I agree re the SRX styling. Great car to drive, however.
I think GM was brilliant re the Escalade. The SUV as well as the truck.
But they need to do something re the SRX. How does the SRX stack up, from a sales perspective?
GM needs to do something to keep the families who move to Volvo and Daimler (and BMW?) wagons. Some of these folks don't want to drive an SUV (or a minivan). I don't like the looks of the DC wagon, but it is better than the SRX.
If Volvo can satisfy the Euro regulators without tiny windows, how come GM And DC have gone nearly windowless? Those slab-sides on the SRX are just ugly. (and I'm a guy who LIKES the SRX!!)
Would imagine the old 3.8 OHV is the easiest to work on. It seems to have a following of the loyal. Not too bad in torque at say 225#. I think the first generation Aurora will be something we see in classic car shows. Actually, some people have entered them already. Sort of the last hurrah for Olds. Of course prior to that, any Cutlass RWD or first run of the Toronado would be cool to own. How about a 442 and you pay my gas? Didn't think you would like that one.
People were collecting those '79 Sevilles, but I heard the repair bills got pretty high. It is on a Nova chassis, but there may be something about them which makes them troublesome, or at least too expensive to repair -- not sure what the score is on those. -Loren
A real wagon body should not be taller than 60 inches. The SRX is about 68 inches, with a ground clearance of more than 8 inches. To make it into a "crossover", I would like to see the body height reduced by 5 inches and the ground clearance reduced by 2 inches (so the body would only lose 3 inches inside). The ground clearance could be driver adjustable.
but lots of folks WANT the ground clearance. I need to traverse a gravel road (and snowy conditions), on occasion, and I wanted some ground clearance. (I ended up with an SUV.)
Of course, people have made it through the snow in a normal Volvo wagon for the last thirty years, eh?
Todays wagon is the minivan. Do see a few wagons hitting the scene though. And then there is the sport wagon. The A3. Volvo was big into wagons, and then the old sport wagon hatchback thing.
sls: I didn't buy one. I loved the 8, but wanted the fuel economy of the 6. I ended up with an SUV as I needed some off-road capability, unfortunately. And my wife felt pretentious driving a Caddy. :-( I love what we bought, but I think the SRX would have made me pretty happy.
Oh, I thought one of your post indicated that you had one. I sort of like the SRX, except for the fuel consumption that the EPA rates it at. My V8 FWD SLS gets around 29 on the highway if I take it easy. I am afraid that a V6 SRX would do well to get 24 MPG if one took it very easy (like no more than 60 MPH).
And may I add, the hatchback has a bit more road noise, and sometime hatch noise Yup, forgot about that. The sound of windshield washer fluid sloshing around. This does raise another question, what became of the station wagon? We like to have at least one station wagon or SUV type vehicle in the family because you never know when you need to haul a TV or chair or bike or tree. 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. Wagons have as much space in them as SUV's but are more economical to run. The SUV craze kind of hurt the wagon sales, but there still could be a market for these useful vehicles.
The CTS would make a great looking wagon...the style lends itself very nicely...bulky and square like a wagon should be. The SRX just misses on it's styling cues. Much better looking SUV's out there, Volvo's, GMC's, X5's, Escapes...almost everything. Maybe they are trying to make an SUV which should be a working vehicle, look like a a luxo-Caddie. I don't know but it is a miss.
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.
Yeah, that engine went to 150 hp for 1986. However, in 1985 it had 125. The old 2-bbl carb version stayed at 110 through the end in 1987.
I think it was 1987 or 1988 that the 3.8 went to 165 hp, and then soon after to 170.
"It is on a Nova chassis, but there may be something about them which makes them troublesome, or at least too expensive to repair -- not sure what the score is on those."
Well, as one who had an 81 Malibu, which interited the roofline from the 79 Seville, I can tell ya that the Malibu was no treat to keep running and repaired - so by now, it must be a nightmare to keep one going with the Cadillac gizmos on it.
It is nostalgic to remember, that the downsized Seville, (built on the Nova platform) really made wealthy people feel like they were saving gas, and helping the environment, and saving money, etc. I knew several of them. But in reality, that car got about 1 less mpg than the big caddy did with the 425cid motor. The 350cid that the Seville had, wasn't that much smaller or more economical at all.
Kind of like buying a Hybrid today, paying $5,000 more for it than the gas version, and getting 5 more mpg....
People were collecting those '79 Sevilles, but I heard the repair bills got pretty high. It is on a Nova chassis, but there may be something about them which makes them troublesome, or at least too expensive to repair -- not sure what the score is on those.
I don't think the '75-79 Sevilles were really too bad, it's just that they had power EVERYTHING on them, and I think the Oldsmobile 350 they used was fuel-injected, which was going to be more complex than a plain old Nova. The Nova chassis itself was heavily modified and beefed up to make the Seville seem more substantial, not to mention extra sound insulation and such, and the Seville ended up weighing about 4200-4300 lb, versus maybe 3400-3500 for a Nova.
Sometimes when you have all that power stuff crammed into a smaller car, it might make it harder to work on than in a larger car, so that may have driven up costs somewhat. Also, all the emissions crap on them maybe have been more complex than your typical mid-70's car; I dunno.
As for fuel economy, a Seville with the 350 probably didn't get any better mileage than a Deville with a 425, but the thing to remember is that when the Seville came out in '75, DeVilles were mammoth 5000+ lb monsters with 500 CID V-8's. So compared to what the typical domestic luxury car was, the DeVille, those mastodon Continental sedans and Town Coo-pay's, ElDorados, Mark IV's, and Chrysler New Yorker Broughams, the Seville really seemed like a whole different beast.
However, when the DeVille was downsized for 1977, it actually weighed a bit LESS than the Seville did! They may not seem so great when looking back through a modern perspective, but GM really did put alot of effort into their downsized big cars in '77.
I always thought the Seville was a good looking car, though. One thing I liked about it was the large (for the time) wheels it came with. The car didn't overhang the wheels, and it just gave it a nice, sure-footed, stable look. Chrysler did a similar thing with the Diplomat/5th Ave/Gran Fury models that had the 15x7 road wheels, which helped balance the car out, and made them seem much more substantial than a similar-sized GM or Ford car.
Well it may have saved Cadillac and Porsche to be SUV/Truck builders, but in a way it is also sad. Once great and proud producers of fine classic cars reduced to truck building. What next bicycles? -Loren
"However, when the DeVille was downsized for 1977, it actually weighed a bit LESS than the Seville did! They may not seem so great when looking back through a modern perspective, but GM really did put alot of effort into their downsized big cars in '77."
The did, Andre, and the designs were pretty good too. Unfortunately, the quality didn't go in, before the name went on. With the horrific Metric 200 transmissions, the interior materials, where the seats wore out in 2 years, and the dash cracked the first year, it marked the begin of the decline of the GM reputation.
Well it may have saved Cadillac and Porsche to be SUV/Truck builders, but in a way it is also sad. Once great and proud producers of fine classic cars reduced to truck building. What next bicycles?
well, if half of your market decides it wants to drive bicycles, then, YES, GM better build some bicycles. This is not the time to be tilting against windmills.
What would be SAD is if GM did not respond to the market. We'd be sitting here saying, "If GM had only built SUVs and trucks with a little bling, there'd be a hope for GM to survive. Instead, all those workers took big paycuts and now work at Toyota plants - didn't exactly help the American middle class, did it?"
History is littered with the carcasses of companies that did not adapt to the market. Companies with good products, too. Lot of good that did them (or the consumer).
Plenty of people want the utility of an SUV or truck, but want more luxury than you historically could get in a truck or SUV. GM responds to the market - it can't MAKE the market. Putting a Chevy or GMC truck guy into an Escalade is better (for GM) than that guy going out and buying a non-GM product, no?
When it comes to build-quality and styling issues, these three things will fix it.
- People hate plastic. With good reason. Make cars with no plastic in them, or as little as possible - hide it as much as possible. Plastic isn't glass. Plastic isn't upholstery. Plastic surely isn't a replacement for metal. Those retro-cars you want to make? Use old-fashioned sealed-beams in them. Use real cloth. Use real padded dashes instead of a piece of $5 plastic.
- Give us metal 5mph bumpers. For once in your life, actually exceed the government regulations. Consumer reports has been on you for two decades about shoddy low-speed crash tests and the bumpers cause serious repair bills at even 3mph now.
- Standardize parts. Keep the same generator for a decade. Same bolt holes. Same with water pumps, engine mounts, and anything else. Make it easy to get aftermarket parts and keep the repair bills down.
If GM just did these three things, they would leap ahead of the competition. Who wouldn't buy a car with a nice interior, real metal, cloth, and glass, nice chromed bumpers that last forever, and repair costs that are half what Toyota and Honda charge?
These plastic, everything breaks if you breathe on it, repair bills require a small loan cars are a disaster. Of course nobody wants to buy one new. Since GM can't build a better car from a technology standpoint, build a more sturdy and reliable tank instead.
Toss out the younger designers. Bring in older ones from your commercial lines. Think less bling and more good old fashioned American steel.
The new Toyota FJ is a prime example - sales are slowing quickly(nobody is charging mark-up anymore) because they totally missed the hard-core off-road crowd. The prototype was all aluminum, glass, and macho. The production one was all plastic and yuppie. Metal bumper? Plastic. Interior? Plastic. Rear side windows? Plastic. Sealed-beam Hela headlamps? Plastic with a $5 cartridge.
Yet this is what GM does every day. With predictable results.
P.S. My almost 40 year old Mercedes drives better than a brand new Cobalt. Everything on and about cars has long since been figured out other than safety devices and electronics. It's not rocket-science to build a car anymore.
Oh - my car? 1967 230S. The baby benz, and the low-trim model at that. Metal doors, metal bumpers, chrome, glass, killer visibility, and 3000lbs curb weight. RWD, inline-6 engine, and 145HP(at the wheels).
Lasts forever. Dead-simple to fix and repair. In 40 years you'd think that cars would be even more reliable and easier to fix, let alone last longer.
GM needs something bold and dramatic. They need to build the car for the rest of us working types. Simple, indestructable, and no plastic.
GM can't build a faster, more responsive car than the competition. GM can't build a higher-tech car. GM can't build a higher MPG car. GM can't build a more luxurious car.
In every category, there is a better option for the same price. So GM needs to go for reliability and low-cost to repair and maintain. It's the one area where they can bury the competition if they want.
For instance - a new 5 speed automatic tranny for a Camry or Avalon? $3000. Yes, that's not a typo - THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS. If GM's 4 speed in the Buicks? $1200 all over town to get it rebuilt. GM can do it.
And who wouldn't want some chrome and metal and glass instead of plastic at the same time?
For instance - a new 5 speed automatic tranny for a Camry or Avalon? $3000. Yes, that's not a typo - THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS. If GM's 4 speed in the Buicks? $1200 all over town to get it rebuilt. GM can do it.
Heck, I'd have thought a FWD 5-speed automatic would be more than that! The 4L60E or whatever it's called that's in my uncle's '97 Silverado was $1860 to rebuild.
I remember a few years ago, when I delivered pizzas, there was a driver who had a new-ish Legacy Outback that needed a tranny rebuild. Try $3700! :surprise: And that was about 6 years ago!
Still is sad that it had to come to this. Can you imagine going the National Auto Museum in Reno to view classic Porsche or Cadillac and seeing an SUV. Yes it made money. Yes, it saved the day, with a little pride left I suppose.
I wish those quarterbacks and receivers which had a long stellar life with a football team would quit at the top. Yeah, you can do your thing elsewhere, and make big bucks too. It just ain't the same. If Porsche could no longer sell sports cars, perhaps the retirement day had come. If I had the money, a 911 would be on the list. As for the SUV, I would be satisfied with a Tribute to a Murano and certainly nothing more expensive than that. It is transportation - big deal. -Loren
The did, Andre, and the designs were pretty good too. Unfortunately, the quality didn't go in, before the name went on. With the horrific Metric 200 transmissions, the interior materials, where the seats wore out in 2 years, and the dash cracked the first year, it marked the begin of the decline of the GM reputation.
That brought back some memories. I bought a '77 Impala in 1985 that had just over 100K miles from the original owner. It had a 305-2 barrel V8. Nice looking car, white with a light blue cloth interior. But you're right, the original owner did get the tranny rebuilt at around 70K miles (I received the service records), the driver seat was sagging pretty badly (luckily the car had a tilt wheel to compensate), and the dash was cracked.
The worst thing though (undisclosed of course) were the infernal water leaks through the windshield and backlite. I tried to caulk around the seams, but never had any luck. All in all though, the car served me reliably for the 3.5 years I had it.
Nice car you have there in the 230S. I always like the SL sports cars too. Are parts easily available? Wouldn't the part be really expensive by now? You hear stories of people buying one, then not being able to afford say a new transmission. Cost would be way over the value of the car. Or am I wrong in that? Cars with metal in them -- good ol' days. I enjoy those classic car shows and car museums, where you see the cars built with pride, style, class, durability and even steel (chrome). That said, todays computer controlled engines are less foolin' around to keep running. -Loren
Whether we like it or not, we can't go back. Plastic saves weight and cost. Still, I hate those hard plastic dashes -- where did those lovely padded ones go on the lower end cars? Even midpriced cars generally have the padding only up top. The lower dash, lower doors, and console have the hard stuff.
Sealed beams - I don't think so; they don't light up the road as well. Obviously, some cars have really bad plastic on the headlights -- the first-gen. Neon comes to mind. Ever notice how opaque/yellowed/scratched they become?
Chrome bumpers - Nah, they rust and one ding means replacement. Not that today's glossy, painted bumper covers are all that great either, where the smallest encounter with a rough surface leaves an ugly scar! Then there's that textured black stuff cars used to have -- it turned an ugly gray after a few years. What IS the ideal bumper face material?
Trannies - Well, one way out is to get a manual.
At least vinyl seats have largely gone the way of the dodo bird!
Sealed beams - I don't think so; they don't light up the road as well. Obviously, some cars have really bad plastic on the headlights -- the first-gen. Neon comes to mind. Ever notice how opaque/yellowed/scratched they become?
I think that's just something that happens to the plastic light covers as they age. Don't some cars use glass? My Intrepid's headlights have hazed up a bit. Not quite yellowed, but somewhat cataract-ic. A buddy of mine had a '95 Grand Marquis, and its right headlight assembly had deteriorated so badly that the bottom edge had actually disintegrated!
He went through the trouble to buy a new headlight cluster, which was about $225. We couldn't figure out how to get it on ourselves, so he had to pay someone $75 to do it. And then a month later he turned around and traded it on an '04 Crown Vic! He got $600 in trade for it, or about double what that headlight replacement cost him.
I actually don't mind the old sealed-beam lights, I guess because I drive enough cars with them.
As for padded dashes, I've noticed that there seemed to be mainly two different textures on cars in the 70's and 80's. Some of them had kind of a leathery texture, such as what's on my '79 New Yorker. My '79 Newport, '85 LeSabre, '89 Gran Fury, and '82 Cutlass also had it. The stuff just didn't crack, although it might distort a bit with age. Then there was a lower-grade stuff that, while still padded, didn't seem quite as supple, and was more prone to cracking. My '80 Malibu and '86 Monte had it. My '67 Catalina, '68 Dart, '76 LeMans, and '85 Silverado have it.
I think one key to whether the dash cracks or not might be how much of it is actually padded. On my Malibu, Monte, and pickup, the padding extends all the way to the base of the windshield. However, on the LeMans, Catalina, and Dart, the padding only extends forward a few inches, and then there's a plastic or metal panel that extends the rest of the way to the windshield base. The LeSabre, Cutlass, Gran Fury, and Newport/NYer are like this, too.
On my Intrepid, the padding goes all the way to the base of the windshield, but it hasn't cracked. Yet. Hopefully they have improved the technology a bit?
I think the key with chrome bumpers is to make them substantial. If you have a thin piece of metal under the chrome, or aluminum, it's not going to hold up all that well, and will be more prone to rusting. However, with the way cars are made nowadays, with their tapered, rounded ends and a minimum of protrusions, I don't think a chrome bumper would look right. Most designs today are relatively bumperless.
"GM can't build a faster, more responsive car than the competition. GM can't build a higher-tech car. GM can't build a higher MPG car. GM can't build a more luxurious car."
While I hold the same emotions as you have expressed above, I would qualify the statements somewhat.
#1, except for the Corvette and Cadillac STS-V. Very fast. Of course, you can't get the V anymore.....
#2, Cadillac is again the exception. Their line is pretty up to date in the technology war.
#3 I think they can, but they haven't, so I concede.
#4 What the Cadillacs have gained in performance, they have lost in Luxury IMO. They have followed the Benz model, make the interior clean and spartan and hard. Some people say that's luxury. I still think they can, but can see why you would say they don't.
"For instance - a new 5 speed automatic tranny for a Camry or Avalon? $3000. Yes, that's not a typo - THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS. If GM's 4 speed in the Buicks? $1200 all over town to get it rebuilt. GM can do it."
And, they actually have been doing just that for years now - that's why that very good 4 speed transaxle has been around since 1982 relatively unchanged. After 22 years in service, the thing ought to have the bugs out, and be pretty cheap to overhaul. Any new transaxle will cost more to replace and to repair.
Your right, forgot about the Focus. See lots of them in station wagon mode and people seem to like them. Ford needs one the size of the old Taurus. A Fusion station wagon sounds like it would be a winner. I missed Chrysler with the Magnum too. The thing about stationwagons is they have almost as much room as most vans, but they are more car-like, safer than MOST vans (they have some structure), and they can be fun to drive.
My transmission on my Olds. blew at 62K. The neighbors car, another Olds.98 blew in a few thousand miles. I think they had serious problems in 1955-87 era with FWD transmissions. They replaced it, but I think I paid out $100. Not a big deal other than I heard there was known issue with that tranny. Perhaps they should have paid it all. Fair enough I guess, it was the rest of the car which was also a problem. Most GM cars in the 80's came with a basket of problem areas. -Loren
There was a Taurus wagon-gone. There was a Camry wagon-gone. neither sold
Magnum is losing sales fast, though that is not a true family wagon.
the SUV's took over that market. They are just way more functional. The only reason I can think of wanting a Wagon over a SUV is MPG and maybe the SUV is too tall. But there are many choices out there that such as the crossovers like the Rendezvous.
The so-called "minivans" are very safe now. Check out minivan safety ratings.
Interesting....especially all the top models (except Mazda) are Asian. The North American vehicles are lower on the list and the exception Mazda at the bottom. The Sienna and Honda are examples of mini vans that are built almost like a car. The Chrysler did not do too well, and it is more like an empty shell construction.
I wonder if cars and station wagon vehicles are rated on the same system or if they go through a different test?
Freestyle should count as a station wagon though IMO, I think some people prefer the Crossover concept and some like a real station wagon (more car-like, easier to handle and park, fits in more garages, has the cargo space and not the extra bulk).
those GM FWD 4-speed automatics were very troublesome when they first came out. In fact, complications with them forced GM to delay the introduction of the cars they were to be used in. Originally they were going to launch the small FWD Electra/98/DeVille as 1984 models, but that tranny wasn't ready yet, so they had to hold off awhile, and released them as early 1985 models.
Kind of a shame that the transmission was so bad, because 1985 was the year that they got most of the kinks worked out of the 3.8 V-6. It got a new block for 1985 that eliminated most of the lubrication problems.
If it's any consolation though, just about every 4-speed overdrive automatic that a domestic has introduced has had teething problems. Ford introduced one for 1980 in the full-sized cars, and it was known for early failure. Earlier versions of GM's RWD THM200R4 tranny were troublesome too, although they were quicker than Ford to get the bugs worked out. And the transverse FWD tranny introduced in 1985 was troublesome.
I think Ford's first transverse 4-speed automatic was the one used in the 1986 Taurus, and it was infamous for early failure. Chrysler's first was the "Ultradrive", which came out in 1988-89 in the Dynasty and its siblings, and to this very day I don't think they have it perfected. I think what they do is make it upshift too early or do something that "loses" horsepower along the way so that it doesn't kill the tranny. It just seems that Chrysler cars with this tranny don't have the performance that their horsepower suggests.
When Chrysler started developing 4-speed overdrives for the trucks, they were troublesome. And I've heard that GM's lighter-duty 4L60E, like what's been rebuilt twice already in my uncle's '97 Silverado, leaves alot to be desired. Back in the 80's I think they had something called a 700R4, which was used in trucks and police cars, and in later years found its way into the Roadmaster/Fleetwood/Impala SS/Caprice, and it was pretty sturdy. But that was a rarity.
When you think about it, it's really sad that all these 4-speed automatics were so troublesome in the 80's and 90's. Especially when you consider that the very first fully automatic transmission, the HydraMatic, introduced way back in 1939, was a 4-speed! Okay, so some of those earliest ones had to be rebuilt at 40,000 miles, but from what I've heard, if you can get 40K would be an achievement for some of these newer ones!
Ah yes, the fingers are faster than the brain. 1985 and not 1955. My goodness no. GM built the old tanks back then Well perhaps a sexy Corvette. Wow, a 1955 tranny was pretty stout, I would think.
What would be SAD is if GM did not respond to the market.
Of course, in the sedan world, where hundreds of thousands of Civics, Accords, and Camrys are sold, GM has not responded very well to the market. Instead of rebadges of the same old chassis' why don't they spend some real money and build a better car than the new Camry?
History is littered with the carcasses of companies that did not adapt to the market.
Let's hope it is not GM. Their response to the market for SUVs is good. But they're losing elsewhere.
I know I speak for many of the posters that some would call GM-bashers. I don't like GM. But that's because I don't like their focus, their silly patriotic advertising, their rebadging. I WANT to like them, I WANT them to be as competitive as Honda and Toyota. Perhaps one of the reasons we "bash" GM in this forum is to wake everybody up -- perhaps even some GM managment (gasp!) read this forum. C'mon guys, you can do it! We want to be proud of a US manufacturer - of more products than just three ton mommymobiles guzzling gas.
Heck, I think those downsized 1977-79 DeVilles and Fleetwoods are beautiful and all-around better cars than the 1971-76 cars. It was the lousy engines they put in the cars from 1980 through 1985 that spoiled them. The 425 V-8 was an excellent engine. They should've kept it through the '80s and told the eco-weenies where to go.
Holy smoke, pletko! Can you design my next car? I'm sure with you on the steel bumper. These painted plastic bumpers scratch with the merest tap and look like heck after a while.
I'm also with you on the sealed beam lights or at least GLASS covers. Did you ever see how crappy those plastic headlight lenses look after a few years in the weather, especially if the owner doesn't take care of them? The car looks like it has cataracts. They're all hazy and yellow! Yuck! My 1988 Park Avenue has composite lights, but the covers are glass and therefore not all fogged, hazy, scratched, and yellow after 18 years. I could imagine how ugly they'd look after all this time if they were plastic! Ewww! Replacing these lenses isn't cheap. They want $570 each for the ones on my Seville. Shoot, I remember not that long ago getting sealed beam headlights for my cars for $7 each at Pep Boys or K-Mart.
What did they do in 1988? I have all the service records for my 1988 Park Ave dating back to when the car was first purchased in Lancaster PA on 7 July 1988 and there is no indication of tranny traumas. Did GM beef up the 4-speed or am I once again incredibly lucky?
Even the 368 that was used in 1980 wasn't a bad engine. Horsepower was down, from something like 185-190 to 150, but they were still pretty torquey. C&D or MT got a 1980 Seville with that engine to do 0-60 in 10.6 seconds. That's not so hot today, but back then unless you got something that passed for a performance car, such as a Camaro/Trans Am with the biggest engine, or the rare Mopar that had a 360-4bbl (it was offered in just about every RWD car they had, but with the turmoil of the time, understandably seldom ordered), 10-11 seconds was about the best you could hope for.
The 1980 DeVille was also a few hundred pounds lighter than the '77-79, so I doubt if performance suffered much in going to the 368. And I'm sure once they got the kinks worked out of the 4-speed automatic, something like a 368 or 425 may not have been too bad of a guzzler.
Now I think they should have offered the choice of smaller, more fuel-efficient engines, but it would have been nice if they'd kept the 368 or 425 around. Actually, the 368 was kept around through 1984, for use in the limousines. And it was mated to a good old fashioned, beefy THM400 tranny! There's no way the tiny 249 aluminum engine would have moved these things; heck it could barely move the regular DeVilles and Fleetwoods! And I'm sure that much weight would have put a terrible strain on the 4-speed automatic.
I've seen hotrod magazines where people have taken 1980+ DeVilles and put Caddy 500's in them. Supposedly it can be made into a real screamer.
Comments
I think GM was brilliant re the Escalade. The SUV as well as the truck.
But they need to do something re the SRX. How does the SRX stack up, from a sales perspective?
GM needs to do something to keep the families who move to Volvo and Daimler (and BMW?) wagons. Some of these folks don't want to drive an SUV (or a minivan). I don't like the looks of the DC wagon, but it is better than the SRX.
If Volvo can satisfy the Euro regulators without tiny windows, how come GM And DC have gone nearly windowless? Those slab-sides on the SRX are just ugly. (and I'm a guy who LIKES the SRX!!)
People were collecting those '79 Sevilles, but I heard the repair bills got pretty high. It is on a Nova chassis, but there may be something about them which makes them troublesome, or at least too expensive to repair -- not sure what the score is on those.
-Loren
Of course, people have made it through the snow in a normal Volvo wagon for the last thirty years, eh?
Do see a few wagons hitting the scene though.
And then there is the sport wagon. The A3.
Volvo was big into wagons, and then the old sport wagon hatchback thing.
-Loren
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)
Those are not station wagons...they are CROSSOVERS!
Yup, forgot about that. The sound of windshield washer fluid sloshing around.
This does raise another question, what became of the station wagon? We like to have at least one station wagon or SUV type vehicle in the family because you never know when you need to haul a TV or chair or bike or tree.
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. Wagons have as much space in them as SUV's but are more economical to run. The SUV craze kind of hurt the wagon sales, but there still could be a market for these useful vehicles.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
The SRX just misses on it's styling cues. Much better looking SUV's out there, Volvo's, GMC's, X5's, Escapes...almost everything. Maybe they are trying to make an SUV which should be a working vehicle, look like a a luxo-Caddie. I don't know but it is a miss.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Yeah, that engine went to 150 hp for 1986. However, in 1985 it had 125. The old 2-bbl carb version stayed at 110 through the end in 1987.
I think it was 1987 or 1988 that the 3.8 went to 165 hp, and then soon after to 170.
Well, as one who had an 81 Malibu, which interited the roofline from the 79 Seville, I can tell ya that the Malibu was no treat to keep running and repaired - so by now, it must be a nightmare to keep one going with the Cadillac gizmos on it.
It is nostalgic to remember, that the downsized Seville, (built on the Nova platform) really made wealthy people feel like they were saving gas, and helping the environment, and saving money, etc. I knew several of them. But in reality, that car got about 1 less mpg than the big caddy did with the 425cid motor. The 350cid that the Seville had, wasn't that much smaller or more economical at all.
Kind of like buying a Hybrid today, paying $5,000 more for it than the gas version, and getting 5 more mpg....
I assume that was meant tongue-in-cheek
And you could buy a diesel and smoke the competition :P
CUV's actually.....Crossover Utility Vehicles or CAV's, Crossover Activity Vehicles! :P :P
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I don't think the '75-79 Sevilles were really too bad, it's just that they had power EVERYTHING on them, and I think the Oldsmobile 350 they used was fuel-injected, which was going to be more complex than a plain old Nova. The Nova chassis itself was heavily modified and beefed up to make the Seville seem more substantial, not to mention extra sound insulation and such, and the Seville ended up weighing about 4200-4300 lb, versus maybe 3400-3500 for a Nova.
Sometimes when you have all that power stuff crammed into a smaller car, it might make it harder to work on than in a larger car, so that may have driven up costs somewhat. Also, all the emissions crap on them maybe have been more complex than your typical mid-70's car; I dunno.
As for fuel economy, a Seville with the 350 probably didn't get any better mileage than a Deville with a 425, but the thing to remember is that when the Seville came out in '75, DeVilles were mammoth 5000+ lb monsters with 500 CID V-8's. So compared to what the typical domestic luxury car was, the DeVille, those mastodon Continental sedans and Town Coo-pay's, ElDorados, Mark IV's, and Chrysler New Yorker Broughams, the Seville really seemed like a whole different beast.
However, when the DeVille was downsized for 1977, it actually weighed a bit LESS than the Seville did! They may not seem so great when looking back through a modern perspective, but GM really did put alot of effort into their downsized big cars in '77.
I always thought the Seville was a good looking car, though. One thing I liked about it was the large (for the time) wheels it came with. The car didn't overhang the wheels, and it just gave it a nice, sure-footed, stable look. Chrysler did a similar thing with the Diplomat/5th Ave/Gran Fury models that had the 15x7 road wheels, which helped balance the car out, and made them seem much more substantial than a similar-sized GM or Ford car.
-Loren
The did, Andre, and the designs were pretty good too. Unfortunately, the quality didn't go in, before the name went on. With the horrific Metric 200 transmissions, the interior materials, where the seats wore out in 2 years, and the dash cracked the first year, it marked the begin of the decline of the GM reputation.
well, if half of your market decides it wants to drive bicycles, then, YES, GM better build some bicycles. This is not the time to be tilting against windmills.
What would be SAD is if GM did not respond to the market. We'd be sitting here saying, "If GM had only built SUVs and trucks with a little bling, there'd be a hope for GM to survive. Instead, all those workers took big paycuts and now work at Toyota plants - didn't exactly help the American middle class, did it?"
History is littered with the carcasses of companies that did not adapt to the market. Companies with good products, too. Lot of good that did them (or the consumer).
Plenty of people want the utility of an SUV or truck, but want more luxury than you historically could get in a truck or SUV. GM responds to the market - it can't MAKE the market. Putting a Chevy or GMC truck guy into an Escalade is better (for GM) than that guy going out and buying a non-GM product, no?
- People hate plastic. With good reason. Make cars with no plastic in them, or as little as possible - hide it as much as possible. Plastic isn't glass. Plastic isn't upholstery. Plastic surely isn't a replacement for metal. Those retro-cars you want to make? Use old-fashioned sealed-beams in them. Use real cloth. Use real padded dashes instead of a piece of $5 plastic.
- Give us metal 5mph bumpers. For once in your life, actually exceed the government regulations. Consumer reports has been on you for two decades about shoddy low-speed crash tests and the bumpers cause serious repair bills at even 3mph now.
- Standardize parts. Keep the same generator for a decade. Same bolt holes. Same with water pumps, engine mounts, and anything else. Make it easy to get aftermarket parts and keep the repair bills down.
If GM just did these three things, they would leap ahead of the competition. Who wouldn't buy a car with a nice interior, real metal, cloth, and glass, nice chromed bumpers that last forever, and repair costs that are half what Toyota and Honda charge?
These plastic, everything breaks if you breathe on it, repair bills require a small loan cars are a disaster. Of course nobody wants to buy one new. Since GM can't build a better car from a technology standpoint, build a more sturdy and reliable tank instead.
Toss out the younger designers. Bring in older ones from your commercial lines. Think less bling and more good old fashioned American steel.
The new Toyota FJ is a prime example - sales are slowing quickly(nobody is charging mark-up anymore) because they totally missed the hard-core off-road crowd. The prototype was all aluminum, glass, and macho. The production one was all plastic and yuppie. Metal bumper? Plastic. Interior? Plastic. Rear side windows? Plastic. Sealed-beam Hela headlamps? Plastic with a $5 cartridge.
Yet this is what GM does every day. With predictable results.
P.S. My almost 40 year old Mercedes drives better than a brand new Cobalt. Everything on and about cars has long since been figured out other than safety devices and electronics. It's not rocket-science to build a car anymore.
Oh - my car? 1967 230S. The baby benz, and the low-trim model at that. Metal doors, metal bumpers, chrome, glass, killer visibility, and 3000lbs curb weight. RWD, inline-6 engine, and 145HP(at the wheels).
Lasts forever. Dead-simple to fix and repair. In 40 years you'd think that cars would be even more reliable and easier to fix, let alone last longer.
GM needs something bold and dramatic. They need to build the car for the rest of us working types. Simple, indestructable, and no plastic.
I want to drive a car
responsive, yet with high mpg
GM can't build a higher-tech car.
GM can't build a higher MPG car.
GM can't build a more luxurious car.
In every category, there is a better option for the same price. So GM needs to go for reliability and low-cost to repair and maintain. It's the one area where they can bury the competition if they want.
For instance - a new 5 speed automatic tranny for a Camry or Avalon? $3000. Yes, that's not a typo - THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS. If GM's 4 speed in the Buicks? $1200 all over town to get it rebuilt. GM can do it.
And who wouldn't want some chrome and metal and glass instead of plastic at the same time?
Heck, I'd have thought a FWD 5-speed automatic would be more than that! The 4L60E or whatever it's called that's in my uncle's '97 Silverado was $1860 to rebuild.
I remember a few years ago, when I delivered pizzas, there was a driver who had a new-ish Legacy Outback that needed a tranny rebuild. Try $3700! :surprise: And that was about 6 years ago!
They do look cool. Actually I see more FJ than I do Camry.
-Loren
I wish those quarterbacks and receivers which had a long stellar life with a football team would quit at the top. Yeah, you can do your thing elsewhere, and make big bucks too. It just ain't the same. If Porsche could no longer sell sports cars, perhaps the retirement day had come. If I had the money, a 911 would be on the list. As for the SUV, I would be satisfied with a Tribute to a Murano and certainly nothing more expensive than that. It is transportation - big deal.
-Loren
That brought back some memories. I bought a '77 Impala in 1985 that had just over 100K miles from the original owner. It had a 305-2 barrel V8. Nice looking car, white with a light blue cloth interior. But you're right, the original owner did get the tranny rebuilt at around 70K miles (I received the service records), the driver seat was sagging pretty badly (luckily the car had a tilt wheel to compensate), and the dash was cracked.
The worst thing though (undisclosed of course) were the infernal water leaks through the windshield and backlite. I tried to caulk around the seams, but never had any luck. All in all though, the car served me reliably for the 3.5 years I had it.
-Loren
Sealed beams - I don't think so; they don't light up the road as well. Obviously, some cars have really bad plastic on the headlights -- the first-gen. Neon comes to mind. Ever notice how opaque/yellowed/scratched they become?
Chrome bumpers - Nah, they rust and one ding means replacement. Not that today's glossy, painted bumper covers are all that great either, where the smallest encounter with a rough surface leaves an ugly scar! Then there's that textured black stuff cars used to have -- it turned an ugly gray after a few years. What IS the ideal bumper face material?
Trannies - Well, one way out is to get a manual.
At least vinyl seats have largely gone the way of the dodo bird!
I think that's just something that happens to the plastic light covers as they age. Don't some cars use glass? My Intrepid's headlights have hazed up a bit. Not quite yellowed, but somewhat cataract-ic. A buddy of mine had a '95 Grand Marquis, and its right headlight assembly had deteriorated so badly that the bottom edge had actually disintegrated!
He went through the trouble to buy a new headlight cluster, which was about $225. We couldn't figure out how to get it on ourselves, so he had to pay someone $75 to do it. And then a month later he turned around and traded it on an '04 Crown Vic! He got $600 in trade for it, or about double what that headlight replacement cost him.
I actually don't mind the old sealed-beam lights, I guess because I drive enough cars with them.
As for padded dashes, I've noticed that there seemed to be mainly two different textures on cars in the 70's and 80's. Some of them had kind of a leathery texture, such as what's on my '79 New Yorker. My '79 Newport, '85 LeSabre, '89 Gran Fury, and '82 Cutlass also had it. The stuff just didn't crack, although it might distort a bit with age. Then there was a lower-grade stuff that, while still padded, didn't seem quite as supple, and was more prone to cracking. My '80 Malibu and '86 Monte had it. My '67 Catalina, '68 Dart, '76 LeMans, and '85 Silverado have it.
I think one key to whether the dash cracks or not might be how much of it is actually padded. On my Malibu, Monte, and pickup, the padding extends all the way to the base of the windshield. However, on the LeMans, Catalina, and Dart, the padding only extends forward a few inches, and then there's a plastic or metal panel that extends the rest of the way to the windshield base. The LeSabre, Cutlass, Gran Fury, and Newport/NYer are like this, too.
On my Intrepid, the padding goes all the way to the base of the windshield, but it hasn't cracked. Yet. Hopefully they have improved the technology a bit?
I think the key with chrome bumpers is to make them substantial. If you have a thin piece of metal under the chrome, or aluminum, it's not going to hold up all that well, and will be more prone to rusting. However, with the way cars are made nowadays, with their tapered, rounded ends and a minimum of protrusions, I don't think a chrome bumper would look right. Most designs today are relatively bumperless.
GM can't build a higher-tech car.
GM can't build a higher MPG car.
GM can't build a more luxurious car."
While I hold the same emotions as you have expressed above, I would qualify the statements somewhat.
#1, except for the Corvette and Cadillac STS-V. Very fast. Of course, you can't get the V anymore.....
#2, Cadillac is again the exception. Their line is pretty up to date in the technology war.
#3 I think they can, but they haven't, so I concede.
#4 What the Cadillacs have gained in performance, they have lost in Luxury IMO. They have followed the Benz model, make the interior clean and spartan and hard. Some people say that's luxury. I still think they can, but can see why you would say they don't.
"For instance - a new 5 speed automatic tranny for a Camry or Avalon? $3000. Yes, that's not a typo - THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS. If GM's 4 speed in the Buicks? $1200 all over town to get it rebuilt. GM can do it."
And, they actually have been doing just that for years now - that's why that very good 4 speed transaxle has been around since 1982 relatively unchanged. After 22 years in service, the thing ought to have the bugs out, and be pretty cheap to overhaul. Any new transaxle will cost more to replace and to repair.
Your right, forgot about the Focus. See lots of them in station wagon mode and people seem to like them. Ford needs one the size of the old Taurus. A Fusion station wagon sounds like it would be a winner.
I missed Chrysler with the Magnum too.
The thing about stationwagons is they have almost as much room as most vans, but they are more car-like, safer than MOST vans (they have some structure), and they can be fun to drive.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
-Loren
Not much "mini" about them anymore; they've got lots of what used to be called "road-hugging weight."
You could call the Ford Freestyle a station wagon (I know, technically it's a crossover, but let's call a spade a spade).
There was a Taurus wagon-gone.
There was a Camry wagon-gone.
neither sold
Magnum is losing sales fast, though that is not a true family wagon.
the SUV's took over that market. They are just way more functional. The only reason I can think of wanting a Wagon over a SUV is MPG and maybe the SUV is too tall. But there are many choices out there that such as the crossovers like the Rendezvous.
Interesting....especially all the top models (except Mazda) are Asian. The North American vehicles are lower on the list and the exception Mazda at the bottom.
The Sienna and Honda are examples of mini vans that are built almost like a car. The Chrysler did not do too well, and it is more like an empty shell construction.
I wonder if cars and station wagon vehicles are rated on the same system or if they go through a different test?
Freestyle should count as a station wagon though IMO, I think some people prefer the Crossover concept and some like a real station wagon (more car-like, easier to handle and park, fits in more garages, has the cargo space and not the extra bulk).
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Kind of a shame that the transmission was so bad, because 1985 was the year that they got most of the kinks worked out of the 3.8 V-6. It got a new block for 1985 that eliminated most of the lubrication problems.
If it's any consolation though, just about every 4-speed overdrive automatic that a domestic has introduced has had teething problems. Ford introduced one for 1980 in the full-sized cars, and it was known for early failure. Earlier versions of GM's RWD THM200R4 tranny were troublesome too, although they were quicker than Ford to get the bugs worked out. And the transverse FWD tranny introduced in 1985 was troublesome.
I think Ford's first transverse 4-speed automatic was the one used in the 1986 Taurus, and it was infamous for early failure. Chrysler's first was the "Ultradrive", which came out in 1988-89 in the Dynasty and its siblings, and to this very day I don't think they have it perfected. I think what they do is make it upshift too early or do something that "loses" horsepower along the way so that it doesn't kill the tranny. It just seems that Chrysler cars with this tranny don't have the performance that their horsepower suggests.
When Chrysler started developing 4-speed overdrives for the trucks, they were troublesome. And I've heard that GM's lighter-duty 4L60E, like what's been rebuilt twice already in my uncle's '97 Silverado, leaves alot to be desired. Back in the 80's I think they had something called a 700R4, which was used in trucks and police cars, and in later years found its way into the Roadmaster/Fleetwood/Impala SS/Caprice, and it was pretty sturdy. But that was a rarity.
When you think about it, it's really sad that all these 4-speed automatics were so troublesome in the 80's and 90's. Especially when you consider that the very first fully automatic transmission, the HydraMatic, introduced way back in 1939, was a 4-speed! Okay, so some of those earliest ones had to be rebuilt at 40,000 miles, but from what I've heard, if you can get 40K would be an achievement for some of these newer ones!
So, what new?
Well perhaps a sexy Corvette. Wow, a 1955 tranny was pretty stout, I would think.
Of course, in the sedan world, where hundreds of thousands of Civics, Accords, and Camrys are sold, GM has not responded very well to the market. Instead of rebadges of the same old chassis' why don't they spend some real money and build a better car than the new Camry?
History is littered with the carcasses of companies that did not adapt to the market.
Let's hope it is not GM. Their response to the market for SUVs is good. But they're losing elsewhere.
I know I speak for many of the posters that some would call GM-bashers. I don't like GM. But that's because I don't like their focus, their silly patriotic advertising, their rebadging. I WANT to like them, I WANT them to be as competitive as Honda and Toyota. Perhaps one of the reasons we "bash" GM in this forum is to wake everybody up -- perhaps even some GM managment (gasp!) read this forum. C'mon guys, you can do it! We want to be proud of a US manufacturer - of more products than just three ton mommymobiles guzzling gas.
I'm also with you on the sealed beam lights or at least GLASS covers. Did you ever see how crappy those plastic headlight lenses look after a few years in the weather, especially if the owner doesn't take care of them? The car looks like it has cataracts. They're all hazy and yellow! Yuck! My 1988 Park Avenue has composite lights, but the covers are glass and therefore not all fogged, hazy, scratched, and yellow after 18 years. I could imagine how ugly they'd look after all this time if they were plastic! Ewww! Replacing these lenses isn't cheap. They want $570 each for the ones on my Seville. Shoot, I remember not that long ago getting sealed beam headlights for my cars for $7 each at Pep Boys or K-Mart.
The 1980 DeVille was also a few hundred pounds lighter than the '77-79, so I doubt if performance suffered much in going to the 368. And I'm sure once they got the kinks worked out of the 4-speed automatic, something like a 368 or 425 may not have been too bad of a guzzler.
Now I think they should have offered the choice of smaller, more fuel-efficient engines, but it would have been nice if they'd kept the 368 or 425 around. Actually, the 368 was kept around through 1984, for use in the limousines. And it was mated to a good old fashioned, beefy THM400 tranny! There's no way the tiny 249 aluminum engine would have moved these things; heck it could barely move the regular DeVilles and Fleetwoods! And I'm sure that much weight would have put a terrible strain on the 4-speed automatic.
I've seen hotrod magazines where people have taken 1980+ DeVilles and put Caddy 500's in them. Supposedly it can be made into a real screamer.