the automakers get taught the lesson that what looks good in theory doesn't always pan out in real life.
I wonder if their was a reliability difference between the SOHC 2.0l and DOHC?
they made an R/T version in 1998. i wonder if that would be any fun?
I hope US automakers continue to produce models that will appeal to young urban buyers...."hot hatches" and such.
So maybe that power was just a bit too much for the SOHC version, but the DOHC was beefy enough to handle the power?
Interesting though, that the performance version would end up being more reliable. IIRC, Ford had the same issue with the Probe. I think if you got the base model, you got a Ford engine and the automatic tranny was a Ford unit. But if you got the performance versions, it had a Mazda engine and tranny? I knew someone with a '94 or so Probe, and I think it ate tranny #1 around 30K miles, and tranny #2 around 80K. He had engine issues as well.
Even going back to the disco era, I think the turbo version of the Pontiac 301 was supposed to be more durable than the regular model. The turbo would add its own set of problems, but the beefier block corrected a lot of other issues. Same with the old Buick 231.
I believe all last gen Probes '93- used Mazda powertrains. My wife had a '94 Probe SE. It was a 2.0 DOHC 5speed manual. Definitely a Mazda engine as Ford could never have made a 4cyl that smooth;)
I think the only Ford engine to ever make it into the Probe was the 3.0 v6 in the '89-92 version. The N/A and turbo 4 cylinders were Mazda sourced.
The 2.5 DOHC v6 used in the '93+ GT was a gem. Probably one of the smoothest revving v6's I've ever sampled.
They're right up there with the oversized rims and low profile tires.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Seems like MB has had it forever, so perhaps Audi and others are just copying them. :shades:
No real big mouth bass or predator look though.
Audi busted us out of the "melted ice cream" styling of the 1990s.
I'm a bit jaded after reading the CX-7 forums but I doubt that the new Mazda stuff is as good as my mom's Protege was. It never hiccuped on her for something like 17 years, when she finally hung up her keys.
Of course that was pre-Ford I think, so I can't really shoot holes in your theory, although I wonder if the opposite is true.
I think the independence of the two greatly favors Mazda.
71 years you say.... it seems even with 2013 models they haven't figured out how to even build a decent car yet, that holds up without falling apart like the car Jim Carey drove in the "MASK" before he found his mask.
Yes, my '95 Neon got a cracked windshield for no external reason just like the modern Dart has, only difference is mine cracked after the warranty period. Guess they had more planned obsolescence experts back then. Funny, ironic, that Chrysler cutbacks on planned obsolescence engineering experts might now be costing Chrysler more money in warranty claims.
I also think that VW was even earlier in their mid-late '90's Passat arc roofline. Still IMHO a better looking car than today's Passat.
I think Passat first showed that roofline in 1996.
MB kicked it up a notch with the CLS, which was on the road by early 2005 - enough to eventually influence BMW and Audi with a rakish 4 door (A7, Gran Coupe).
Ah, I KNEW I eventually would agree with you on something, Lemko!
The new Avalon is delicious looking to me from the rear and side, and then I saw the Large Mouth Bass in the front, and croaked! Kind of like coming up behind a gorgeous woman with long hair, then having her turn around to reveal a Joan Rivers face! Ouch! :sick:
Maybe I'm the LEMKO of foreign car buyers, and all my foreign cars will be perfect no matter what. We will know for sure if I buy something like a Range Rover and it ends up being flawless like LEMKO's Buicks and Cadillacs.
The windshield on my buddy's 2006 Xterra got an unexplained crack in it one hot summer day last year. So, it can happen to furrin' rigs as well. I think the Xterra is built in Tennessee though, so maybe it's the American DNA that does it. :P