Station wagons are not wanted. Low niche volume. There was a Taurus wagon-gone. There was a Camry wagon-gone. neither sold Volvo, Audi, BMW, VW, all have at least 2 wagons, then there is Mitsibushi, Ford, Chrysler with at least one wagon. Someone is making marketable wagons, but it ain't GM. There is a market for good sensible wagons, car companies have to bring something marketable to the table.
Freestyle is a combination minivan (do you have to have sliding doors to be a van?) and car. Classic crossover. Correct. Is that the official definition of a "crossover"? It is probably a good one. Or is it an oversized station wagon?
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?
Lemko, I think most of the teething problems with that transmission were worked out by 1988. And if the car has been well-maintained and not abused, I'm sure it'll be fine. I think one reason so many transmissions started failing in the 70's and 80's was that, in addition to making them lightweight, they started telling us that we could increase the service intervals!
I have a sales brochure for a 1979 Malibu. "A Fresh New Slice of Apple Pie", the catchy slogan reads. One of the advantages they tout for the Malibu is this wonderful transmission that can go 100,000 miles between servicings! Is it really a big surprise that these THM200C's were so notorious for failing? :surprise:
FWIW, I also have a brochure for a 1979 Nova, which still used the THM350 tranny, and it called for 60,000 mile intervals. I have a '76 LeMans owner's manual, and it calls for the same.
My Intrepid, another car known for having a fragile transmission, calls for servicings every 100,000 miles on the "regular" schedule and 50,000 on "severe duty". My mechanic told me to do it every 30,000 miles to be safe. And I figure a $70-80 service, even if I really am doing it too often, is still better than a $2000+ transmission!
Anyway, my Grandma's cousin has a 1989 Coupe DeVille, which I think has about 80,000 miles on it now, and it's still on its original transmission. And I know she's not good about maintenance. A couple years back it was driving funny and she asked me to look at it. I drove it around some, and when I came back I asked her when's the last time she had the transmission serviced. She just looked at me confused and asked "What's that?" D'OH!!
...this wonderful transmission that can go 100,000 miles between servicings!
I wouldn't believe it in 1979 and I won't believe it now! I still have my trannies serviced every 30K miles. My 1989 Brougham's tranny is still original. I'd probably repent my sins if the tranny in the Seville failed.
What did you do for the tranny? Flush or drain/replace filter?
I don't know what my grandmother's cousin ended up doing. I know she had it serviced, but probably just a drain/replace filter. Aren't flushes usually pretty expensive?
I'm guessing that's all they've ever done to my Intrepid, as the bill to service the tranny was always under $100.
When I used to run a shop we charged about 85 dollars plus tax for a tranny flush. By the time I left we had stopped doing drain and replace screens as it was far too time consuming and tied up too much money in inventory for all of the filters.
When we first started though we were recomending 30,000 mile service for most vehicles on the tranny flush. We would normally tell people to have the screen replaced every other flush or after every two flushes.
For trucks that did a lot of towing we recomended 15,000 miles intervals for the flush and changing the screen every second flush.
I've been told to always just let fluids drain, replace filters, then re-install fluids. I've heard flushes can actually be detrimental, and shouldn't be done. I've been told this is true for oil, tranny fluid, and coolant.
Her boyfriend has a van, and they he wants to buy a 2007' new GM Truck after I told him how much better they are going to be over this current model. I told him go look at the Tahoe and Yukon for styling cues for the truck.
I agree on not flushing engine or transmission oil because you're putting solvents into the engine or tranny that might do more harm than good. Especially for engine oil, it's unnecessary, because by draining, you get out at least 90% of the old oil.
For coolant though, I think flushing is a good idea, if done with water only. This you can do yourself by draining and refilling with water, running then engine, and doing this repeatedly until the drained fluid is clear (or nearly so).
They did delay the introduction of the full size cars from 84, to early 85 models. The transaxle reliability was the issue. I think the problem may have been the 3.8 V6 having too much power, so it was throttled down to 125 horsepower, to match the Cadillac V8. Then, with improvements to the transaxle, horsepower was allowed back to the 150 that the 3800 could do in the first place.
I think how well automatic transmission last depends mostly on how they are treated by their owners.
The HydraMatic was a 4 speed, but not an overdrive 4 speed. The four speeds came from using both planetary gear sets (2.5:1 and 1.5:1 approximately) to get a 3.75:1 first gear. The fluid coupling was not a torque converter.
I looked around online, and it looks like the 425, in 1977 at least, had 180 hp with the 4-bbl and 195 with fuel injection, a $702 option.
Considering the extra displacement, that's really not much more than a 350-4bbl in a '77 Caprice, which would've had 170 hp. Or a Pontiac 400-4bbl in a Catalina, which I think had 180. Or an Olds 403, which had 185.
I'm sure the 425 had more torque, especially compared to a 350, but the cars it went in were also heavier, which offset the power advantage.
I dated a girl ages ago who had a '79 Olds 98 with the 403, and it seemed really gutsy. It was enough to almost make you proud of the 70's. Almost. :P
Volvo, Audi, BMW, VW, all have at least 2 wagons, then there is Mitsibushi, Ford, Chrysler with at least one wagon. Someone is making marketable wagons, but it ain't GM. There is a market for good sensible wagons, car companies have to bring something marketable to the table.
Got to give Chrysler credit for trying to bring back station wagon with its Dodge. While Dodge has good styling, maybe it looks too good and is thus not as practical as it could be.
Think there could be a decent market for a RWD V8 (with DOD) full size station wagon by Chevy. The template that could be looked at is the 77-82 Chevy Caprice station wagon. I bought one used and had it for about 10 years and it was a very useful and comfortable vehicle. It had bench seats in front and middle that were chair height and could comfortably seat 6 adults. With middle seat folded, you could haul 4x8 sheets plywood. This Caprice also had the 2-way tailgate (which Honda Ridgeline copied).
My Caprice station wagon handled reasonably well. Think that an updated 2010(?) model could be more fuel efficient than a Suburban or Tahoe and would weigh less. Think they could make one at about 4000 lbs vs well over 5000 for Suburban and Tahoe. There are better opportunities to have styling flair with station wagons in comparison to SUVs like Suburban and Tahoe.
Perhaps biggest problem would be that if GM made a 2010 Caprice wagon, they would price it too high in Suburban/Tahoe range. They would need to be able to make a Chevy wagon affordable for the average working Joe - say no more than mid/high twenties.
GM goofed up in mid 90's with way oversized and weird looking Impala and Buick Roadmaster RWD station wagons.
In the sedan's forum for the DeVille, the person said that the 425 Cadillac engine and the later 368 had the rocker arms held on by a cheaper design that would not hold up if the engine was pushed very hard. I do know that Wikipedia says that the 425 was based on the older 472 design, but the engine was lighter weight, indicating that is was a redesign, and the weight reduction may have been from a poorer design.
Think there could be a decent market for a RWD V8 (with DOD) full size station wagon by Chevy. The template that could be looked at is the 77-82 Chevy Caprice station wagon.
There's a guy at work who has a lovingly maintained '79 Impala wagon with a 305-4bbl. It's a nice looking car. However, I have a feeling that if GM tried to do something like that these days, it would weigh well over 4000 lb. Heck, even those downsized late 70's models still easily topped 4,000 pounds, and with all the safety and convenience equipment people want these days, not to mention structural stiffening here and there, I just don't see 4,000 lb being a hittable target for something like this.
I think a V-8 Magnum weighs about 4000 lb, and it's about as big inside as a 1982 Malibu wagon.
Those bathtub style '91-96 models were very fuel efficient, especially once the LT-1 350 went under the hood for 1994. 17/26 if I recall correctly. Not bad for a 260 hp 4300 or so lb beast that could do 0-60 in about 8 seconds or less.
Also, believe it or not, those '91-96 models weren't that much bigger overall than the '77-90. However, they were much more rounded off and harder to see out of, which made them feel more ponderous. They curved and hollowed out the door panels a bit to give you more shoulder room, and I think they made the seats a bit bigger, but the steering wheel was in the same location as the older models, so it ended up making you sit just a bit to the left of it.
And I think the way the rear ends were curved on them may have cut into cargo volume, compared to the more squared-off '77-90 style.
I agree though, it would be cool if something like that made a comeback!
I'm guessing what happened with the Caddy 425 and 368 is that they had a lower deck height than the 472 and 500, which I guess would have saved a little weight. They probably did start using cheaper materials here and there too though.
Pontiac did a similar thing when it came out with its 301 V-8 for 1977. It looks just like a 350/400 block (at least to me it does), but they managed to trim off weight here and there, and I think there was something they did with the main bearings that ended up biting them on the butt. Anyway, I think the 265/300 block only weighed about 450 lb, compared to about 600 for the older 350/400/455 style block.
Also in the 70's, I believe a lot of manufacturers went from using a forged crankshaft to a cast one. I don't understand what that means, but I do know it was cheaper. And more prone to breaking. Dunno if it was lighter though. I've heard people on the Mopar board I belong to mention it in the past.
I don't think that making a wagon out of a sedan body adds much weight. The BMW 325 sedan weighs 3285 lbs, while the wagon, with all wheel drive is 3737. The 325xi sedan is 3560, which is all wheel drive too. So, less than 200 lbs for the wagon. Basically the wagon has replaced the trunk with a D-pillar and the roof continues from the C-pillar to the D-pillar, where the sedan has the trunk.
GM's free gas offer proves it's still the marketing king. Reminds me of the huge incentives GM started right after 9/11. GM thought it'd do wonders for itself. Turned out its Detroit rivals were able to match. And the incentives hurt everybody.
I'm pretty sure this new marketing ploy will end up the same way, hurting everybody, including the consumer who's struck with a gas guzzler after a year. It's not a good marketing play because it's too easy for the rivals to match it. Ford already has!
The 425 was a 100 lbs lighter than the 472. The rocker arms are said to be on a stamped steel part that if pushed will break with the result being that the valves will be damaged...
Well, the consumer, I think, is smart enough not to buy something that is a bad deal in the long run. I bought my current SLS because the dealer came down to my price, which I did not really expect at the time. Still, all in all, while, if I were still driving my 98 Aurora, I do not know what I would buy now. I would like a wagon, but the SRX is a bit too thirsty, although it might not be too bad with a V6.
The only car I have ever had a fluid change for the automatic transmission was on the Olds98 '87 model. They were known for being problematic, I found out later on. It is also the only automatic I ever have had fail on me. Never touched the automatic in the Corolla for about 80K miles. Owned lots of other cars, with no automatic tranny failures. GM was the only one. -Loren
While changing the fluid is helpful, my thoughts regarding treatment of the transmission by its owner was in terms of shifting into forward while still moving backward and other harmful habits.
With GM's bigger cars though, the wagons tended to be pretty heavy. For example, a '96 Caprice sedan is 4061 lb, but the wagon is 4473 lb. Even the lighter '90 Caprice sedan, with a V-8, was 3693 lb versus 4192 for the wagon. And even looking further back, I found that a '76 Grand LeMans Safari weighed about 4505, versus 3976 for the sedan. However, in this case the wagon had a standard 400 V-8 with a THM400 tranny. The sedan came standard with a 250 inline 6, but I dunno if it came standard with an automatic or 3 on the tree.
Ford seemed to have a better handle on weight, as the '91 Crown Vic wagon weighed 4028 lb, versus 3822 for the sedan.
I dunno about the Ford versions, but GM wagons were also beefed up enough that the GVWRs were usually about 500 pounds heavier than their sedan counterparts. At least with the '77-90 styles. Sedans were usually around 5000-5200 lb, while wagons were more like 5500-5700 lb IIRC.
Now with something like a Charger versus a Magnum, in this case the sedan is 4031, versus 4125 for the wagon, both with the Hemi. I'm guessing here though that the rear of the Charger is so high up, and with the way the roof of the Magnum slopes down in back, that in this case you're really not adding much. Plus, this thing really isn't made for trips to Home Depot, so I'm guessing that they don't beef up the GVWR on the Magnum over the Charger or 300.
Mercedes offers great support for thier older models, as does BMW. BMW demonstrated how much support they offer by building a "new" 2002 almost exclusively from their parts catalog. Even Jaguar has divisions to keep old cars on the raod. Porsche and Audi lag behind, and VW, somewhere in the world, is still making it. You can buy a Rabbit, if not a beetle, in South Africa (CitiSport Polo or something like that).
The Caprice wagon came with a third seat that would add to the weight. The crossover SUV's, like the Enclave and Outlook, are going to weigh about 5000 lbs. I think that a wagon based on a sedan, like the CTS, could weight less than 4000 lbs and still offer some extra cargo carring capacity compared to the sedan. I actually like the basic Magnum, but do not think that the 3.5 V6 is quite big enough, while the hemi is too big.
Plastic polish will clean up plastic lenses, and you can buy kits for less than $30 to polish them and remove residue. The early 90s Accord and Civic had glass lenses, while domesetic cars of the era had plastic. I don't know that one is better, the Accord's leses got pretty pitted, and the Contour's were yellowing. They both polished up okay. The other advantage to skipping sealed beams is they were designed as an $8 disposable part. They didn't engineer the reflector or reflector material, or put a lot of thought into the lens and shape. I remember driving the Nova in the mountains at night and being frightened because I couldn't see as well as in my mom's minivan. 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!
Perhaps you are right. The HHR is hitting 100,000 units per year but that is only because it is "cool" today. Also the Saab and Vibe are GM wagons but are both low volume niche players. Any mid or large size wagons are not gonna hit 100,000 units per year. The magnum sold 50K last year but is losing sales fast. There are just too much +'s for the crossovers, minivans and SUV's over wagons. As far as boomers wanting wagons I sure do not see that happening today. They are driving Lexus RX's and Rendezvous type vehicles.
The CTS would look much better than the SRX and would make a much more practical vehicle.
Agreed!. Besides the CTX would make a better wagon than sedan. There is no headroom in the back seat for semi-tall people (like me (6'1.5"). It would look a lot better as a sleek wagon than the SRX does as a blown up box.
There is no volume on the wagons on any of those makes. Like I said-niche market. Negative thinking is part of the problem GM has. Wagon sales are down because of mini vans and SUV's. However, as boomers get older they won't want to drive mini vans, and they might not want the expenses associated with SUV's. Wagons are a potentially growing market. I don't think Volvo, Saab, BMW, VW, Mazda, Ford, Chrysler would be building them if there wasn't a market. Most vehicles are aimed at niche markets, as the market is getting more fragmented. The sales from a decent wagon would be 10X what it will be for the Solstice. Could be another mistake in GM marketing "strategy" that marketing courses will study in the future.
I think that a wagon based on a sedan, like the CTS, could weight less than 4000 lbs and still offer some extra cargo carring capacity compared to the sedan.
This is a brilliant idea. CTS lends itself beautifully to be made into a wagon. And, this seems to be a growing market for wagons - the luxowagon market. Boomers don't want vans, they don't need SUV's, they travel and buy stuff so they need the room a wagon offers. The CTS would look much better than the SRX and would make a much more practical vehicle.
GM's been in trouble for decades and is not reaping the consequences but there is tremendous hope for GM. GM is the leading seller in China and their new line of trucks/SUV's looks very promising. Fit and finish is improving greatly (alomst on par with Germans and Japanese) and GM powertrains are among the best in the world. Finally, GM has finally started to centralize their buying power (the reason Wal-Mart is the global powerhouse).
Last year i considered purchasing a Toyota Tundra and was impressed with the vehicle. During negotiations we came to within $500 and they brought in "the closer" who immediately bashed GM. When I asked him to match the maintenance history of my Chevrolet Silverado the deal fell through. My Chevy went 6 years and 125,000 miles with only oil and tires...period!
You are a lucky man indeed! Go to Vegas and win big time! Beating the odds in life is a good thing.
As for the Tundra, I would choose the nearly as large Tacoma instead. Great gas mileage. Well, that is if not using it as a true work horse. Then a Tundra, Chevy, Dodge or the ever popular Ford may be on the list. -Loren
How can you expect someone to buy a new car (this applies to their cars more than their trucks) when they lose almost half of their value in the first year of ownership. My sister in law bought a 2005 Malibu Maxx last July for $22000 and has only 12000 miles on it. If she were to sell that vehicle today, less than a year later, she could probably get $13000 if she's lucky. Compare that to a 2002 RSX with 30K miles on it and bought for $20K that can sell today for around $12K. It's going to take much more than updated styling to turn GM around.
Sales persons bashing other automakers during a possible sale has happened to me before. We were seriously considering a 99 Maxima(at the time, on sale, 21K,down from 23K msrp), until the salesman started to ask what else we looked at, and then attacked them(Hyundai). I went back there (this year) to the Honda dealership(same "mega" lot of various dealerships, under one owner name)and checked out the new Civic.
The test drive was ok. We were only gone maybe 10 minutes, and when we got back to the lot, some other sales staff were outside. One guy said"why such a short drive?". I told them I was not ready to buy, but if I were, I might consider another Toyota( a Corolla, next gen, perhaps)... and the "let's talk badly of Toyota" started. One guy claimed something about a Toyota(some truck) was in there 3 times for repairs, they had for trade in, after they sold it used. Said they were junk, and only lasted 50,000 miles, not worth the money, or wasting your time looking at Toyota.
Also, I asked them at Honda if they could beat another dealer's cost(he advertises "to beat all other deals by at least 300-800 dollars.... in other words, if this one dealership said 800 off civic, the other place would knock off at least 1,100). All they did was say" I heard they are crooked at the service dept", about the other Honda dealership.
I have maybe met 2 or 3 decent sales persons in 19 years of buying new cars. The rest tend to go the attack route.
I have maybe met 2 or 3 decent sales persons in 19 years of buying new cars.
Your experience is pathetic....sad state of the world of salesmanship. Perhaps the sales people aren't trained properly. Negative comments about a competitor doesn't make your product look better. And, he doesn't know, you might have had great cars from that competing car company in the past (besides, there isn't that many really bad makes out there). They would be further ahead to say the competition has great cars, but you will like ours more because..........
Perhaps the sales people aren't trained properly. Negative comments about a competitor doesn't make your product look better.
lol, ya think? I bet these guys get almost no training.
In my experience, car sales people assume all customers are dumb. I didn't get this treatment at Volvo, but I got it at Honda, Toyota, Chrysler and Ford (the only dealerships I've visited in the last ten years, I think)
Let's not get off on that tangent, however. Too many bad experiences along those lines, I am sure. There is a reason most people hate the car-buying experience. A nd it AIN'T driving the cars!!!
Yikes, so much for all the brave talk coming from Wagoner, Lutz, and LeNeve! I suppose they'll have to do something for the summer months, beyond the gas card thing.
OTOH, I always have said one month, in and of itself, doesn't say much; it's the longer term that counts.
Looks to me like sellers are asking 18-19K$ for a 2005 Max when I look here on Edmunds. She should put it up for sale and ask those prices for a low mileage car. The ones listed had 9K miles approx. Looks like a good price to me. Better than you're saying the Honda car sellings for $20 now $12 w/30K.
Comments
There was a Taurus wagon-gone.
There was a Camry wagon-gone.
neither sold
Volvo, Audi, BMW, VW, all have at least 2 wagons, then there is Mitsibushi, Ford, Chrysler with at least one wagon.
Someone is making marketable wagons, but it ain't GM.
There is a market for good sensible wagons, car companies have to bring something marketable to the table.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Correct. Is that the official definition of a "crossover"?
It is probably a good one. Or is it an oversized station wagon?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Lemko, I think most of the teething problems with that transmission were worked out by 1988. And if the car has been well-maintained and not abused, I'm sure it'll be fine. I think one reason so many transmissions started failing in the 70's and 80's was that, in addition to making them lightweight, they started telling us that we could increase the service intervals!
I have a sales brochure for a 1979 Malibu. "A Fresh New Slice of Apple Pie", the catchy slogan reads. One of the advantages they tout for the Malibu is this wonderful transmission that can go 100,000 miles between servicings! Is it really a big surprise that these THM200C's were so notorious for failing? :surprise:
FWIW, I also have a brochure for a 1979 Nova, which still used the THM350 tranny, and it called for 60,000 mile intervals. I have a '76 LeMans owner's manual, and it calls for the same.
My Intrepid, another car known for having a fragile transmission, calls for servicings every 100,000 miles on the "regular" schedule and 50,000 on "severe duty". My mechanic told me to do it every 30,000 miles to be safe. And I figure a $70-80 service, even if I really am doing it too often, is still better than a $2000+ transmission!
Anyway, my Grandma's cousin has a 1989 Coupe DeVille, which I think has about 80,000 miles on it now, and it's still on its original transmission. And I know she's not good about maintenance. A couple years back it was driving funny and she asked me to look at it. I drove it around some, and when I came back I asked her when's the last time she had the transmission serviced. She just looked at me confused and asked "What's that?" D'OH!!
What did you do for the tranny? Flush or drain/replace filter?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I wouldn't believe it in 1979 and I won't believe it now! I still have my trannies serviced every 30K miles. My 1989 Brougham's tranny is still original. I'd probably repent my sins if the tranny in the Seville failed.
I don't know what my grandmother's cousin ended up doing. I know she had it serviced, but probably just a drain/replace filter. Aren't flushes usually pretty expensive?
I'm guessing that's all they've ever done to my Intrepid, as the bill to service the tranny was always under $100.
Toyota/Honda allowed Harbour in more plants this year.
Labor Hours per Vehicle
... ... 1998 ... 2004 % change 2003 to 2004
DCX.....46.81 .... 35.85 4.2
Ford.....36.76 .... 36.98 4.2
GM ....46.52 .... 34.33 2.5
H.....31.90 .... 32.02 0.2
N.....30.70 .... 29.43 (-4.8)
T.....30.25 ..... 27.90 5.5
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
When we first started though we were recomending 30,000 mile service for most vehicles on the tranny flush. We would normally tell people to have the screen replaced every other flush or after every two flushes.
For trucks that did a lot of towing we recomended 15,000 miles intervals for the flush and changing the screen every second flush.
What's the concensus?
Rocky
For coolant though, I think flushing is a good idea, if done with water only. This you can do yourself by draining and refilling with water, running then engine, and doing this repeatedly until the drained fluid is clear (or nearly so).
I think how well automatic transmission last depends mostly on how they are treated by their owners.
The HydraMatic was a 4 speed, but not an overdrive 4 speed. The four speeds came from using both planetary gear sets (2.5:1 and 1.5:1 approximately) to get a 3.75:1 first gear. The fluid coupling was not a torque converter.
Considering the extra displacement, that's really not much more than a 350-4bbl in a '77 Caprice, which would've had 170 hp. Or a Pontiac 400-4bbl in a Catalina, which I think had 180. Or an Olds 403, which had 185.
I'm sure the 425 had more torque, especially compared to a 350, but the cars it went in were also heavier, which offset the power advantage.
I dated a girl ages ago who had a '79 Olds 98 with the 403, and it seemed really gutsy. It was enough to almost make you proud of the 70's. Almost. :P
Someone is making marketable wagons, but it ain't GM.
There is a market for good sensible wagons, car companies have to bring something marketable to the table.
Got to give Chrysler credit for trying to bring back station wagon with its Dodge. While Dodge has good styling, maybe it looks too good and is thus not as practical as it could be.
Think there could be a decent market for a RWD V8 (with DOD) full size station wagon by Chevy. The template that could be looked at is the 77-82 Chevy Caprice station wagon. I bought one used and had it for about 10 years and it was a very useful and comfortable vehicle. It had bench seats in front and middle that were chair height and could comfortably seat 6 adults. With middle seat folded, you could haul 4x8 sheets plywood. This Caprice also had the 2-way tailgate (which Honda Ridgeline copied).
My Caprice station wagon handled reasonably well. Think that an updated 2010(?) model could be more fuel efficient than a Suburban or Tahoe and would weigh less. Think they could make one at about 4000 lbs vs well over 5000 for Suburban and Tahoe. There are better opportunities to have styling flair with station wagons in comparison to SUVs like Suburban and Tahoe.
Perhaps biggest problem would be that if GM made a 2010 Caprice wagon, they would price it too high in Suburban/Tahoe range. They would need to be able to make a Chevy wagon affordable for the average working Joe - say no more than mid/high twenties.
GM goofed up in mid 90's with way oversized and weird looking Impala and Buick Roadmaster RWD station wagons.
There's a guy at work who has a lovingly maintained '79 Impala wagon with a 305-4bbl. It's a nice looking car. However, I have a feeling that if GM tried to do something like that these days, it would weigh well over 4000 lb. Heck, even those downsized late 70's models still easily topped 4,000 pounds, and with all the safety and convenience equipment people want these days, not to mention structural stiffening here and there, I just don't see 4,000 lb being a hittable target for something like this.
I think a V-8 Magnum weighs about 4000 lb, and it's about as big inside as a 1982 Malibu wagon.
Those bathtub style '91-96 models were very fuel efficient, especially once the LT-1 350 went under the hood for 1994. 17/26 if I recall correctly. Not bad for a 260 hp 4300 or so lb beast that could do 0-60 in about 8 seconds or less.
Also, believe it or not, those '91-96 models weren't that much bigger overall than the '77-90. However, they were much more rounded off and harder to see out of, which made them feel more ponderous. They curved and hollowed out the door panels a bit to give you more shoulder room, and I think they made the seats a bit bigger, but the steering wheel was in the same location as the older models, so it ended up making you sit just a bit to the left of it.
And I think the way the rear ends were curved on them may have cut into cargo volume, compared to the more squared-off '77-90 style.
I agree though, it would be cool if something like that made a comeback!
Pontiac did a similar thing when it came out with its 301 V-8 for 1977. It looks just like a 350/400 block (at least to me it does), but they managed to trim off weight here and there, and I think there was something they did with the main bearings that ended up biting them on the butt. Anyway, I think the 265/300 block only weighed about 450 lb, compared to about 600 for the older 350/400/455 style block.
Also in the 70's, I believe a lot of manufacturers went from using a forged crankshaft to a cast one. I don't understand what that means, but I do know it was cheaper. And more prone to breaking. Dunno if it was lighter though. I've heard people on the Mopar board I belong to mention it in the past.
I'm pretty sure this new marketing ploy will end up the same way, hurting everybody, including the consumer who's struck with a gas guzzler after a year. It's not a good marketing play because it's too easy for the rivals to match it. Ford already has!
-Loren
Ford seemed to have a better handle on weight, as the '91 Crown Vic wagon weighed 4028 lb, versus 3822 for the sedan.
I dunno about the Ford versions, but GM wagons were also beefed up enough that the GVWRs were usually about 500 pounds heavier than their sedan counterparts. At least with the '77-90 styles. Sedans were usually around 5000-5200 lb, while wagons were more like 5500-5700 lb IIRC.
Now with something like a Charger versus a Magnum, in this case the sedan is 4031, versus 4125 for the wagon, both with the Hemi. I'm guessing here though that the rear of the Charger is so high up, and with the way the roof of the Magnum slopes down in back, that in this case you're really not adding much. Plus, this thing really isn't made for trips to Home Depot, so I'm guessing that they don't beef up the GVWR on the Magnum over the Charger or 300.
Porsche and Audi lag behind, and VW, somewhere in the world, is still making it. You can buy a Rabbit, if not a beetle, in South Africa (CitiSport Polo or something like that).
The other advantage to skipping sealed beams is they were designed as an $8 disposable part. They didn't engineer the reflector or reflector material, or put a lot of thought into the lens and shape. I remember driving the Nova in the mountains at night and being frightened because I couldn't see as well as in my mom's minivan.
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!
Agreed!. Besides the CTX would make a better wagon than sedan. There is no headroom in the back seat for semi-tall people (like me (6'1.5"). It would look a lot better as a sleek wagon than the SRX does as a blown up box.
Negative thinking is part of the problem GM has. Wagon sales are down because of mini vans and SUV's. However, as boomers get older they won't want to drive mini vans, and they might not want the expenses associated with SUV's. Wagons are a potentially growing market. I don't think Volvo, Saab, BMW, VW, Mazda, Ford, Chrysler would be building them if there wasn't a market. Most vehicles are aimed at niche markets, as the market is getting more fragmented. The sales from a decent wagon would be 10X what it will be for the Solstice.
Could be another mistake in GM marketing "strategy" that marketing courses will study in the future.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
This is a brilliant idea. CTS lends itself beautifully to be made into a wagon. And, this seems to be a growing market for wagons - the luxowagon market. Boomers don't want vans, they don't need SUV's, they travel and buy stuff so they need the room a wagon offers. The CTS would look much better than the SRX and would make a much more practical vehicle.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Last year i considered purchasing a Toyota Tundra and was impressed with the vehicle. During negotiations we came to within $500 and they brought in "the closer" who immediately bashed GM. When I asked him to match the maintenance history of my Chevrolet Silverado the deal fell through. My Chevy went 6 years and 125,000 miles with only oil and tires...period!
Beating the odds in life is a good thing.
As for the Tundra, I would choose the nearly as large Tacoma instead. Great gas mileage. Well, that is if not using it as a true work horse. Then a Tundra, Chevy, Dodge or the ever popular Ford may be on the list.
-Loren
Really ? I must have missed that memo.
We were seriously considering a 99 Maxima(at the time, on sale, 21K,down from 23K msrp), until the salesman started to ask what else we looked at, and then attacked them(Hyundai).
I went back there (this year) to the Honda dealership(same "mega" lot of various dealerships, under one owner name)and checked out the new Civic.
The test drive was ok. We were only gone maybe 10 minutes, and when we got back to the lot, some other sales staff were outside.
One guy said"why such a short drive?". I told them I was not ready to buy, but if I were, I might consider another Toyota( a Corolla, next gen, perhaps)... and the "let's talk badly of Toyota" started.
One guy claimed something about a Toyota(some truck) was in there 3 times for repairs, they had for trade in, after they sold it used.
Said they were junk, and only lasted 50,000 miles, not worth the money, or wasting your time looking at Toyota.
Also, I asked them at Honda if they could beat another dealer's cost(he advertises "to beat all other deals by at least 300-800 dollars.... in other words, if this one dealership said 800 off civic, the other place would knock off at least 1,100).
All they did was say" I heard they are crooked at the service dept", about the other Honda dealership.
I have maybe met 2 or 3 decent sales persons in 19 years of buying new cars.
The rest tend to go the attack route.
Take care/ not offense.
Your experience is pathetic....sad state of the world of salesmanship. Perhaps the sales people aren't trained properly. Negative comments about a competitor doesn't make your product look better. And, he doesn't know, you might have had great cars from that competing car company in the past (besides, there isn't that many really bad makes out there). They would be further ahead to say the competition has great cars, but you will like ours more because..........
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
That's what the Freestyle was for - nobody bought it.
lol, ya think? I bet these guys get almost no training.
In my experience, car sales people assume all customers are dumb. I didn't get this treatment at Volvo, but I got it at Honda, Toyota, Chrysler and Ford (the only dealerships I've visited in the last ten years, I think)
Let's not get off on that tangent, however. Too many bad experiences along those lines, I am sure. There is a reason most people hate the car-buying experience. A nd it AIN'T driving the cars!!!
2- Ford: --------- 278,546 down 2%
3- Toyota: ------- 235,708 up 12%
4- DCX: ---------- 212,882 down 8%
5- Honda: -------- 141,810 up 11%
6- Nissan: ------- 76,881 down 11%
7- Hyundai: ------ 42,514 up 5%
OTOH, I always have said one month, in and of itself, doesn't say much; it's the longer term that counts.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,