Some Japanese cars were troublesome and rust-prone, as were Vegas. I am able to admit that.
The post I commented on, I feel almost surely was a well-intentioned not-quite accurate memory though (of course I can't say for certain, but based on the MANY Vegas I saw, I believe so...again, "within two years").
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
For balance, here's a Datsun B210 ad from the '70's, to see what people shopping for Vega and Pinto could also be looking at in the same price range. Since I posted a photo of a Vega from an ad:
I do know that Cadillac way outsold Lincoln back then, but Chevy had such sales volume that the government actually wanted Chevy to spin off from GM. I have heard and read that many times in my life.
I lived in a small town, and our Chevy dealer also sold Cadillac. It was a rare sight to see even one Cadillac in inventory, and it was always gone quickly. Dad would say, "apparently ordered by a Doctor". In a dealer that sold around 400 new cars a year in a good year, I bet five or less were Cadillacs.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Some Japanese cars were troublesome and rust-prone, as were Vegas. I am able to admit that.
Actually late model Japanese cars are still extremely rust-prone.
Toyota Tacoma and Tundra frames are rusting out from under them on 10 year old or newer vehicles to the point where they are unsafe to drive, and new front end and brake parts cannot safely be bolted to them.
Some Nissan Altima Floor boards are rusting throught to the point where there are holes within 5 years
Late model Mazdas are having rust and paint problems. There is a video on youtube of a white 2010 Mazda with numerous rust spots and it is definitely not from rail dust
Have you noticed the horrible paint and rust spots on some Hondas?
By the way I own a 2006 Chevy Silverado. I live in New York where salt is used on the roads every year, and my frame shows NO signs of rust.
Greg, I think the difference between pro-domestic and pro-foreign buffs on this board is, the pro-domestic guys (far fewer in number) don't claim everything is far superior in a domestic; we can admit problems. The foreign guys believe otherwise.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
>Greg, I think the difference between pro-domestic and pro-foreign buffs on this board is, the pro-domestic guys (far fewer in number) don't claim everything is far superior in a domestic; we can admit problems. The foreign guys believe otherwise.
Right on point. I recall about 2001-2003 when the two largest sellers in foreign models were nothing short of supernatural. Their oil wasn't dirty when changed; their tires didn't wear. It was just wonderful.
And most importantly, the constant bragging that their cars didn't have any rebates to consumers because they were so wonderful. Actually, the Hondas had rebate to the dealers which the dealers could pass part of along, if they were forced to do so, or they could just keep it all for themselves. They were rebates serving as spiffs to the dealers and the consumer might or might not benefit. But they were rebates.
Now we have Lexus with rebates trying to live down the many years of toyota's ignoring, misrepresenting, and hiding information about safety in their cars to the NHTSA. My how the worm has turned.
I recall someone who had a toyota sedan bragging about how little trouble it gave him! It was from the 80s. All it had was a fan belt and a clutch. No other options. But he found the brand was just wonderful. Compared to other cars with many features and options, that car was beneath a stripper. He sold the rusted out hulk to someone else who lived on the street in the city.
Then he bought a newer station wagon Camry but avoided the sludge problem, which he admitted was real. He later bought a Corolla for his kids and he mentioned having to repair something major the last time I saw him. He also talked about the secret repairs on his Camry when he took it in for service. Because of the brake problems they had gone ahead and replaced rear brakes. They also did something in the engine as a part of an oil change.
So the foreign brands aren't perfect. It's amazing how the US brands folks let the foreign autophiles get by with the exaggeration about how perfect their cars are. Go read the various threads here for problems. A Civic thread will have a mention of a problem and someone else will pipe up stating that it is a _known_ problem. All that on cars that have always been perfect.! :P
Personally I'm following the leaking blocks on Civics and the Odyssey transmission sagas. Isn't the word "Honda" synonymous with "transmission problems" now?
Greg, I think the difference between pro-domestic and pro-foreign buffs on this board is, the pro-domestic guys (far fewer in number) don't claim everything is far superior in a domestic; we can admit problems. The foreign guys believe otherwise.
Not this guy. I think that the industry - both domestic & foreign - has developed to a point where there aren't significant differences among brands as far as reliability is concerned. If you buy a Buick & I buy a Honda, we're not going to have wildly dissimilar repair experiences. The competition is simply too fierce for that, which is another reason why car buffs everywhere should be anti-tariff. We want the competition to stay fierce.
My chief complaint against the D3 is that until very recently - the 2008 model year - the domestics had very little to offer those of us who prefer cars, meaning sedans & coupes, to trucks & SUVs. GM in particular produced such uninspiring, dull sedans & coupes that it seemed not to be interested in doing business with anyone who didn't want a truck. The company's motto throughout the 90s & into the 2000s might just as well have been "If you don't want a truck, then don't bother us. We don't want your money".
The latest offerings from Buick & Cadillac are attractive cars that I'll seriously consider the next time I'm in the market. But we shouldn't have had to wait this long for them. GM should have been delivering products like this 10 years earlier.
"GM should have been delivering products like this 10 years earlier."...with all the rantings about management, UAW and everything else...this sums it up fairly well, except where you say 10 years earlier, I say 20...
"GM should have been delivering products like this 10 years earlier."...with all the rantings about management, UAW and everything else...this sums it up fairly well, except where you say 10 years earlier, I say 20...
I think that twenty years ago, the Japanese were selling on an image of reliability, but not building something for everyone, that's for sure. For Toyota, I'm remembering Tercel, Corolla, Camry, and Supra, and a compact pickup truck. Chevy offered Cavalier (including a wagon), Corsica/Beretta, Lumina coupe/sedan/minivan, Camaro, Caprice, and Corvette, and of course a complete line of trucks. Say what you will about them being unsophisticated (where's my pipe, shoulder patches, and reading glasses?!), the fact is I see waaayyyyyy more '90 Chevys in use everyday, still, than I see 1990 foreign anything.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Say what you will about them being unsophisticated (where's my pipe, shoulder patches, and reading glasses?!), the fact is I see waaayyyyyy more '90 Chevys in use everyday, still, than I see 1990 foreign anything.
And I still see a few 2nd generation ('86 - '90) Camrys & 3rd generation ('86 - '89) Accords in our railroad station parking garage.
But that's not the point, as I observed in my previous post. The "reliability wars" are over. Unless you buy an outlier - something made in Italy, for example - you'll get long life & good service from almost any brand.
For me, the real issue is why the D3 in general & GM in particular ignored the non-truck buyer for so long. It's worth noting that most of the domestic partisans here are truck buyers. But I'm not a truck guy. I dig fast, well-styled sedans - preferably with stick & RWD. Why has it taken the domestics so long to pay attention to buyers like me?
When I visited my late uncle, who lived out West, I would drive his '00 Buick Ultra. It was a comfortable, competent road car that did most things well. But when I drove it, I'd wonder why GM didn't spend an extra $20 on the interior, which was cheesy & low rent - not at all appropriate for a luxury touring sedan.
So here's a question for our resident Buick expert: why did GM cheap out on the interiors of its sedans for so long? Why did the company turn its back on non-truck buyers?
I was in a 2010 or 2011 Camry on Thursday. It was cheap plastic. It was all one color. The ride in and out of parking lots was rough and uncivilized. It was more like an Accord. The owner had been relatively happy with her previous Camry when toyota called and said she could turn in her leased car early for a new Camry or other toyota. They apparently are doing everything they can to make the sales higher. All those turned in lease cars will have to lower the price on used Camrys and therefore new ones.
I'm not a huge Toyota fan (although my wife loves her Lexus), so I won't argue with your characterization of the Camry. I can think of several American sedans that I'd rather drive.
My ride is a BMW 330i - the sport sedan gold standard. It has an inline 6 that can rev from here until a year from Tuesday & a stick shift that goes snick-snick-snick. It's as much fun as a man can have without taking off his pants. Why can't GM come up with something halfway competitive?
Simple math. USA cars cost more because of the UAW and management decisions. Ergo, competition makes better products since USA must cut quality to compete on price.
Benefits our nation because it forced the USA car companies to step up or "CLOSE DOWN"! Make better products at competitive prices. Market rules.
We'll see. It took bankruptcy to shake it up in Detroit. Let's see if they step up or bow out.
No, I really expect the USA to be competitive DESPITE the lower waged countries products. If a Malibu was 50% better than any foreign make but was priced 10% more (NOT 50% MORE), I'm sure sales would do just fine. The added cost for that much better a car would be gladly paid by me and scores of others.
But that is not even close to being the case at the moment.
Why can't GM come up with something halfway competitive?
Still waiting....C11 hasn't turned up the flame because the old demons are lying under cover of the Government...
Like I said before, compete or die. Hyundai is acting a lot more thirsty at the moment and GM is still talking up a cloaking game afaic. Not at all impressed.
I think that twenty years ago, the Japanese were selling on an image of reliability, but not building something for everyone, that's for sure. For Toyota, I'm remembering Tercel, Corolla, Camry, and Supra, and a compact pickup truck. Chevy offered Cavalier (including a wagon), Corsica/Beretta, Lumina coupe/sedan/minivan, Camaro, Caprice, and Corvette, and of course a complete line of trucks. Say what you will about them being unsophisticated (where's my pipe, shoulder patches, and reading glasses?!), the fact is I see waaayyyyyy more '90 Chevys in use everyday, still, than I see 1990 foreign anything.
True, in that the Japanese started in small cars and the US makes were primarily larger cars. The US small cars as previously discussed started inferior and stayed that way until the present. But the Japanese had a number of advantages - no unions in their US plants, better entry level product (which meant a lot of loyalty developed in new drivers), and increasing product offerings in larger sedans. This set the stage for the increasing market share by the Japanese makers.
Uplanderguy, I forget where you are but I believe it is in the midwest. You would probably see few old Japanese makes because the midwest has historically been much more pro-US makes than the rest of the country. 15 years or so ago the Japanese makes would have had fairly little market penetration in the midwest; hence few vehicles of that age running around. I can say that here in California (the nation's largest car market), it is exactly the opposite. Lots of old Hondas and Toyotas, but very few US made older small sedans. We do see older US cars, but typically more desirable cars like older Mustangs, etc.
For me, the real issue is why the D3 in general & GM in particular ignored the non-truck buyer for so long. It's worth noting that most of the domestic partisans here are truck buyers. But I'm not a truck guy. I dig fast, well-styled sedans - preferably with stick & RWD. Why has it taken the domestics so long to pay attention to buyers like me?
Similar to myself. I never lost my love of smaller vehicles, but I did want quality. In 1985 I wanted a quality, stick, small car. My choices were the new Ford Tempo, the Cavalier(?) or Chevette -- what else from the US makers? Or I could buy what I eventually did buy - an '85 VW Jetta. I drove it 143K miles. By 1992 I wanted a quality sedan with a bit more luxury, but still decent handling and not too expensive. I bought a '92 Honda Accord (still just about the best car we ever owned). And in 1998 when I wanted a premium sport/luxury small sedan, with stick, I looked at Lincoln LS, BMW 3, Infiniti G, and Audi A4. The Audi won and it was a wonderful car to drive.
What US make would have been anywhere near comparable to the A4? When the US makes said they could not make any profit on smaller cars, what about the premium smaller cars? BMW and Audi and even Acura and VW were selling a LOT of premium small cars in those days. Why were all of the brilliant marketing execs at the Big 3 too stupid to see this high profit market? They had NOTHING that was even close to appealing in this segment.
No, I really expect the USA to be competitive DESPITE the lower waged countries products.
EXACTLY. Instead of whining about the foreigners, let's see. We have a better infrastructure in THIS country. We can automate more in THIS country (if the unions let us!). We don't have to pay for overseas shipping for cars built in THIS country. We have more educated workforce in THIS country. We have a TON of advantages. We just need to use them. This is one place where the UNION and the MANAGEMENT need to take responsibility. Honda is competitive and has been building vehicles here for over 25 years. Toyota is competitive and builds vehicles here. And BMW. And Subaru. Etc. What is the only difference? The Management and the UNIONS.
Some day, hopefully soon, a smart US company will start building cars here in some totally different way, thinking out of the box. It COULD be one of the former Big 3, but it is more likely to be a startup that is not shackled by 50 years of cholesterol clogging its veins.
My choices were the new Ford Tempo, the Cavalier(?) or Chevette -- what else from the US makers? Or I could buy what I eventually did buy - an '85 VW Jetta.
Was the Jetta priced down around where those others were? Also, I'm not aware of VW having a great quality rep. in the '70's and '80's, either.
As much as people will pooh-pooh this, I owned new '97 and '02 Cavaliers, both sticks. Both sat outside all the time. The first one had 129.5K miles and the second, 112K miles. Both still had excellent paint and bodies at time of trade, and all I ever did to either was struts on the '02...never even did that to the '97. I got rid of the '02 because it wouldn't pass our stupid county's emissions check--only because the Check Engine light never came on, even when you started the car...which was a $450 repair requiring a new cluster. Plus, I was able to buy a new Cobalt XFE at the time, built 40 miles from here, for $9,900 (net of my $2K GM Card savings)...for one with four doors, ABS, air, and satellite radio. I very much enjoy the car.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
As much as people will pooh-pooh this, I owned new '97 and '02 Cavaliers, both sticks. Both sat outside all the time. The first one had 129.5K miles and the second, 112K miles
I'd gladly put up with reliability issues not to be subject to a Cavalier. IMO, reliability isn't the only reason I buy a vehicle. I have to like the car first. I can put up with some problems if a vehicle meets my other criteria.
I had to drive a company owned '05 Cavalier for a few work related trips. We had a fleet of various vehicles and sometimes I'd get stuck with the Cavalier. After one time having to drive that pile of crap, I'd take my personal vehicle and eat the gas so I wouldn't have to drive it. Just awful IMO.
>" kipk, do you really expect American companies to be price-competitive with companies in countries with third world (or less) wages?"
No. Not if they are built here with inflated union wages and the quality is the same.
Where I have problems with American owned companies is when they move manufacturing to China or other countries, lay off American workers, but continue to demand the same prices for their goods, as though they were still being made here. Levy is just one example.
Another is New Balance shoes. Went to Kohls recently to purchase a pair. One Box had "Made in USA by American workers". Other boxes did not say that, but on the shoe itself "made in China". Yet the price was the same. I bought the USA made ones.
Auto manufactures build cars in Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, Germany and Canada to be sold here. And the D3 supporters think that is just fine. . Folks think they are buying a genuine American made car. And they rave and rant about how good they are and how they are supporting the American economy.
While they are supporting the Fat Cats at the D3, they are doing nothing for the American worker. Sure if you happen to own stock in the D3, it is nice to have profits coming in. But those that own stock in the other manufactures enjoy the same. I'll take a quality car built by non union American workers, and care less about where the top cats are from, or the name on the building.
I personally thin that American owned companies that move the manufacturing out of the country should have some type of fines levied against them. :mad:
Where I have problems with American owned companies is when they move manufacturing to China or other countries, lay off American workers, but continue to demand the same prices for their goods, as though they were still being made here. Levy is just one example.
Who in their right mind is going to charge less for a product than what consumers are willing to pay. Maybe the US manufacturing facility was loosing money at the current price structures. It's hard to say. But the consumer has a choice to pay for the product or not.
If I'm renting out a house or apartment. I'm not going to reduce the rent I charge tenants just because I paid off the mortgage and my costs went down. I'm going to charge want the going rate is for similar rentals in the area. If I cant find a tenant, then I may reduce the monthly rate.
I personally thin that American owned companies that move the manufacturing out of the country should have some type of fines levied against them
What about foreign owned competition? Many of our larger companies compete around the globe or compete with imported products from foreign companies. Subjecting them to additional costs will not help our companies compete.
Right now the traitorous corporate elite receives incentives for offshoring. Should that be repealed?
Social and environmental criminals who exist via the heavy use of stolen IP and exploitation of serfdom labor should not be allowed to play on a level playing field with the developed world.
Well, knocking a Cavalier is certainly the mainstream thing to do. Rental fleets are usually the bottom-most models. Like most cars, a judicious use of the options list can provide a much different automobile. My dark green '02 coupe with subtle spoiler, 15" tires (up from 'fleet' 14"), aluminum wheels, cruise control, and CD, was a pleasant car to drive. My much-younger BIL drove my '97 Cavalier 5-speed with 105K miles once. He actually told me afterwards, "I expected it to be a P.O.S. but it wasn't bad at all".
I know, to each his own, but a car I think has a total lack of styling...and this isn't just 'knee jerk' to your post; I've told car buddies this for years...is the mid'90's Jetta. Tiny wheel openings, leaving large expanse of steel between the wheels and top of fenders, and rear doors that are nearly a perfect square in cut. Looks like three people designed it...one for the front, one for the rear, and one for the profile. I know, it's "Teutonic", but that turned me off. I know I'm in the minority.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Tiny wheel openings, leaving large expanse of steel between the wheels and top of fenders,
That's a look I never did like, and I think that's also why cars of today can have big rims that still look small, while a big 60's battlecruiser can have 14" rims and still not look under-tired. Today's cars are a lot taller, with taller rear decks and higher beltlines, so that just leaves more metal above the topof the wheel opening. Unless you go for those large, gaping wheel openings that were in style in the 1970's and 80s. And if you did that, I think it would either make the tire look even smaller, or would command a larger wheel/tire, driving up weight and cost.
As for the Cavalier, for the most part, every one I've known who has had one didn't have a miserable experience. They were pretty much so-so cars of averag reliability, although the V-6 models were usually "done" by around 90,000 miles. Maybe 100-120k for the 4-cyl.
I thought it hit its peak, style-wise, in 1988-90. A friend of mine in college had an '89 Z-24 coupe, red with silver accents, and that thing was a pretty sharp looking car. Nice interior too, and it seemed pretty comfortable up front. Somehow, I think the 1995+ models lost a little legroom somehow, although they gained it back with the Cobalt.
I doubt that a small car is in my future anytime soon, but I'm a bit curious about the Cruze. I've seen one so far on the streets, up in PA, and it seems like a decent little car, at first glance.
Rental fleets are usually the bottom-most models. Like most cars, a judicious use of the options list can provide a much different automobile. My dark green '02 coupe with subtle spoiler, 15" tires (up from 'fleet' 14"), aluminum wheels, cruise control, and CD, was a pleasant car to drive. My much-younger BIL drove my '97 Cavalier 5-speed with 105K miles once. He actually told me afterwards, "I expected it to be a P.O.S. but it wasn't bad at all".
I guess that is what you compare it against. I've never sampled pre '99 Jetta. I did own a '00 Jetta GLS TDI with a 5speed. It was a great small car. No it wasn't cheap, you could by a Taurus for the same price, but it was a premium feel small car. I've had lots of economy cars over the years and at the time, the Jetta felt like a premium car.
During the late '90's to early '00 I had ample seat time in a '98 SVT Contour, '00 Park Ave, '01 Pathfinder LE, '00 Taurus SES, '01 Impala, and an '00 Suburban. Hands down the Jetta had the highest quality interior materials and from behind the wheel felt like the most expensive vehicle. I'd routinely go from the Jetta to the P/A and laugh at how cheap the interior of my Grandpa's P/A was in comparison (The other GM vehicles were even worse). The switch gear in the Jetta didn't sound or feel like it would break ( I guess it was just as likely to). It always impressed me with how comfortable it was and how everything you touched felt well made (well except for the flimsy fold out cup holders, those were a joke I guess Germans didn't appreciate cup holders at the time).
I didn't keep the Jetta long. I put 35k reliable miles on it, then sold it for only $3k less than I paid for it 18 mos prior. I also enjoyed 50mpg on the hwy. So my experience was short but positive.
I've only owned two nondomestics, From my experience with Ford, GM and one Chrysler over the past 20+ years, non of them are worth bragging about in regards to quality and/or reliability, but a few I did like despite their shortcomings in the reliability department.
>I doubt that a small car is in my future anytime soon, but I'm a bit curious about the Cobalt.
Did you mean to say "Cruze"? I saw two at the local dealer where I bought my Cobalt. The cars hadn't been on the ground an hour the salesman told me.
It's a lot like a Malibu inside room wise. I didn't want to drive it, although the salesman sincerely offered. He said they had called several people who had asked to be notified as soon as cars were dropped. Interior is a step up from Cobalt. I am sure the ride is even better, and I like the Cobalt ride.
I thought it hit its peak, style-wise, in 1988-90. A friend of mine in college had an '89 Z-24 coupe, red with silver accents, and that thing was a pretty sharp looking car. Nice interior too
Back in those days, I also found the '89 or so Z-24 to be sharp. I never did like the interior, but I had a friend with one and it did look pretty good. I think the 2.8 in his puked up a head gasket at 60k or so. Those v6's might be okay in a boring sedan, but in something that was driven hard, they didn't seem to last long.
From what I've seen of the Cruze so far, it seems to be a huge improvement over the Cobalt. The question is will Chevy be able to win sales from the competition?
Did you mean to say "Cruze"? I saw two at the local dealer where I bought my Cobalt. The cars hadn't been on the ground an hour the salesman told me.
I've been keeping an eye out for some of the new models that are out, Regal, Cruze, and Fiesta. I haven't seen any yet, though I've read they are selling well (Regal and Fiesta), I haven't read anything regarding the Cruze. It hasn't been for sale long has it?
I think the 2.8 in his puked up a head gasket at 60k or so
I had a new '89 Beretta GT with the 2.8. I drove it 74,600 miles with no issues, other than I drove it through a washed-out road and it got water inside and the smell never went away!
I liked the facelift of the '88 Cavalier coupe. I like fastback roofs and large quarter windows, and the back window reminded me of a '61 Impala bubbletop.
I bought my wife a new 5-speed Corsica. I was prodding her into a Cavalier wagon 5-speed, about the same price, but at age 25 she didn't want a wagon!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Oops, yeah, meant to type "Cruze"...went back and fixed it! I'm kinda curious to see how well I fit behind the wheel of a Cruze. Truth be told, I found the Cobalt to be one of the better small cars out there, in regards to front seat legroom, steering wheel location, not feeling closed in, etc. I know some people have complained about the comfort of the seats themselves, but a comfortable seat is useless to me if it doesn't go back far enough, or the steering wheel is in a bad location, or the dead pedal, etc.
I had a new '89 Beretta GT with the 2.8. I drove it 74,600 miles with no issues, other than I drove it through a washed-out road and it got water inside and the smell never went away!
I had an '86 Escort in HS that a buddy drove into a ditch with about 3 feet of water in it. It smelled like a swamp until the day I got rid of it.
My buddy's '89 Z-24 blew a head gasket around 90K miles. Didn't bother to get it fixed, and it was replaced by a Honda Civic of roughly 1997 vintage. I lost contact after that, but he was in med school, so I'm sure he's driving a big Benz or BMW by now!
I had another friend with an '87 Z-24, and it also blew a head gasket. I forget the mileage, but it was in 1993. His Dad was a mechanic (or claimed to be, at least) and fixed it. I lost touch with that friend to, but a few years later found out he was in prison for carjacking someone with a toy gun!
I thought the 1988-90 Cavalier had a really strong identity as a Chevy. In addition to that '59-62 bubbletop style roof, I thought the strong horizontal bar grille was faintly reminiscent of a 1981 Malibu, and it had the 3-taillight look that the old Impala was famous for. I thought they muffed it up when they restyled it in '91 or so, with the body-color piece between the headlights and the more generic looking taillights. Interiors got a little cheaper looking too as I recall...more plasticky.
Blown head gaskets seemed to be common on 4 and 6 cyl back in the '80's and early 90's. At least if they were driven hard.
My Escort died when it blew a head gasket in '90 with 105k on it. I don't many fond memories of domestic cars in the '80's and 90's. Seemed the GM rwd full size cars were pretty good, but I witnessed first had why so many left for the asian makes. They didn't wake up one day believing a Honda or Toyota was better, they got tired of dealing with lousy GM and Fords.
Seemed the GM rwd full size cars were pretty good, but I witnessed first had why so many left for the asian makes.
Yeah, it's a shame that GM didn't put the same effort into their smaller cars, that they did with the bigger ones. And even with the bigger cars, they let them go too long without updates, so they got a bit stale. By the time they worked their magic with the LT-1 B-bodies in 1994, it was too late. That, and GM discovered that while the BOF full-sized cars were profitable, the BOF SUVs were even more so.
I actually DO have fond memories of some of the 80's cars, because I tended to get some of the better ones...'85 LeSabre, '86 Monte Carlo, '85 Silverado. My '80 Malibu wasn't bad, either. And my '82 Cutlass Supreme, even though it needed a transmission and then blew its engine, was still a likeable car. If, mid- and full-sized cars are your thing. My '89 Gran Fury copcar wasn't bad, either.
Somehow, I've managed to miss the 90's altogether when it comes to cars, although my '00 Intrepid and '00 Park Ave started life as 90's designs.
I actually DO have fond memories of some of the 80's cars, because I tended to get some of the better ones...'85 LeSabre, '86 Monte Carlo, '85 Silverado. My '80 Malibu wasn't bad, either. And my '82 Cutlass Supreme, even though it needed a transmission and then blew its engine, was still a likeable car. If, mid- and full-sized cars are your thing.
The rwd Cutlass Supremes were nice, particularly if it didn't have the 3.8 v6 which certainly didn't make many friends. The Regals of that period were nice too. That's if you could keep them from getting stolen.
GM and Ford going full steam ahead with trucks and SUVs certainly hurt in the long run more than it helped in the short term.
I know what you mean. I bought a new '81 Monte Carlo, 267 V8, no air, two-tone dark jade over light jade, positraction, FM radio, intermittent wipers, and it was stolen. The '82 V6 Monte Carlo I bought to replace it (a demo) was broken into only a mile away from where the first one was stolen. the '81 was never recovered.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My MIL had an '81 Cutlass Supreme stolen twice in a month. Both times it was stolen from the parking lot where she worked. The 1st time it was found a few miles away within a few days pretty much unharmed. The second time it wasn't recovered.
A friend of mine in HS had an '86 or '87 Buick Regal T-Type with the 3.8 Turbo. He ran into the small to pick up a CD ran out 10 minutes later and it was gone. To bad too, that was a nice car.
I really can't say how some other cars compared, but some of those GM cars back then were really easy to get into. Jack the steering column lock and you're off. I bet some thieves probably could break in an drive off nearly as fast as someone who has the key.
Was the Jetta priced down around where those others were? Also, I'm not aware of VW having a great quality rep. in the '70's and '80's, either.
I paid $10,200 OTD for the Jetta GL. I believe that was competitive with the competition in 1985. My point was not about reliability, but about the nature of the vehicle. For example, the Tempo was probably the closest US make in size to the Jetta. But the driving experience and quality of the interior and handling (even back then) was far superior on the Jetta.
I did get 140K of almost totally reliable miles (did not even replace the clutch in that time) on the Jetta, but of course that is only one data point.
My sister bought a late '90s Cavalier after her previous car was wrecked. The Cav was, um, adequate for transportation, but it was obvious that GM offered it only to fill a slot (and maybe to goose their CAFE numbers). The '92 Corolla she had before that was a better car in every way: mileage, interior, styling, etc. IIRC it was also lighter than the Cav.
I did get 140K of almost totally reliable miles (did not even replace the clutch in that time) on the Jetta
I forgot to mention clutch. I have never, ever, once replaced a clutch in any of my cars so-equipped. My '90 Corsica had 108K; '97 Cavalier had 129.5K; my '02 Cavalier had 112K.
When I first bought the Corsica, I remember someone telling me, "Good luck--GM clutches last 25,000 miles". You know what they say about perceptions.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I forgot to mention clutch. I have never, ever, once replaced a clutch in any of my cars so-equipped. My '90 Corsica had 108K; '97 Cavalier had 129.5K; my '02 Cavalier had 112K.
When I first bought the Corsica, I remember someone telling me, "Good luck--GM clutches last 25,000 miles". You know what they say about perceptions.
Of course with clutches it is so much about how you drive. You and I are probably both very competent stick drivers, and not often burning rubber from a dead stop. :surprise:
Of course with clutches it is so much about how you drive. You and I are probably both very competent stick drivers, and not often burning rubber from a dead stop. :surprise:
That's for sure. I was 17 when I bought my '86 Escort, I went through front tires and clutches at about the same rate;)
On the topic of clutches, I think Honda have the weakest. They don't seem to last long. One of my uncles had an '87 CRX Si that needed a clutch by 30k miles and a good friend of mine had an S2000 that from about day one couldn't take any abuse w/o slipping. The funny thing is the dealer told him there was nothing they could do because the engine had to much power. We both laughed at that response. Yeah, that Honda 2.0L has so much frame twisting torque;)
Where I have problems with American owned companies is when they move manufacturing to China or other countries, lay off American workers, but continue to demand the same prices for their goods, as though they were still being made here. Levy is just one example.
Who in their right mind is going to charge less for a product than what consumers are willing to pay. Maybe the US manufacturing facility was loosing money at the current price structures. It's hard to say. But the consumer has a choice to pay for the product or not.
I simply have no use for American companies that put foreign workers to work while putting American workers out of work. All in the name of profits greed.
I stand by the idea that these type of companies should have tariffs or fines levied against them just as many suggest other products from foreign lands be subject to tariffs. That would help level the playing field for companies inside our borders that keep Americans working. No matter what flag they fly.
I stand by the idea that these type of companies should have tariffs or fines levied against them just as many suggest other products from foreign lands be subject to tariffs.
And I stand by the idea that a tariff is just a sneaky way of transferring money from consumers, like me, to companies that can't compete. If you want my money, earn it honestly: by making things that I want to buy at prices that I'm willing to pay.
Whenever I hear the phrase "level the playing field", I reach for my wallet because I know that someone is about to pick my pocket.
Comments
The post I commented on, I feel almost surely was a well-intentioned not-quite accurate memory though (of course I can't say for certain, but based on the MANY Vegas I saw, I believe so...again, "within two years").
http://www.mclellansautomotive.com/photos/B22016.jpg
I do know that Cadillac way outsold Lincoln back then, but Chevy had such sales volume that the government actually wanted Chevy to spin off from GM. I have heard and read that many times in my life.
I lived in a small town, and our Chevy dealer also sold Cadillac. It was a rare sight to see even one Cadillac in inventory, and it was always gone quickly. Dad would say, "apparently ordered by a Doctor". In a dealer that sold around 400 new cars a year in a good year, I bet five or less were Cadillacs.
Actually late model Japanese cars are still extremely rust-prone.
Toyota Tacoma and Tundra frames are rusting out from under them
on 10 year old or newer vehicles to the point where they are unsafe to drive,
and new front end and brake parts cannot safely be bolted to them.
Some Nissan Altima Floor boards are rusting throught to the point
where there are holes within 5 years
Late model Mazdas are having rust and paint problems. There is a video
on youtube of a white 2010 Mazda with numerous rust spots and it is
definitely not from rail dust
Have you noticed the horrible paint and rust spots on some Hondas?
By the way I own a 2006 Chevy Silverado. I live in New York where salt
is used on the roads every year, and my frame shows NO signs of rust.
Right on point. I recall about 2001-2003 when the two largest sellers in foreign models were nothing short of supernatural. Their oil wasn't dirty when changed; their tires didn't wear. It was just wonderful.
And most importantly, the constant bragging that their cars didn't have any rebates to consumers because they were so wonderful. Actually, the Hondas had rebate to the dealers which the dealers could pass part of along, if they were forced to do so, or they could just keep it all for themselves. They were rebates serving as spiffs to the dealers and the consumer might or might not benefit. But they were rebates.
Now we have Lexus with rebates trying to live down the many years of toyota's ignoring, misrepresenting, and hiding information about safety in their cars to the NHTSA. My how the worm has turned.
I recall someone who had a toyota sedan bragging about how little trouble it gave him! It was from the 80s. All it had was a fan belt and a clutch. No other options. But he found the brand was just wonderful. Compared to other cars with many features and options, that car was beneath a stripper. He sold the rusted out hulk to someone else who lived on the street in the city.
Then he bought a newer station wagon Camry but avoided the sludge problem, which he admitted was real. He later bought a Corolla for his kids and he mentioned having to repair something major the last time I saw him. He also talked about the secret repairs on his Camry when he took it in for service. Because of the brake problems they had gone ahead and replaced rear brakes. They also did something in the engine as a part of an oil change.
So the foreign brands aren't perfect. It's amazing how the US brands folks let the foreign autophiles get by with the exaggeration about how perfect their cars are. Go read the various threads here for problems. A Civic thread will have a mention of a problem and someone else will pipe up stating that it is a _known_ problem. All that on cars that have always been perfect.! :P
Personally I'm following the leaking blocks on Civics and the Odyssey transmission sagas. Isn't the word "Honda" synonymous with "transmission problems" now?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Not this guy. I think that the industry - both domestic & foreign - has developed to a point where there aren't significant differences among brands as far as reliability is concerned. If you buy a Buick & I buy a Honda, we're not going to have wildly dissimilar repair experiences. The competition is simply too fierce for that, which is another reason why car buffs everywhere should be anti-tariff. We want the competition to stay fierce.
My chief complaint against the D3 is that until very recently - the 2008 model year - the domestics had very little to offer those of us who prefer cars, meaning sedans & coupes, to trucks & SUVs. GM in particular produced such uninspiring, dull sedans & coupes that it seemed not to be interested in doing business with anyone who didn't want a truck. The company's motto throughout the 90s & into the 2000s might just as well have been "If you don't want a truck, then don't bother us. We don't want your money".
The latest offerings from Buick & Cadillac are attractive cars that I'll seriously consider the next time I'm in the market. But we shouldn't have had to wait this long for them. GM should have been delivering products like this 10 years earlier.
I think that twenty years ago, the Japanese were selling on an image of reliability, but not building something for everyone, that's for sure. For Toyota, I'm remembering Tercel, Corolla, Camry, and Supra, and a compact pickup truck. Chevy offered Cavalier (including a wagon), Corsica/Beretta, Lumina coupe/sedan/minivan, Camaro, Caprice, and Corvette, and of course a complete line of trucks. Say what you will about them being unsophisticated (where's my pipe, shoulder patches, and reading glasses?!), the fact is I see waaayyyyyy more '90 Chevys in use everyday, still, than I see 1990 foreign anything.
And I still see a few 2nd generation ('86 - '90) Camrys & 3rd generation ('86 - '89) Accords in our railroad station parking garage.
But that's not the point, as I observed in my previous post. The "reliability wars" are over. Unless you buy an outlier - something made in Italy, for example - you'll get long life & good service from almost any brand.
For me, the real issue is why the D3 in general & GM in particular ignored the non-truck buyer for so long. It's worth noting that most of the domestic partisans here are truck buyers. But I'm not a truck guy. I dig fast, well-styled sedans - preferably with stick & RWD. Why has it taken the domestics so long to pay attention to buyers like me?
When I visited my late uncle, who lived out West, I would drive his '00 Buick Ultra. It was a comfortable, competent road car that did most things well. But when I drove it, I'd wonder why GM didn't spend an extra $20 on the interior, which was cheesy & low rent - not at all appropriate for a luxury touring sedan.
So here's a question for our resident Buick expert: why did GM cheap out on the interiors of its sedans for so long? Why did the company turn its back on non-truck buyers?
The ride in and out of parking lots was rough and uncivilized. It was more like an Accord. The owner had been relatively happy with her previous Camry when toyota called and said she could turn in her leased car early for a new Camry or other toyota. They apparently are doing everything they can to make the sales higher. All those turned in lease cars will have to lower the price on used Camrys and therefore new ones.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My ride is a BMW 330i - the sport sedan gold standard. It has an inline 6 that can rev from here until a year from Tuesday & a stick shift that goes snick-snick-snick. It's as much fun as a man can have without taking off his pants. Why can't GM come up with something halfway competitive?
Benefits our nation because it forced the USA car companies to step up or "CLOSE DOWN"! Make better products at competitive prices. Market rules.
We'll see. It took bankruptcy to shake it up in Detroit. Let's see if they step up or bow out.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
But that is not even close to being the case at the moment.
No crying just doing.
No more excuses.
Regards,
OW
Still waiting....C11 hasn't turned up the flame because the old demons are lying under cover of the Government...
Like I said before, compete or die. Hyundai is acting a lot more thirsty at the moment and GM is still talking up a cloaking game afaic. Not at all impressed.
Regards,
OW
True, in that the Japanese started in small cars and the US makes were primarily larger cars. The US small cars as previously discussed started inferior and stayed that way until the present. But the Japanese had a number of advantages - no unions in their US plants, better entry level product (which meant a lot of loyalty developed in new drivers), and increasing product offerings in larger sedans. This set the stage for the increasing market share by the Japanese makers.
Uplanderguy, I forget where you are but I believe it is in the midwest. You would probably see few old Japanese makes because the midwest has historically been much more pro-US makes than the rest of the country. 15 years or so ago the Japanese makes would have had fairly little market penetration in the midwest; hence few vehicles of that age running around. I can say that here in California (the nation's largest car market), it is exactly the opposite. Lots of old Hondas and Toyotas, but very few US made older small sedans. We do see older US cars, but typically more desirable cars like older Mustangs, etc.
Similar to myself. I never lost my love of smaller vehicles, but I did want quality. In 1985 I wanted a quality, stick, small car. My choices were the new Ford Tempo, the Cavalier(?) or Chevette -- what else from the US makers? Or I could buy what I eventually did buy - an '85 VW Jetta. I drove it 143K miles. By 1992 I wanted a quality sedan with a bit more luxury, but still decent handling and not too expensive. I bought a '92 Honda Accord (still just about the best car we ever owned). And in 1998 when I wanted a premium sport/luxury small sedan, with stick, I looked at Lincoln LS, BMW 3, Infiniti G, and Audi A4. The Audi won and it was a wonderful car to drive.
What US make would have been anywhere near comparable to the A4? When the US makes said they could not make any profit on smaller cars, what about the premium smaller cars? BMW and Audi and even Acura and VW were selling a LOT of premium small cars in those days. Why were all of the brilliant marketing execs at the Big 3 too stupid to see this high profit market? They had NOTHING that was even close to appealing in this segment.
EXACTLY. Instead of whining about the foreigners, let's see. We have a better infrastructure in THIS country. We can automate more in THIS country (if the unions let us!). We don't have to pay for overseas shipping for cars built in THIS country. We have more educated workforce in THIS country. We have a TON of advantages. We just need to use them. This is one place where the UNION and the MANAGEMENT need to take responsibility. Honda is competitive and has been building vehicles here for over 25 years. Toyota is competitive and builds vehicles here. And BMW. And Subaru. Etc. What is the only difference? The Management and the UNIONS.
Some day, hopefully soon, a smart US company will start building cars here in some totally different way, thinking out of the box. It COULD be one of the former Big 3, but it is more likely to be a startup that is not shackled by 50 years of cholesterol clogging its veins.
Well put. I strongly agree.
Was the Jetta priced down around where those others were? Also, I'm not aware of VW having a great quality rep. in the '70's and '80's, either.
As much as people will pooh-pooh this, I owned new '97 and '02 Cavaliers, both sticks. Both sat outside all the time. The first one had 129.5K miles and the second, 112K miles. Both still had excellent paint and bodies at time of trade, and all I ever did to either was struts on the '02...never even did that to the '97. I got rid of the '02 because it wouldn't pass our stupid county's emissions check--only because the Check Engine light never came on, even when you started the car...which was a $450 repair requiring a new cluster. Plus, I was able to buy a new Cobalt XFE at the time, built 40 miles from here, for $9,900 (net of my $2K GM Card savings)...for one with four doors, ABS, air, and satellite radio. I very much enjoy the car.
I'd gladly put up with reliability issues not to be subject to a Cavalier. IMO, reliability isn't the only reason I buy a vehicle. I have to like the car first. I can put up with some problems if a vehicle meets my other criteria.
I had to drive a company owned '05 Cavalier for a few work related trips. We had a fleet of various vehicles and sometimes I'd get stuck with the Cavalier. After one time having to drive that pile of crap, I'd take my personal vehicle and eat the gas so I wouldn't have to drive it. Just awful IMO.
No. Not if they are built here with inflated union wages and the quality is the same.
Where I have problems with American owned companies is when they move manufacturing to China or other countries, lay off American workers, but continue to demand the same prices for their goods, as though they were still being made here. Levy is just one example.
Another is New Balance shoes. Went to Kohls recently to purchase a pair. One Box had "Made in USA by American workers". Other boxes did not say that, but on the shoe itself "made in China". Yet the price was the same. I bought the USA made ones.
Auto manufactures build cars in Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, Germany and Canada to be sold here. And the D3 supporters think that is just fine. . Folks think they are buying a genuine American made car. And they rave and rant about how good they are and how they are supporting the American economy.
While they are supporting the Fat Cats at the D3, they are doing nothing for the American worker. Sure if you happen to own stock in the D3, it is nice to have profits coming in. But those that own stock in the other manufactures enjoy the same. I'll take a quality car built by non union American workers, and care less about where the top cats are from, or the name on the building.
I personally thin that American owned companies that move the manufacturing out of the country should have some type of fines levied against them. :mad:
Kip
Who in their right mind is going to charge less for a product than what consumers are willing to pay. Maybe the US manufacturing facility was loosing money at the current price structures. It's hard to say. But the consumer has a choice to pay for the product or not.
If I'm renting out a house or apartment. I'm not going to reduce the rent I charge tenants just because I paid off the mortgage and my costs went down. I'm going to charge want the going rate is for similar rentals in the area. If I cant find a tenant, then I may reduce the monthly rate.
What about foreign owned competition? Many of our larger companies compete around the globe or compete with imported products from foreign companies. Subjecting them to additional costs will not help our companies compete.
Social and environmental criminals who exist via the heavy use of stolen IP and exploitation of serfdom labor should not be allowed to play on a level playing field with the developed world.
I know, to each his own, but a car I think has a total lack of styling...and this isn't just 'knee jerk' to your post; I've told car buddies this for years...is the mid'90's Jetta. Tiny wheel openings, leaving large expanse of steel between the wheels and top of fenders, and rear doors that are nearly a perfect square in cut. Looks like three people designed it...one for the front, one for the rear, and one for the profile. I know, it's "Teutonic", but that turned me off. I know I'm in the minority.
I certainly don't believe domestic policy should be giving corporations incentives to offshore.
That's a look I never did like, and I think that's also why cars of today can have big rims that still look small, while a big 60's battlecruiser can have 14" rims and still not look under-tired. Today's cars are a lot taller, with taller rear decks and higher beltlines, so that just leaves more metal above the topof the wheel opening. Unless you go for those large, gaping wheel openings that were in style in the 1970's and 80s. And if you did that, I think it would either make the tire look even smaller, or would command a larger wheel/tire, driving up weight and cost.
As for the Cavalier, for the most part, every one I've known who has had one didn't have a miserable experience. They were pretty much so-so cars of averag reliability, although the V-6 models were usually "done" by around 90,000 miles. Maybe 100-120k for the 4-cyl.
I thought it hit its peak, style-wise, in 1988-90. A friend of mine in college had an '89 Z-24 coupe, red with silver accents, and that thing was a pretty sharp looking car. Nice interior too, and it seemed pretty comfortable up front. Somehow, I think the 1995+ models lost a little legroom somehow, although they gained it back with the Cobalt.
I doubt that a small car is in my future anytime soon, but I'm a bit curious about the Cruze. I've seen one so far on the streets, up in PA, and it seems like a decent little car, at first glance.
I guess that is what you compare it against. I've never sampled pre '99 Jetta. I did own a '00 Jetta GLS TDI with a 5speed. It was a great small car. No it wasn't cheap, you could by a Taurus for the same price, but it was a premium feel small car. I've had lots of economy cars over the years and at the time, the Jetta felt like a premium car.
During the late '90's to early '00 I had ample seat time in a '98 SVT Contour, '00 Park Ave, '01 Pathfinder LE, '00 Taurus SES, '01 Impala, and an '00 Suburban. Hands down the Jetta had the highest quality interior materials and from behind the wheel felt like the most expensive vehicle. I'd routinely go from the Jetta to the P/A and laugh at how cheap the interior of my Grandpa's P/A was in comparison (The other GM vehicles were even worse). The switch gear in the Jetta didn't sound or feel like it would break ( I guess it was just as likely to). It always impressed me with how comfortable it was and how everything you touched felt well made (well except for the flimsy fold out cup holders, those were a joke I guess Germans didn't appreciate cup holders at the time).
I didn't keep the Jetta long. I put 35k reliable miles on it, then sold it for only $3k less than I paid for it 18 mos prior. I also enjoyed 50mpg on the hwy. So my experience was short but positive.
I've only owned two nondomestics, From my experience with Ford, GM and one Chrysler over the past 20+ years, non of them are worth bragging about in regards to quality and/or reliability, but a few I did like despite their shortcomings in the reliability department.
Did you mean to say "Cruze"? I saw two at the local dealer where I bought my Cobalt. The cars hadn't been on the ground an hour the salesman told me.
It's a lot like a Malibu inside room wise. I didn't want to drive it, although the salesman sincerely offered. He said they had called several people who had asked to be notified as soon as cars were dropped. Interior is a step up from Cobalt. I am sure the ride is even better, and I like the Cobalt ride.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Back in those days, I also found the '89 or so Z-24 to be sharp. I never did like the interior, but I had a friend with one and it did look pretty good. I think the 2.8 in his puked up a head gasket at 60k or so. Those v6's might be okay in a boring sedan, but in something that was driven hard, they didn't seem to last long.
From what I've seen of the Cruze so far, it seems to be a huge improvement over the Cobalt. The question is will Chevy be able to win sales from the competition?
I've been keeping an eye out for some of the new models that are out, Regal, Cruze, and Fiesta. I haven't seen any yet, though I've read they are selling well (Regal and Fiesta), I haven't read anything regarding the Cruze. It hasn't been for sale long has it?
I had a new '89 Beretta GT with the 2.8. I drove it 74,600 miles with no issues, other than I drove it through a washed-out road and it got water inside and the smell never went away!
I liked the facelift of the '88 Cavalier coupe. I like fastback roofs and large quarter windows, and the back window reminded me of a '61 Impala bubbletop.
I bought my wife a new 5-speed Corsica. I was prodding her into a Cavalier wagon 5-speed, about the same price, but at age 25 she didn't want a wagon!
I had an '86 Escort in HS that a buddy drove into a ditch with about 3 feet of water in it. It smelled like a swamp until the day I got rid of it.
I had another friend with an '87 Z-24, and it also blew a head gasket. I forget the mileage, but it was in 1993. His Dad was a mechanic (or claimed to be, at least) and fixed it. I lost touch with that friend to, but a few years later found out he was in prison for carjacking someone with a toy gun!
I thought the 1988-90 Cavalier had a really strong identity as a Chevy. In addition to that '59-62 bubbletop style roof, I thought the strong horizontal bar grille was faintly reminiscent of a 1981 Malibu, and it had the 3-taillight look that the old Impala was famous for. I thought they muffed it up when they restyled it in '91 or so, with the body-color piece between the headlights and the more generic looking taillights. Interiors got a little cheaper looking too as I recall...more plasticky.
My Escort died when it blew a head gasket in '90 with 105k on it. I don't many fond memories of domestic cars in the '80's and 90's. Seemed the GM rwd full size cars were pretty good, but I witnessed first had why so many left for the asian makes. They didn't wake up one day believing a Honda or Toyota was better, they got tired of dealing with lousy GM and Fords.
Yeah, it's a shame that GM didn't put the same effort into their smaller cars, that they did with the bigger ones. And even with the bigger cars, they let them go too long without updates, so they got a bit stale. By the time they worked their magic with the LT-1 B-bodies in 1994, it was too late. That, and GM discovered that while the BOF full-sized cars were profitable, the BOF SUVs were even more so.
I actually DO have fond memories of some of the 80's cars, because I tended to get some of the better ones...'85 LeSabre, '86 Monte Carlo, '85 Silverado. My '80 Malibu wasn't bad, either. And my '82 Cutlass Supreme, even though it needed a transmission and then blew its engine, was still a likeable car. If, mid- and full-sized cars are your thing. My '89 Gran Fury copcar wasn't bad, either.
Somehow, I've managed to miss the 90's altogether when it comes to cars, although my '00 Intrepid and '00 Park Ave started life as 90's designs.
The rwd Cutlass Supremes were nice, particularly if it didn't have the 3.8 v6 which certainly didn't make many friends. The Regals of that period were nice too. That's if you could keep them from getting stolen.
GM and Ford going full steam ahead with trucks and SUVs certainly hurt in the long run more than it helped in the short term.
I know what you mean. I bought a new '81 Monte Carlo, 267 V8, no air, two-tone dark jade over light jade, positraction, FM radio, intermittent wipers, and it was stolen. The '82 V6 Monte Carlo I bought to replace it (a demo) was broken into only a mile away from where the first one was stolen. the '81 was never recovered.
A friend of mine in HS had an '86 or '87 Buick Regal T-Type with the 3.8 Turbo. He ran into the small to pick up a CD ran out 10 minutes later and it was gone. To bad too, that was a nice car.
I really can't say how some other cars compared, but some of those GM cars back then were really easy to get into. Jack the steering column lock and you're off. I bet some thieves probably could break in an drive off nearly as fast as someone who has the key.
I paid $10,200 OTD for the Jetta GL. I believe that was competitive with the competition in 1985. My point was not about reliability, but about the nature of the vehicle. For example, the Tempo was probably the closest US make in size to the Jetta. But the driving experience and quality of the interior and handling (even back then) was far superior on the Jetta.
I did get 140K of almost totally reliable miles (did not even replace the clutch in that time) on the Jetta, but of course that is only one data point.
I forgot to mention clutch. I have never, ever, once replaced a clutch in any of my cars so-equipped. My '90 Corsica had 108K; '97 Cavalier had 129.5K; my '02 Cavalier had 112K.
When I first bought the Corsica, I remember someone telling me, "Good luck--GM clutches last 25,000 miles". You know what they say about perceptions.
When I first bought the Corsica, I remember someone telling me, "Good luck--GM clutches last 25,000 miles". You know what they say about perceptions.
Of course with clutches it is so much about how you drive. You and I are probably both very competent stick drivers, and not often burning rubber from a dead stop.
That's for sure. I was 17 when I bought my '86 Escort, I went through front tires and clutches at about the same rate;)
On the topic of clutches, I think Honda have the weakest. They don't seem to last long. One of my uncles had an '87 CRX Si that needed a clutch by 30k miles and a good friend of mine had an S2000 that from about day one couldn't take any abuse w/o slipping. The funny thing is the dealer told him there was nothing they could do because the engine had to much power. We both laughed at that response. Yeah, that Honda 2.0L has so much frame twisting torque;)
Who in their right mind is going to charge less for a product than what consumers are willing to pay. Maybe the US manufacturing facility was loosing money at the current price structures. It's hard to say. But the consumer has a choice to pay for the product or not.
I simply have no use for American companies that put foreign workers to work while putting American workers out of work. All in the name of
profitsgreed.I stand by the idea that these type of companies should have tariffs or fines levied against them just as many suggest other products from foreign lands be subject to tariffs. That would help level the playing field for companies inside our borders that keep Americans working. No matter what flag they fly.
Kip
And I stand by the idea that a tariff is just a sneaky way of transferring money from consumers, like me, to companies that can't compete. If you want my money, earn it honestly: by making things that I want to buy at prices that I'm willing to pay.
Whenever I hear the phrase "level the playing field", I reach for my wallet because I know that someone is about to pick my pocket.