or if there's a deeper, subliminal meaning here, but here's my take on the Fusion versus the Camry...
I really WANT to like the Fusion. I like the style of it, and when I first saw the concept cars at the auto shows, I was really interested. But now that it's here, in person it just doesn't wow me so much. It's okay; I mean, I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to be seen in one. And I have sat in them and fit fine both up front and in the back, so my worst concern about them (being able to fit comfortably) is alleviated. But still, the car just leaves me a bit cold somehow.
But then the Camry is a car that I just WANT to hate! Don't ask me why...it might be partly simply because they're just so damned popular that I want to root for an underdog. I also don't like that swollen/punched-in-the-nose look of the front-end, where the logo is. But the more I look at the Camry, it seems like a decent choice and does have a lot to offer.
As for this wanting-to-hate thing, it doesn't come from any long-term hatred against Toyota or anything. In fact, I used to like the Camry. I really liked the '87-91 style, and also the '92-96, although the '97-01 was kind of just a generic, if decent, car. And I'm a Toyota stock shareholder, so obviously it's not in my best interests to wish for the Camry to fail! But does it just have to be so damned good at everything it does?! :P
in this market I think I'd go for the Nissan Altima. The only downsides I really see is that you have to deal with the cheaper interior (compared to a Camry or Accord), and the 4-cyl gets stuck with the 4-speed automatic. You don't get the 5-speed auto unless you get the V-6.
I think the Mazda6 is a good looking car, but it's too small inside for my tastes. I'd put it more in the same league as cars like the Subaru Legacy, Saturn L-series, etc.
Also, I'm sure this is gonna cause some eyebrows to raise, but I think the Sebring/Stratus sedans were good looking cars. But they're discontinued now. And there you had to deal with a plasticky interior, substandard, thrashy 4-cyl, or a V-6 that seemed like a good idea at the time but quickly became outclassed by more recent efforts, so-so crash-test ratings, etc.
Sure it is and I have some beachfront property in Arizona - all the Detroit News would have to do to insure a loss of circulation and encourage some possible UAW pickets is to start badmouthing any of the products made by those mfgrs. that control that City. And yes, the same suspect reporting likely from the 'Toyko News' as well.
I suppose cynicism about the press is the rage these days. One of those things people talk a lot about but never prove to my satisfaction, anyway.
In my experience, controversial articles sell newsprint, not vice versa.
There are UAW facilities in every region of the nation. I have never heard of them ever picketing newspapers. Least ways, not for the last 16 or 17 years since I have been paying attention.
Can't they think of anything new? I am afraid that new sports cars - modern designs, may just leapfrog on over these retros pretty soon. So far, so good for the retro Mustang. I guess 2009 model year sees a new modern rendition on the same theme. The new Hyundai sports car may be out by 2008 model year, and while sporting a look somewhat typical, as in Porsche 924, or other fastback swoopy cars, it indeed will look new. Not sure why they do not sell more Tiburons. Seems like a more unique style than most any other car around, and a great price considering all the content. Small, more two seater cars are limited sales cars, and that you can't change I guess. Of the sporty cars though, this one stands out for looks. Hyundai seems to advertise the Sonata or SUVs more.
I think the new Hyundai will more easily seat 4 people, and have more space for luggage. Wonder why Toyota and Honda don't make a RWD little sports car for around $20K. They had the Celica and Prelude, but they were expensive, FWD and the HP was limited... well HP to cost did not seem right. I would look at an Eclipse sports car, but I don't see the dealerships hanging around much longer. -Loren
All current Porsches are variations on a theme originally developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Even the Cayenne carries the look over.
The new Mustang is a modern variation on the Mustang theme. What else should it be? Mustang should continue to develop, but also continue to build on what it was. If it is not doable, then discontinue the car altogether.
Hyundai has no tradition to build on Of course it is going to try and find a design all of its own.
"Unlike other Japanese automakers, Toyota has also imported a scaled-down version of the partially owned supplier network it built in Japan. It has controlling stakes in Aisin Seiki and Denso Corp. and owns some smaller suppliers such as Bodine Aluminum.
That network has given Toyota a boost under a quirk in the federal labeling law that was originally designed to help Detroit automakers. Under the rules, parts that an automaker buys from a supplier that it owns or has a financial stake in count more toward its domestic content than parts from an independent company."
Exactly what I'd had said in earlier posts here and other discussions about 'captive' suppliers!!!
how about a reincarnation of the Toyota Supra - in 2 versions - one with a 350hp version of the 3.5 V6 currently in the IS, the other a 500 hp V8. Acura bringing back the NSX this time with a V10.
cynicism or realism? I assure you that the "Detroit News" knows exactly who its subscribers are and where a number of them work. Only good business on the paper's part to do what it can to promote the 'local' products (even if the Fusion is built in Mexico).
I assure you that the "Detroit News" knows exactly who its subscribers are and where a number of them work. Only good business on the paper's part to do what it can to promote the 'local' products (even if the Fusion is built in Mexico).
It is certainly possible that the reviewer really did prefer one product over the other.
That being said, your point is valid: the car reviews in newspaper automotive sections tend to be fairly lightweight, these sections are seen as advertising supplements meant to make money for the paper, not as exercises in hard journalism. While I would expect the news and business sections to be a bit more hardhitting and objective, I doubt that the editor is going to mind a bit of pandering if it serves the interests of the local advertisers or readership.
While I would expect the news and business sections to be a bit more hardhitting and objective, I doubt that the editor is going to mind a bit of pandering if it serves the interests of the local advertisers or readership.
Presumably, Toyota is nearly as big, if not more so, a print advertiser as Ford, even in the Detroit area.
The closest analogy to auto that I can think of off hand in NYC is fashion and the garment industry. The two tabloids, the New York Post and New York Daily News pillory the local fashion hounds whenever they can. The New York Times is not quite so blunt as the tabloids, but nevertheless has a lot of mean things to say about local product.
For that matter, why stop with the Detroit press? Edmunds advertises a lot of autos. Along with its own content, Edmunds now provides a lot of content for the New York Times auto sections. If we can sua sponte assume the Detroit News is bias, then the same standard should apply to Edmunds or Car and Driver, etc.
and even the national periodicals (MT, CD, RT etc.) certainly display bias on a regular basis. I will assure you, for example, that you will find more Chevy ads in MT than you will find in Road & Track. The whole idea of comparing a 4 banger Camry to the 220hp Fusion (because the pricing is comparable) is, however, ludricrous. Of course, the V6 Camry will be a coupla grand more (more than that if you consider actual market prices) than the Fusion - as it should be. And yes, that '07 Camry with that V6 would be in the next zip code leaving that Fusion wheezing in its wake. And so will V6 versions of the Altima, Accord, and now even the Sonata which kind of summarizes Detroit's problem - they do not know how to build a competitive smaller displacement engine - and never have.
I don't think the Fusion seems so bad. And I'm talking actual transaction price here, not the MSRP. I regularly see V-6 Fusions with leather and a sunroof advertised in the sale papers for under $20K. It seems like a lot of car for the money. But alas, it still seems that alot of people are just willing to spend a few $K more for a Camry or Accord.
Big 3 apologists would argue that getting a V8 for the same price of V6 is actually a good deal convienently ignoring the gas mileage penalty and worse handling
This is where you're wrong. Compare a Subaru wrx sti to a GTO, with double the cylinders, and more than dbl the displacement. The horespower is within 100 of each other, and the only reason that the sti can even come close in performance is because of a significant weight advantage. However, when u look at the mpg figures for the cars, they are very similar, because when extracting the power out of the sti vs. the gto, u have 2 rev at least twice as high, and if you know anything about how an engine works, you know that 6000 revolutions per minute uses up a lot more fuel in 2 engines of the same size, than 3000 rpms does, so even in a smaller displacement engine, u are using close to the same amount of fuel, like i said, this takes at least the most basic knowledge of engines to understand, but if u have a manual, drive it around between one fillup constantly revving it to at least 4000 rpms before shifting, then do the same thing, but shift at 2500 rpms, and the fuel savings will be phenomonal. I gained 5 mpg just be shifting 800 rpms lower.
You know, I've heard a lot of people criticizing the Aveo on here. While I wouldn't ever buy it, that's because I wouldn't ever buy any car that small, it's not a matter of it being a bad car. The smallest I would go is a Cobalt. But back to the topic of people criticizing the Aveo, you ought to read the reviews on edmunds, as they definitely tend to favor the Aveo vs. the Yaris, in fact they reviewed the yaris rather unfavorably. As for the fit, I don't know much about it, except that it's extremely goofy looking, and I would not be seen dead driving it. While the Aveo may not be much of a looker, at least it isn't goofy looking. And speaking of goofy cars, I hate the new Toyota nose, I don't know what car I saw the other day with it(may have been a Yaris) but it was butt-ugly and goofy, and it almost made me cringe in pain.
out on the road yesterday. I didn't recognize what it was at first. Honestly, I'd say it looks like a generic minivan that got shrunk down to about 2/3 its original size.
For some reason though, I'm actually starting to like the Yaris a bit. That swollen nose doesn't look too bad on it. I think it looks worse on the Camry. The way the Yaris has those two "V" shaped slats for the grille, makes me think of something vaguely Citroen-ish.
Still, I probably wouldn't buy something that small, either. Although when I sat in the Aveos at the auto show, I've always been impressed with how roomy they are, given their tiny exterior dimensions.
Now take the 2006 CR and look up the LS for 2004, then do the same in the 2005 CR and the two are not even close. Sorry, but the 200 CR is off some how. Same with the Cadillac Deville, which was doing fine in the 2005 mag. then in the 2006 suddenly it is not. I now have some doubts about their data. Too many cars are great in 2003 and then in 2005 , only to be rated bad in 2006 for the SAME model years. Something is terribly wrong here.
I like to use all the sources, compare them, and then throw out the baloney. Also like to ask people that own the cars how they like them. No, not scientific, but you get a sense on how they like the cars. If I had to rely only on experience, I would be among the millions not ever buying a GM again. May give them another try, though it would be something like giving them a strike four. Really! There are a couple to maybe three cars I could live with in the GM line up. If you do the HEAD2HEAD, you may not be too enthused about going forward to the drive test. They so far don't seem to be standing out in those comparisons as value leading. Don't blame me, they wanted me to do the comparison. The ad was always in my face -Loren
A "cute" Camry. Actually, it looks good, though a skosh too small, as you pointed out. Much better car than the Echo. The Civic, with the 40MPG and larger size is the winner, no doubt. Too bad the Cobalt was not a new car, or should I say doesn't appear to look new, and has perhaps less than stellar reliability. Oh well, they tried...... or maybe not. -Loren
is that it's kind of heavy for a small car. IIRC, it's around 2900 lb or so, around 300 lb heavier than a Corolla or Civic. Also, its 2.2 Ecotech is a bigger engine than the 1.8 in the Corolla, and I'm sure it's still bigger than whatever they're using in the current Civic. On the plus side, it'll accelerate quicker than a non-S Corolla, and I'm sure it'll still be quicker than a Civic (it simply obliterated the '05 and older base Civic in acceleration, which was in the league of stuff like the Vulcan Taurus and the 2.7 Chrysler 300). But if fuel economy is your primary focus, there are better choices than the Cobalt.
Appropos to what you've been discussing, you might want to read this story. "GM pulls ads from Los Angeles Times" (A better headline would have been "GM Management Throws Tantrum, Shoots Messenger Instead of Fixing Problems"):
General Motors Corp. has pulled its advertising from Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times, according to a media report Thursday...
...One person familiar with the situation told the Journal that the amount is perceived by people in the ad industry as "highly significant" and that the action against one of the nation's largest metropolitan newspaper is seen as punitive...
...The decision comes one day after Times published auto reporter Dan Neil's weekly column, in which he wrote that GM's Pontiac G6 was a "sales flop" and that former North American Chairman Robert Lutz and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner should be ousted.
Lutz, along with former Group Vice President Gary Cowger, on Monday were transferred to GM's global development and manufacturing division.
That's pretty good. I'm sure that the G6 will become a much better car because of this!
Too many cars are great in 2003 and then in 2005 , only to be rated bad in 2006 for the SAME model years. Something is terribly wrong here.
Maybe the engineers designed them to be reliable for 3 years then fall apart?
Sometimes car reliability ratings will change from year to year. For instance, most cars usually aren't THAT bad in their first year or two, so that skews the ratings a bit. A car that CR rates "much worse than average" might not be all that bad, it just means that the majority of the cars were just better. Kinda like being an A-minus student trying to hang with the Mensa crowd.
But then, say, three years down the road, those much-better than average cars might start to have issues, while the car that was much-worse than average might have gotten over its teething problems. Plus, after 3 years, chances are, most cars are going to be a bit more troubleprone than when they were new. And then, when they're 5-6 years old, the whole scene could be totally different.
GM cars were notorious for this back in the 80's. Most of them got horrible ratings when they were brand-new or a year or two old. But, like a fine wine they got better with age, and as a 5-6 year old used car, they were often pretty reliable compared to other 5-6 year old cars.
Even if your facts are correct about the ownership. The parts are still made in the US. Making them employes Americans. The investments in plant and equipment are being made in America. American construction workers make the plants. American transport companies move the materiel and finished goods. Etc, etc.
Where is the problem in this? Now if you work for a company outside Toyota's group of 'favored' suppliers and they refuse to do business with your company I understand your pov. I've been there. Nonetheless all this production is good for the American economy.
I've also been on the outside ( and inside ) of GM's favored group of suppliers. It's just business. Nothing more.
Look past the trouble in Detroit, and the auto industry is anywhere but in decline. In a growing number of Southern hamlets such as Canton, Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, and other foreign car manufacturers are providing nonunionized jobs -- 33,000 since 2000 -- that pay almost as much as United Auto Workers earn farther north. Consumers are enjoying more choice than ever, while the market as a whole is humming. Car sales in the U.S. inched up last year, to 17 million vehicles, the third-highest ever.
And get this: Even as Ford and GM cut production last year, North American plants built 15.8 million cars and trucks, the same as in 2004. That happened thanks to foreign carmakers producing 4.9 million vehicles, an increase of 500,000 from 2004. Overall production is expected to rise to 16.8 million by 2009, when an estimated 5.8 million vehicles will roll off foreign-owned assembly lines. Looking back, car and truck production in the U.S. has nearly doubled since Detroit's heyday in the early 1960s. "The domestic auto industry is as healthy as it has ever been," says Eric Noble, president of Car Lab, an industry consulting firm in Santa Ana, Calif. "The names on the plants are just changing."
That isn't to say there won't be pain, especially in Michigan. Hiring by foreign auto makers will only partly offset jobs lost as domestic carmakers downsize and their sprawling network of suppliers continues to go through a painful shakeout. Despite new foreign investment, the auto industry employs 200,000 fewer factory workers -- about 950,000 now -- than it did in 2000. Plus, much of the profit made selling cars to Americans heads back to Japan, Korea, or Germany, creating wealth overseas. And even though foreign car companies are investing in the U.S. at a higher rate, imports are still rising, from 2.8 million in 2000 to 3.4 million in 2005, says auto forecaster CSM Worldwide.
But it would be misleading to weave all of these developments into a tragedy. The reality is that many of the layoffs at the Big Three were inevitable. Even if Ford and GM weren't in so much trouble, they and their parts suppliers would be cutting back. Japanese auto makers have set the pace on productivity, forcing GM, Ford, and Chrysler to get in step. In 1999 those companies all needed at least 24 hours to assemble a car. Now it's closer to 20 hours, while Japanese plants do it in about 18, says Harbour Consulting Inc. in Troy, Mich. "This is an industry that has been in need of a restructuring at all levels," says David E. Cole, executive director of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Some industry watchers say American workers aren't competitive, but foreign carmakers are hiring them faster than ever (and picking up political goodwill, to boot). In addition to Toyota's new pickup plant in San Antonio, which opens this year, the surging auto giant will open an SUV plant in Ontario in 2008. Hyundai Motor Corp. will gear up its Montgomery (Ala.) plant, with production expected to rise to 240,000 vehicles this year from 93,000 last year. And Hyundai affiliate Kia Motors Corp. plans to build a 300,000-capacity plant at a site nearby. "Car production is changing hands, and it's going up," says CSM Vice-President Michael Robinet.
Expansion has a nice ripple effect, too. Around every factory is an industrial park full of suppliers. Toyota Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. pack their U.S.-made cars with 65% to 75% domestic parts, compared with 80% to 85% at Ford and GM. Officials in Mississippi estimate that the Nissan factory where Nandra Barnes works has spawned the creation of 25,000 supplier and support jobs that generate a combined $500 million in economic activity. In nearby Madison, three new red-brick shopping centers have sprouted up with a Wal-Mart, a Home Depot, and a Lowe's. "You can drive down the interstate and see it in increased traffic," says Tim Coursey, executive director of the Madison County Economic Development Authority. "We have been busting wide open at the seams."
The Yaris sedan ain't so bad looking. Too small, but what the heck. The Aveo/Daewoo is a width of 65.7 in. They look tall and narrow, like you could push it over with your little pinky. -Loren
Looks like the New Stang is the 1969 model outside and 1965 inside. It is more than a variation on theme, it is almost a design lift of the old. Going back to square one, is not a continuation on a design. The 2004 was a continuation on design.
The Porsche, while being totally a different car now with nanny control, no oversteer (tow truckers must hate that) and liquid cooling. Yes, the overall shape is much the same. It was all too perfect to change all that much, as it was years ahead of its time. I assume you are talking about the 911. They have gently changed the lines over time. I guess Mustang could have gone the same route, as in staying with the 1965 shape, and never changing all that much. Keep a notchback and a fastback model the same. But wait, it changed in two years, with a sweep of the fast back all the way to the tail lights. Then it became a rather large car, then the Pinto years, before the comeback years as a Fox body. Actually the Pinto years kept the line going, which is fine, and they too are collector cars. No I did not say classics -- collectors.
Porsche never went adrift in designs between sport, luxury, gas mileage, size, and let's say all over the map. One design was refined. They did not go back and cherry pick an exterior and interior from different years to make one car. That said, they do have the 944 and other great cars to choose from if the rear engine is not your thing.
If GM and Ford want the instant hits for style by going back, I can think of plenty, like the Malibu SS, Camaro, Fairlane 500 and a whole lot more than look better than the bland of today. And they are RWD too. I would be more encouraged by news that Ford and GM have new designs, and beautiful cars never seen before. How about Moving Forward.
One design side note: Please no more high door sills with little windows. Did not like them on the oldie cars, and chop tops, and do not want this on new cars. I guess you live with it though, as 90% of cars are this way now. AND please let us see some hood out front from the drivers seat. Can also do without electric steering assist. -Loren
Big 3 apologists would argue that getting a V8 for the same price of V6 is actually a good deal convienently ignoring the gas mileage penalty and worse handling
This is where you're wrong. Compare a Subaru wrx sti to a GTO, with double the cylinders, and more than dbl the displacement. The horespower is within 100 of each other, and the only reason that the sti can even come close in performance is because of a significant weight advantage.
That is exactly my point. When compared to STi, GTO handles like a minivan.
Nevertheless, more money stays home from some "foreign" cars than stays home from "domestic" cars. The new Sonata for example is more "domestic" than the Fusion.
I wish the rules would change for reporting domestic content. Instead of the percentage of foreign/domestic parts, I wish the window sticker would show the percentage of the cost of the car (invoice price)would stay in the USA vs all other countries. We may be surprised!
Here's a hypothetical example:
Where Do Your Dollars Go for the Ripfire 1000?
Mexico 40% USA 20% Canada 10% Japan 10% Taiwan 9% Tonga 6% All Others 5%
The way it's stated now, we could be feeding murderous dictators and wouldn't know it.
I imagine my 1988 Park Avenue had a constellation of black and half black dots in Communist Reports. Seems this car is getting better with age as it is still doing well and there are plenty others like it still around. Anybody have the rating for the '88 Park Ave from CR?
"The companies are actually foreign companies set up here. Ownership goes back to the foreign company. Money goes back to the foreign country."
I've read this indictment many times over the last few weeks (months?) but NEVER any evidence to back this up. Could you refer to a couple of major 'domestic' suppliers which were set up by the imports?
I think that some domestic suppliers have been AQUIRED by the import brands (or partially owned). This is different from "set up". These were ESTABLISHED domestic companies which began supplying the imports. (Why is this OK for the Domestics to do but somehow against the rules for the Imports?) But to say they (the imports) do this to "change the appearances of the source of their parts" is paranoid and false.
The source of the parts ARE domestic (ie. made in the U.S.) regardless of whether or not a 'foreign' company owns part of or all of that supplier. If that supplier is using U.S. labor, U.S. materials, in a plant constructed in the U.S., then the parts are DOMESTIC parts. Why wouldn't an Import manufacturer want to partially or wholly own a supplier for the same reasons that a Domestic might?
Now, let's talk about this concept of all the "money goes back to the foreign country".
What do you think a company (foreign or domestic) does with profit? Perhaps pay dividends to shareholders? Fine, buy stock in Toyota. Perhaps that profit is used to expand their business (upgrade/build factories). Now, who is doing this in AMERICA, and who is doing this overseas? Sees to me like the Domestics are doing more investing in overseas expansion while the Imports are investing in THIS country. So, where does the money go now? Perhaps the profit is used for R&D for future models/improvements? Many of the imports have extensive R&D facilities here in the U.S., so those profits also stay here.
The point is, all those profits DON'T just run home to Japan to be stuck in the Toyoda family vault. That profit is put to WORK and much of that WORK is done here in the U.S.
To assume that profits for 'Imports' instantly flees overseas never to return and that profits for the 'Domestics' stays at home never to leave is simplistic.
by 1988 I don't think the Electra/98 were too bad. The engines in them were actually pretty good, as the 3800 got a new block in 1985 that eliminated most of its problems. Just going off the top of my head, I think the primary trouble spots were transmissions, electronics (the ECU and wiring and such) and body integrity (not rusting, but probably rattles, wind/water leaks, plastic and trim parts breaking, etc.
My grandmother's cousin has a 1989 Coupe DeVille, that has about 80,000 miles on it, and she's mainly just had fairly petty stuff go bad on it. I do remember a couple years ago, she said that it was driving kind of funny, so I drove it around the block a couple times. I asked her when was the last time she had the transmission serviced and she just looked at me kinda funny like "you're supposed to do that?".
I hope she's keeping up on oil changes and coolant flushes, because I can't imagine that an aluminum V-8 can put up with the neglect that a simple, old fashioned iron block one could!
Oh, CR did test a 1985 Electra. Lemko, here's a review you'll get a kick out of. CR tested an Electra against a 5th Avenue and a Grand Marquis.
"Starting/running. (excellent) Started and ran well at all times."
That's nice to know, but it's sad that CR felt they had to tell their readers that the car could start and run consistently.
This seems typical:
"Routine handling. (average) Disappointing. Because the Buick is smaller, lighter, and more modern in design, we expected it to handle better than it did. The car responded a little less sluggishly than the Mercury, but the power steering gave little feedback. The soft front suspension bounded over bumps in turns, making directional control feel uncertain. The rear wheels tended to move to the side, sometimes severely, over sharp bumps."
"Emergency handling. (average) The Buick responded sluggishly in the abrupt accident-avoidance maneuvers simulated by our pylon course; it tended to plow straight ahead when we wanted it to turn. The numb power steering made the car hard to control precisely. Although the car felt sloppy, it handled the course safely at respectably high speeds. In hard turns at the test track, the steering felt vague and the car was a bit unsteady, but always controllable."
"Braking. (better than average) The brakes were a bit too sensitive in normal driving. Short stops made the car's nose dive."
These are the same guys that put a flaming CR-V on the front page, in color, when at the time only about 6 fires had been reported.
Look how many recalls affect GM and Ford and are fire related, and how many color photos do you see on their front page with those cars?
Of course they cater to their demographic. It's called home field advantage.
Edmunds' HQ is in California, so they can be a little more independent. Plus, it's not like 99% of their paid subscribers work for the former Big 3.
Bottom line - look at the content of their auto reporting, and you will find a strong bias. Like for instance comparing a V6 domestic to a 4-cylinder import brand. :P
in that test was also the somewhat rare, base model "300" series, which had the weak 110 hp 3.0 V-6, which, IIRC, still had a 2bbl carb. The 380 model had the fuel-injected 3.8, which had 125 hp and was much more responsive, and better suited to that car.
In 1986 they got smart and made the 3.8 standard, so they dropped these "300" and "380" designations.
As for starting and running, remember this WAS the Eighties. A lot of cars still had carburetors, and many manufacturers were still in the learning stages when it came to fuel injection. It was still quite common for cars to not start on the first try, not kick down from fast idle once warmed up, occasionally stall out, etc.
One thing that really surprised me was that emergency handling for the Fifth Avenue was rated "better than average". Especially when you consider this car dates back to the 1976 Volare, while the Electra was all-new and the Grand Marquis, new for 1979, was touted as something of a "road car" at the time. I'm guessing part of the reason for that is the wheels and tires. Chrysler usually made big 15x7 rims standard on these cars, whereas the Electra probably had narrow 14x6, and the Grand Marquis, unless it had an optional setup, was probably stuck with undersized rims around 14x6. I had an '89 Gran Fury that handled great when you needed it to, and kept me from getting into trouble on more than one occasion. I had always attributed that to it being a former police car, though. But perhaps Chrysler actually DID put some effort into these M-bodies?
...I had all three of those cars at one time or another. The Electra only had 110 hp? My '88 has 165. What did they do between 1985 and 1988? That 165 doesn't seem like much today, but it still moves the car with some authority. I don't really notice the deficit unless I than go to drive my Seville or come from the Seville to the Park Ave.
I wish the window sticker would show the percentage of the cost of the car (invoice price)would stay in the USA vs all other countries. We may be surprised!
In practice, that would be pretty difficult, but the point is well taken.
It should be pretty obvious: If a car has high US/Canadian parts content and is assembled in the US, then it provides a lot of jobs to all of those American line workers and parts makers, and paid a lot of taxes.
It goes back to the issue for some: Some people would prefer that the Japanese lose, rather than have Americans win. I figure that if people are going to buy Accords and Corollas instead of Malibus and Cobalts, anyway (and with the disparities between them, who can blame the consumer for making those choices?), then I'd prefer that the "imports" be built here, rather than somewhere else.
The obvious solution would have been for the Big 2.5 to have made great cars that wouldn't have made the rivals seem so appealing. But since that didn't happen, this is a bed that they're going to have to lie in.
in 1984, Buick had three sizes of their V-6. There was the 3.0, which had a 2-bbl carb and was used in the Century and Skylark. I think there may have been a 125 hp fuel-injected version as well, but can't remember for sure.
Then there was the 3.8, which had a 2-bbl carb, and also had 110 hp, although it had more torque than the 3.0. It was used in cars like the Regal and LeSAbre.
Finally, there was the 4.1, which had a 4-bbl carb, 125 hp, and was standard in the RWD Electra. It may have been standard in the Riv and Toro by that time, too, but I can't remember. It was also optional in cars like the Regal, Bonneville, etc.
For 1985, the 4.1 went away. The 3.8 got a fuel-injected 125 hp version for 1985 that was offered in the Century, Cutlass Ciera, Electra, and 98. The carbureted 110 hp 3.8 was still used in the Cutlass Supreme, Regal, Bonneville, Grand Prix, LeSabre, and Delta. It would continue through 1987. The carbureted 3.0 was used as the base engine in the Electra/98, and a mid-level engine in the Ciera/Century. This year a fuel-injected 125 hp 3.0 was also offered in the Grand Am, Somerset Regal, and Calais.
I believe it was 1986 that the fuel-injected 3.8 went to 150 hp. And that year I think they dropped the carbureted 3.0 entirely. Then in either 1987 or 1988 the 3.8 went to 165 hp. Soon thereafter it went to 170 hp, and then I think it was 1996 that the Gen III 3800 came out, with 200-205 hp, more if supercharged.
Funny thing about horsepower, is that often you really DON'T notice the extra power, unless you really stomp it. And then with bigger engines, it's usually torque more than hp you're feeling. For instance, my buddy recently got an Xterra, and that sucker has something like 265-270 hp, which is 100 hp more than my '85 Silverado. In most normal driving, you really don't notice the extra hp, but you sure do if you really floor it. But the funny thing here, is that even with only 165 hp and having to lug 4200 lb around, the pickup seems more like it's held back by its 3-speed automatic and tall 2.56:1 gearing than it is by the engine itself. It's almost like the engine WANTS to perform, but the tranny and rear-end won't let it!
I wonder how the Silverado would perform if it had a 5-speed automatic like the Xterra does? I'm sure the Xterra has a quicker rear-end, too! Now sure, the Xterra would still be quicker, with its 100 extra hp and 40 or so extra ft-lb of torque, but the tranny/rear-end advantage has to count for something.
The soft front suspension bounded over bumps in turns, making directional control feel uncertain.
The rear wheels tended to move to the side, sometimes severely, over sharp bumps.
The Buick responded sluggishly in the abrupt accident-avoidance maneuvers simulated by our pylon course; it tended to plow straight ahead when we wanted it to turn.
The numb power steering made the car hard to control precisely.
Although the car felt sloppy, it handled the course safely at respectably high speeds. In hard turns at the test track, the steering felt vague and the car was a bit unsteady, but always controllable."
The brakes were a bit too sensitive in normal driving
This was “typical” of many American branded cars of the era along with the Buick. Other typical traits of American cars were poor fit and finish and mediocre reliability.
Is it no wonder that many Americans started finding superior alternatives to American branded cars back in the 80’s. These alternatives were from Japan.
We needed a new car in 1984 and never had owned a Japanese brand. With an “open mind” we looked at and test drove models from the 3 US brands and then tested similar sized cars of Japanese brands. Ended up with an 84 Honda because it was superior to anything American. This was one of our vehicles until 1998 (195K). Needed another car in 1986 and did same “open minded” looking and testing of American and Japanese and ended up with another new Honda. Had this one until 2000 (247K).
The large car ride was a smooth, comfortable highway ride. Compared to the Honda there's a complete difference in the ride. The large car ride is what the majority of people wanted at the time.
there simply was no Japanese equivalent to any of the cars in that test. The 1985 Accord was a bit smaller than a Cavalier at the time. So was Nissan's biggest car, the Maxima. In fact, the father of a friend of mine had an '85 Maxima, and I'd swear that thing was SMALLER inside than a Cavalier! The biggest Japanese car available in the US at the time was the Cressida. It was about the size of a Citation or Skylark, and the one in my 1985 Consumer Guide MSRP'ed for about $18K. About $1,000 more than the fully decked-out Electra and Ninety-Eight that were also tested in that issue.
Now granted, that Cressida scored very well and was one of the highest-rated cars in that issue, so there was some definite value there. But you paid for it.
big cars didn't HAVE to be numb and wallowy back in the 80's. Ford offered a package on the Grand Marquis and Crown Vic that in 1985 cost $227. It added dual exhaust, a rear sway bar, a quicker rear end (can't remember if it was a 3.27:1 or 3.55:1), 15" alloy wheels (not sure of the width) and 70-series tires. The stock rear end was something like a 2.73:1, and these things came standard with 14" rims!
It didn't hurt fuel economy all that much. My Consumer Guide tested a Crown Vic with the package and a Grand Marquis without it, and the Ford actually got slightly BETTER fuel economy! Not to mention faster off the line and more responsive in general. It did make the ride a bit firmer, though.
I think the package was actually somewhat popular, because I used to see a good number of these cars. They were always easy to tell because of the dual exhaust.
GM offered something called the F41, which was really just a rear sway bar and cost something like $40. It did improve handling, without really sacrificing ride comfort, but I don't think GM ever actually offered a performance package like Ford did on their big cars at that time.
The F41 was always easy to spot from the rear because you could see the sway bar underneath the differential. It was a very inexpensive option, but it doesn't seem like the typical GM buyer cared enough to order it.
Basically, we just wanted out big cars to be floaty and isolated back then. Chryslers tended to be a bit more firm-riding, with better road feel, and IMO slightly better handling. But look who the big sellers tended to be back then when it came to large cars. Ford and GM. Chrysler was such a poor third that they bailed on the big car market after 1981, and ended up passing off the 5th Avenue as a big car for the rest of the decade, although they were actually pretty successful there.
...the current Chrysler 300 could be the spiritual successor of the 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue. They are roughly the same size, available with a V-8, have squared-off styling and RWD. I'd say the front end looks like the last R-body.
I dunno, Andre, my girlfriend had a Cavalier, they were big on the outside but had horrible space efficiency. A huge hump and wide pillars really ate up space. The Accords of that era were more open and airy, they certainly felt a lot roomier at least.
Even the late 80s Grand Am/Cutlass Calais models had poor space efficiency, mid-size on the outside, compact on the inside. I hung out with a group of friends that had a Calais and a Tercel, and they had about the same amount of useful space inside.
that's about how I looked at it too. The 300 also kinda emulates Chrysler's lineup from the 50's or early 60's, back when Chryslers were a bit more sporty and less stuffy.
For example...
300 base = Windsor or Newport 300 Touring = Saratoga or the non-letter 300's 300 Limited = New Yorker 300C = Letter Series
As for the way cars evolved, I think Chrysler could have come out with this 300 back in 1988 instead of the Dynasty/New Yorker, and historically it wouldn't have looked the least-bit out of place in time.
Comments
It is an independent general newspaper, not an industry rag.
Are news reports out of Tokyo, Munich, and Seoul equally suspect?
I really WANT to like the Fusion. I like the style of it, and when I first saw the concept cars at the auto shows, I was really interested. But now that it's here, in person it just doesn't wow me so much. It's okay; I mean, I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to be seen in one. And I have sat in them and fit fine both up front and in the back, so my worst concern about them (being able to fit comfortably) is alleviated. But still, the car just leaves me a bit cold somehow.
But then the Camry is a car that I just WANT to hate! Don't ask me why...it might be partly simply because they're just so damned popular that I want to root for an underdog. I also don't like that swollen/punched-in-the-nose look of the front-end, where the logo is. But the more I look at the Camry, it seems like a decent choice and does have a lot to offer.
As for this wanting-to-hate thing, it doesn't come from any long-term hatred against Toyota or anything. In fact, I used to like the Camry. I really liked the '87-91 style, and also the '92-96, although the '97-01 was kind of just a generic, if decent, car. And I'm a Toyota stock shareholder, so obviously it's not in my best interests to wish for the Camry to fail! But does it just have to be so damned good at everything it does?! :P
In the mid-sized segment, you have to go entry and mid-level luxury before you get anything worth looking at.
Not sure why this should be, given the sales in the segment. Classic rules of competition would suggest someone gets the looks down.
I think the Mazda6 is a good looking car, but it's too small inside for my tastes. I'd put it more in the same league as cars like the Subaru Legacy, Saturn L-series, etc.
Also, I'm sure this is gonna cause some eyebrows to raise, but I think the Sebring/Stratus sedans were good looking cars. But they're discontinued now. And there you had to deal with a plasticky interior, substandard, thrashy 4-cyl, or a V-6 that seemed like a good idea at the time but quickly became outclassed by more recent efforts, so-so crash-test ratings, etc.
And yes, the same suspect reporting likely from the 'Toyko News' as well.
In my experience, controversial articles sell newsprint, not vice versa.
There are UAW facilities in every region of the nation. I have never heard of them ever picketing newspapers. Least ways, not for the last 16 or 17 years since I have been paying attention.
I think the new Hyundai will more easily seat 4 people, and have more space for luggage. Wonder why Toyota and Honda don't make a RWD little sports car for around $20K. They had the Celica and Prelude, but they were expensive, FWD and the HP was limited... well HP to cost did not seem right. I would look at an Eclipse sports car, but I don't see the dealerships hanging around much longer.
-Loren
All current Porsches are variations on a theme originally developed in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Even the Cayenne carries the look over.
The new Mustang is a modern variation on the Mustang theme. What else should it be? Mustang should continue to develop, but also continue to build on what it was. If it is not doable, then discontinue the car altogether.
Hyundai has no tradition to build on Of course it is going to try and find a design all of its own.
That network has given Toyota a boost under a quirk in the federal labeling law that was originally designed to help Detroit automakers. Under the rules, parts that an automaker buys from a supplier that it owns or has a financial stake in count more toward its domestic content than parts from an independent company."
Exactly what I'd had said in earlier posts here and other discussions about 'captive' suppliers!!!
from
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060507/BUSINESS01/605070725/10- 14
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It is certainly possible that the reviewer really did prefer one product over the other.
That being said, your point is valid: the car reviews in newspaper automotive sections tend to be fairly lightweight, these sections are seen as advertising supplements meant to make money for the paper, not as exercises in hard journalism. While I would expect the news and business sections to be a bit more hardhitting and objective, I doubt that the editor is going to mind a bit of pandering if it serves the interests of the local advertisers or readership.
Presumably, Toyota is nearly as big, if not more so, a print advertiser as Ford, even in the Detroit area.
The closest analogy to auto that I can think of off hand in NYC is fashion and the garment industry. The two tabloids, the New York Post and New York Daily News pillory the local fashion hounds whenever they can. The New York Times is not quite so blunt as the tabloids, but nevertheless has a lot of mean things to say about local product.
For that matter, why stop with the Detroit press? Edmunds advertises a lot of autos. Along with its own content, Edmunds now provides a lot of content for the New York Times auto sections. If we can sua sponte assume the Detroit News is bias, then the same standard should apply to Edmunds or Car and Driver, etc.
The whole idea of comparing a 4 banger Camry to the 220hp Fusion (because the pricing is comparable) is, however, ludricrous. Of course, the V6 Camry will be a coupla grand more (more than that if you consider actual market prices) than the Fusion - as it should be. And yes, that '07 Camry with that V6 would be in the next zip code leaving that Fusion wheezing in its wake. And so will V6 versions of the Altima, Accord, and now even the Sonata which kind of summarizes Detroit's problem - they do not know how to build a competitive smaller displacement engine - and never have.
This is where you're wrong. Compare a Subaru wrx sti to a GTO, with double the cylinders, and more than dbl the displacement. The horespower is within 100 of each other, and the only reason that the sti can even come close in performance is because of a significant weight advantage. However, when u look at the mpg figures for the cars, they are very similar, because when extracting the power out of the sti vs. the gto, u have 2 rev at least twice as high, and if you know anything about how an engine works, you know that 6000 revolutions per minute uses up a lot more fuel in 2 engines of the same size, than 3000 rpms does, so even in a smaller displacement engine, u are using close to the same amount of fuel, like i said, this takes at least the most basic knowledge of engines to understand, but if u have a manual, drive it around between one fillup constantly revving it to at least 4000 rpms before shifting, then do the same thing, but shift at 2500 rpms, and the fuel savings will be phenomonal. I gained 5 mpg just be shifting 800 rpms lower.
For some reason though, I'm actually starting to like the Yaris a bit. That swollen nose doesn't look too bad on it. I think it looks worse on the Camry. The way the Yaris has those two "V" shaped slats for the grille, makes me think of something vaguely Citroen-ish.
Still, I probably wouldn't buy something that small, either. Although when I sat in the Aveos at the auto show, I've always been impressed with how roomy they are, given their tiny exterior dimensions.
I like to use all the sources, compare them, and then throw out the baloney. Also like to ask people that own the cars how they like them. No, not scientific, but you get a sense on how they like the cars. If I had to rely only on experience, I would be among the millions not ever buying a GM again. May give them another try, though it would be something like giving them a strike four. Really! There are a couple to maybe three cars I could live with in the GM line up. If you do the HEAD2HEAD, you may not be too enthused about going forward to the drive test. They so far don't seem to be standing out in those comparisons as value leading. Don't blame me, they wanted me to do the comparison. The ad was always in my face
-Loren
The Civic, with the 40MPG and larger size is the winner, no doubt. Too bad the Cobalt was not a new car, or should I say doesn't appear to look new, and has perhaps less than stellar reliability. Oh well, they tried...... or maybe not.
-Loren
Maybe the engineers designed them to be reliable for 3 years then fall apart?
General Motors Corp. has pulled its advertising from Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times, according to a media report Thursday...
...One person familiar with the situation told the Journal that the amount is perceived by people in the ad industry as "highly significant" and that the action against one of the nation's largest metropolitan newspaper is seen as punitive...
...The decision comes one day after Times published auto reporter Dan Neil's weekly column, in which he wrote that GM's Pontiac G6 was a "sales flop" and that former North American Chairman Robert Lutz and Chief Executive Rick Wagoner should be ousted.
Lutz, along with former Group Vice President Gary Cowger, on Monday were transferred to GM's global development and manufacturing division.
That's pretty good. I'm sure that the G6 will become a much better car because of this!
Maybe the engineers designed them to be reliable for 3 years then fall apart?
Sometimes car reliability ratings will change from year to year. For instance, most cars usually aren't THAT bad in their first year or two, so that skews the ratings a bit. A car that CR rates "much worse than average" might not be all that bad, it just means that the majority of the cars were just better. Kinda like being an A-minus student trying to hang with the Mensa crowd.
But then, say, three years down the road, those much-better than average cars might start to have issues, while the car that was much-worse than average might have gotten over its teething problems. Plus, after 3 years, chances are, most cars are going to be a bit more troubleprone than when they were new. And then, when they're 5-6 years old, the whole scene could be totally different.
GM cars were notorious for this back in the 80's. Most of them got horrible ratings when they were brand-new or a year or two old. But, like a fine wine they got better with age, and as a 5-6 year old used car, they were often pretty reliable compared to other 5-6 year old cars.
Even if your facts are correct about the ownership. The parts are still made in the US. Making them employes Americans. The investments in plant and equipment are being made in America. American construction workers make the plants. American transport companies move the materiel and finished goods. Etc, etc.
Where is the problem in this? Now if you work for a company outside Toyota's group of 'favored' suppliers and they refuse to do business with your company I understand your pov. I've been there. Nonetheless all this production is good for the American economy.
I've also been on the outside ( and inside ) of GM's favored group of suppliers. It's just business. Nothing more.
Look past the trouble in Detroit, and the auto industry is anywhere but in decline. In a growing number of Southern hamlets such as Canton, Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, and other foreign car manufacturers are providing nonunionized jobs -- 33,000 since 2000 -- that pay almost as much as United Auto Workers earn farther north. Consumers are enjoying more choice than ever, while the market as a whole is humming. Car sales in the U.S. inched up last year, to 17 million vehicles, the third-highest ever.
And get this: Even as Ford and GM cut production last year, North American plants built 15.8 million cars and trucks, the same as in 2004. That happened thanks to foreign carmakers producing 4.9 million vehicles, an increase of 500,000 from 2004. Overall production is expected to rise to 16.8 million by 2009, when an estimated 5.8 million vehicles will roll off foreign-owned assembly lines. Looking back, car and truck production in the U.S. has nearly doubled since Detroit's heyday in the early 1960s. "The domestic auto industry is as healthy as it has ever been," says Eric Noble, president of Car Lab, an industry consulting firm in Santa Ana, Calif. "The names on the plants are just changing."
That isn't to say there won't be pain, especially in Michigan. Hiring by foreign auto makers will only partly offset jobs lost as domestic carmakers downsize and their sprawling network of suppliers continues to go through a painful shakeout. Despite new foreign investment, the auto industry employs 200,000 fewer factory workers -- about 950,000 now -- than it did in 2000. Plus, much of the profit made selling cars to Americans heads back to Japan, Korea, or Germany, creating wealth overseas. And even though foreign car companies are investing in the U.S. at a higher rate, imports are still rising, from 2.8 million in 2000 to 3.4 million in 2005, says auto forecaster CSM Worldwide.
But it would be misleading to weave all of these developments into a tragedy. The reality is that many of the layoffs at the Big Three were inevitable. Even if Ford and GM weren't in so much trouble, they and their parts suppliers would be cutting back. Japanese auto makers have set the pace on productivity, forcing GM, Ford, and Chrysler to get in step. In 1999 those companies all needed at least 24 hours to assemble a car. Now it's closer to 20 hours, while Japanese plants do it in about 18, says Harbour Consulting Inc. in Troy, Mich. "This is an industry that has been in need of a restructuring at all levels," says David E. Cole, executive director of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Some industry watchers say American workers aren't competitive, but foreign carmakers are hiring them faster than ever (and picking up political goodwill, to boot). In addition to Toyota's new pickup plant in San Antonio, which opens this year, the surging auto giant will open an SUV plant in Ontario in 2008. Hyundai Motor Corp. will gear up its Montgomery (Ala.) plant, with production expected to rise to 240,000 vehicles this year from 93,000 last year. And Hyundai affiliate Kia Motors Corp. plans to build a 300,000-capacity plant at a site nearby. "Car production is changing hands, and it's going up," says CSM Vice-President Michael Robinet.
Expansion has a nice ripple effect, too. Around every factory is an industrial park full of suppliers. Toyota Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. pack their U.S.-made cars with 65% to 75% domestic parts, compared with 80% to 85% at Ford and GM. Officials in Mississippi estimate that the Nissan factory where Nandra Barnes works has spawned the creation of 25,000 supplier and support jobs that generate a combined $500 million in economic activity. In nearby Madison, three new red-brick shopping centers have sprouted up with a Wal-Mart, a Home Depot, and a Lowe's. "You can drive down the interstate and see it in increased traffic," says Tim Coursey, executive director of the Madison County Economic Development Authority. "We have been busting wide open at the seams."
-Loren
NOT.
The companies are actually foreign companies set up here. Ownership goes back to the foreign company. Money goes back to the foreign country.
In fact having set them up just furthers the distrust of the company because they would do that to change appearances of the source of their parts.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Porsche, while being totally a different car now with nanny control, no oversteer (tow truckers must hate that)
and liquid cooling. Yes, the overall shape is much the same. It was all too perfect to change all that much, as it was years ahead of its time. I assume you are talking about the 911. They have gently changed the lines over time. I guess Mustang could have gone the same route, as in staying with the 1965 shape, and never changing all that much. Keep a notchback and a fastback model the same. But wait, it changed in two years, with a sweep of the fast back all the way to the tail lights. Then it became a rather large car, then the Pinto years, before the comeback years as a Fox body. Actually the Pinto years kept the line going, which is fine, and they too are collector cars. No I did not say classics -- collectors.
Porsche never went adrift in designs between sport, luxury, gas mileage, size, and let's say all over the map. One design was refined. They did not go back and cherry pick an exterior and interior from different years to make one car.
That said, they do have the 944 and other great cars to choose from if the rear engine is not your thing.
If GM and Ford want the instant hits for style by going back, I can think of plenty, like the Malibu SS, Camaro, Fairlane 500 and a whole lot more than look better than the bland of today. And they are RWD too. I would be more encouraged by news that Ford and GM have new designs, and beautiful cars never seen before. How about Moving Forward.
One design side note: Please no more high door sills with little windows. Did not like them on the oldie cars, and chop tops, and do not want this on new cars. I guess you live with it though, as 90% of cars are this way now. AND please let us see some hood out front from the drivers seat.
Can also do without electric steering assist.
-Loren
This is where you're wrong. Compare a Subaru wrx sti to a GTO, with double the cylinders, and more than dbl the displacement. The horespower is within 100 of each other, and the only reason that the sti can even come close in performance is because of a significant weight advantage.
That is exactly my point. When compared to STi, GTO handles like a minivan.
Nevertheless, more money stays home from some "foreign" cars than stays home from "domestic" cars. The new Sonata for example is more "domestic" than the Fusion.
I wish the rules would change for reporting domestic content. Instead of the percentage of foreign/domestic parts, I wish the window sticker would show the percentage of the cost of the car (invoice price)would stay in the USA vs all other countries. We may be surprised!
Here's a hypothetical example:
Where Do Your Dollars Go for the Ripfire 1000?
Mexico 40%
USA 20%
Canada 10%
Japan 10%
Taiwan 9%
Tonga 6%
All Others 5%
The way it's stated now, we could be feeding murderous dictators and wouldn't know it.
Let's get back to the topic.
I've read this indictment many times over the last few weeks (months?) but NEVER any evidence to back this up. Could you refer to a couple of major 'domestic' suppliers which were set up by the imports?
I think that some domestic suppliers have been AQUIRED by the import brands (or partially owned). This is different from "set up". These were ESTABLISHED domestic companies which began supplying the imports. (Why is this OK for the Domestics to do but somehow against the rules for the Imports?) But to say they (the imports) do this to "change the appearances of the source of their parts" is paranoid and false.
The source of the parts ARE domestic (ie. made in the U.S.) regardless of whether or not a 'foreign' company owns part of or all of that supplier. If that supplier is using U.S. labor, U.S. materials, in a plant constructed in the U.S., then the parts are DOMESTIC parts. Why wouldn't an Import manufacturer want to partially or wholly own a supplier for the same reasons that a Domestic might?
Now, let's talk about this concept of all the "money goes back to the foreign country".
What do you think a company (foreign or domestic) does with profit? Perhaps pay dividends to shareholders? Fine, buy stock in Toyota. Perhaps that profit is used to expand their business (upgrade/build factories). Now, who is doing this in AMERICA, and who is doing this overseas? Sees to me like the Domestics are doing more investing in overseas expansion while the Imports are investing in THIS country. So, where does the money go now? Perhaps the profit is used for R&D for future models/improvements? Many of the imports have extensive R&D facilities here in the U.S., so those profits also stay here.
The point is, all those profits DON'T just run home to Japan to be stuck in the Toyoda family vault. That profit is put to WORK and much of that WORK is done here in the U.S.
To assume that profits for 'Imports' instantly flees overseas never to return and that profits for the 'Domestics' stays at home never to leave is simplistic.
My grandmother's cousin has a 1989 Coupe DeVille, that has about 80,000 miles on it, and she's mainly just had fairly petty stuff go bad on it. I do remember a couple years ago, she said that it was driving kind of funny, so I drove it around the block a couple times. I asked her when was the last time she had the transmission serviced and she just looked at me kinda funny like "you're supposed to do that?".
I hope she's keeping up on oil changes and coolant flushes, because I can't imagine that an aluminum V-8 can put up with the neglect that a simple, old fashioned iron block one could!
Oh, CR did test a 1985 Electra. Lemko, here's a review you'll get a kick out of. CR tested an Electra against a 5th Avenue and a Grand Marquis.
"Starting/running. (excellent)
Started and ran well at all times."
That's nice to know, but it's sad that CR felt they had to tell their readers that the car could start and run consistently.
This seems typical:
"Routine handling. (average) Disappointing. Because the Buick is smaller, lighter, and more modern in design, we expected it to handle better than it did. The car responded a little less sluggishly than the Mercury, but the power steering gave little feedback. The soft front suspension bounded over bumps in turns, making directional control feel uncertain. The rear wheels tended to move to the side, sometimes severely, over sharp bumps."
"Emergency handling. (average) The Buick responded sluggishly in the abrupt accident-avoidance maneuvers simulated by our pylon course; it tended to plow straight ahead when we wanted it to turn. The numb power steering made the car hard to control precisely. Although the car felt sloppy, it handled the course safely at respectably high speeds. In hard turns at the test track, the steering felt vague and the car was a bit unsteady, but always controllable."
"Braking. (better than average) The brakes were a bit too sensitive in normal driving. Short stops made the car's nose dive."
Look how many recalls affect GM and Ford and are fire related, and how many color photos do you see on their front page with those cars?
Of course they cater to their demographic. It's called home field advantage.
Edmunds' HQ is in California, so they can be a little more independent. Plus, it's not like 99% of their paid subscribers work for the former Big 3.
Bottom line - look at the content of their auto reporting, and you will find a strong bias. Like for instance comparing a V6 domestic to a 4-cylinder import brand. :P
-juice
In 1986 they got smart and made the 3.8 standard, so they dropped these "300" and "380" designations.
As for starting and running, remember this WAS the Eighties. A lot of cars still had carburetors, and many manufacturers were still in the learning stages when it came to fuel injection. It was still quite common for cars to not start on the first try, not kick down from fast idle once warmed up, occasionally stall out, etc.
One thing that really surprised me was that emergency handling for the Fifth Avenue was rated "better than average". Especially when you consider this car dates back to the 1976 Volare, while the Electra was all-new and the Grand Marquis, new for 1979, was touted as something of a "road car" at the time. I'm guessing part of the reason for that is the wheels and tires. Chrysler usually made big 15x7 rims standard on these cars, whereas the Electra probably had narrow 14x6, and the Grand Marquis, unless it had an optional setup, was probably stuck with undersized rims around 14x6. I had an '89 Gran Fury that handled great when you needed it to, and kept me from getting into trouble on more than one occasion. I had always attributed that to it being a former police car, though. But perhaps Chrysler actually DID put some effort into these M-bodies?
In practice, that would be pretty difficult, but the point is well taken.
It should be pretty obvious: If a car has high US/Canadian parts content and is assembled in the US, then it provides a lot of jobs to all of those American line workers and parts makers, and paid a lot of taxes.
It goes back to the issue for some: Some people would prefer that the Japanese lose, rather than have Americans win. I figure that if people are going to buy Accords and Corollas instead of Malibus and Cobalts, anyway (and with the disparities between them, who can blame the consumer for making those choices?), then I'd prefer that the "imports" be built here, rather than somewhere else.
The obvious solution would have been for the Big 2.5 to have made great cars that wouldn't have made the rivals seem so appealing. But since that didn't happen, this is a bed that they're going to have to lie in.
Then there was the 3.8, which had a 2-bbl carb, and also had 110 hp, although it had more torque than the 3.0. It was used in cars like the Regal and LeSAbre.
Finally, there was the 4.1, which had a 4-bbl carb, 125 hp, and was standard in the RWD Electra. It may have been standard in the Riv and Toro by that time, too, but I can't remember. It was also optional in cars like the Regal, Bonneville, etc.
For 1985, the 4.1 went away. The 3.8 got a fuel-injected 125 hp version for 1985 that was offered in the Century, Cutlass Ciera, Electra, and 98. The carbureted 110 hp 3.8 was still used in the Cutlass Supreme, Regal, Bonneville, Grand Prix, LeSabre, and Delta. It would continue through 1987. The carbureted 3.0 was used as the base engine in the Electra/98, and a mid-level engine in the Ciera/Century. This year a fuel-injected 125 hp 3.0 was also offered in the Grand Am, Somerset Regal, and Calais.
I believe it was 1986 that the fuel-injected 3.8 went to 150 hp. And that year I think they dropped the carbureted 3.0 entirely. Then in either 1987 or 1988 the 3.8 went to 165 hp. Soon thereafter it went to 170 hp, and then I think it was 1996 that the Gen III 3800 came out, with 200-205 hp, more if supercharged.
Funny thing about horsepower, is that often you really DON'T notice the extra power, unless you really stomp it. And then with bigger engines, it's usually torque more than hp you're feeling. For instance, my buddy recently got an Xterra, and that sucker has something like 265-270 hp, which is 100 hp more than my '85 Silverado. In most normal driving, you really don't notice the extra hp, but you sure do if you really floor it. But the funny thing here, is that even with only 165 hp and having to lug 4200 lb around, the pickup seems more like it's held back by its 3-speed automatic and tall 2.56:1 gearing than it is by the engine itself. It's almost like the engine WANTS to perform, but the tranny and rear-end won't let it!
I wonder how the Silverado would perform if it had a 5-speed automatic like the Xterra does? I'm sure the Xterra has a quicker rear-end, too! Now sure, the Xterra would still be quicker, with its 100 extra hp and 40 or so extra ft-lb of torque, but the tranny/rear-end advantage has to count for something.
Routine handling. (average) Disappointing
the power steering gave little feedback.
The soft front suspension bounded over bumps in turns, making directional control feel uncertain.
The rear wheels tended to move to the side, sometimes severely, over sharp bumps.
The Buick responded sluggishly in the abrupt accident-avoidance maneuvers simulated by our pylon course; it tended to plow straight ahead when we wanted it to turn.
The numb power steering made the car hard to control precisely.
Although the car felt sloppy, it handled the course safely at respectably high speeds. In hard turns at the test track, the steering felt vague and the car was a bit unsteady, but always controllable."
The brakes were a bit too sensitive in normal driving
This was “typical” of many American branded cars of the era along with the Buick. Other typical traits of American cars were poor fit and finish and mediocre reliability.
Is it no wonder that many Americans started finding superior alternatives to American branded cars back in the 80’s. These alternatives were from Japan.
We needed a new car in 1984 and never had owned a Japanese brand. With an “open mind” we looked at and test drove models from the 3 US brands and then tested similar sized cars of Japanese brands. Ended up with an 84 Honda because it was superior to anything American. This was one of our vehicles until 1998 (195K). Needed another car in 1986 and did same “open minded” looking and testing of American and Japanese and ended up with another new Honda. Had this one until 2000 (247K).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Now granted, that Cressida scored very well and was one of the highest-rated cars in that issue, so there was some definite value there. But you paid for it.
It didn't hurt fuel economy all that much. My Consumer Guide tested a Crown Vic with the package and a Grand Marquis without it, and the Ford actually got slightly BETTER fuel economy! Not to mention faster off the line and more responsive in general. It did make the ride a bit firmer, though.
I think the package was actually somewhat popular, because I used to see a good number of these cars. They were always easy to tell because of the dual exhaust.
GM offered something called the F41, which was really just a rear sway bar and cost something like $40. It did improve handling, without really sacrificing ride comfort, but I don't think GM ever actually offered a performance package like Ford did on their big cars at that time.
The F41 was always easy to spot from the rear because you could see the sway bar underneath the differential. It was a very inexpensive option, but it doesn't seem like the typical GM buyer cared enough to order it.
Basically, we just wanted out big cars to be floaty and isolated back then. Chryslers tended to be a bit more firm-riding, with better road feel, and IMO slightly better handling. But look who the big sellers tended to be back then when it came to large cars. Ford and GM. Chrysler was such a poor third that they bailed on the big car market after 1981, and ended up passing off the 5th Avenue as a big car for the rest of the decade, although they were actually pretty successful there.
Even the late 80s Grand Am/Cutlass Calais models had poor space efficiency, mid-size on the outside, compact on the inside. I hung out with a group of friends that had a Calais and a Tercel, and they had about the same amount of useful space inside.
-juice
For example...
300 base = Windsor or Newport
300 Touring = Saratoga or the non-letter 300's
300 Limited = New Yorker
300C = Letter Series
As for the way cars evolved, I think Chrysler could have come out with this 300 back in 1988 instead of the Dynasty/New Yorker, and historically it wouldn't have looked the least-bit out of place in time.