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
Get Real!
Pity the Buick Regal GS. Since the idea of a hotted-up Opel Insignia was floated for the US market, fans imagined that Opel’s epic Insignia OPC would be headed stateside, complete with 325 horsepower, 2.8 liter turbocharged V6 and all wheel drive. Buick reps quickly ruled out the turbo-six engine, as GM’s corporate order demanded that the engine be limited to “premium” Cadillac and Saab models. Then we found out that the Regal GS would have the same turbocharged Ecotec four-cylinder engine found in its Regal Turbo sister model, tuned from 220 to 255 horsepower, leading us to conclude that
That engine can reportedly be tuned to an easy 310 hp and 300 lb-ft of torque, making the “base” Regal CXL with the 220 hp 2.0T engine a much smarter buy. Unless the idea of tuning a Buick is simply more cognitive dissonance than you can handle. Otherwise, the only thing the GS really brings to the table is AWD and a bodykit with more front-end venting than the United States Senate.
Well, now it’s time to knock another item off the list: Automotive News [sub] reports that the GS will not get AWD because
We really don’t think consumers will want that feature It does take away from some of the performance capability of the vehicle.
Which is doubly strange considering that AN is forced to note that
The Regal GS will accelerate slightly slower than expected, with estimates having it reach 60 mph at less than seven seconds. In January, executives said the production car would accelerate about one second faster.
D’oh! With the Regal Turbo hitting 60 in about 7.5 seconds, it’s beginning to look like the GS really is all about the bodykit. The saddest part of all this: the GS will still technically be “the sportiest Buick ever,” and will certainly be marketed as such, just as the Regal Turbo is now.
AFAIC, The GNR was it for Buick...the Sonata wins hands down....STOCK! Bwahahahahahahahah!
Regards,
OW
Don't mean to intrude, ladies and gentlemen...Just wanted to mention that my 66 Goat had a powerglide....Think 67's had 3 speeds. Was it POSSIBLE to tear up a powerglide?
GM quit using it on the bigger engines (~400 CID and up) for 1967, and then for 1970, the THM350 stepped in for the smaller engines (6-cyl and smaller V-8s)
I dunno much about the tranny,though. I wonder how it compared to the Powerglide? I've heard a lot of drag racers like to mate a Mopar 426 Hemi to a Powerglide, so it can't be too bad. :shades:
The one I remember was Honda's minivan. (autosafety.org). And it sounds like those transmissions are still a bit dicey.
Honda Odyssey Owners Report Transmission Troubles, Inconsistent Response from Maker (AutoObserver)
The V-6 was very fuel efficient. I was getting 26 MPG in a rather large car. The V-6 was powerful enough at highway speeds, but seemed a little sluggish pulling away from a stoplight.
Interesting, as I would have guessed it would have been the other way around. Probably the result of tall gearing.
You forgot about the worst things about Cadillac those years: the Cimarron, the grotesquely shrunken C-body 1985 DeVilles and Fleetwoods, and the diminutive 1986-91 Sevilles and Eldorados. Good God, if Cadillac had stayed on this path, I guarantee you I'd be driving something other than a Cadillac today.
I don't think those were ever referred to as Jetaways. Jetaways were used in full sized Olds and Pontiacs starting in 1956. They replaced the bullet proof HEAVY cast iron Hydramatics.
Jetaways weren't very good transmissions.
The aluminum Powerglides that began in 1962 weren't as rugged as the old cast iron units but they weren't bad either.
The clutches would go bad and they would start to slip as they shifted frm first to second.
The good transmission shops had a cure to stop this from happening again. They would install heavy duty clutches and more of them.
The Cimarron was a glorified Cavalier and you are right about the 86-91 Sevilles and Eldos.
Dark days indeed.
I recently unintentionally pushed my neighbor's Lincoln SUV with my Honda SUV while getting out of driveway.
Result - bumper cracked on Lincoln :sick: , but not even a scratch on Honda's bumper. :shades:
It seems to me that American cars may not be made as well as Japanese (keep in mind that Lincoln is a premier brand of Ford, I am terrified to think what would have happened if I pushed a regular Ford vehicle). :confuse:
I remember one good thing about the Cimarron. A friend of mine's mom had one back in HS (yes it was horrible). We'd occasionally take it out on weekend nights and she would check the odometer before we'd leave to keep tabs on us. Little did she know we would pop the hood and unscrew the speedo cable from the cruise control module/control box. It was super easy to do. So we'd cruise to Chicago or where ever we wanted, just didn't have a working speedometer LOL. What devious minds will come up with;)
I know we all make fun of wire wheel covers today, but GM's then really were the best of anyone's. They had "depth", the spokes were long, and the center was small, unlike Ford's which had a big center. Theirs looked like a J.C. Whitney wire wheel cover I think.
Yeah, they looked fairly authentic and they certainly looked substantial.
Yeah, GM used a sluggish 2.56:1 axle with that 4.3 V-6, and with the 305-4bbl even. There was probably a trailering package though, with a better ratio, like a 3.42 or something?
Sometimes I wonder if those really tall ratios really helped economy or not? In theory you think they would, because the engine would tend to rev slower for any given speed, but in the real world, I'm sure the drivers merely stomped the pedal harder, making it rev more, and rely more on the lower gears.
My '82 Cutlass Supreme, which just had the 110 hp 231-2bbl, was actually pretty good at highway speeds, but a dog from a stand-still. Passing was pretty good though, if you were doing, say, 40-45 mph and suddenly needed to punch it.
Seems like the Buick V-6 back in those days was a bit better on torque compared to the Chevy. For instance, that 231-2bbl usually had around 190 ft-lb, while the Chevy 229 only had 175. The old Buick 252-4bbl, with 125 hp, had 205 ft-lb, whereas the TBI Chevy 262 didn't have much more, at 210.
Olds briefly had a 262 CID Diesel V-6, which was the 350 with two cylinders lopped of. I wonder if that would've made for a good gasoline engine? The Olds block was a bit lighter than the Chevy block. And an Olds 307 had more torque than the Chevy 305, so I guess an Olds 262 V-6 might've had a bit more torque than the Chevy 262?
In contrast the wire covers on my '79 5th Ave were a bit tacky and cheap looking, IMO. Which is a bit of a shame, considering this was supposed to be a Cadillac-level car, but a Caprice costing thousands of $ less could have nicer hubcaps. I bought some aluminum sport rims for it, which were common on the '80-83 Mirada/Cordoba, but haven't gotten around to putting them on yet.
No, the governor limited speed of the Regal turbo is 150.
One of 2 reasons the Hundee is in the driveway. Either he (A) couldn't leave, cuz it was broken down, or (B) he had no gas, as he is WOEFULLY underemployed!!!!
I'd be surprised if a 220hp Regal could go much more than 150. I know Road and Track has it listed at 149. It takes a lot of power to go that fast.
Cooter, I noticed you've mentioned this Hyundai "unemployed owner"
thing a few times. Where does this come from? :confuse: Is there some sort of documentation or report of such thing?
Not sure how many unemployed people are buying Hyundai Veracruz, Azera, Genesis and Equus models...
Strange.
I agree. My neighbor a few houses down had a Genesis, now has a brand new 535i and his wife went from a Land Cruiser to a recently purchased new Veracruz.
That's about what I would expect.
Hyundai, and Kia, have come a long way, and I respect them for that. And they have a few models that I like. But it's going to be awhile before they shake off that bottom feeder status. And, who knows? They may never shake it off, since, even though their cars are competitive, they tend to be the lowest in their various price classes. So while "bottom feeder" isn't exactly a term of praise, to a degree it does fit.
And, simply because cars like the Accent, Elantra, and even the base Sonata are very cheap cars to buy, they're going to be marketed to people with marginal credit, people with shaky jobs who may lose them at any moment, etc. Although in this economy, probably just about any job is "shaky"!
Personally, I want to check out that new Kia Optima! I think it's a really attractive looking car, even if it does seem to have a bit of Honda, Lexus, etc in it. But that's any car these days. Most of them AREN'T all-new in style, but a combination of elements that might remind you of something else that's come before. For instance, the 2008+ Accord, IMO, reminds me a bit of a Saturn L-series in the rump, a BMW 5-series in the roofline, and a 2005-06 Altima up front.
I know a few people who are fairly well-off who own Hyundais. They're people who simply view a car as more of an appliance, and would rather put their money into endeavors other than having whatever the latest Jonny-come-lately automotive fashion statement may be.
I'm just curious as to the blanket claims by Cooter that Hyundai (or HUNDEE as he spells it) products are people with no jobs...
I kinda thought one needed a job to apply for a loan...
Anyways, maybe it was just a dig at other posters who are positive about Hyundai's current and future successes just to take our eyes off of our own failures in Detroilet...
I figured that Kia and Hyundai would go the way of Daewoo. They came into an already crowded market with lackluster cars.
But I was wrong. They took some huge steps and had made dramatic improvement.
But...they are still Korean cars and yes, the " Korean Stigma" remains.
As used cars, people walk by them even when in the back of their minds they may be thinking "this seems like a lot of car for the money".
They still do poorly at the auctions.
Now, I could be wrong once again, but I don't see this stigma going away.
Maybe even tighter since the lenders know how they bomb in resale value. they may worry about losing a lot of money should they need to "repop" it!
I remember my dad laughing at the "lawnmower" engines in VW Bugs when they starting selling.
Five or so years later everyone was laughing at tin cans made by some company called Toyota.
But I could be wrong too. :shades:
I just think there so many other and better choices for about the same amount of money.
But...that's just me and my not so humble opinion.
Not to mention it's easy to peel badges off these days with a hair dryer.
But yeah, there are a lot of choices out there.
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=10876
Just when you think you've heard it all! I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I just learned today that Hirohito's 62-year reign in Japan only ended upon his death in 1989.
Regards,
OW
Funny how global automotive developed over the last 40 years. The USA needs to refocus even as the pundits decry "We Are Back!"
Always stay hungry....GM ain't hungry. Not even close. Ford is accepting appetizers. Chrysler still has indigestion.
Hyundai is STARVING!! :shades:
Regards,
OW
WW II drags that side of my scale down more than GM on the other side, but hey, that's me.
GM drags automotive down to 2009 failure. You can't take that back.
I did not do that. They did. We might have one WWII but GM let us down Big Time.
Regards,
OW
Noooope. Just meant to be a sarcastic zinger, that's all. No documentation implied at all. Just like people saying that it's a matter of time before GM declares BK again (again there would be no documentation to prove that this is true, just people's sarcastic opinion) it is mine.
Miles to go...
To me, it's all about delivering great product...not delivering B.S.
Regards,
OW
That's all I drive.
Regards,
OW
Hyundai is no longer a bottom-feeder. And, my five year experience with the Hyundai has been far better than either the Honda or Toyota I owned previously. Not one glitch in five years - nada. And, I won't even discuss the problems I've had owning SAABs and Volvos...
Hyundai is a marque to be reckoned with now, and in the future.
I bet there's a chance the owner had no idea...
Must be a lot of unemployed folks out there...
I have a friend who recently bought a 2002 or so Sonata. Don't know the details of it, (price, miles, etc), and only saw pics, but it seemed pretty nice. Well, a couple weeks ago, he rear-ended a pickup truck. Damage to his car looked slight...mainly a tear in the bumper fascia exposing the styrofoam underneath, but the headlight cluster, while not broken, appeard to be shifted.
Well, that was enough for them to total the car. So, nice cars that they may be, I guess they're still risky, if the value drops so quickly that it doesn't take much to total it.
Similar thing happened with my Intrepid. Damage didn't seem THAT bad to me, but at 10 years old, 150,000 miles, and the resale of an Intrepid, they totaled it.
I do think 1971 was a bit of a turning point for GM. Even though they had plenty of great cars since then, 1971 brought us the Vega and the newly-designed full-sized cars, which weren't built nearly as well as the 1965-70 models. Although oddly, I remember reading a few road tests from the era, and at the time, the reviewers were touting about how the cars were improved over the cars they replaced! Maybe they did handle and ride better, but they didn't age nearly as well.
To be fair though, just about ANY new domestic that came out in the 1970's wasn't as good as the car it replaced, at least until the downsized '77 full-sizers, and the next year's intermediates. I think the intermediates were more of a mixed bag though, because in some cases they just cut weight TOO much. And the midsizers relied more heavily on unreliable engines, like the Buick V-8 and Pontiac 301. And while a 250-6cyl seemed to move a downsized Impala okay, it seemed like those tiny Buick 196 and Chevy 200 V-6es were just TOO undersized, even for these cars.