By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
BTW, a tasteful example of a car from that era is the 1961 Lincoln Continental (my opinion AND C&D's).
It was an unpleasant (to me) gold/champagne color, maybe that doesn't help.
Toyotas are boxes by comparison, but have much better engines. So does Mercedes and BMW - and their cars look great by comparison. Plus, often get better MPG.
It all starts with the drivetrain and GM, while the CAN do it, just seems content to squeeze the margins and lifespan out of the old junk it has instead of starting over from scratch. I mean, if they can make NASCAR engine, they certainly can make a nice 3.0L inline 6 with VVT and possibly a supercharger - and RWD. 300HP and 25mpg I'd bet.
The 300ZX '95, the Celicas, Mustang '94, Prelude '92, best Camry '94, Miata, Grand Prix GTP coupe, Eldorado, 300M,BMWs, Corvettes, Jetta, Eclipse, Aurora, Cougar, 3000/Stealth, T-Bird '95, Probe '95, Porsche 944, Mazda RX-7 '94. You know, you have a point. Where did all the good designs go? And coupes? Oh well, nothing to capitalize on, I suppose.
Ya know, I wonder if some of those old sweet looking cars are not bad investments? Are modern day cars, with all the electrical, computers, and air bags -- you know stuff -- too hard to keep for another twenty years time? And parts? I have seen the RX-7 already in car shows. I prefer the look of the old ZX to the new Z. But are parts expensive and harder to come by? And as time marches on, safety improves.
We seem to living in the era of the too tall doors, with too small windows. And the big butt syndrome. Please, someone stop the madness!
I owned a Stealth at one time, and a Miata more recently. Both had low and wide look, and I could hang an elbow out the window. What ever happen to?????
-Loren
P.S. I may be in the minority on this one, but there is a big butt car which still looks OK and that is the C5 Corvettes. Yes, the C4 is lower / wider in the back, but for some reason, I like them both. Maybe it is the race car heritage thing of others a big rear, or something. Strangly enough, and you can call me that, it worked well enough on the C5.
The truly wild, and I would imagine dangerous years, were those when just about anyone could race. The whiskey runner car era.
Well I am sure the cars were much slower back when they were less aero, but it all seemed more real. As much as the road race cars are race cars, they are at least more real in form than the NASCAR. A Corvette is pretty much a race car. And say a BMW3 is at least the same RWD car. Takes a heck of alot of imagination to visualize a Ford Fusion, or Camry as a NASCAR in your local showroom.
I see more REAL Miatas on the track than I do FUSIONS.
Can you visualize taking your Monte Carlo to the track?
:shades: Loren
One thing I will say for modern cars with the big, tall doors, is that they are much easier to get into and out of than in cars from years gone by. It's one of those things that I don't think you notice when you're actually living with an older car from day to day, but once you get used to a newer one and then go back and try some of those older designs, you see just how bad they could be.
For instance, I was at the Mopar show in Carlisle, PA this past weekend. In the car corral, there was a 1971 Dodge Coronet sedan that, at a quick glance looked pretty nice. This is basically the same design as all the generic copcars that got smashed up in the Dukes of Hazzard, the A-team, etc. Now this is a big car by today's standards. Probably about 210" long, 117.5" wheelbase. Not what you'd call space efficient, but you could probably squeeze six passengers into it better than any car built today. Now getting into the front wasn't so bad, but you had to practically be a contortionist to squeeze into the back! Now once I was inside, it wasn't bad, but the door opening was so small and low, and the C-pillar had a serious rake to it.
I wonder if that's one reason that coupes might have been so popular back in the 70's? Sure, they looked better for the most part, but especially in the midsized and compact car lines, the smaller doors of a 4-door sedan might have actually made it a bit more awkward to get into and out of. I know in the past, I usually preferred a coupe because, even though the big doors could be awkward in tight parking, they also provided a bigger opening to get into and out of. And in some cases, having to fold the seatback down to climb into the back seat probably wasn't that much more difficult than contorting yourself to squeeze through a back door.
So I think the tall, big doors, while they might make the cars look awkward, are probably for the best. Especially as the baby boomers age. However, I do wish they'd do something about the high door sills and ultra-thick roof pillars!
I am just hoping GM can improve all it's product, and get those desirable concepts finally out on the road like the Camaro. I hope we don't have to wait until Carlos Ghosn takes over to see this happen.
Rocky
Rocky
I try to ignore them as much as possible. Although I do find myself starting to long for some Hogan's Heroe's reruns. I could see Dr. Z saying "I know NAAAAA-thing!"
I have to agree with you there. They don't make me want to go out and buy one.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Perhaps the only thing that is "stock" on Jeff Gordon's car is the Chevrolet name. The styling of Chevrolets(?) running in NASCAR kind of resembles the weird looking Monte Carlo. Realize that race car profiles optimized for aerodynamics and entire race car is built for safety, but would rather see more variety and better style such as 4-door Cad CTS lookalike as a NASCAR racer.
Wonder if there is even one tiny part of a Chevrolet(?) badged NASCAR racer that can be traced to a regular production Monte Carlo and is out of GM assembly parts bin.
I'm not sure exactly when the last year was that NASCAR stock cars had any resemblance to a real car, but in the early 80's Richard Petty or somebody raced an '81-83 Imperial, because it was more aerodynamic than a Mirada or Cordoba. And the Monte SS Aerocoupe, the one from '86-87, had that big rear window to improve aerodynamics, and they offered it to the public because at that time at least, you still had to race some rough equivalent of the street version.
I'd guess it was the 80's when it all started to degenerate. And I just about lost it when they started using Intrepids, Tauruses, and FWD Montes on the NASCAR circuit. I mean, once upon a time Chrysler put a nose cone and a big wing on a few thousand street cars just so they could race it in NASCAR. But how many RWD, 2-door, V-8 Intrepids and Tauruses do you see running around on America's streets? :confuse:
In the same vein, there are a couple of RWD Chevrolet Cobalts running in NHRA "PRO STOCK".
Here is my prediction (maybe worth just what it costs
Within 10 years there won't be a single vehicle built in a UAW plant.
Every other industry has gone through massive reconstruction in the last 30 years. The big 3 can't avoid it. Ghosn being the CEO would not slow the process down.
About Dr. Z
-Loren
Do you really think the Ghosn and R/N is going to happen?
I wish GM would understand that. But in their thinking each of the five vehicles are different becuase they're badged differently. That counts doesn't it?
So the General looks at the biggest segment in the passenger car market and decides to compete with one car that's kind of the same but smaller than most people want and another that is kind of the same but bigger than most people want? Not even a Guiness commercial would call that Brilliant.
Chevrolet is supposed to be the car for the everyman. Surely they should be competing in this segment head on.
For some reason, the domestics in general have been taking this same step in fighting the imports. They seem to come in a bit above the Camry/Accord/Altima, a bit below, but never really head-on. GM has been doing it for awhile now, with the Malibu/Impala. Chrysler has been doing it for awhile now too, with the Stratus/Sebring at the lower end, and the 300/Charger (and previously the Concorde/Intrepid) coming in a bit above.
Ford recently went to this scheme as well, with the 500 now being the bigger medium car, and the Fusion coming in a notch below. There's still the Crown Vic too, but it's pretty much just a taxi/copcar special these days.
I think one reason this mis-alignment might have happened is because the imports grew a bit. If you go back to, say, 1997, a Malibu, Stratus, and Contour were about on the same page as a Camry, Accord, or Altima. But the Japanese cars have grown, while the Malibu and Stratus are about the same size, and the Contour got canned several years ago.
Perhaps they found that competing directly against a particular size, type import led to a lot of people who were biased for the imports based on historical anecdotal experiences would not consider them a viable competitor.
By competing at a slightly larger size with v6 at comparable pricing against part of civic market or slightly underprice on accord/camry with v6 impala might be a viable way to go. Do we think they don't do any studies before they plan their cars and position in the market? Think they don't do focus groups?
We can see the reaction some have with their perceptions of cars from the past in this forum discussion. A few people have open minds and a reality-based perception of the biases at play and that makes it easier.
1 GM needs more reality perception by
public of their cars.
2 GM needs sharper edge to appearance
on some car models
to catch attention, ala 300.
3 GM needs 4 cyl and manual transmissions.
Perhaps there's no profit with past encumbrances
in labor and financial setups in that market for GM.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Is their marketing research and focus groups working?
If the best selling passenger cars are the Camry/Accord, that's the size that the typical American family wants. Not a little bigger or a little smaller.
This discussion is about their styling choices. If they're making a tactictal decision to avoid this market segment (the best selling one), then it's not a direction that will save them.
Perception is reality. I have the perception that the Steelers are better than the Cardinals because the Steelers won the Super Bowl.
My last domestic car, a 1990 Mercury Sable, became very problematic after about 4 years and 65K miles, and I took good care of it.
I've had 3 Camrys, 2 of which are still in my fleet, and they've all been extremely reliable. The one that was sold had 111K miles, and I only sold it to get side curtain airbags on a newer Camry.
I also have a '98 Nissan Frontier that's needed, besides bulbs, filters, fluids, and wiper blades: one new battery and one new secondary coolant hose clamp. I'm still on my original tires at 55K miles. Just lately, the "check engine" light came on (twice) -- the code was recorded and cleared -- I'm waiting to see if it comes on a third time.
At my workplace, we have about 30 employees, and the most popular car is Honda, followed by Toyota. There is one GM car -- a Tahoe and one Chrysler product -- a Wrangler, and a few Fords, mostly Explorers. There's a good reason for this -- many have been burned by domestics (or VW) in the past.
Consumer Reports also shows exceptional reliability for Toyota and Honda overall, but we're not supposed to believe CR because it's "biased."
At any rate, I have no reason at this point to change brands.
My perception that I am better off in a Nissan or Honda is based on first hand experience. Not even talking about the better driving dynamics these cars offer, why would I switch back now?
The GM loyalists are of the mind that GM is losing market share because of a poorly concieved perception in the minds of consumers that the cars are inferior when in fact the cars are just as good or superior. They blame this on some media conspiracy or something but when it's pointed out that the perception is borne of first hand experience and is therefore reality, that goes in one ear and out the other.
Which as it happens rank many GM brands above Mazda. So why should I buy Mazda?
:P
But here I'm thinking dollar for dollar, the Sky Redline will be more fun to drive - and is better looking - than the Miata.
But now I did have some friends who had a 1994 Civic. Blew its second head gasket around the 80-90,000 mile mark, and I know it needed a/c work in that timeframe, too. They got rid of it in 1998, trading for a Saturn S-series.
And my Mom & stepdad had a 1991 Stanza that was pretty sub-par in my book. Tranny started to go around 90,000 miles, but they nursed it to around 115-120K before selling it. As it aged, maintenance stuff was expensive too, and those 2.4 4-cylinders and 3.0 V-6es from that era seemed to have a habit of eating timing chains...and the associated valves and other innards. My Mom & stepdad's second Nissan, a '99 Altima, at its tranny at 35,000 miles! For awhile there, I was VERY leery of Nissans! It's like you got the GM build quality and interiors but without the durability! But maybe my Mom & stepdad were just unlucky. And to be fair, tranny #2 on that Altima has held up, and the car is now over 200,000 miles.
I don't attribute that high mileage to it being a Nissan, though. I attribute it to their ~140 mile round trip commute of mostly highway driving every day! Heck, they had a 1984 Tempo that was still running fine at 160K miles when they traded it for the Stanza, and a 1986 Monte that had about 179,000 miles on it when they gave it to me. I got t-boned 13,000 miles and 3 months later, while delivering pizzas, and that was the end of it.
And I'm not totally turned off to Nissan. I still think their interiors are way too plasticky, but somehow they still manage to make the product somewhat appealing. For instance, if I were to get a new car now, the Altima would be in the running.
1 - there is NO luggage space with the top down
2 - I can't stretch my 5'7" frame out in it
Why did the make such a gorgeous car with these two fatal flaws?
Andre - The interior in my Alt is too plasticky, but it offers are more comfortable seat, better seating position and ergonomics than my Mom's Impala (with buckets). Whenever my Mom is in my car, she marvels out how big the back seat it. How come GM can't put a decent back seat in anything smaller than a Caddy?
It would be nice to know the outcome of this predicament!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Unfortunately for me, I'm not in the market for any type of two-seat vehicle.
Now... if GM were to create a 4-seat 'hot hatch' version, I'd be all over it like a bear to honey.
(Chance that GM will ever do that, though? Zilch.)
You know what's coming. The H bodies and Park Aves (not sure of the letter) have fine room in the back seat. All those H-bodies and Park aves and all from 92 on that are on the road so much more now than they were before all have LOTS of room. Comfortable seats, legroom, trunk passthrough.
I haven't ridden in an Impala rear seat to check, nor LaCrosse, but they appear smaller. I don't recall the Century/Regal being smaller however. That's the same W body weren't they?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
In my Executive parking at my business, there is a Nissan, a Mercury Mountaineer, a Mercedes, a Kia Amanti, and my Lexus. The Lexus and the Mercury are the most trouble free.
Head2Head with Accord, Camry, Sonata....who cares? If it is close to, pretty much like, or what-have-you, why not just by the other car. It is not like GM has a serious warranty. No the only hope is find some unique cars to sell, and at the correct market price.
The G6 GTP Coupe is not bad looking. Then again, it is FWD, and looks a bit like the Accord and Solara Coupes. Too bad is not say RWD, with a smooth inline six. Maybe people would pay the premium. As is, I would be looking for one used, at under $20K within a year, and under $17K in a couple years. If it sells better and resale is better - I stand corrected.
-Loren
The Altima is pretty good as is, though it seems to be known for some torque steer and still is not the top line interior. Maybe dial in a little more steering weight. Whole new ball game though, with the new one for 2007, so we shall see how the changes look.
-Loren
P.S. Does blue paint on cars always fade like :sick:
Have fun! :shades:
-Loren
-Loren
What a value to get a used one then. Say at $10,999 or even $13,999 in a years time, they would be a value. But, it ain't for everyone, as priorities do vary. From a value stand point, ya know a used one is dollar wise great, as is a new one driven to 300,000, IF nothing went wrong. Hyundai has the 10 yr. warranty ya know.
-Loren
You know, theres an idea! Why don't they ever consider building a car with this chassis and style in a really nice 4 door sedan style? You'd think they could make a $30K car that might at least be a decent "poor man's BMW 3 series" that could sell quite a bit. Certainly more market than a two seater.
This is the entire segement that GM just doesn't have. Unfortunately, it's the segement I really like.
But CEO keeps open mind to Renault-Nissan pact
"My experience in life is when you bet on somebody saving you, that's a pretty risky business," GM CEO Rick Wagoner said Tuesday. See full image
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/OPINION03/607120417/1148/- AUTO01
IMO there is a market for 4 passenger cars that has been ignored quite a bit. There are people who like a sports - type car but want the ability to carry more passengers if necessary.
That is probably why cars like the Mustang are fairly popular....I actually see a lot of them (unless they are old ones, they all look the same).
A passenger with style and a nice interior has more potential than 2 passenger Solstice. After awhile they don't even look that great....kind of a jazzed up Miata and in the long run the Miata still looks classier and more dignified...will keep it's looks and of course for actually handling the Miata is better.
I saw a 1960 Thunderbird the other day - looks like the '58 or '59 but had the sequential turn signal lights where the inner one flashes, then the middle one, then the outer one. It was incredible and looked more up to date than any new car. The 1960 T-Bird would be a great model for a new car that would look fresh against all the bubble cars that look the same to get those low drag coeficient resistance scores. Who cares about an extra half gallon of gas if every car has to look the same.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Probably true!
Or was he referring to "W"? :confuse:
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250