Since this vehicle has been the recent subject of debate in this GM thread (I know, we get sidetracked), I've been thinking about the 1991-2001 Explorer.
What was so enticing about it? I mean, it's basically a box, built on the prosaic Ranger chassis. It could hold only 5 people, the same as most sedans (and only 4 in the 2-door version).
I always thought the front end refresh in '95 looked silly, with the large "grinning" plastichrome grille and headlamps. The look hasn't gotten better with age IMO.
Then we learn that Ford apparently cut corners in two ways: by just barely meeting the weak federal roof-crush standard (instead of engineering the vehicle with a large margin of error), and recommending against Firestone's wishes, a tire pressure of only 26 psi. The reason was that the Firestone-recommended pressure of 30 psi could make the vehicle too prone to roll over.
Arguably, this vehicle is what started Ford's current downward spiral. In 1999, Ford appeared to be on the verge of passing GM in US market share, and then just a year later, it all started to fall apart as the Explorer/Firestone fiasco came to light.
Ironic now that Ford has a much better Explorer that they can't move the metal!
Maybe I will consider an older styled car, like a GM Monte.
With so many new cars having strange dashboards which seem to be a yard deep or more, and hoods which are invisible, I sometimes long for the older cars. I may be able to adjust to that one issue, but some cars throw in another curve ball. They have door window sills up to the chin in height. It is just getting kinda weird out there. I understand some people got rid of their Magnums due to poor visibility from the drivers seat. And I assume there are many rich people buying cars now, since they love those 18" to say 21" wagon wheel sized rims. Can we say megabucks to replace a tire! Even the Scion looks like it too tall in the center. A small car with giant - too tall doors. Kinda weird. Things are getting strange. Perhaps used cars of the 90's aren't such a bad option. -Loren
You have a point. I took a brief spin in a Dodge Caliber, and it really did feel like I was sitting in a tub, with the dash so high. The side windows didn't bother me so much, but looking at them from the outside, they really look tiny.
I guess the large side glass of the early 90s (like in the Accord and Lumina) are gone!
It was a totally different beast, but I had an '86 Monte Carlo, and I loved it! My only regret with that car was that its time with me was way too short. My Mom gave it to me in March 1998 with about 179,000 miles on it, and about 3 months later, with 192,000 on the clock, I got t-boned in the parking lot while delivering pizzas.
Even though it was carbureted, that sucker never gave me any fits in bad weather or when it was cold. And it also had decent performance. And somehow, that car just seemed to fit me perfectly. I've driven and ridden in the newer models, and going by EPA interior volume I think they're actually bigger, but that '86 Monte still seemed to fit me just right.
On the subject of high door sills, I saw a guy driving a Solara convertible the other day. It looked like he actually had to bend his arm UP to lean it out the window! And he didn't look like a short guy, either! It looked like the top of his head was about level with the top of the windshield, so it's not like he was some little dude that couldn't see over the windshield!
these days is the flush-mounted window glass many cars have. Looking at it from the outside, the windows may look fairly large, but the glass often overlaps the interior trim, roof pillars, etc, so from the inside looking out, the opening is much smaller. And with the way they tint windows, it's not always so obvious when you're on the outside looking in.
I would think not, because there has to be some structure behind the door skin. As I said before, I don't think smaller windows are necessary for better side impact protection. IMO, it's just a style thing right now.
Well, I go back a little further in time. When my mother decided to replace her '67 Chevy Bel Air 2-door sedan in 1972, my brother and I sort of talked her into getting a Monte Carlo. She was considering another large Chevy, but our garage turned out to be too short to hold it!
The Nova was too small, and actually the Malibu 4-door would have been perfect, since we were living with our aging grandparents at the time. But my mother had always had 2-doors, so it wasn't too hard to convince her to go for the Monte Carlo, huge doors and everything. By the time she made her purchase decision, the redesigned '73s were out, so we got one of those.
My brother and I were in 7th heaven! Unfortunately, since I was away at college at the time, I wasn't able to drive it much during the school year.
We thought it was one of the best looking '73 cars, and evidently the public agreed, as GM sold a ton of them. It had a 350 V8 with 2-barrel carb (the standard engine), but only 140 hp! It had the column-shifted 3-speed automatic.
Ours was dark blue with no vinyl top (thank goodness), AM radio, crank windows, bench seats, no cruise, and those new-fangled radial tires (plus a/c)!
It was a hoot to drive, compared to the dowdy '67 Bel Air with the 250 Six. Gas mileage: uh, not so hot: 8 mpg in town (winter), 9 mpg (summer). But the trips were really short, since we lived in an inner Pittsburgh suburb, where everything you needed was very close. When I drove alone a few times to college with it on the PA Turnpike, I was able to coax 18 mpg in the summer with the a/c on, and 19 mpg in the winter.
Just to give everyone an idea about how nobody thought about gas prices before the Arab oil embargo, we NEVER bothered to calculate mpg in the old '67!
Also, they showed the Opel Antara at the autoshow, as a Vue replacment but then if you look, the replacement is not the cool 3 door, Scion-fighter-looking vehicle, but a 5 door, Sante fe knock off, that is , well, boring, in comparison to the 3 door they showed. Same for the Opel that will replace the Ion, the Astra... .showed a decent, sporty looking 3 door, and we will end up with the Maxx-like 5 door. :mad: What gives? Don't they listen to what people are clamoring for, or they just guessing? If they want to bring a 54 door, or watered down versions of overseas vehicles to the USA, they should at least(also) offer the cool 3 door versions. Take Care/ Not Offense.
Anyhow, I have seen( the 5 door version of Vue, and 3 door( link above this one) and it is ok, but, it seems from various comments, most people went wild for the 3 door, and saw the 5 door, and lost interest(like there aren't enough 5 door wagon-things out already?).
I dunno -- 3-door SUVs make about as much sense as 2-door station wagons back in the old days (except of course for the really small ones like the Wrangler).
I thought the '73 would be more like 250HP and the '83 was the 140HP. I am pretty sure... well somewhat sure on this. My Dad had the '84 Olds Cutlass Wagon with 140HP. You can lose a race up a grade to a Sentra of the same year. The 140HP just didn't cut it. -Loren
I am just spoiled by our 3 door hatchback cars we have had in the past 5 years, I guess. We only carry 2 people in any of our vehicles. Have hauled 160 lbs(4-40lb bags) of salt for the water softener, a water softener(and the box that it was in measured around 5&1/2 feet tall, and over 2 feet wide), and 150 dollars worth of groceries, rear seat down, hatch closed, and room for 2 up front(01 Tiburon)> No need for an SUV, truck, or a sedan that clumsily carries this stuff, with trunk tied open(or shut, depends how you look at it). our tC, have carried wheelbarrows(4 cu ft), law mowers(push type, in the box) and a men's 26" 7 speed, hatch closed, 2 people up front.
As for 5 doors, how about a GT Elantra, looks like a sedan, but isn't. Wagons? No thanks. same for Minivans. TCNO
If they want Conquest sales, give us import owners something we want(btw: the tC sold nearly 75,000 units last year. Not bad for 3 doors, especially since I have been reading they don't sell). Again, take care/ not offense.
The 01 was a decent car. the tC is more "upscale", I guess(feels more like a Corolla). Can't say what an 06 vs 06 would be like(tc vs Tiburon).
I will say this, when I had the Tiburon, and got a wheelbarrow, I put it in the hatch, to the disbelief of some truck owners who were near by(at wal-Mart). Similar thing for our push mower(and other items) from Wal-Mart.... we were loading up the tC, and some guy was almost laughing, I guess thinking we would not fit this stuff into this car. When we shut the hatch, and both got in up front, no problems, he was gawking in surprise. It was funny. Same for the water softener at Lowe's. The loader guy did not think that it would fit. When it did, he said, "man, that thing sure holds a lot"(tiburon).
Same for the 26" men's 7 speed cruiser bike. When I got it at a shop in Indiana, and the guy did not think it would fit without taking taking the front tire off, and I said put the thing in here, and it fit, he was surprised.
These 3 doors can hold a lot of items, odd sizes and shapes.
Yeah, I would consider an Opel, if it were not watered down, changed, etc., but GM showed 3 door concepts, and the news says 5 door vehicles will show up instead of the 3 doors. 5 door vehicles can be cool, if they do not look like wagons(like the Reno or GT Elantra). Nothing wrong with 5 door wagons, but, they are not really what I care for. Also, there are many on the roads now. Some people see the tC, they stare, and ask "what is it", etc(same for the old Tiburon). I think GM had a good idea with the Maxx. The Malibu Maxx is ok, and a 5 door, but GM is dropping that after this year, I read.
Probably buy another tC(or FUSE) in a few years, or Kia ED sporty 3 door, with 200HP, If they make it, and it's decent( see future vehicles forum),(unless VW "Rabbit" is good, and is 3 door...might check it out. Tired of sedans, too. have a Sonata. it's nice, but can't haul odd shaped items, etc, in it, and we do haul quite a few items with the tC, and used to haul a lot of items with the Tiburon).
Not attacking GM products. They are ok. Just why not add something "new" to their Saturn, etc, lineups?
Wish they would bring it here, but from other, more current news, it may not come here but as a 5 door(Santa fe) knock off, with a Opel looking grille, that says Saturn.
It's not bad, but , as evidenced by others opinons on that blog, people want "different', also. 3 doors? yep,that too.
There are a ton of suv/crossover/wagon-things with 5 doors, already on the market.
The Malibu Maxx, at least, tried to look different from the crowded field of players, but , i read, it will be killed off later this year?
Would it hurt to maybe try selling some here, maybe call it a limited run of 3 doors, and if they sell, and sell fast, bring in more down the road. If not, well, at least they gave it a try.
Read this about Saturn. Kind of does not sound good. Maybe the guys in charge should read some blogs, and commments from potential buyers, too, along with other ideas. ? take care/not offense.
I always thought the front end refresh in '95 looked silly, with the large "grinning" plastichrome grille and headlamps.
I have to agree with you on all these points. And, I don't recall any Asian or European cars being recalled on actual major safety issues. Seems the North American companies believe "risk management" is fair game.....it is cheaper to pay off injured people than to do a recall.
I never have understood why they sell so poorly here in he states after the hot-hatch boom in the 80s. I've always had a hatchback (except for two year that I had a pickup only instead) and have always been pleased with their versatility. I managed to get two full sized Christmas trees into my Shadow. The only thing I ever moved with my truck, that I couldn't have gotten into my 89 Civic Si was a love seat and two chairs. And, if I'd done it in two trips, the love seat would have easily fit in the Civic. Ditto for the two chairs.
So, now I may be in the market to get another hatch. I'm torn between a used Malibu Maxx, because you can pick them up fairly cheap, or the Honda Fit, which really reminds me of my 89 Civic Si, but with a lot more safety features.
The question remains, though: Do people in the good ole USA really hate hatchbacks that much, and why?
I thought the '73 would be more like 250HP and the '83 was the 140HP. I am pretty sure... well somewhat sure on this.
Horsepower really started getting cut in the 70's, as compression was cut and the engines got more smog-controlled. I think the first cuts came in 1971, and mainly only to the highest-performance engines. In 1972, horsepower went from the old gross rating to net, and some engines were cut a bit more at the same time, so there was a real loss that was hidden in the "paper" loss.
1973 was a really bad year for GM though, when it came to power; it seems like they suffered worse than Ford or Chrysler. My Granddad had a '72 Impala with a 350-2bbl, and it had 165 hp. Nothing to get excited about, but it did the job. I remember Granddad saying it would get around 14 mpg in local driving and maybe 19 on the highway, although I don't know how accurate that really was. He was a fairly gentle driver, though.
Anyway, back then GM tended to rely a lot on their engines in the 5.7/350 range, moreso than Chrysler, which got a lot of mileage out of their 318/5.2, or Ford with its 302/"5.0" (really a 4.9) Chevy did have a 307 back then (not to be confused with the 1980-90 Olds 307), which put out 130 hp with a 2-bbl carb. Once GM up-sized their large cars for 1971, it was really too small to use in them, and I think the same thing happened for 1973, when the intermediates were enlarged.
I don't know why GM didn't use the 307 more, instead of choking the 350 down to 125-140 hp? Maybe the 350 was still torquier?
The 350-2bbl was the base engine in the 1973 Monte Carlo. I'm sure there was a 4-bbl version available, as well as a 400 (can't remember if it was a 2- or 4-bbl) Somewhere around that time there was also a 402 (an enlarged 396, and for some reason the 402 still got referred to as a "396" :confuse: And at the top of the heap there was a 454-4bbl, which in peak tune might have put out 250 hp or more.
Once GM started getting a handle on emissions controls, they actually had a slight resurgence in the late 70's, with respect to horsepower. By 1977 the 350 was up to 170 hp with a 4-bbl in family cars, and the Camaro might have gotten it up to around 185. But while the hp went up a bit on some of the engines, many of the bigger engines were simply dropped.
1976 was the last year GM used a big-block in passenger cars. The Buick and Olds 455's were dropped, as was the Chevy 454. Pontiac's 455 technically was not a big-block, but more of a "medium block" that could handle a big displacement. This was the common 389/400 of the 60's, and also served bigger displacements such as 421, 428, and 455 CID, as well as a smaller 326/350 variant. In a similar fashion, the Olds 403 was a modified version of the 260/307/350 "Rocket" engine. I don't know if Cadillac's V-8 was really considered a "big block" either. The massive 500 CID was the same block as the 425 and the 368.
Chevy dropped the 350 in everything but the Corvette/Camaro for 1980, relying on the 305 as their biggest engine. And Buick/Olds/Pontiac ditched their 400's and 403's. I think Buick and Pontiac actually dumped their 350's as well, and started using Oldsmobile engines. Then for 1981, even these 350's were dropped, leaving just an Olds 307 as the biggest engine.
While GM had their teething problems with emissions controls around 1973-75, it seemed like Chrysler and Ford had their problems a bit later, like in the late 70's and early 80's. As a result, you saw 318's down to as low as 120 hp, slant sixes with as little as 85-90 horsepower, and even a big Ford 400 with only 159 hp.
1985 started to signal a new beginning with horsepower, although looking back through today's perspective, it still seems pretty bleak. However, that year the 3.8 got fuel injected, going from 110 to 125 hp. Chevy's 305 went from 150 hp to 165 in trucks and the big cars, although stayed at 150 in the midsizers. I think Ford's 302 went from 130 to 140 hp in passenger cars. And even Chrysler's 318 went from 130 to 140 hp. By this time, we also started seeing some relatively powerful Camaros and Mustangs again, and Chrysler was going turbo-crazy.
My Grandma, just annouced a few days ago she wanted to sell me her 02' Oldsmobile Aurora with 44,000 miles on it. We agreed $10,000 would be fair even though the market value is around $4K more. It has the "Shortstar" 3.5 V-6 which is reliable and is pretty darn fuel efficient. It has every option except chrome rims and the 4.0 Northstar. My wife and I are very excited about it and the good deal. She also is going to get it looked over by a mechanic to make sure it's in top working order. I wanted a Aurora because they are safe for my wife and kids, comfortable, and pretty darn reliable. It being used and buying it from grandma I'm getting a good deal. So Loren, I'm getting a Aurora finally. I'll have to wait to get it since the car is still in Florida, and she is in Michigan. I'm pretty sure Lemko, will be happy I'm driving his "style theme" of car :shades:
This is another sad GM story: Saturn has some of the nation's best dealers. The car has a good name among the people. With the right cars and trucks, Saturn could be selling 300,000, maybe 400,000 vehicles per year.
Thanks for the article about Saturn. It really shows what is wrong at GM. Youz guys in this discussion could make better cars. Anyone could see Ions and Maxx's, warmed over Impalas, bloated Buicks, plastic laden Pontiacs aren't the answer. IMO the best cars in the lineup are the Cadilac and I would say even the Malibu (sensible looking and well priced for it's content - though not much fun to drive, but good basic transportation). The Aura looks promising, and the little Asian Buick should be adopted for American use. The truck lines and SUV's are pretty good.In business, if you don't take risks and try something new, you don't do any better than you are doing. Time to get moving. Fewer cars.....but better designs and keep your quality control on the high side (which GM has shown they can do).
The question remains, though: Do people in the good ole USA really hate hatchbacks that much, and why?
They don't sell to well in the U.S. We get some models in Canada that you don't because we buy them in bigger numbers. Might have to do with breaking in and stealing stuff. A trunk makes it a little more difficult for thieves. Also, these days 4 doors outsell 2 doors by a wide margin, so it has got limited appeal to buyers too. Basically a four door hatchback should do the same as the 3 door, with a little extra convenience.
Maybe I will consider an older styled car, like a GM Monte.
Yeh, I like the days when a car was a car. A hood you could see...the whole thing, and an emblem sticking up at the front. And a big rear window and you might even see the end of the trunk. Big windows all around. Front seats that bring your line of vision well over the dash so you aren't barely high enough to see over the dash and door sills. These low roof lines are a joke, and once again terrible design. The car should look like what it is and be functional. The Caddie is a great design, has all the elements needed. I loved my Jeep Cherokee....could see the entire hood and the very back corners. The Chrysler 300 would be a much better looking car if it had larger windows and a higher roof. Boomers like more height so they can get in and out easier. The design allows for all this and it would appeal to a lot of people. How about a Chrysler 300 and 300+ for people who want bigger windows and a better view of the road.
Just listen to the tone and choices of words in the reports. Compare.
Tone, what tone? The Toyota recall story you cited is just a Bloomberg report. I'd hardly call Bloomberg a flaming liberal tree-hugging import-loving media outlet.
wvgasguy said it best: I swear I tried to listen to the tone of that article but perhaps I had my speakers down too low.
Koji Endo, an analyst at Credit Suisse in Tokyo cited in the report, is very commonly quoted in the automotive press, including Automotive News, a respected and surprisingly balanced voice of the auto industry since 1925 (based in Detroit).
Now, if you drop the subject, this will be my last word.
The Chrysler 300 would be a much better looking car if it had larger windows and a higher roof. Boomers like more height so they can get in and out easier. The design allows for all this and it would appeal to a lot of people. How about a Chrysler 300 and 300+ for people who want bigger windows and a better view of the road.
The 300 and Charger appear pretty low-slung compared to something like a Ford 500, but I find their seating position to actually be fairly high, at least compared to the Intrepid, Concorde, and 300M that they replaced. It actually feels a bit higher up off the floor than the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, as well.
I also find them easy to get into and out of because while the windows may be small, the doors themselves are pretty big.
"Tone, what tone? The Toyota recall story you cited is just a Bloomberg report. I'd hardly call Bloomberg a flaming liberal tree-hugging import-loving media outlet."
See, the problem I have with this whole thing is that imidazol97 only posted a recall story on Toyota. Perhaps if he could find a Bloomberg report on GM recalls which DID have a 'tone' he would have a point.
You are absolutely amazing -- a walking, talking encyclopedia of cars! Did you have to look any of that info up, or is it all in your head?
Only because we had one, I know the '73 Monte Carlo had 3 engine choices: the standard 350-2 barrel (140 hp), 350-4 barrel, and 454-4 barrel. I don't remember off the top of my head the hp ratings of the optional engines, but I do have an old brochure lying around somewhere.
You're right that the introduction of Rube Goldberg emissions controls, the switch from gross to SAE net horsepower, and lower compression ratios to accomodate low-octane unleaded gas all contributed to drastic reductions in hp ratings.
Did you have to look any of that info up, or is it all in your head?
That was all off the top of my head, so my apologies if any of it is inaccurate. :P
The Old Car Manual Project (http://www.tocmp.com) has a brochure for a 1973 Monte online, but I can't access their site right now. Either its down or our or LAN has it confused with a dirty site right now.
I did find one on the Covette top minor difficulty from Bloomberg and it reads the same way the Toyo story does. My disdain is for other media sources that aren't as even-handed as the Bloomberg. Their mild tone on the Toyo was their tone with others I see now.
The Shortstar's not bad as chop-block V6s go, and with the money you save via the Grandma discount you can pick up this little number. What does Grandma get to drive now?
tend to be pretty expensive when things do break? Moreso than something like a LeSabre, Park Avenue, or Riviera? I seem to recall hearing that the Northstar 3.5/4.0 are expensive to work on.
My understanding is that it's no less reliable than some Buick with a 3.8, but it's going to cost more when it does break.
That being said, I've always liked the 2nd-gen Aurora, and I think the first one is downright sexy.
Agree with you on the great looks of the first gen. Aurora. That one on Craig's List is close to my neck of the woods. Did you notice that the car "passed expection"?
Last word: I get most of my news by reading (both print and online) -- can't stand mainstream TV with the endless commercials, celebrity worship, and sensationalism and pathos. Meantime, real issues like the incredible suffering in places like Darfur, Sudan get only passing mention.
The aforementioned Automotive News is always a must-read.
"I did find one on the Covette top minor difficulty from Bloomberg and it reads the same way the Toyo story does. My disdain is for other media sources that aren't as even-handed as the Bloomberg."
I'm not trying to say the media is completely even-handed on this issue. All I'm saying is that IF you want to show some sort of bias, you need to have 2 reports from the same source with a different 'tone' for what should be the same type of story.
Does Toyota/Honda seem to get the 'benefit of the doubt' moreso than GM on similar quality issues? I'm sure they do. May be because they've earned it.
Well, my recollection is that GM switched to net ratings in 1971 when they converted to unleaded gasoline. They also posted a gross horsepower rating, a truthfull gross horsepower rating . The 73 and 74 model engines were bad performers largely because they tried to get by with exhaust recirculation and no catalysts. The 75-76 engines were much better running engines with the catalysts, but horsepower was down because dual exhausts were mostly gone, and even with dual exhausts, the exhaust all went into one converter anyway, making the exhaust basically a single exhaust.
GM also put off electronic fuel injection for some time, mainly because they developed digital fuel injection in the late 70's, and recognized that it would be much better than analog fuel injection. The 80 Cadillac's had the first digital throttle body injection system. Then it was phased in on the rest of the cars.
As I recall, my 86 Electra 3.8 had 150 horsepower, not 125. The Cadillac 4100 had 125 horsepower. I have found an 86 brouchure on the Riviera that says 142 horsepower, 200 lb-ft of torque.
See, the problem I have with this whole thing is that imidazol97 only posted a recall story on Toyota. Perhaps if he could find a Bloomberg report on GM recalls which DID have a 'tone' he would have a point.
I, too, would like to some demonstrated, cogent examples of this "bias". It is continually being alleged, yet never proven. Without evidence, it is just fingerpointing, nothing more.
Perhaps the problem here is that some are not defining "bias" correctly. For some, "bias" seems to be defined as using historical data in order to forecast a conclusion, an exercise that most of us would consider to simply be good analysis and research.
If a given product has proven to be reliable over a several year period, it is reasonable to expect it to continue to perform well, yet some would label that as "bias". Apparently, we're supposed to ignore the data entirely in order to be fair...
And may I add, the hatchback has a bit more road noise, and sometime hatch noise. Lots of the cars sold in America were also the lower end, so hatchback became synonymous with econo cars. I have a PT and that car can haul lots of stuff. My guess is that we will have a return of the hatch in America. As mentioned, there are some drawbacks to the design. Keeping the cargo from moving requires a tie down, as it is possible in a wreck things may fly upward and over seats and whack you in the head. Pretty neat though for hauling stuff across town.
Would I seek out a car for the hatchback feature? Probably never. I prefer a trunk to isolate everything, from noise to items becoming air borne. If the car is made that way and I like the car, I may buy it and consider the good side of the hatch style. -Loren
Cars in plus sizes? Hummm? Good idea, as Americans grow Seriously, designing for impact, and sport is great, if it is also functional. I sat in the Crossfire and it had a confining feeling to it more so than a little Miata. Same goes for the 350Z. Little windows, you can not see out of, and high door sills with no way to hand an elbow out of, or see what is next to you. I wonder if shorter kids are totally lost on the side views when parking? -Loren
I hear ya re the 8-hour trips. We never did trips that long when our kids were under 10. Lots of 4 hour trips, however (with no DVD player). GASP! My kids made it the entire way without driving me bonkers.
We did a 2400-mile drive last summer. My kids were 11 and 13. SFBay Area - Eastern Sierra - Death Valley - Grand Canyone - Zion - Bryce - etc. and back. No DVD. Imagine what they would have missed if they'd been watching The Little Mermaid.
My friends with DVD players claim they got them to decrease aggravation (from the kids). I found that they argued with the kids even WITH the DVD player ("NO, the DVD player is only for long trips"). Within a short period of time, the kids have won, and the DVD player is on whenever the kids are in the car.
Kids just don't need that much garbage piped into their brains. A little "down" time, especially these days, would be good once in a while.
But that Asian LaCrosse back seat is more designed for adults, I'd say. If I was spending any significant time back there, I'd have a DVD player for MY viewing.
There's BMW, Mercedes, VW, Suburu, Mazda, (Honda and Camry had great looking wagons at one time)all with wagons...but no GM's, Fords or Chrysler's.
The Chrysler Pacifica is a wagon.
The SRX is a wagon. (though if you threw your dirty bike in mine, I'd smack you) ;-D
There are two Volvo wagons. (V70/XC70 and V50)
I agree that SUVs eat into wagon sales, but I'd blame the minivan, more. The Town and Country is way more useful than a wagon, though I agree that wagons can be the right vehicle for most folks. A fuel-efficient SRX (with AWD) is close to the perfect family vehicle.
Agree completely with the trips with things to see. Also my kids cannot read yet. I would go crazy if I had to sit in the back of a car and look at trees for hours. Even coloring would get boring!
Wagons have as much space in them as SUV's but are more economical to run.
No they do not. Once you put kids in the wagons back seat there is little or no luggage space. Basically worthless for long trips if you have kids in the back. SUV's have lots of storage behind the 3rd seat for all the luggage. I guess we could all go back to putting the carrier on top of the roof! (whoops, that would drop the MPG)
It is style mostly. The 300 would never get the styling accolades it has gotten if they lowered the window sill. They severely compromised the functionality of the vehicle for exterior styling. Think back to the hot rods. They lower the roof.
Comments
What was so enticing about it? I mean, it's basically a box, built on the prosaic Ranger chassis. It could hold only 5 people, the same as most sedans (and only 4 in the 2-door version).
I always thought the front end refresh in '95 looked silly, with the large "grinning" plastichrome grille and headlamps. The look hasn't gotten better with age IMO.
Then we learn that Ford apparently cut corners in two ways: by just barely meeting the weak federal roof-crush standard (instead of engineering the vehicle with a large margin of error), and recommending against Firestone's wishes, a tire pressure of only 26 psi. The reason was that the Firestone-recommended pressure of 30 psi could make the vehicle too prone to roll over.
Arguably, this vehicle is what started Ford's current downward spiral. In 1999, Ford appeared to be on the verge of passing GM in US market share, and then just a year later, it all started to fall apart as the Explorer/Firestone fiasco came to light.
Ironic now that Ford has a much better Explorer that they can't move the metal!
With so many new cars having strange dashboards which seem to be a yard deep or more, and hoods which are invisible, I sometimes long for the older cars. I may be able to adjust to that one issue, but some cars throw in another curve ball. They have door window sills up to the chin in height. It is just getting kinda weird out there. I understand some people got rid of their Magnums due to poor visibility from the drivers seat. And I assume there are many rich people buying cars now, since they love those 18" to say 21" wagon wheel sized rims. Can we say megabucks to replace a tire! Even the Scion looks like it too tall in the center. A small car with giant - too tall doors. Kinda weird. Things are getting strange. Perhaps used cars of the 90's aren't such a bad option.
-Loren
I guess the large side glass of the early 90s (like in the Accord and Lumina) are gone!
Even though it was carbureted, that sucker never gave me any fits in bad weather or when it was cold. And it also had decent performance. And somehow, that car just seemed to fit me perfectly. I've driven and ridden in the newer models, and going by EPA interior volume I think they're actually bigger, but that '86 Monte still seemed to fit me just right.
On the subject of high door sills, I saw a guy driving a Solara convertible the other day. It looked like he actually had to bend his arm UP to lean it out the window! And he didn't look like a short guy, either! It looked like the top of his head was about level with the top of the windshield, so it's not like he was some little dude that couldn't see over the windshield!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Please check my profile before you assume I'm anti-GM.
The Nova was too small, and actually the Malibu 4-door would have been perfect, since we were living with our aging grandparents at the time. But my mother had always had 2-doors, so it wasn't too hard to convince her to go for the Monte Carlo, huge doors and everything. By the time she made her purchase decision, the redesigned '73s were out, so we got one of those.
My brother and I were in 7th heaven! Unfortunately, since I was away at college at the time, I wasn't able to drive it much during the school year.
We thought it was one of the best looking '73 cars, and evidently the public agreed, as GM sold a ton of them. It had a 350 V8 with 2-barrel carb (the standard engine), but only 140 hp! It had the column-shifted 3-speed automatic.
Ours was dark blue with no vinyl top (thank goodness), AM radio, crank windows, bench seats, no cruise, and those new-fangled radial tires (plus a/c)!
It was a hoot to drive, compared to the dowdy '67 Bel Air with the 250 Six. Gas mileage: uh, not so hot: 8 mpg in town (winter), 9 mpg (summer). But the trips were really short, since we lived in an inner Pittsburgh suburb, where everything you needed was very close. When I drove alone a few times to college with it on the PA Turnpike, I was able to coax 18 mpg in the summer with the a/c on, and 19 mpg in the winter.
Just to give everyone an idea about how nobody thought about gas prices before the Arab oil embargo, we NEVER bothered to calculate mpg in the old '67!
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/05/30/008986.html
Also, they showed the Opel Antara at the autoshow, as a Vue replacment but then if you look, the replacement is not the cool 3 door, Scion-fighter-looking vehicle, but a 5 door, Sante fe knock off, that is , well, boring, in comparison to the 3 door they showed.
Same for the Opel that will replace the Ion, the Astra... .showed a decent, sporty looking 3 door, and we will end up with the Maxx-like 5 door.
:mad:
What gives?
Don't they listen to what people are clamoring for, or they just guessing? If they want to bring a 54 door, or watered down versions of overseas vehicles to the USA, they should at least(also) offer the cool 3 door versions.
Take Care/ Not Offense.
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2005/09/new_look_for_op_1.html
http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/18/is-the-opel-astra-the-next-saturn-ion/
This is the 5 door...
Anyhow, I have seen( the 5 door version of Vue, and 3 door( link above this one) and it is ok, but, it seems from various comments, most people went wild for the 3 door, and saw the 5 door, and lost interest(like there aren't enough 5 door wagon-things out already?).
Take care/ not offense.
My Dad had the '84 Olds Cutlass Wagon with 140HP. You can lose a race up a grade to a Sentra of the same year. The 140HP just didn't cut it.
-Loren
Have hauled 160 lbs(4-40lb bags) of salt for the water softener, a water softener(and the box that it was in measured around 5&1/2 feet tall, and over 2 feet wide),
and 150 dollars worth of groceries, rear seat down, hatch closed, and room for 2 up front(01 Tiburon)> No need for an SUV, truck, or a sedan that clumsily carries this stuff, with trunk tied open(or shut, depends how you look at it).
our tC, have carried wheelbarrows(4 cu ft), law mowers(push type, in the box) and a men's 26" 7 speed, hatch closed, 2 people up front.
As for 5 doors, how about a GT Elantra, looks like a sedan, but isn't. Wagons? No thanks. same for Minivans.
TCNO
If they want Conquest sales, give us import owners something we want(btw: the tC sold nearly 75,000 units last year. Not bad for 3 doors, especially since I have been reading they don't sell).
Again, take care/ not offense.
-Loren
Can't say what an 06 vs 06 would be like(tc vs Tiburon).
I will say this, when I had the Tiburon, and got a wheelbarrow, I put it in the hatch, to the disbelief of some truck owners who were near by(at wal-Mart).
Similar thing for our push mower(and other items) from Wal-Mart.... we were loading up the tC, and some guy was almost laughing, I guess thinking we would not fit this stuff into this car. When we shut the hatch, and both got in up front, no problems, he was gawking in surprise.
It was funny. Same for the water softener at Lowe's. The loader guy did not think that it would fit. When it did, he said, "man, that thing sure holds a lot"(tiburon).
Same for the 26" men's 7 speed cruiser bike. When I got it at a shop in Indiana, and the guy did not think it would fit without taking taking the front tire off, and I said put the thing in here, and it fit, he was surprised.
These 3 doors can hold a lot of items, odd sizes and shapes.
Yeah, I would consider an Opel, if it were not watered down, changed, etc., but GM showed 3 door concepts, and the news says 5 door vehicles will show up instead of the 3 doors. 5 door vehicles can be cool, if they do not look like wagons(like the Reno or GT Elantra). Nothing wrong with 5 door wagons, but, they are not really what I care for. Also, there are many on the roads now.
Some people see the tC, they stare, and ask
"what is it", etc(same for the old Tiburon).
I think GM had a good idea with the Maxx.
The Malibu Maxx is ok, and a 5 door, but GM is dropping that after this year, I read.
Probably buy another tC(or FUSE) in a few years, or Kia ED sporty 3 door, with 200HP, If they make it, and it's decent( see future vehicles forum),(unless VW "Rabbit" is good, and is 3 door...might check it out. Tired of sedans, too. have a Sonata. it's nice, but can't haul odd shaped items, etc, in it, and we do haul quite a few items with the tC, and used to haul a lot of items with the Tiburon).
Not attacking GM products. They are ok. Just why not add something "new" to their Saturn, etc, lineups?
tacke care/not offense.
read the comments after the story about the Antara /"Vue"....
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2005/09/new_look_for_op_1.html
Wish they would bring it here, but from other, more current news, it may not come here but as a 5 door(Santa fe) knock off, with a Opel looking grille, that says Saturn.
It's not bad, but , as evidenced by others opinons on that blog, people want "different', also. 3 doors? yep,that too.
There are a ton of suv/crossover/wagon-things with 5 doors, already on the market.
The Malibu Maxx, at least, tried to look different from the crowded field of players, but , i read, it will be killed off later this year?
Would it hurt to maybe try selling some here, maybe call it a limited run of 3 doors, and if they sell, and sell fast, bring in more down the road. If not, well, at least they gave it a try.
http://www.forbes.com/columnists/columnists/2006/05/22/flint-saturn-cars-cz_jf_0- 523flint.html
Read this about Saturn. Kind of does not sound good.
Maybe the guys in charge should read some blogs, and commments from potential buyers, too, along with other ideas.
?
take care/not offense.
Just listen to the tone and choices of words in the reports. Compare.
Back to more fun topics...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I have to agree with you on all these points. And, I don't recall any Asian or European cars being recalled on actual major safety issues. Seems the North American companies believe "risk management" is fair game.....it is cheaper to pay off injured people than to do a recall.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
So, now I may be in the market to get another hatch. I'm torn between a used Malibu Maxx, because you can pick them up fairly cheap, or the Honda Fit, which really reminds me of my 89 Civic Si, but with a lot more safety features.
The question remains, though: Do people in the good ole USA really hate hatchbacks that much, and why?
Horsepower really started getting cut in the 70's, as compression was cut and the engines got more smog-controlled. I think the first cuts came in 1971, and mainly only to the highest-performance engines. In 1972, horsepower went from the old gross rating to net, and some engines were cut a bit more at the same time, so there was a real loss that was hidden in the "paper" loss.
1973 was a really bad year for GM though, when it came to power; it seems like they suffered worse than Ford or Chrysler. My Granddad had a '72 Impala with a 350-2bbl, and it had 165 hp. Nothing to get excited about, but it did the job. I remember Granddad saying it would get around 14 mpg in local driving and maybe 19 on the highway, although I don't know how accurate that really was. He was a fairly gentle driver, though.
Anyway, back then GM tended to rely a lot on their engines in the 5.7/350 range, moreso than Chrysler, which got a lot of mileage out of their 318/5.2, or Ford with its 302/"5.0" (really a 4.9) Chevy did have a 307 back then (not to be confused with the 1980-90 Olds 307), which put out 130 hp with a 2-bbl carb. Once GM up-sized their large cars for 1971, it was really too small to use in them, and I think the same thing happened for 1973, when the intermediates were enlarged.
I don't know why GM didn't use the 307 more, instead of choking the 350 down to 125-140 hp? Maybe the 350 was still torquier?
The 350-2bbl was the base engine in the 1973 Monte Carlo. I'm sure there was a 4-bbl version available, as well as a 400 (can't remember if it was a 2- or 4-bbl) Somewhere around that time there was also a 402 (an enlarged 396, and for some reason the 402 still got referred to as a "396" :confuse: And at the top of the heap there was a 454-4bbl, which in peak tune might have put out 250 hp or more.
Once GM started getting a handle on emissions controls, they actually had a slight resurgence in the late 70's, with respect to horsepower. By 1977 the 350 was up to 170 hp with a 4-bbl in family cars, and the Camaro might have gotten it up to around 185. But while the hp went up a bit on some of the engines, many of the bigger engines were simply dropped.
1976 was the last year GM used a big-block in passenger cars. The Buick and Olds 455's were dropped, as was the Chevy 454. Pontiac's 455 technically was not a big-block, but more of a "medium block" that could handle a big displacement. This was the common 389/400 of the 60's, and also served bigger displacements such as 421, 428, and 455 CID, as well as a smaller 326/350 variant. In a similar fashion, the Olds 403 was a modified version of the 260/307/350 "Rocket" engine. I don't know if Cadillac's V-8 was really considered a "big block" either. The massive 500 CID was the same block as the 425 and the 368.
Chevy dropped the 350 in everything but the Corvette/Camaro for 1980, relying on the 305 as their biggest engine. And Buick/Olds/Pontiac ditched their 400's and 403's. I think Buick and Pontiac actually dumped their 350's as well, and started using Oldsmobile engines. Then for 1981, even these 350's were dropped, leaving just an Olds 307 as the biggest engine.
While GM had their teething problems with emissions controls around 1973-75, it seemed like Chrysler and Ford had their problems a bit later, like in the late 70's and early 80's. As a result, you saw 318's down to as low as 120 hp, slant sixes with as little as 85-90 horsepower, and even a big Ford 400 with only 159 hp.
1985 started to signal a new beginning with horsepower, although looking back through today's perspective, it still seems pretty bleak. However, that year the 3.8 got fuel injected, going from 110 to 125 hp. Chevy's 305 went from 150 hp to 165 in trucks and the big cars, although stayed at 150 in the midsizers. I think Ford's 302 went from 130 to 140 hp in passenger cars. And even Chrysler's 318 went from 130 to 140 hp. By this time, we also started seeing some relatively powerful Camaros and Mustangs again, and Chrysler was going turbo-crazy.
Rocky
Thanks for the article about Saturn. It really shows what is wrong at GM. Youz guys in this discussion could make better cars. Anyone could see Ions and Maxx's, warmed over Impalas, bloated Buicks, plastic laden Pontiacs aren't the answer. IMO the best cars in the lineup are the Cadilac and I would say even the Malibu (sensible looking and well priced for it's content - though not much fun to drive, but good basic transportation). The Aura looks promising, and the little Asian Buick should be adopted for American use. The truck lines and SUV's are pretty good.In business, if you don't take risks and try something new, you don't do any better than you are doing.
Time to get moving. Fewer cars.....but better designs and keep your quality control on the high side (which GM has shown they can do).
link title
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
They don't sell to well in the U.S. We get some models in Canada that you don't because we buy them in bigger numbers. Might have to do with breaking in and stealing stuff. A trunk makes it a little more difficult for thieves. Also, these days 4 doors outsell 2 doors by a wide margin, so it has got limited appeal to buyers too. Basically a four door hatchback should do the same as the 3 door, with a little extra convenience.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Yeh, I like the days when a car was a car. A hood you could see...the whole thing, and an emblem sticking up at the front. And a big rear window and you might even see the end of the trunk. Big windows all around. Front seats that bring your line of vision well over the dash so you aren't barely high enough to see over the dash and door sills. These low roof lines are a joke, and once again terrible design. The car should look like what it is and be functional. The Caddie is a great design, has all the elements needed. I loved my Jeep Cherokee....could see the entire hood and the very back corners.
The Chrysler 300 would be a much better looking car if it had larger windows and a higher roof. Boomers like more height so they can get in and out easier. The design allows for all this and it would appeal to a lot of people. How about a Chrysler 300 and 300+ for people who want bigger windows and a better view of the road.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
GM is going out of business soon?
Tone, what tone? The Toyota recall story you cited is just a Bloomberg report. I'd hardly call Bloomberg a flaming liberal tree-hugging import-loving media outlet.
wvgasguy said it best: I swear I tried to listen to the tone of that article but perhaps I had my speakers down too low.
Koji Endo, an analyst at Credit Suisse in Tokyo cited in the report, is very commonly quoted in the automotive press, including Automotive News, a respected and surprisingly balanced voice of the auto industry since 1925 (based in Detroit).
Now, if you drop the subject, this will be my last word.
The 300 and Charger appear pretty low-slung compared to something like a Ford 500, but I find their seating position to actually be fairly high, at least compared to the Intrepid, Concorde, and 300M that they replaced. It actually feels a bit higher up off the floor than the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, as well.
I also find them easy to get into and out of because while the windows may be small, the doors themselves are pretty big.
But then, I'm not a boomer. :shades:
See, the problem I have with this whole thing is that imidazol97 only posted a recall story on Toyota. Perhaps if he could find a Bloomberg report on GM recalls which DID have a 'tone' he would have a point.
Only because we had one, I know the '73 Monte Carlo had 3 engine choices: the standard 350-2 barrel (140 hp), 350-4 barrel, and 454-4 barrel. I don't remember off the top of my head the hp ratings of the optional engines, but I do have an old brochure lying around somewhere.
You're right that the introduction of Rube Goldberg emissions controls, the switch from gross to SAE net horsepower, and lower compression ratios to accomodate low-octane unleaded gas all contributed to drastic reductions in hp ratings.
That was all off the top of my head, so my apologies if any of it is inaccurate. :P
The Old Car Manual Project (http://www.tocmp.com) has a brochure for a 1973 Monte online, but I can't access their site right now. Either its down or our or LAN has it confused with a dirty site right now.
Last word, 210?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My understanding is that it's no less reliable than some Buick with a 3.8, but it's going to cost more when it does break.
That being said, I've always liked the 2nd-gen Aurora, and I think the first one is downright sexy.
The aforementioned Automotive News is always a must-read.
I'm not trying to say the media is completely even-handed on this issue. All I'm saying is that IF you want to show some sort of bias, you need to have 2 reports from the same source with a different 'tone' for what should be the same type of story.
Does Toyota/Honda seem to get the 'benefit of the doubt' moreso than GM on similar quality issues? I'm sure they do. May be because they've earned it.
GM also put off electronic fuel injection for some time, mainly because they developed digital fuel injection in the late 70's, and recognized that it would be much better than analog fuel injection. The 80 Cadillac's had the first digital throttle body injection system. Then it was phased in on the rest of the cars.
As I recall, my 86 Electra 3.8 had 150 horsepower, not 125. The Cadillac 4100 had 125 horsepower. I have found an 86 brouchure on the Riviera that says 142 horsepower, 200 lb-ft of torque.
I, too, would like to some demonstrated, cogent examples of this "bias". It is continually being alleged, yet never proven. Without evidence, it is just fingerpointing, nothing more.
Perhaps the problem here is that some are not defining "bias" correctly. For some, "bias" seems to be defined as using historical data in order to forecast a conclusion, an exercise that most of us would consider to simply be good analysis and research.
If a given product has proven to be reliable over a several year period, it is reasonable to expect it to continue to perform well, yet some would label that as "bias". Apparently, we're supposed to ignore the data entirely in order to be fair...
Would I seek out a car for the hatchback feature? Probably never. I prefer a trunk to isolate everything, from noise to items becoming air borne. If the car is made that way and I like the car, I may buy it and consider the good side of the hatch style.
-Loren
Seriously, designing for impact, and sport is great, if it is also functional. I sat in the Crossfire and it had a confining feeling to it more so than a little Miata. Same goes for the 350Z. Little windows, you can not see out of, and high door sills with no way to hand an elbow out of, or see what is next to you. I wonder if shorter kids are totally lost on the side views when parking?
-Loren
We did a 2400-mile drive last summer. My kids were 11 and 13. SFBay Area - Eastern Sierra - Death Valley - Grand Canyone - Zion - Bryce - etc. and back. No DVD. Imagine what they would have missed if they'd been watching The Little Mermaid.
My friends with DVD players claim they got them to decrease aggravation (from the kids). I found that they argued with the kids even WITH the DVD player ("NO, the DVD player is only for long trips"). Within a short period of time, the kids have won, and the DVD player is on whenever the kids are in the car.
Kids just don't need that much garbage piped into their brains. A little "down" time, especially these days, would be good once in a while.
But that Asian LaCrosse back seat is more designed for adults, I'd say. If I was spending any significant time back there, I'd have a DVD player for MY viewing.
But I agree - to each his own.
As the percentage of "high bumpers" (SUVs) has been increasing, more attention is being paid to protecting car passengers from those bumpers.
I don't think it's style, since everyone hates it.
The Chrysler Pacifica is a wagon.
The SRX is a wagon. (though if you threw your dirty bike in mine, I'd smack you) ;-D
There are two Volvo wagons. (V70/XC70 and V50)
I agree that SUVs eat into wagon sales, but I'd blame the minivan, more. The Town and Country is way more useful than a wagon, though I agree that wagons can be the right vehicle for most folks. A fuel-efficient SRX (with AWD) is close to the perfect family vehicle.
No they do not. Once you put kids in the wagons back seat there is little or no luggage space. Basically worthless for long trips if you have kids in the back. SUV's have lots of storage behind the 3rd seat for all the luggage. I guess we could all go back to putting the carrier on top of the roof! (whoops, that would drop the MPG)
I can't wait to hear that my kids are in counseling because their daddy wouldn't get a DVD systems for the minivan. :-)