GM just openned their European Design Centre this month. This could lead to some interesting new designs; link title
Looks like Saturn will benefit from the Euro influence with the Aura and Sky. If you haven't seen the Aura check; link title Not bad, no BMW, Audi, Lexus, Infinity or Mercedes (but is trying). IMO it would look better without the wide bar across the front. Do you like it or not?
Also, I was reading where GM is going to limit its fleet sales and rental car sales...and use more upgraded models. I think they are reading our posts!
Another reason why Buick is a prestige brand in China is because the last Emperor of the country had two Buicks. History is very much a part of chinese culture so if the last Emperor had a Buick then to your average urban chinese the brand must be high-class.At least that's what I've seen in the news.
Actually the last Aurora looked better than the Aura.
And it has more syllables too!
Looks are completely subjective and I actually prefer the new Aura to the old Aurora. To me the old Aurora looks like a big cigar...kind of fat in the middle and narrow at the two ends. IMO the real test in style is if the car looks good in about 10 years time. Most Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, and I will guess Camry, Honda, Cadillac CTS (sensible good looks) will hold up for ten years. Some examples of cars that might not hold up include; Intrepid, most Buicks and Pontiacs, Taurus, Breeze, Neon, and I know I will get a lot of flack for this one...Monte Carlo. This is an oversized tank with a humougus hood and trunk, 2 doors on this huge boat, and very little interior room. Not exactly form follows function. But this is completely subjective, and it is why some people buy Auroras and some buy Auras, and some buy Monte Carlos.
"Also, I was reading where GM is going to limit its fleet sales and rental car sales...and use more upgraded models. I think they are reading our posts!"
No - they're just following what Ford has done the past 4 years (again, they are excellent followers) reducing their fleet sales, which dropped Ford out of first place in overall sales, and Chevy took over. GM is now the leader in Rental Cars...... Where's that trophy???? :confuse:
Are you talking about say the 2001 Aurora, or the original, like the '99 model year style? Ya know, it is funny how we see the Monte Carlo size wise, when looking back to the 60' large barge was a Caddy coupe. I guess I still see the Monte as a mid-size. It may not be world class in performance, but it may be something to consider, as it is a last of breed. Everything is so practical now-a-days. But I only need two doors, as I rarely have more than one passenger. The Monte even gets good gas mileage. Would I get a DoD one -- probably not. The memories of 8-6-4 come to mind. The base engine, or the 3.9 look like good choices. The car is overpriced, but with say $5K in discounts, or used, it is a deal. You buy it part by part still, as in side air bags, or traction control, though some upgrades are better packaged. Not sure if side air bag is always an add-on. Interesting to see an OnStar delete to save money -- hey, why not, and then you add on anti-lock brakes. Wait a minute, those use to be standard. Anyway, in an age when all cars seem to look alike, and a Camry rear end is starting to do the BMW thing, and a Sonata is looking more Accord, while an Altima (one of my favorites) may be ripping off the Audi/VW roof theme, one thing is sure, only a Monte Carlo looks like a Monte Carlo. Love it or not, it ain't someone elses look.
The CTS is a good stand out car too! For smoothie, non-offensive and long term family car styles, the '92 Camry and Accord stand out. Or for that matter, the '60 Falcon And I bet a nice little Dart, Demon, or heck Nova or Fairlane of the '60s would be well accepted today. Bet the slant six engines are still running like a Timex watch. Or is that Casio watch. I gotta keep up with the times. I buy Casio now, when I want a cheap long lasting watch. -Loren
GM is planning to revive Pontiac (again). This time the plan is to turn the brand to an exclusively rear-wheel drive cars. There would be no trucks, and no front-wheel cars. Check autonews.com
That means the Vibe and Torrent will join the Montana SV6 in the grave yard. The G6 if survives, will join a rear-wheel drive full-size G8, although it's unlikely that we will see a mid-size RWD. The Solstice stays and a new GTO arrives by 2010. All in all, Pontiac will be left with three models only: G8, GTO and Solstice.
Pontiac used to be "wide-track" unique. Never understood why that was such a big deal, but it was different.
Then it became the "excitement" division. Yup, those Bonnevilles were exciting, especially with that uneven firing 231 V-6 in 'em.
Now, it's the "first ever" division as in G6 - a car that doesn't sell as well as the 20 year old Grand Am it replaced.
If they don't do something with it, I don't understand why they have it. The Corvette should join the Pontiac lineup as a RWD car. I was surprised the GTO didn't do better, it was a good car, the interior was sporty. The exterior was a twin to the Grand Am the first ever G-6 replaced. Maybe that was it. They tried so hard to make it a Pontiac, well.....
The great Pontiacs I remember were the Catalina, the Grand Ville (the largest one ever made, I think), Bonnevilles, Grand Prix, and the GTO back then was the Boss. But they had STYLE!! They were sleek, had lots of interior buzz, much attention paid to differentiating them from Chevrolet. Pontiac was a definite "move up" car, then.
GM is so lazy these days......they should just fold it. :sick:
The first 231's were uneven firing, however, the crankshaft was redesigned to make the 231 even firing in 1978. So, the uneven firing is old, old history. The 1977 Bonneville came with the V8 standard.
Are you talking about say the 2001 Aurora, or the original, like the '99 model year style?
I made a major mistake. I looked up Auroras and they all look pretty good for all years. Most Oldsmobiles have pleasant styling. Then I thought it was a Toronado but they all looked pretty nice. Then I found the car I was thinking of, Buick Riviera around 2000; link title That's the car that looks like a big cigar! 2 door cars have there place. I liked a 2 door when I was in sales, you just open one door and put your samples in the back. BMW's and Accords come to mind as smart looking 2 door cars. Monte Carlo is very dated.....overhangs, huge mass for little useable space. I do have a friend who needs a large car with lots of room, so he likes his Monte. IMO Toyota can make styling gaffs too. It is just a personal opinion but the Solera has a big huge rear end on it...I guess it appeals to some guys. Style is totally personal, but a good design will always look good....57 Ford or Chev, 55-57 T-Bird and beyond until they got too big, 70 Dodge Dart (very sensible and classic lines), and many more.
The current DoD engines are using a different technology. I think that they use oil pressure for both the DoD and VVT variations. There are electronic controls, but the 8-6-4 used solenoids to deactivate the cylinders, and they failed frequently, requiring a lot of maintainence. My point is that, if you like DOHC's with VVT, the DOD should not bother you. If DoD troubles you, then probably you should be concerned about DOHC engines in general.
Pontiac used to be "wide-track" unique. Never understood why that was such a big deal, but it was different
Wide track was unique because Pontiac was the first car to put the wheels right out to the edge of the car...so it filled the wheel well and gave better handling. The Pontiacs we got in Canada were actually put on Chev frames, and the wheels were about 6 inches inside the wheel well...it looked really ridiculous. Pontiac was a real leader in the late 50's and 60's. How the great ones fall. Maybe GM's plan is to keep building sales overseas where they can be profitable, and then let North America fade away...with all the union costs and low priced competition moving in.
If this is true, it means they once again have presented a new car line, only to kill it off in a few years. Keep a few good cars, like the Accord and Camry, and improve them. I guess the G6 is a pretty forgetable name in respect to it having any meaning at all. It would appear that GM is like one huge ship without a rudder, adrift on the shark infested waters. -Loren
I heard the V8 in the Chrysler 300 had problems, but perhaps that is just the Internet. Rumors abound. No I do not fear the DOHC. Using one in my present car, as well as, other reliable 4 bangers I have owned. Perhaps, like you say, the new tech really works without fail. I am use to the Big Three building turkeys the first three years, then you buy in the fourth year, or maybe the third year; when you are feeling lucky Rumors or so-so gas mileage for the DoD in the Monte and Impala. The 3.6 and the 3.9 in the Chevy line look like good enough power, with good gas mileage for car up to medium large. The 3.5 V6 in the Monte gets 21 and 31 MPG, which seems pretty good. Not the HP of say the Sonata's 235, but the torque of the 3.5 GM is not bad. Actually, the gas mileage of say the Camaro with the 3.8 V6 was good, while providing 200HP and 225# torque, I think it was. This seems better to me than the Ford 3.8 which never seemed to match the power of GMs V6. -Loren
Wide Track Pontiacs. Yeah those were the good old days! Which Bonneville had a 231 V-6? I don't recall it.
I wasn't surprised the GTO flopped. 1) It wasn't American made. 2) It was overpriced. 3) Was trying to fill in for a car with a excellent reputation for "excitement".
Had that one in my Olds Starfire 1976. Now that was a rough car - all around! One crude car, with the stiffest clutch ever made, with engine revving like it was gonna burst at say 70 to 80 MPH. Like all my cars, I still had fun, and in five years time it was sold for junk at around $300. GM needed a car for the gas crisis, and apparently literally threw this car together. -Loren
True, sls, but the 85 Bonneville didn't, it had the 231 V-6 in it, more even firing admittedly, but still a dog of an engine at that point for a Pontiac. Fine for a Chevy or a small Olds or Buick, but a Pontiac should be "exciting", right? My Bonneville was not exciting.
Just maybe you have no idea what people really want in a vehicle and your presumptions are wrong? Maybe I do???
This is from Forbes;
link title
The new Buick LaCrosse (replacing Regal and Century cars) came out last fall. It is a decent car, but fully loaded it stickers for $32,000 and is up against great competitors. Year-to-date, Buick sold 34,420 copies of the LaCrosse versus a total of 40,938 Regal and Century models in the same period last year.
Coming this fall is a new larger car, called the Lucerne, which will replace the discontinued Park Avenue and the soon-to-be-discontinued LeSabre. The Lucerne looks attractive, and it will offer a V-8 option. But my guess is that GM will overprice the Lucerne, a common GM practice on new models, and its sales won't match the two cars it's supposed to replace.
What does this have do to with your dissing 25% of the US market buying Explorers/SUV's?
One of the major issues with the new Buicks not meeting the recent volumes is that the ATP on the Centurys/Regals/LeSabres were approaching the low 20's if not under. They were also selling heavy into fleet. Following the directions and advice of this forum they have greatly diminished Buick sales to rental fleets. They have also greatly increased the ATP. I would say the ATP for the Century was around $21k and the LeSabre $26K. LaCrosse is selling around $27K ATP and Lucerne I would guess around $30k if not more. Sales will drop.
The downsized '77 Bonneville did have a 301-2bbl standard. If you got a Catalina though, it cames standard with the 231 Buick V-6. That was an unexciting time to be sure, but Pontiac, like everyone else, was trying to appease everyone at once...the government for emissions and mileage requirements, and the buying public which overwhelmingly wanted their cars to be opulent to the point of pimpiness.
I don't know if the full-sized Bonneville ever did get the Buick V-6. By 1980, when big engines really started getting phased out, or especially 1981, when they started making 252 V-6es available in Cadillacs and standard in Electras and Ninety Eights, the Bonneville probably got stuck with a 231 standard. Or perhaps a Pontiac 265 V-8?
The '82-86 Bonneville G (a LeMans that was facelifted to look more important) had a 231 V-6 standard, and a lot of them were ordered with that engine, especially earlier on when people were more concerned about fuel economy.
The early 80's really were a strange period for Pontiac. On one hand, they tried to revitalize themselves with products like the '82 Firebird/Trans Am, J2000/Sunbird, and the 6000, but then they held onto cars like the Bonneville G and Grand Prix, and in mid-1983 even rebadged the Impala, calling it Parisienne, to replace the old Catalina/Bonneville!
Now something like a Grand Prix could be made to look sporty. They were pretty sleek for the time, and could be had with bucket seats and a console. And with the right wheels they looked really sharp. But too many of them got stuck with the 231 V-6. They weren't bad with the Chevy 305, but Pontiac never got a high-performance edition in the vein of the Monte SS or Grand National. There was that 2+2 edition for '86-87, but it still just had a stock 150 hp Chevy 305-4bbl. Too many of them were Brougham editions, with wire wheels and vinyl roofs.
I don't think there was anything they could have done to an '82-86 Bonneville to make it sporty. It was an okay car, and better trimmed than a Malibu, but any pretense of a sporty car was gone. With the Parisienne, if you got one in the right color, with a set of Rally-2's, no fender skirts, and no vinyl on the roof, it was a sharp looking car. Not really sporty, but still a muscular look with a presence. Especially in black.
Pontiac probably could have just dumped their more traditional RWD cars in the early 80's, and nobody would have really cared. The Grand Prix had a pretty good year in 1981, but after that fell off quickly. It sold poorly in the 80's compared to its Monte, Cutlass, and Regal sisters. The Bonneville G moved about 80,000 units in 1982, actually a bit less than the big 1981 Catalina/Bonneville, a car that was dropped due to its poor sales. From there the Bonneville went nowhere but down, selling maybe 40,000 units in 1986.
The Parisienne saw sales improve every year, right up through 1986, but even it never matched the 1981 Catalina/Bonneville.
Meanwhile, products like the Firebird/Trans Am, 6000, Sunbird, and the Grand Am were strong sellers for Pontiac, and clearly where their future lied.
Saw a really nice 1977 Pontiac Bonneville coupe upstate this weekend. It's been a l-o-n-g time since I've seen one - especially in this great condition.
anmd since we don't know what the Asian LaCrosse sells for, it's not really fair to compare it to the US version. Is it even the same car? Maybe it only shares a name.
Are ANY of you guys buying rear seat DVD systems? Seems like a huge waste of $ to me, since the rear seat of that car will get used about 0% of the time. (Our other car is our long trip vehicle)
It is an expensive limo car in China. At least as of two years ago it was bought primarily my executives with drivers. Hence the rear seat amenities. It is the same basic architecture with chinese design.
Yes, could not live w/o rear seat DVD. Remember there are people still in this country that have kids.
Who are you? The official GM spokesman. With your smooth words to smooth over the issue, you can give whoever has the current job a run for their money!
I was just trying to think "WWTS" when I wrote that. Or at least I was thinking what would the media print for their beloved Toyota Friends in the same case. ("WWTS" is the wristband for What Would Toyota Say.)
The 85 Bonneville was a midsized car. The full size Pontiac was the Parisienne which used to be the Bonneville. A V8 was optional on the 85 Bonneville.
Your earlier post was incorrect on the uneven firing of the 231 V6. My experience with the 231 V6 is limited to the FWD sequential fuel injection version on the 86 Electra T-type. On that car performance was very good, not much different than the 455 V8 with 2.56:1 axle ratio that my 76 Riviera had.
But it would be nice if you got off that kick. Toyota and Honda earned their reputations the hard way, by building great cars that lasted. GM used to do this. These reputations took decades to build.
If you go back to the 70s, GM cars more often than not were recommended by Consumer Reports over their domestic brethren. The domestics basically had the midsize and large car market to themselves, since the Asians didn't compete in these size classes and the Europeans were too expensive.
GM and Ford have no one to blame but themselves for burning too many people for too long with inferior products.
with the older 231 V-6 is limited to a 1982 Cutlass Supreme. 0-60 sucked in that car but passing power, such as when you're loafing at 40 and punch it, or 60, was pretty good. And at higher speeds it seemed okay. It was a good highway cruiser.
I also had a 1980 Malibu with the 229 Chevy V-6, and it seemed about the same in 0-60, but not quite as good in passing performance, and it didn't seem as happy at higher speeds. I forget how much torque the Chevy 229 had, but I think it was less than the 190 ft-lb that the 231 had. The Olds was definitely a quieter, better-sounding car. At least until the oil pump went out.
My grandparents had a 1985 LTD with the Ford 232 V-6, and it was a better performer than either. The Ford was fuel-injected though, with 120 hp. That sounds sad today, but the Olds only had 110 hp and the Malibu only had 115. The LTD was also a bit lighter, and Ford seemed to gear their cars a bit better. I think the LTD had a 2.73:1 rear, which while loafy, would still be more responsive than the 2.41:1 in my Cutlass! And I think the Malibu only had a 2.56:1. GM almost seemed like they geared their cars extra tall to keep them out of their peak performance range.
The cars were geared for the gas mileage at cruise. They were set to quickly downshift, often when not really wanted, just because they were geared for cruising. I had a 1980 Cutlass with the 260 V8 and it did the same thing. Compare to a 1977 Cutlass with 350 quadrajet that was great all around. And the gas mileage improved on trips but not really all that much.
Imidazol, do you remember what kind of gas mileage you got with your '77 Cutlass? My '76 LeMans has the Pontiac 350-2bbl, and I only get about 15 out on the highway. It's geared really tall too, also a 2.56:1 I think, but at least with a 350 under the hood, it has enough guts to still move in top gear. Or it would be, if it didn't have a shift kit installed!
Now that I think about it though, I do remember my Mom saying that her '75 LeMans only got about 15-16, and her commute to work was mostly highway. When she traded it on the 1980 Malibu that I ultimately got, she was usually good for 20 or so.
Sometimes I wonder how much gas those tall axle ratios really saved in the "real world"? With my Malibu and Cutlass, both V-6/3-speed automatic, I'd get maybe 22-23 on the highway. However, my '89 Gran Fury, which was an ex-police car, with a 318-4bbl, and a 2.94 rear, 3-speed automatic, would still get around 20-21. And it was probably 300-400 lb heavier than either my Malibu or Cutlass, and a LOT more responsive at higher speeds!
Interestingly, the EPA rating on that Fury was a guzzling 13/15! Now around town, I was lucky to get 13. But out on the highway, I thought it was pretty economical, all things considered.
A buddy of mine had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260 V-8, and I was actually pretty impressed with it. I don't know what kind of fuel economy he got, but that car seemed like a good highway cruiser. And for only having like 100-110 hp, it wasn't that bad in acceleration. Not as quick as something like my Gran Fury, or my '86 Monte with a 305-4bbl, but still a step above the old V-6 GM's I had. That 260 must've been pretty torquey, I guess?
Highway trips probably were in the 18 mpg range. Around home probably was 12-14? The quadrajets did better than the richer-running two barrel versions because the primary barrels were jetted leaner since the power could come as the two other barrels joined in.
The 260 had torque which is what most people are using and sensing when they drive around town int heir cars. I believe it got nearer 20 on the highway trips. I don't remember around town with it. I just loved the car because it was black with burgundy cloth inside so it didn't make much difference and gas was cheap (relatively).
Your highway MPG's really depend on how fast you are cruising. My 71 Riviera with the 455 and I think a 2.93:1 axle ratio, would get about 13-14 at a steady 80 MPH, but at 50 MPH would get about 16 MPG. The 76 Riviera, with the 2.56:1 axle ratio was about 1 MPG better than the 71 I think, but too much time has gone by, so my memory is fuzzy. I do remember that the 76 was sluggish compared with the 71, but it did seem to use less fuel. At some point highway speed limits were reduced too.
highway driving is usually whatever the flow of traffic is, more or less. I try to keep it at around 65-75, although sometimes it's hard not to go faster! As a general rule, I've been trying not to go more than 10 mph over the posted speed limit lately.
FWIW, when the EPA tests their cars, I think the highway cycle they simulate only has an average speed of around 48 mph. I think that's about where most cars get their peak efficiency. Usually at that point I think any automatic tranny would be in top gear, and the torque converter has usually locked up by then.
The highway EPA test is an urban cycle, with the engine warm instead of cold. I think they get up to 60 MPH for part of the distance.
With my 98 Aurora I did cruise at the speed limit and was getting around 27 MPG. On a long trip to the west coast, I decided to limit my speed to either the speed limit or 70 MPH. I average 29 MPG on that trip. My 2002 Seville will also get about 29 MPG if I limit the speed to 70 MPH.
My torque converter will lock up in both 3rd and 4th gears. It will lockup at low power requirement, but if power demand is increased, the torque converter will unlock and will not lockup until the power demand is lower. A steep hill will usually unlock the torque converter at lower speeds.
My comments about the Explorer were written in response to post #5122 which stated; Would'nt you know it, My company then gives me an Explorer as a company vehicle. It's beating me to death, rough riding, twichy on the interstate at speed and poor gas milage. However it does go off road and is good in the mud and winter. It's a pain the rest of the time. I was explaining that those were the impressions I had when I tested it, and I don not understand how it was a best seller. When you wrote, "Maybe you have no idea what people want in a vehicle and your presumptions are wrong" I thought you were refering to my comments on the sales of Buicks. So, here's the thing, I know I am dissing a lot of buyers who chose to buy an Explorer, but I didn't buy it for exactly the reasons stated in the other post. Sorry for the confusion and happy motoring....and what are you driving now?
How could I not read a short post that includes this zinger: Or at least I was thinking what would the media print for their beloved Toyota Friends in the same case. Sounds like the old Nixonian "blame the media" for touting Toyota and dissing the home team.
Posting one person's bad experience with a few Hondas doesn't mean they're all bad. The Edmunds hosts themselves have said repeatedly that the Problems and Solutions boards can't be judged as an indicator of the frequency of problems. For the latter, you need Consumer Reports or JD Powers.
It's known that Honda made many faulty transmissions; these show up as black marks in Consumer Reports surveys. If Honda doesn't maintain their past quality, then their reputation will suffer -- hasn't happened yet.
Ironic though that the last line of the post you listed says: Lastly, I will try Toyota again after 165k trouble free miles w/1994 Camry.
Posting one person's bad experience with a few Hondas doesn't mean they're all bad. The Edmunds hosts themselves have said repeatedly that the Problems and Solutions boards can't be judged as an indicator of the frequency of problems. For the latter, you need Consumer Reports or JD Powers.
You've hit the nail on the head. Some attempt to use individual negative anecdotes as evidence of broader trends, but that's simply erroneous logic.
The fans are diehards, committed to ignoring everything that contradicts their position, while beating the drum whenever they encounter the few exceptions to the rule.
Unfortunately for them, the sales figures say it all: with a few exceptions, the trends clearly favor the mainstream players known for reliability and clearly go against those with bad reputations. No company can make a profit by blaming the customer, but that doesn't stop some of them from trying.
MY issue with some commentors is that they seem to thnk that their lifestyle/choices are the correct ones for everyone. Seems like many here do not have young kids and are retired? Could be wrong. I drive a momivan (as a fulltime dad) and am now trading it in for an Envoy XL. I am driving it now and love it. Ride is very comfortable, holds 4 kids easily in the back and still room for 6 of those suitcases you can carry on airplanes. No, it does not handle like an XL or BMW but I really do not care. Got 20.5 MPG on an all highway trip where we drove about 78 the whole trip. OnStar nav (the old version) worked great. Love it.
And I have driven many other vehicles in my past. Part of my previous job was comparing vehicles, mostly in the midsize market. I drove lots of Camrys and Accords back to back on controlled road surfaces. Also held customer clinics where vehicles were compared to each other (not driven though). Those, who like great handling vehicles like the TL and Accord give up comfort that the Camry and, lets say the similary tuned, LaCrosse give. To each his own but I could not stand driving the TL around here very long. And this from a guy who loves his restored 62 vette and drove all kinds of hard riding cars in his youth (82 Z28, 84 vette, etc.)
You guys were lucky. My 76 Chevelle Laguna S3 with the 400 4bbl got about 11mpg in the city and 11.5 mpg on trips. Either way it was a dog and wouldn't even chirp the tires unless I started out in gravel or sand.
Tahoe sales were up 37 per cent in the first four months of this year from January-April 2005. Demand for the Escalade was one third higher. However, the pace has slowed this month, in line with a general weakening in the new vehicle market. Sales data for May will be released on Thursday.
GM estimates that its share of the full-size SUV market grew to 67.6 per cent in the first four months, from 59 per cent a year earlier.
Its rivals - Ford, Toyota and Nissan - have all lost share. Sales of Ford's Expedition have fallen by 23 per cent; Toyota's Sequoia is down by more than a quarter. "We've had an unusually strong response, better than we ever expected," says John Bergstrom, who owns 18 GM dealerships in Wisconsin.
Big SUVs are especially popular among large families and people who tow boats and trailers.
"The price of gas doesn't seem to affect them at all," says Chris Lee, general manager at a Chevrolet and Cadillac dealership in Bristol, Tennessee.
>If Honda doesn't maintain their past quality, then their reputation will suffer
Naaah. Everyone's too forgiving of their Honday and Toyotas. It's just a quirk. It's just the one that someone got. All of them are really very good. We know the new models will continue the great reputation we've given them. etc.
Apparently the 1994 Camry was pre the sludging problem?
Comments
link title
Looks like Saturn will benefit from the Euro influence with the Aura and Sky. If you haven't seen the Aura check;
link title
Not bad, no BMW, Audi, Lexus, Infinity or Mercedes (but is trying). IMO it would look better without the wide bar across the front. Do you like it or not?
Also, I was reading where GM is going to limit its fleet sales and rental car sales...and use more upgraded models. I think they are reading our posts!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
-Loren
-Loren
And it has more syllables too!
Looks are completely subjective and I actually prefer the new Aura to the old Aurora. To me the old Aurora looks like a big cigar...kind of fat in the middle and narrow at the two ends.
IMO the real test in style is if the car looks good in about 10 years time. Most Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, and I will guess Camry, Honda, Cadillac CTS (sensible good looks) will hold up for ten years. Some examples of cars that might not hold up include; Intrepid, most Buicks and Pontiacs, Taurus, Breeze, Neon, and I know I will get a lot of flack for this one...Monte Carlo. This is an oversized tank with a humougus hood and trunk, 2 doors on this huge boat, and very little interior room. Not exactly form follows function.
But this is completely subjective, and it is why some people buy Auroras and some buy Auras, and some buy Monte Carlos.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
No - they're just following what Ford has done the past 4 years (again, they are excellent followers) reducing their fleet sales, which dropped Ford out of first place in overall sales, and Chevy took over. GM is now the leader in Rental Cars...... Where's that trophy???? :confuse:
The CTS is a good stand out car too! For smoothie, non-offensive and long term family car styles, the '92 Camry and Accord stand out. Or for that matter, the '60 Falcon
Bet the slant six engines are still running like a Timex watch. Or is that Casio watch. I gotta keep up with the times. I buy Casio now, when I want a cheap long lasting watch.
-Loren
That means the Vibe and Torrent will join the Montana SV6 in the grave yard. The G6 if survives, will join a rear-wheel drive full-size G8, although it's unlikely that we will see a mid-size RWD. The Solstice stays and a new GTO arrives by 2010. All in all, Pontiac will be left with three models only: G8, GTO and Solstice.
Then it became the "excitement" division. Yup, those Bonnevilles were exciting, especially with that uneven firing 231 V-6 in 'em.
Now, it's the "first ever" division as in G6 - a car that doesn't sell as well as the 20 year old Grand Am it replaced.
If they don't do something with it, I don't understand why they have it. The Corvette should join the Pontiac lineup as a RWD car. I was surprised the GTO didn't do better, it was a good car, the interior was sporty. The exterior was a twin to the Grand Am the first ever G-6 replaced. Maybe that was it. They tried so hard to make it a Pontiac, well.....
The great Pontiacs I remember were the Catalina, the Grand Ville (the largest one ever made, I think), Bonnevilles, Grand Prix, and the GTO back then was the Boss. But they had STYLE!! They were sleek, had lots of interior buzz, much attention paid to differentiating them from Chevrolet. Pontiac was a definite "move up" car, then.
GM is so lazy these days......they should just fold it. :sick:
I made a major mistake. I looked up Auroras and they all look pretty good for all years. Most Oldsmobiles have pleasant styling. Then I thought it was a Toronado but they all looked pretty nice. Then I found the car I was thinking of,
Buick Riviera around 2000;
link title
That's the car that looks like a big cigar!
2 door cars have there place. I liked a 2 door when I was in sales, you just open one door and put your samples in the back. BMW's and Accords come to mind as smart looking 2 door cars. Monte Carlo is very dated.....overhangs, huge mass for little useable space. I do have a friend who needs a large car with lots of room, so he likes his Monte.
IMO Toyota can make styling gaffs too. It is just a personal opinion but the Solera has a big huge rear end on it...I guess it appeals to some guys.
Style is totally personal, but a good design will always look good....57 Ford or Chev, 55-57 T-Bird and beyond until they got too big, 70 Dodge Dart (very sensible and classic lines), and many more.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Wide track was unique because Pontiac was the first car to put the wheels right out to the edge of the car...so it filled the wheel well and gave better handling. The Pontiacs we got in Canada were actually put on Chev frames, and the wheels were about 6 inches inside the wheel well...it looked really ridiculous. Pontiac was a real leader in the late 50's and 60's. How the great ones fall.
Maybe GM's plan is to keep building sales overseas where they can be profitable, and then let North America fade away...with all the union costs and low priced competition moving in.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
-Loren
Which Bonneville had a 231 V-6? I don't recall it.
I wasn't surprised the GTO flopped. 1) It wasn't American made. 2) It was overpriced. 3) Was trying to fill in for a car with a excellent reputation for "excitement".
-Loren
True, sls, but the 85 Bonneville didn't, it had the 231 V-6 in it, more even firing admittedly, but still a dog of an engine at that point for a Pontiac. Fine for a Chevy or a small Olds or Buick, but a Pontiac should be "exciting", right? My Bonneville was not exciting.
Maybe I do???
This is from Forbes;
link title
The new Buick LaCrosse (replacing Regal and Century cars) came out last fall. It is a decent car, but fully loaded it stickers for $32,000 and is up against great competitors. Year-to-date, Buick sold 34,420 copies of the LaCrosse versus a total of 40,938 Regal and Century models in the same period last year.
Coming this fall is a new larger car, called the Lucerne, which will replace the discontinued Park Avenue and the soon-to-be-discontinued LeSabre. The Lucerne looks attractive, and it will offer a V-8 option. But my guess is that GM will overprice the Lucerne, a common GM practice on new models, and its sales won't match the two cars it's supposed to replace.
What does this have do to with your dissing 25% of the US market buying Explorers/SUV's?
I don't know if the full-sized Bonneville ever did get the Buick V-6. By 1980, when big engines really started getting phased out, or especially 1981, when they started making 252 V-6es available in Cadillacs and standard in Electras and Ninety Eights, the Bonneville probably got stuck with a 231 standard. Or perhaps a Pontiac 265 V-8?
The '82-86 Bonneville G (a LeMans that was facelifted to look more important) had a 231 V-6 standard, and a lot of them were ordered with that engine, especially earlier on when people were more concerned about fuel economy.
The early 80's really were a strange period for Pontiac. On one hand, they tried to revitalize themselves with products like the '82 Firebird/Trans Am, J2000/Sunbird, and the 6000, but then they held onto cars like the Bonneville G and Grand Prix, and in mid-1983 even rebadged the Impala, calling it Parisienne, to replace the old Catalina/Bonneville!
Now something like a Grand Prix could be made to look sporty. They were pretty sleek for the time, and could be had with bucket seats and a console. And with the right wheels they looked really sharp. But too many of them got stuck with the 231 V-6. They weren't bad with the Chevy 305, but Pontiac never got a high-performance edition in the vein of the Monte SS or Grand National. There was that 2+2 edition for '86-87, but it still just had a stock 150 hp Chevy 305-4bbl. Too many of them were Brougham editions, with wire wheels and vinyl roofs.
I don't think there was anything they could have done to an '82-86 Bonneville to make it sporty. It was an okay car, and better trimmed than a Malibu, but any pretense of a sporty car was gone. With the Parisienne, if you got one in the right color, with a set of Rally-2's, no fender skirts, and no vinyl on the roof, it was a sharp looking car. Not really sporty, but still a muscular look with a presence. Especially in black.
Pontiac probably could have just dumped their more traditional RWD cars in the early 80's, and nobody would have really cared. The Grand Prix had a pretty good year in 1981, but after that fell off quickly. It sold poorly in the 80's compared to its Monte, Cutlass, and Regal sisters. The Bonneville G moved about 80,000 units in 1982, actually a bit less than the big 1981 Catalina/Bonneville, a car that was dropped due to its poor sales. From there the Bonneville went nowhere but down, selling maybe 40,000 units in 1986.
The Parisienne saw sales improve every year, right up through 1986, but even it never matched the 1981 Catalina/Bonneville.
Meanwhile, products like the Firebird/Trans Am, 6000, Sunbird, and the Grand Am were strong sellers for Pontiac, and clearly where their future lied.
Are ANY of you guys buying rear seat DVD systems? Seems like a huge waste of $ to me, since the rear seat of that car will get used about 0% of the time. (Our other car is our long trip vehicle)
It is an expensive limo car in China. At least as of two years ago it was bought primarily my executives with drivers. Hence the rear seat amenities. It is the same basic architecture with chinese design.
Yes, could not live w/o rear seat DVD. Remember there are people still in this country that have kids.
China Buick also has a version of the departed US Regal, however.
No designed by GM-shanghai with help from americans living there. It is a W architectured vehicle.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Your earlier post was incorrect on the uneven firing of the 231 V6. My experience with the 231 V6 is limited to the FWD sequential fuel injection version on the 86 Electra T-type. On that car performance was very good, not much different than the 455 V8 with 2.56:1 axle ratio that my 76 Riviera had.
If you go back to the 70s, GM cars more often than not were recommended by Consumer Reports over their domestic brethren. The domestics basically had the midsize and large car market to themselves, since the Asians didn't compete in these size classes and the Europeans were too expensive.
GM and Ford have no one to blame but themselves for burning too many people for too long with inferior products.
I also had a 1980 Malibu with the 229 Chevy V-6, and it seemed about the same in 0-60, but not quite as good in passing performance, and it didn't seem as happy at higher speeds. I forget how much torque the Chevy 229 had, but I think it was less than the 190 ft-lb that the 231 had. The Olds was definitely a quieter, better-sounding car. At least until the oil pump went out.
My grandparents had a 1985 LTD with the Ford 232 V-6, and it was a better performer than either. The Ford was fuel-injected though, with 120 hp. That sounds sad today, but the Olds only had 110 hp and the Malibu only had 115. The LTD was also a bit lighter, and Ford seemed to gear their cars a bit better. I think the LTD had a 2.73:1 rear, which while loafy, would still be more responsive than the 2.41:1 in my Cutlass! And I think the Malibu only had a 2.56:1. GM almost seemed like they geared their cars extra tall to keep them out of their peak performance range.
Makes sense, as gas prices peaked in early 1981, and CAFE standards were ratcheting upward rapidly.
Why don't you just not read my postings rather than commenting if you disagree.
blackexv6, "Honda Accord (2003-2006) Maintenance & Repair" #791, 23 May 2006 5:11 am
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Now that I think about it though, I do remember my Mom saying that her '75 LeMans only got about 15-16, and her commute to work was mostly highway. When she traded it on the 1980 Malibu that I ultimately got, she was usually good for 20 or so.
Sometimes I wonder how much gas those tall axle ratios really saved in the "real world"? With my Malibu and Cutlass, both V-6/3-speed automatic, I'd get maybe 22-23 on the highway. However, my '89 Gran Fury, which was an ex-police car, with a 318-4bbl, and a 2.94 rear, 3-speed automatic, would still get around 20-21. And it was probably 300-400 lb heavier than either my Malibu or Cutlass, and a LOT more responsive at higher speeds!
Interestingly, the EPA rating on that Fury was a guzzling 13/15! Now around town, I was lucky to get 13. But out on the highway, I thought it was pretty economical, all things considered.
A buddy of mine had a 1982 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260 V-8, and I was actually pretty impressed with it. I don't know what kind of fuel economy he got, but that car seemed like a good highway cruiser. And for only having like 100-110 hp, it wasn't that bad in acceleration. Not as quick as something like my Gran Fury, or my '86 Monte with a 305-4bbl, but still a step above the old V-6 GM's I had. That 260 must've been pretty torquey, I guess?
The 260 had torque which is what most people are using and sensing when they drive around town int heir cars. I believe it got nearer 20 on the highway trips. I don't remember around town with it. I just loved the car because it was black with burgundy cloth inside so it didn't make much difference and gas was cheap (relatively).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
FWIW, when the EPA tests their cars, I think the highway cycle they simulate only has an average speed of around 48 mph. I think that's about where most cars get their peak efficiency. Usually at that point I think any automatic tranny would be in top gear, and the torque converter has usually locked up by then.
With my 98 Aurora I did cruise at the speed limit and was getting around 27 MPG. On a long trip to the west coast, I decided to limit my speed to either the speed limit or 70 MPH. I average 29 MPG on that trip. My 2002 Seville will also get about 29 MPG if I limit the speed to 70 MPH.
My torque converter will lock up in both 3rd and 4th gears. It will lockup at low power requirement, but if power demand is increased, the torque converter will unlock and will not lockup until the power demand is lower. A steep hill will usually unlock the torque converter at lower speeds.
Would'nt you know it, My company then gives me an Explorer as a company vehicle. It's beating me to death, rough riding, twichy on the interstate at speed and poor gas milage. However it does go off road and is good in the mud and winter. It's a pain the rest of the time.
I was explaining that those were the impressions I had when I tested it, and I don not understand how it was a best seller.
When you wrote, "Maybe you have no idea what people want in a vehicle and your presumptions are wrong" I thought you were refering to my comments on the sales of Buicks.
So, here's the thing, I know I am dissing a lot of buyers who chose to buy an Explorer, but I didn't buy it for exactly the reasons stated in the other post.
Sorry for the confusion and happy motoring....and what are you driving now?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Posting one person's bad experience with a few Hondas doesn't mean they're all bad. The Edmunds hosts themselves have said repeatedly that the Problems and Solutions boards can't be judged as an indicator of the frequency of problems. For the latter, you need Consumer Reports or JD Powers.
It's known that Honda made many faulty transmissions; these show up as black marks in Consumer Reports surveys. If Honda doesn't maintain their past quality, then their reputation will suffer -- hasn't happened yet.
Ironic though that the last line of the post you listed says: Lastly, I will try Toyota again after 165k trouble free miles w/1994 Camry.
You've hit the nail on the head. Some attempt to use individual negative anecdotes as evidence of broader trends, but that's simply erroneous logic.
The fans are diehards, committed to ignoring everything that contradicts their position, while beating the drum whenever they encounter the few exceptions to the rule.
Unfortunately for them, the sales figures say it all: with a few exceptions, the trends clearly favor the mainstream players known for reliability and clearly go against those with bad reputations. No company can make a profit by blaming the customer, but that doesn't stop some of them from trying.
And I have driven many other vehicles in my past. Part of my previous job was comparing vehicles, mostly in the midsize market. I drove lots of Camrys and Accords back to back on controlled road surfaces. Also held customer clinics where vehicles were compared to each other (not driven though). Those, who like great handling vehicles like the TL and Accord give up comfort that the Camry and, lets say the similary tuned, LaCrosse give. To each his own but I could not stand driving the TL around here very long. And this from a guy who loves his restored 62 vette and drove all kinds of hard riding cars in his youth (82 Z28, 84 vette, etc.)
GM estimates that its share of the full-size SUV market grew to 67.6 per cent in the first four months, from 59 per cent a year earlier.
Its rivals - Ford, Toyota and Nissan - have all lost share. Sales of Ford's Expedition have fallen by 23 per cent; Toyota's Sequoia is down by more than a quarter. "We've had an unusually strong response, better than we ever expected," says John Bergstrom, who owns 18 GM dealerships in Wisconsin.
Big SUVs are especially popular among large families and people who tow boats and trailers.
"The price of gas doesn't seem to affect them at all," says Chris Lee, general manager at a Chevrolet and Cadillac dealership in Bristol, Tennessee.
Naaah. Everyone's too forgiving of their Honday and Toyotas. It's just a quirk. It's just the one that someone got. All of them are really very good. We know the new models will continue the great reputation we've given them. etc.
Apparently the 1994 Camry was pre the sludging problem?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,