Some of the full sized sedans like LeSabre or 88 with a 350 V8 were decent, and actually had very good fuel mileage even for their size today.
Some of those cars could get decent mileage, I remember my grandpa getting 25-28mpg out of his '83 Delta 88. But that's not so impressive considering it only had around 140hp and back then he rarely drove faster than 60mph on the highway. It would be downright slow compared to any comparable car today. I can drive my wife's '11 Taurus 75-80 and still get over 25, it would be over 30 at 60mph.
Those were good cars back in then, but I definitely don't long for how they drove. They were just too soft, sluggish, numb, and sloppy for my tastes.
I do have some experience with those cars as that's what my grandpa always drove and my first car was a '75 Buick Regal that if nothing else could take some abuse from a 16 year old.
Now I think you said you drive an Expedition, and you don't appreciate driving a land yacht or boat? Just kidding! Actually, I'd like the size and style of say around 56 though 67, but with the quality and performance of today. But hey, I'd like to win a big lotto too! Just got to dream the impossible dream.
Now I think you said you drive an Expedition, and you don't appreciate driving a land yacht or boat?
LOL, I deserve that comment. No not really, but it's the only type of vehicle that can haul the more than 6 people while towing our toys. That said I don't mind driving it that much, I kind of learned to like it. The steering is accurate with decent feed back and the suspension is firm enough that it doesn't wallow and float down the road, but it's certainly not "fun" to drive.
That said, you'll never hear me claim that a Toyota Landcruiser/Lexus LX is just an Expedition with a fancy interior. I know those are far superior vehicles in just about every way. But you have to pay for that level of luxury, comfort, performance, quality. The Expedition is good enough for what I need to do and i don't have to cringe when the 85lb lab scratches the seat or while two rows of kids eat and drink;) while hauling the boat to the lake.
Heck, one of my cars is a Camry and it's about as close as you can get these days to a 63 Impala. Sometimes though I appreciate its quiet and simplicity, as well as reliability (most of the time). I think Ford trucks tend to ride a little tighter than GM, but unfortunately Ford's also tend to be tighter in the interior than GM for tall people. I'm guessing the Ford family isn't very tall and I know Mullaly isn't.
Heck, one of my cars is a Camry and it's about as close as you can get these days to a 63 Impala. Sometimes though I appreciate its quiet and simplicity, as well as reliability (most of the time).
yeah, I haven't been impressed with how the few Toyotas I've been in drive. I really don't like how they tune their steering. Just to light for my tastes.
I'm 6'1" and haven't had to many issues being comfortable in most of the Fords I've been in. My wife's Taurus certainly is tighter than it should be, but I have enough head room to where I can wear a hat and not hit the ceiling. The F150 supercrew is impressively roomy and comfortable. I've not sat in the back seat of my brother's fusion, but in the front seats I have enough head room even with a moon roof.
I don't know if the Caprice/Parisienne with the 305 had this issue, but I remember my grandmother's '85 LeSabre with the 307 seemed to want to upshift too early on, probably in an attempt to save fuel. I found that, if you shifted it manually and held the lower gears longer, it definitely took off quicker.
Also, because of the way the car was geared, it actually seemed to catch its second wind around 80 mph or so. I'm guessing it's because at that point, it was finally getting to the point where it hit peak power in 4th gear, yet was going too fast to downshift. Still, I'm sure even the most mediocre of modern cars would be faster.
My uncle went through a period where he drove my '79 Chrysler Newport, because he had a '94 GMC Diesel that kept going in the shop on a regular basis. He said he much preferred the way it drove and handled to Grandmom's '85 LeSabre. It definitely handled better, and felt about as quick. It did have a firmer ride though.
You could usually get upgraded suspensions on those big cars as well, but it seemed like on the GM and Mopar cars, they weren't ordered all that often. Fords, at least by the time they got to the Panthers, seemed to be more likely to have them.
Fords, at least by the time they got to the Panthers, seemed to be more likely to have them.
Back when my dad had his '92 CrownVic, I thought it handled well for a car of that size and I always liked driving it (granted the alternative was an 85 Tempo). OTOH, I think the grand marquis was setup with a softer suspension as I remember driving a '94 GM and I didn't like it nearly as much.
I had my drivers permit when my grandpa still had his 307 powered olds 88. There was a big hill by his house and I remember being able to kick in the secondaries when trying to get it to drop out of o/d at 45 mph to maintain speed up the hill and grandpa would never notice;)
I remember grandpa's '87 Caprice with a 305 feeling a lot peppier than the 88, but by then I think the 305 had 170hp and it seemed like it had shorter gearing. I don't know if they had different ratios available then, but I know when grandpa first got it the speedometer read a higher speed than you were actually going. He took it in and they replaced something related to the speedo saying it was calibrated for the wrong rear end. So maybe his had the shorter gear option.
His 87 Caprice Classic Brougham LS is still probably my favorite looking b-body. His was white with a 1/2 landau top and he had dark tinted windows (to help stay cool in the hot florida sun). I thought it had a very classy and elegant look at the time.
In the earlier years, I think they tended to use a 2.56:1 axle with the 305 and a 2.73:1 with the 307. However, the 305 got its peak hp and torque at a higher rpm, and was a better revver in general, so that could definitely make it feel peppier.
And, by 1988 they might have been using a quicker axle. I did a quick web search, and did find that there was a "Performance axle ratio" listed as a $21 option in 1988. But, it didn't say what it was.
I think some of the police car axle ratios were 3.08:1 and 3.42:1, so maybe some of those were offered with the civilian Caprice. And I'm sure that if you got a station wagon or towing package, you'd get a quicker axle...so they had to be out there.
"Then what makes me so lucky?"...I must confess you have a great question...it could alternately be asked "Why were so many Big 3 buyers unlucky?"
Just from the folks who post here, like gagrice who has had his problems with his GM SUVs, and many others with many complaints...
I say to you what I have said before...up until, say, 1985, the US market was owned by the Big 3, probably with a market share over 85-90%...back then, you could only buy American, except for a few British makes (British Leyland) and some German cars...I won't even count Peugeot and Citroen...it was almost unthinkable to buy anything but American (those days were orgasmic for cannon3)...and the loyalty to American cars was solid...
By the mid 80s into the 1990s, SOMETHING changed, lemko...the simple fact that buyers, without guns pointed at their heads and totally voluntarily, started leaving Big 3 cars and buying Japanese imports, mostly Honda and Toyota...and, as time went on, by their voluntary behavior when it came time to purchase more new cars, they RETURNED to those Honda and Toyota dealers and bought more imports, never even considering to buy Big 3 cars...at that point, the Big 3 lost them forever...once they were on their 2nd or 3rd Honda or Toyota, they never went back to Big 3 cars...Why is that?
It isn't because American cars had great quality, because that is why buyers deserted them to start with, so why go back to the companies that made the cars that you were unjhappy with???...sane people will not do that...and all of your posting and praising of Big 3 means nothing, for the market deserted them in droves, literally by the MILLIONS, so something made them leave...you bought cream puffs and more power to you...but you MUST take your blinders off and realize that, apparently, MANY FOLKS WERE NOT AS ENTHRALLED WITH AMERICAN IRON AS YOU ARE, or they would have kept buying Chevys and Dodges...
But they bought Hondas and Toyotas, and then re-bought them and re-bought them again...you don't do that unless you are receiving something from HonToy that you were not getting from Big 3 cars, and I would bet that "something" was a quality vehicle...
The Big 3 cars were stylish, so I don't think it was the look of the cars that drove them away...I believe it was quality issues, as nothing will upset the average ignorant American buyer (us posters here are the "smart" ones) than a door that won't close, a hood that does not line up, a window that rattles, knobs that fall off, and stuff that simply does not work properly and then dealers who don't care to try and fix it, or dealers who are unable to fix what was so screwed up at the factory floor that it cannot be fixed...
Your cream puffs are simply rare, and I am qualified to say that because I simply observe the millions who deserted the Big 3 in droves...I can assure you that if their cars were as good as yours, Honda and Toyota would have closed up shop along with the Yugo...but Honda and Toy thrived, because they obviously gave the market what it wanted, and the Big 3 did not...
I simply believe that the overall quality of Big 3 cars was severely compromised, and they did not care enough about it until they watched their market share drop like a rock...
And no matter what YOU say about your cars, you cannot overcome what millions of buyers are doing, and that is voting with their feet, and deserting the products that they do not want...cannon believes we should be forced to buy American, and I say let the Americans make the best product, and we WILL be a path to their door, but the road to Big 3 Rehabilitation was, and is, a long one, because they have to rpove to the MILLIONS that deserted them that they (the carmakers) deserve a second chance...
You were simply statistically lucky...if everyone had cars like yours, this topic would not exist...you really are lucky and unique, and certainly NOT representative of the quality of cars made by Big 3 back in those days...
Americans deserted them for a reason...crap cars was the reason, like it or not...always remember, even a blind pig can stumble on an acorn in the mud, and that is how you bought the cars you did...the rest of America did not have your experience, and the growth of Japanese cars (now Korea, too) proves that...
Americans deserted them for a reason...crap cars was the reason, like it or not...always remember, even a blind pig can stumble on an acorn in the mud, and that is how you bought the cars you did...the rest of America did not have your experience, and the growth of Japanese cars (now Korea, too) proves that...
Amen!
You made a great point about American styling not being the problem. I chose the 1995 Neon because I liked the design and style (at that time, way back then). It was the quality and the costs of upkeep that drove me away.
I like the style and design of the new Dodge Dart, again, it's the fear of the lack of quality that'll keep me away.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Not necessarily. Loads of folks have a bad experience and that writes that company off for them.
My VW was awful (well, a nice car with hideous reliability). The dealer resisted covering things (they eventually covered things), VW corporate was no help. This was the early 80. There is no reason for me to give them a second shot - especially as their reputation on reliability and corporate attitude has not changed.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I've had my experience with VW with my then girlfriend's then-new 1994 Jetta. That car ate CV joints with a vengeance, parts were expensive, and VW service was very surly. Sometimes I will hear the VW siren song when they make something as nice as the CC and then I'll think back to that Jetta. Seriously, you can't do German on a budget.
Loads of folks have a bad experience and that writes that company off for them.
That's me and Volvos, but experience was plural. Illogical, since we're talking the mid-70s.
Had three head gasket jobs on my '89 Voyager, but none stranded me like the Volvo did over and over, so I don't hold a Chrysler grudge. Both it and the Tercel stranded me once (for a while at least) in sub-zero temps, but I'll let one slide on an older car.
Mine was an 80 Rabbit and the constant electrical glitches did me in. At one point the electric fan for the radiator (my first of those) stopped working. Coincidentally at the same time the overheating idiot light or the sensor failed resulting in a melted engine. They tried to blame it on me until I produced every piece of paper showing it had been maintained by the book - by them!
I would love a Passat or CC and in 1999 came oh so close to buying a Passat wagon. Couldn't do it.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
If a guy who had a lousy '49 Ford wouldn't buy a '67 Mustang because of it, we'd have classified him as a crazy old coot, wouldn't we?
A few differences though between that and someone that had a '95 (insert any Chrysler model here) and a 2013 Dodge or whatever:
1) At least in my experience, the '95 Dodge was 10 times worse than the word "lousy" would even begin to describe.
2) In 1949 you could argue cars were still in their infancy, and the technology was not perfected yet. In 1995, there was no excuse for a car not being able to run repeatedly or semi-reliably.
3) Part of point 2, in 1949 the manufacturer was soley incompetent, in 1995 the manufacturer was sucking on purpose, with planned obsolescence, and others ways of sticking it to the customer (in other words, outright fraud in my book).
4) A history of repeatedly making terrible automobiles year in and year out.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I don't think automakers in 1949 were incompetent. They built solid cars with machinery that was built in the 1920s for the most part. Machines that were converted back from building the war equipment that just defeated the two greatest Armies on Earth at the time. Many 1949 vehicles running around today. I doubt many 2012 vehicles will still be running around in 63 years. Most of the modern plastic cars are less than worthless in 20 years. I would take a 49 Ford 2 door over a 67 Mustang any day. The only decent Mustangs from that era came out of the Carrol Shelby stable. Lee Iacocca was the father of the Mustang and probably in on the conception of the Neon.
Lee Iacocca was the father of the Mustang and probably in on the conception of the Neon.
I'm not positive, but I don't think Iacocca had much, if anything to do with the Neon. Chrysler was pretty much glad to be gone with him, because he was trying to hold on to the K-cars for too long, updating those aging variants rather than coming out with all-new designs.
However, some K-car technology did carry over to the Neon. The 2.0 and 2.4 engines that they used were based on the old K-car 2.2/2.5. The 3-speed automatic was the same. And the bolt pattern on the wheels was the same, so it's possible that some of the suspension/brake components were carried over.
Unfortunately, in the carrying over, I suspect that they cheapened a few things along the way. For instance, Chrysler had gotten most of the bugs worked out of that 3-speed automatic, and it was pretty decent in the later K-cars. But, perhaps they started putting in cheaper/lighter components in later years, and that's why it was more troublesome in the Neon?
Similarly, the old 2.2/2.5 were pretty durable, rugged engines that were cheap to repair. The turbo models would often blow a head gasket and warp the cylinder head eventually. In my case (or rather my ex-wife's, since it was her problem by then), it happened around the 118,000 mile mark in a 1988 LeBaron turbo coupe that had been stolen and joy-ridden a few times.
I'm guessing when the Neon 2.0 version came out, they found some way to cut a corner here and there and save a few bucks along the way. Also, that 2.0 was actually pretty powerful for the time...132 hp in base form. In contrast, the 2.5 in the 1995 Plymouth Acclaim only had 100 hp. So that added power might have been more stressful on the head and gasket?
As for the 1949 Ford, they were pretty rust-prone at the time, compared to a Chevy and especially the tank-like Plymouths. I think the main thing that saved the '49 Ford is the styling. They looked a lot more modern than a Chevy or Plymouth, and the hot rodders loved them.
Those old Mustangs, and the Falcons they were based on, scare me a bit, because they just seem too fragile and lightweight, and it doesn't take much of an impact to make them leak fuel.
I understand there are "torque boxes" built into the bodies of '60s Mustangs that are rust-prone and corrosion compromises the structural integrity of the cars.
On the other hand, those old Briggs-bodied Chryslers are so well built, junkyard examples are still intact after sitting for 50 years!
According to Wikipedia, Iacocca retired in late 1992, and the Neon debuted in January 1994 as a 1995 model. I remembered it coming out early, but forgot it was *that* early!
Anyway, with a lead time that close, I guess it's possible that Iacocca did have something to do with the Neon.
A few other "saviors" from that era that ended up being troubleprone actually came courtesy of AMC. AMC had pretty much wrapped up the design for the new Grand Cherokee by themselves, when Chrysler took over. And the 1993 Intrepid/Concorde supposedly borrowed a lot of their design from another AMC product...the short-lived Dodge Monaco and Eagle Premier.
Yeah, same here. One of my relatives, who was a real estate agent, briefly had one. He'd had an '85 5th Ave, but it got totaled when his wife was involved in a multiple car pileup. So, it got replaced by a pretty midnight blue Eagle Premier. Dunno how long it lasted though, because he passed away not too long after he got it (complications from diabetes), and while my memory's fuzzy, I think his wife sold it.
Back in the early 1990's, the local Dodge dealer had a used Monaco on their lot, as well as an '87 Cutlass Supreme sedan. I drove them both...kinda liked the Monaco, in the way that it handled, but of the two, I guess I'm enough of a throwback that I preferred the Cutlass! But in the end, I bought neither.
I'm guessing long term, that Monaco would have been trouble.
I remember checking out an Eagle Vision (an Intrepid in Eagle dress) years ago. The local "family of dealerships sold Jeeps and Eagles in addition to lots of other brands. They stopped making Eagles and in the whole clean up and eliminate dealers they pulled their Jeep franchise only to give it to the Chrysler - Dodge guy across the street.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
There was a lady at work who had an Eagle Vision. 1994 I think. It was a base model with the 3.3 V-6. It actually wasn't that bad of a car. She got it to around 160,000 miles and then gave it to her son, who ran it into the ground. I know it had some electrical issues...sensors, warning lights that wouldn't go off, and an occasional stalling that took the dealer awhile to fix.
The 3.3 was a good, sturdy engine, so I'd expect that to last. But I was pleasantly shocked to hear that it never needed a new transmission. That must have been a bit of a rarity for that era!
My next door neighbor has this theory that the 3.3 doesn't kill the transmissions and buys used Caravans with the 3.3 and puts 300K on them. Gets as much for his dollar in vehicles than anyone I know.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I liked the looks of the 49 Ford. In fact, I thought Ford looked better than Chevy from 49-54. But I seem to recall that the 49 Ford had some kind of suspension issue that gave it a propensity to roll (maybe that Explains those Explorer's - it was in their lineage).
The key exec that got the Mustang through the Deuce was Don Frey who went on to become CEO of the old Bell & Howell (movie camera's and trade schools like DeVry Tech). I think Iaccoca maybe sometimes took some very liberal credit for things in his career, but he was a consummate marketeer. Of course the same can probably be said for the designer Raymond Loewy of Studebaker fame.
Of course the same can probably be said for the designer Raymond Loewy of Studebaker fame.
For sure. He was great at getting management to buy into some new stuff, but the well-regarded '53 coupes were largely the work of Bob Bourke and the Avanti was the work of Tom Kellogg, Bob Andrews, and John Ebstein. I met Kellogg a couple times and Ebstein once. Both are deceased.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Odd one here. My daughter's boyfriend is going to school to be a union electrician. While he has a car (a story for another day) he's driving his dad's Sentra. Since it's not UAW/CAW it's not allowed in the union lot. He's told further down the road this will be a bigger issue so when he buys next to stick to the list. OK so far. I'm familiar with the UAW lists. For 2012 a Fusion is not on the list but a Mazda 6 is which makes sense for what they are trying to do.
The odd thing to me is he tells me one of his fellow students bought a new Dart and was told to trade for something else. It is assembled by UAW labor in Belvidere, IL. I Google the list and there are no listing for 2013 cars at all! I think she got caught on that since I have not seen cars off the list because of high out of US content (in the Dart that is considerable since all engines and transmissions are imported).
I don't suspect he's up to buying new yet anyway. I told him to work out a deal with my other daughter's boyfriend. He has a Cruze. Only problem is that it sucks. Nice enough car but has been a warranty nightmare.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I notice the Ram 1500 has an asterisk by it. I wonder if I tried to drive one of those into a Union parking lot, if they'd scrutinize the VIN to make sure it didn't come by way of south of the border?
Some HOAs and Condo associations are like that, too. Years ago, one of my grandmother's friends had a townhouse/condo in Gaithersburg, MD. She had a Ford Courier, and got into a tiff with them because they had a ban on pickup trucks! I don't know how it ultimately turned out, as I was too young to remember that story first-hand. However, I always remember her as having a Ford Maverick, so maybe she gave up the Courier because of that rule?
I wonder if they'd still have the power to do something like that? I know when I lived in my condo, they had a ruling against commercial vehicles. Even something like a Chevy Astro with a logo on it wouldn't pass muster.
Comments
Some of those cars could get decent mileage, I remember my grandpa getting 25-28mpg out of his '83 Delta 88. But that's not so impressive considering it only had around 140hp and back then he rarely drove faster than 60mph on the highway. It would be downright slow compared to any comparable car today. I can drive my wife's '11 Taurus 75-80 and still get over 25, it would be over 30 at 60mph.
Those were good cars back in then, but I definitely don't long for how they drove. They were just too soft, sluggish, numb, and sloppy for my tastes.
I do have some experience with those cars as that's what my grandpa always drove and my first car was a '75 Buick Regal that if nothing else could take some abuse from a 16 year old.
LOL, I deserve that comment. No not really, but it's the only type of vehicle that can haul the more than 6 people while towing our toys. That said I don't mind driving it that much, I kind of learned to like it. The steering is accurate with decent feed back and the suspension is firm enough that it doesn't wallow and float down the road, but it's certainly not "fun" to drive.
That said, you'll never hear me claim that a Toyota Landcruiser/Lexus LX is just an Expedition with a fancy interior. I know those are far superior vehicles in just about every way. But you have to pay for that level of luxury, comfort, performance, quality. The Expedition is good enough for what I need to do and i don't have to cringe when the 85lb lab scratches the seat or while two rows of kids eat and drink;) while hauling the boat to the lake.
Until then, hasta la vista, baby!
yeah, I haven't been impressed with how the few Toyotas I've been in drive. I really don't like how they tune their steering. Just to light for my tastes.
I'm 6'1" and haven't had to many issues being comfortable in most of the Fords I've been in. My wife's Taurus certainly is tighter than it should be, but I have enough head room to where I can wear a hat and not hit the ceiling. The F150 supercrew is impressively roomy and comfortable. I've not sat in the back seat of my brother's fusion, but in the front seats I have enough head room even with a moon roof.
Also, because of the way the car was geared, it actually seemed to catch its second wind around 80 mph or so. I'm guessing it's because at that point, it was finally getting to the point where it hit peak power in 4th gear, yet was going too fast to downshift. Still, I'm sure even the most mediocre of modern cars would be faster.
My uncle went through a period where he drove my '79 Chrysler Newport, because he had a '94 GMC Diesel that kept going in the shop on a regular basis. He said he much preferred the way it drove and handled to Grandmom's '85 LeSabre. It definitely handled better, and felt about as quick. It did have a firmer ride though.
You could usually get upgraded suspensions on those big cars as well, but it seemed like on the GM and Mopar cars, they weren't ordered all that often. Fords, at least by the time they got to the Panthers, seemed to be more likely to have them.
Back when my dad had his '92 CrownVic, I thought it handled well for a car of that size and I always liked driving it (granted the alternative was an 85 Tempo). OTOH, I think the grand marquis was setup with a softer suspension as I remember driving a '94 GM and I didn't like it nearly as much.
I had my drivers permit when my grandpa still had his 307 powered olds 88. There was a big hill by his house and I remember being able to kick in the secondaries when trying to get it to drop out of o/d at 45 mph to maintain speed up the hill and grandpa would never notice;)
I remember grandpa's '87 Caprice with a 305 feeling a lot peppier than the 88, but by then I think the 305 had 170hp and it seemed like it had shorter gearing. I don't know if they had different ratios available then, but I know when grandpa first got it the speedometer read a higher speed than you were actually going. He took it in and they replaced something related to the speedo saying it was calibrated for the wrong rear end. So maybe his had the shorter gear option.
His 87 Caprice Classic Brougham LS is still probably my favorite looking b-body. His was white with a 1/2 landau top and he had dark tinted windows (to help stay cool in the hot florida sun). I thought it had a very classy and elegant look at the time.
And, by 1988 they might have been using a quicker axle. I did a quick web search, and did find that there was a "Performance axle ratio" listed as a $21 option in 1988. But, it didn't say what it was.
I think some of the police car axle ratios were 3.08:1 and 3.42:1, so maybe some of those were offered with the civilian Caprice. And I'm sure that if you got a station wagon or towing package, you'd get a quicker axle...so they had to be out there.
Just from the folks who post here, like gagrice who has had his problems with his GM SUVs, and many others with many complaints...
I say to you what I have said before...up until, say, 1985, the US market was owned by the Big 3, probably with a market share over 85-90%...back then, you could only buy American, except for a few British makes (British Leyland) and some German cars...I won't even count Peugeot and Citroen...it was almost unthinkable to buy anything but American (those days were orgasmic for cannon3)...and the loyalty to American cars was solid...
By the mid 80s into the 1990s, SOMETHING changed, lemko...the simple fact that buyers, without guns pointed at their heads and totally voluntarily, started leaving Big 3 cars and buying Japanese imports, mostly Honda and Toyota...and, as time went on, by their voluntary behavior when it came time to purchase more new cars, they RETURNED to those Honda and Toyota dealers and bought more imports, never even considering to buy Big 3 cars...at that point, the Big 3 lost them forever...once they were on their 2nd or 3rd Honda or Toyota, they never went back to Big 3 cars...Why is that?
It isn't because American cars had great quality, because that is why buyers deserted them to start with, so why go back to the companies that made the cars that you were unjhappy with???...sane people will not do that...and all of your posting and praising of Big 3 means nothing, for the market deserted them in droves, literally by the MILLIONS, so something made them leave...you bought cream puffs and more power to you...but you MUST take your blinders off and realize that, apparently, MANY FOLKS WERE NOT AS ENTHRALLED WITH AMERICAN IRON AS YOU ARE, or they would have kept buying Chevys and Dodges...
But they bought Hondas and Toyotas, and then re-bought them and re-bought them again...you don't do that unless you are receiving something from HonToy that you were not getting from Big 3 cars, and I would bet that "something" was a quality vehicle...
The Big 3 cars were stylish, so I don't think it was the look of the cars that drove them away...I believe it was quality issues, as nothing will upset the average ignorant American buyer (us posters here are the "smart" ones) than a door that won't close, a hood that does not line up, a window that rattles, knobs that fall off, and stuff that simply does not work properly and then dealers who don't care to try and fix it, or dealers who are unable to fix what was so screwed up at the factory floor that it cannot be fixed...
Your cream puffs are simply rare, and I am qualified to say that because I simply observe the millions who deserted the Big 3 in droves...I can assure you that if their cars were as good as yours, Honda and Toyota would have closed up shop along with the Yugo...but Honda and Toy thrived, because they obviously gave the market what it wanted, and the Big 3 did not...
I simply believe that the overall quality of Big 3 cars was severely compromised, and they did not care enough about it until they watched their market share drop like a rock...
And no matter what YOU say about your cars, you cannot overcome what millions of buyers are doing, and that is voting with their feet, and deserting the products that they do not want...cannon believes we should be forced to buy American, and I say let the Americans make the best product, and we WILL be a path to their door, but the road to Big 3 Rehabilitation was, and is, a long one, because they have to rpove to the MILLIONS that deserted them that they (the carmakers) deserve a second chance...
You were simply statistically lucky...if everyone had cars like yours, this topic would not exist...you really are lucky and unique, and certainly NOT representative of the quality of cars made by Big 3 back in those days...
Americans deserted them for a reason...crap cars was the reason, like it or not...always remember, even a blind pig can stumble on an acorn in the mud, and that is how you bought the cars you did...the rest of America did not have your experience, and the growth of Japanese cars (now Korea, too) proves that...
Amen!
You made a great point about American styling not being the problem. I chose the 1995 Neon because I liked the design and style (at that time, way back then). It was the quality and the costs of upkeep that drove me away.
I like the style and design of the new Dodge Dart, again, it's the fear of the lack of quality that'll keep me away.
Well, if the new Dart ends up being a turd, maybe this time at least, we can blame the Italians! :P
My VW was awful (well, a nice car with hideous reliability). The dealer resisted covering things (they eventually covered things), VW corporate was no help. This was the early 80. There is no reason for me to give them a second shot - especially as their reputation on reliability and corporate attitude has not changed.
That's me and Volvos, but experience was plural. Illogical, since we're talking the mid-70s.
Had three head gasket jobs on my '89 Voyager, but none stranded me like the Volvo did over and over, so I don't hold a Chrysler grudge. Both it and the Tercel stranded me once (for a while at least) in sub-zero temps, but I'll let one slide on an older car.
I would love a Passat or CC and in 1999 came oh so close to buying a Passat wagon. Couldn't do it.
A few differences though between that and someone that had a '95 (insert any Chrysler model here) and a 2013 Dodge or whatever:
1) At least in my experience, the '95 Dodge was 10 times worse than the word "lousy" would even begin to describe.
2) In 1949 you could argue cars were still in their infancy, and the technology was not perfected yet. In 1995, there was no excuse for a car not being able to run repeatedly or semi-reliably.
3) Part of point 2, in 1949 the manufacturer was soley incompetent, in 1995 the manufacturer was sucking on purpose, with planned obsolescence, and others ways of sticking it to the customer (in other words, outright fraud in my book).
4) A history of repeatedly making terrible automobiles year in and year out.
I must be a blind pig living under an oak tree!
I'm not positive, but I don't think Iacocca had much, if anything to do with the Neon. Chrysler was pretty much glad to be gone with him, because he was trying to hold on to the K-cars for too long, updating those aging variants rather than coming out with all-new designs.
However, some K-car technology did carry over to the Neon. The 2.0 and 2.4 engines that they used were based on the old K-car 2.2/2.5. The 3-speed automatic was the same. And the bolt pattern on the wheels was the same, so it's possible that some of the suspension/brake components were carried over.
Unfortunately, in the carrying over, I suspect that they cheapened a few things along the way. For instance, Chrysler had gotten most of the bugs worked out of that 3-speed automatic, and it was pretty decent in the later K-cars. But, perhaps they started putting in cheaper/lighter components in later years, and that's why it was more troublesome in the Neon?
Similarly, the old 2.2/2.5 were pretty durable, rugged engines that were cheap to repair. The turbo models would often blow a head gasket and warp the cylinder head eventually. In my case (or rather my ex-wife's, since it was her problem by then), it happened around the 118,000 mile mark in a 1988 LeBaron turbo coupe that had been stolen and joy-ridden a few times.
I'm guessing when the Neon 2.0 version came out, they found some way to cut a corner here and there and save a few bucks along the way. Also, that 2.0 was actually pretty powerful for the time...132 hp in base form. In contrast, the 2.5 in the 1995 Plymouth Acclaim only had 100 hp. So that added power might have been more stressful on the head and gasket?
As for the 1949 Ford, they were pretty rust-prone at the time, compared to a Chevy and especially the tank-like Plymouths. I think the main thing that saved the '49 Ford is the styling. They looked a lot more modern than a Chevy or Plymouth, and the hot rodders loved them.
Those old Mustangs, and the Falcons they were based on, scare me a bit, because they just seem too fragile and lightweight, and it doesn't take much of an impact to make them leak fuel.
Not sure if this is true, but I heard he told them to give it the smiley face.
On the other hand, those old Briggs-bodied Chryslers are so well built, junkyard examples are still intact after sitting for 50 years!
Anyway, with a lead time that close, I guess it's possible that Iacocca did have something to do with the Neon.
A few other "saviors" from that era that ended up being troubleprone actually came courtesy of AMC. AMC had pretty much wrapped up the design for the new Grand Cherokee by themselves, when Chrysler took over. And the 1993 Intrepid/Concorde supposedly borrowed a lot of their design from another AMC product...the short-lived Dodge Monaco and Eagle Premier.
Man, I don't remember the last time I've seen either of those two cars.
Back in the early 1990's, the local Dodge dealer had a used Monaco on their lot, as well as an '87 Cutlass Supreme sedan. I drove them both...kinda liked the Monaco, in the way that it handled, but of the two, I guess I'm enough of a throwback that I preferred the Cutlass! But in the end, I bought neither.
I'm guessing long term, that Monaco would have been trouble.
The 3.3 was a good, sturdy engine, so I'd expect that to last. But I was pleasantly shocked to hear that it never needed a new transmission. That must have been a bit of a rarity for that era!
For sure. He was great at getting management to buy into some new stuff, but the well-regarded '53 coupes were largely the work of Bob Bourke and the Avanti was the work of Tom Kellogg, Bob Andrews, and John Ebstein. I met Kellogg a couple times and Ebstein once. Both are deceased.
The odd thing to me is he tells me one of his fellow students bought a new Dart and was told to trade for something else. It is assembled by UAW labor in Belvidere, IL. I Google the list and there are no listing for 2013 cars at all! I think she got caught on that since I have not seen cars off the list because of high out of US content (in the Dart that is considerable since all engines and transmissions are imported).
I don't suspect he's up to buying new yet anyway. I told him to work out a deal with my other daughter's boyfriend. He has a Cruze. Only problem is that it sucks. Nice enough car but has been a warranty nightmare.
Hey, look! On teh coming in 2013 Union vehicles there's the Dart!
I wonder if they'd still have the power to do something like that? I know when I lived in my condo, they had a ruling against commercial vehicles. Even something like a Chevy Astro with a logo on it wouldn't pass muster.