Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Favorite of the newest line up is the SLK. And a
few years back, perhaps the coupes as well and
some sedans. To buy, not just for eye candy, I think
I would go BMW3 as an all around good German car,
or in the Mercedes line the SLK first or second gen.
Always liked the looks of the SL line of days gone bye.
Not sure I would want to own one. Oh well, if I had a
few million and owned say five cars, what the heck.
The Jags caught my eye when I was young. And in
American makes, several cars, including the Camaro
1st and 2nd gen. = very good effort indeed!
-Loren
1967 Mercedes
Also, when we are talking 20 years old, this 87 Mercedes looks better than any American car from 20 years ago, looks better than almost every new car on the road......
1987 MB
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Gorgeous, and that is a 1958!!! The best American car from a classic standpoint would probably be a 57 Chev, although I like the 57 or 58 T-Bird, even though they are very different cars. But this baby is majestic and deserves a lot of respect. That is timeless, and as you say, the same pedegree can still be followed up to the current models...no American car can do that...it is an incredible design to still be so elegant, after almost 50 years.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
As for the Parisienne, that was a name GM used on Canadian Pontiacs originally. Pontiac dumped the big Catalina and Bonneville here after 1981, and transferred the Bonneville name in 1982 to what had been the LeMans, a midsize. The Catalina name was never to return. Then, suddenly big cars started to sell again, so Pontiac rushed out the Parisienne in mid-1983.
IIRC weren't the other GM divisions...Chevy, Olds, Buick supposed to do the same with their "big cars"? Seems like I remember reading something like that in Motor Trend.
MB and Pontiac really don't compare in the 60s, so all that's kind of tough. MB didn't even have a V8 til the very end of the decade.
The G6 is the best comparison to the Sonata. I hate the looks of both sedans. The Sonata looks better than the Malibu. No argument there. The Aura equals the Sonata in bad exterior looks. The G6 is probably the best looking of the four in external looks. That's not saying much. The Accord and the Fusion (external looks) beat them all.
BTW, the Impala loses BADLY compared against the Azera.
The Tiburon looks better than the Cobalt coupe on the outside (probably interior fit and finish as well). It doesn't look better than the Solstice or the Sky, but those are two seaters.
BTW, that Hyundai warranty meants nothing if you sell the car.
As for a Pontiac that would compare with the 1967 Pagoda Mercedes - that would be the 1967 Firebird. Both are great-looking cars, but the Pontiac gives nothing away to the Mercedes in the styling department.
As for that 1958 Mercedes - it's a simple and functional design, but nothing particularly special. I'd take a 1958 Chrysler 300D or Saratoga over that car for styling.
BUT remember, the RN Alliance is a tried and tested model. Nissan and Renault have proven they have a good system of making a French and a Japanese marriage work very well.
Thus with that kind of experience in such a diverse marriage, I am quite optimistic it could work for GM as well.
And if you notice, Renault holds abt is it 40+ % Nissan stock, and Nissan holds abt 17% in Renault stock, also I remember Ghosn said to cement the marriage, such cross stock holding must happen to make all partners serious about the marriage. To make, as Warren Buffett said, each party talk the talk and walk the walk.
GM could do well on its own I agree, but if they exchange knowledge which one have and the other lacking, their growth will only be ACCELERATED.
If you are a bandit, I think you will prefer to fight 1 musketeer than 3 muskeeters.
An alliance, if working properly, comprised some of the most powerful forces, for good or evil, mankind ever had. Look at how the Grand Alliance in WW2 beat the Germans and the Japanese thoroughly.
Britain without the help of Russia and USA will already be under Hitler. Even China, not noted for her military might during WW2 era, actually helped a lot by tying down massive amounts of Japanese infantry divisions which could have been deployed against the US army in the Pacific. Wihout China tying down the Japanese army, US casualties in the Pacific War will multiply many times over.
Same for the Red Army tying down Hitler's divisions.
Imagine Nissan / Renault help GM master the Art of making superb diesels / small cars, and GM too have their own storehouse of knowledge to pass on to RN. The size and might of this 3 muskeeters is awesome.
GM and Nissan are strong in US and Asia. Renault is one of the kings of Europe. Basically these 3 guys combined means they have the biggest clout in EVERY major market in the world.
Even Toyota, though big they are today, they are not even the dominant car maker in Europe and China, the world's fastest growing car market.
I am not saying a Hyundai lasts longer, or is actually better than brand X, but it has the longest warranty. The content for the bucks seems pretty tempting. Initial quality looks promising. Long lasting performance is any ones guess. Will those willing to gamble be pleasantly surprised - maybe. Are there already loyal owners which have had good luck with previous model - certainly. Do they have some skunks as well - guess so, as you see some bitching no doubt. But this is true of all makes.
Comparing styles between a G6 and the Sonata, I prefer the Sonata sedan. In the coupe, the G6 looks pretty sharp. The competition in American has perhaps winner though in the Mustang, if you prefer RWD and the pony style. The G6 has pretty good gas mileage. The GTP G6 may be a contender for performance in the FWD class and fair enough competition to the Mustang in some respects.
Style wise, the G6 coupe looks like a mix of a Solara and a Honda coupe. Looks better than the Solara, IMHO, and about on par with Honda. It is too close to the other two to me to be a true new style. CTS and Solstice are new cars, in my view.
-Loren
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~rschild/mbgc.html
The typical sedan was not:
http://www.mbzponton.org/pax058/people/schumacher/schumacher.htm
***
I own a 230S and even though for 67 it was the bare-bones model, it still has boatloads of chrome, wood, tons of glass, and really solid panels. I just polished it(6 hours worth! Ow my aching arms!) and I notice every other driver on the road is taking a look at it - it looks straight out of a car meet or parade compared to their jellybean-mobiles.
Lovely non-metallic green paint that looks almost black when it's polished.
It puts a modern C-class to shame. When I went to the dealer to get a couple of parts(installing dual exhaust soon) the other people looked a bit taken back that such an old car showed up - and moreso from the mechanics when they heard that it was my daily driver. Yes, I drive something that nice. (course being the sedan it's worth about 1/6th of what a convertable is, despite driving just as nice)
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/06/news/international/bc.autos.renault.reut/index.h- tm?section=money_latest
I think I can smell a 3 way marriage coming ....
link title
The typical sedan was not:
link title
I like them both in their own way. It is hard to make a sedan look smarter than a coup or convertible. If you consider a sedan is limited in creativity, by needing 4 doors. However, IMO the Camry looks better than the 2 door Solara, G6, Accord all look better to me as 4 doors, because it just seems more sensible. I chose a 2 door 1992 Cavalier, but it was a hard choice between the 2 door or 4 door. I liked the roof line on the 2 door.
But that 1987 Mercedes 2 door convertible! I would put a big mirror up in the roof of the garage, and sit in my Mercedes, and get turned on by the image of me in that car.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
don't get your whities in a twist :P
I can't brag a little bit about some of the new models from GM ? I have to listen to you gloat about Hyundai's all the time. :P I have to ruffle your feathers and stir the pot once in a while to keep you on edge and sharp
Neways, have those Saabs moved off the lots yet or did they move them around the lot to give the appearance they have :surprise:
Rocky
Yeah, I do remember hearing something about that, and always suspected that Chevrolet was planning on axing the B-body Caprice/Impala and putting their names on the Malibu. The Malibu went to a quad headlight setup and Caprice-like eggcrate grille for 1982, and they spruced up the interior using the rally gauge style dash that was common in Monte Carlos. (round speedo instead of a strip, and cutouts for the other gauges, should you choose to order them) They also started putting plood on the dash, which I don't think was previously offered in the downsized Malibu. At least my 1980 Malibu didn't have plood, and the Malibu Classics I've seen didn't have it either.
Also in 1982, Buick took what had been the 4-door Century and put a quad headlight setup on it, and a grille that looked like the Regal coupe's but more upright, and called it the Regal. I suspect that their original intention might have been to pass it off as a "downsized" 1982 LeSabre.
Olds went to the quad headlight look on the Cutlass sedans and wagons for 1981, and they did bear a resemblance to the Delta 88.
One thing that might have stopped the other divisions from following in Pontiac's path is that in the end, the smaller cars really didn't get much better economy than the bigger ones, at least when equipped with the same engines. There was a timeframe in there though, I think maybe 1981-82, when you couldn't get anything bigger than a Chevy 267 or Pontiac 265 V-8 in the midsizes. The 305's and 307's were limited to the full-sized cars. But by, say, 1983, a Malibu with the 305 didn't get much better economy than a Caprice with the 305.
Another thing was that, unlike the Pontiacs, the full-sized Chevy, Olds, and Buick continued to sell well, even during those bleak 1981-83 years. Pontiac got hit hard in the 1973-74 fuel crisis, and never did recover in the way that the other divisions did. In the late 70's Pontiac's biggest volume sellers were usually the Grand Prix, Firebird/Trans Am, and Sunbird. The Catalina and LeMans never did sell well after 1973, while the Bonneville had a few okay years in 1977-79.
GM was actually considering dropping the entire Pontiac division in the early 80's, which might also explain why they canned the big Pontiacs. IIRC Pontiac slipped from around 850,000 units in 1979 to about 650,000 units for 1980. Then down to around 500K for 1981. In 1982-83 I think they were way down into the 300K range. Products like the 1982 Firebird, Sunbird, and 6000 helped to revitalize them and, laugh if you must, the 1984 Fiero really helped bring Pontiac back. The 1985 Grand Am also helped out considerably, and it ultimately went on to bring in much more sales than the Calais or Somerset Regal did.
The Grand Prix went through an aerodynamic facelift, along with the Monte/Cutlass coupe, and Regal for 1981, and it boosted sales from a dismal 1980, but after that it fell off fast. The 1982-86 Bonneville, ironically, never sold as well as the big 1981 Bonneville it replaced, but it was probably a cheaper car to build as it used the existing Grand Prix/LeMans dash, and most of the sheetmetal, with the exception of the rear quarters, was probably identical to the Malibu.
As for the Parisienne, initially it only sold about 17,000 units in its short 1983 run, but I think they were up to around 85-90K units for 1986. FWIW, I don't think that ever quite topped the 1981 Bonneville, either, but again since if was a thinly disguised Chevy, it probably wasn't that expensive to build compared to a 1981 Bonneville which used its own dash, sheetmetal, and usually engines.
Pontiac was trying to re-establish itself as a performance brand in the 80's, which is what made Pontiac famous in the 60's. And cars like the RWD Grand Prix, Bonneville, and Parisienne really didn't fit in that image anymore. I always thought it was kinda interesting though, that Pontiac chose to put a front-end on the 1981 LeMans that looked similar to a '77-78 Trans Am. I thought it looked good, and on the coupe model it actually looked kinda sporty, but it was too little too late. I tried to find a pic of an '81 LeMans coupe, but the only one I found was of one smashed beyond recognition in a rollover. Here's the wagon, with a full-sized Catalina/Bonneville Safari beside it.
When Chrysler got rid of their full-sized cars after 1981, the New Yorker and Gran Fury names were transferred to the M-body, which had been their intermediate platform (and before that, like in '77-78, was considered a "luxury compact"!) They had some brand equity in the Diplomat nameplate though, while nobody knew what a St. Regis was, so for Dodge they kept the Diplomat name.
In 1977, in response to GM's downsized cars, Ford had issued the LTD-II, a Torino with more modern, crisp sheetmetal. Ford advertising boasted that only Ford gave you the choice of full-sized cars...traditional and "new sized". It didn't fool too many people, though.
For 1983, Ford took what had been the Granada and Cougar lineup, gave them slicker sheetmetal, and called them LTD and Marquis, respectively. The big models then all became LTD Crown Victorias and Grand Marquises. This probably didn't fool too many people either into thinking they were getting a big car, but the '83-86 small LTD/Marquis actually did sell fairly well.
So I guess it's quite possible that Ford was considering dumping their big cars for awhile too in the early 80's. And Chrysler actually DID dump their big cars, although the Diplomat/Gran Fury/5th Avenue was still a fairly big car, compared to something like a 1983 Malibu or Bonneville, or LTD/Marquis. Not really any bigger inside by EPA measurements, but they had more of a substantial, big-car feel to them.
The Fiero was a good seller in the early stages, styling really sold that model. What did the Fiero in was that the first owners became disappointed with the lack of real sports car handling. Pontiac did put a much better suspension on the later cars, but the early models did the car in. The Solstice at least not only looks like a sports car, but does have a very good suspension and body structure to go with the looks.
January 2000
Dear Consumer:
Thank you for contacting the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) about your Cavalier, Sunfire, Skyhawk, Firenza, 2000, Sunbird, or Cimarron (GM's J-Car). CAS has received numerous complaints on sudden acceleration, peeling paint, excessive oil and/or coolant consumption, poor engine performance, power steering loss, and transmission failure. Introduced in 1982 with the Cavalier, Cimarron, Firenza, Skyhawk and Pontiac 2000, the J-car holds the distinction of being the only platform shared across all five GM car divisions. GM dropped the Cimarron and Firenza after the 1988 model year followed by the Skyhawk after 1989. In 1995, the Sunbird became the Sunfire just as the 2000 became the Sunbird in 1985.
The reliability of GM's J-Cars is much worse than average. In fact, their reliability has been so poor that all but the 1995 Cavalier and Sunfire made Consumer Reports' list of "Used Cars to Avoid" since 1988. The Car Book lists steering, fuel system, and brakes as the three most common J-Car complaints. Engine problems, including cracked heads, surge or racing, leaking rear main oil seals, and piston knock, have also plagued these vehicles.
I looked up Firenza and I came up with this. Reminds me my Dad bought his first GM in years, it was always Fords, but he bought a 1979 (I think) Omega, he didn't like his last Ford Granada. He didn't trust the brakes or the handling of the Olds Omega, thought it was unsafe.
He loved cars and was very mechanically inclined. He bought his first Camry before they really became popular. He got 2 more after that.
My point is, when you upset this many people it is really hard to make a comeback!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I owned an 83 Skyhawk and found it to be a decent compact car. I did not have any serious problems with it.
Strange they find all these. Is peeling paint a safety item? Guess it depends on your agenda.
Is CAS part of CR?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Citation and its variations became the most recalled car in history. I think a lot of those recalls did stem from brake problems. For some reason I want to say there was a problem with the rear brakes that caused them to lock up really easily. Sticking pistons or something like that? By 1983 the X-cars weren't bad cars, just becoming outmoded, but the earlier ones were troublesome. And since they were such hot sellers initially, they turned a record number of buyers off of GM, almost overnight.
As for the J-body, I knew a few people with earlier models. One of my friends in high school and college had an '85 sedan. Two other friends had Z-24's, an '87 and an '89. The Z24's both blew head gaskets. On the '87, my friend's father was a bus mechanic, so he was able to fix it. We went our separate ways after I graduated college, so I don't know how long it lasted. The '89 blew its head gasket around 100,000 miles, and it ended up getting donated for a tax writeoff. This was around the summer of 1997 I think.
The 1985 just stopped running one day, in 1994, with around 110,000 miles on it. Something electrical related. My friend never bothered to get it fixed, so it either got junked or donated, and he started driving his parents' '86 or so Tercel sedan, which was low mileage but tended to be neglected, and it sludged up within a year and was junked.
I think those old J-bodies were unreliable in the fact that trim pieces would fall off, and they'd squeak and rattle, and start leaking fluids. But as long as you kept topping off the oil, tranny fluid, coolant, etc, they'd keep going.
Did I mention that it was my wife's LAST GM car? (and she came from a family that traditionally bought nothing BUT GM, DESPITE the problems they had....)
Yes, yes, I'm sure that GM has made HUGE improvements since then. But the point is that I couldn't even get her to LOOK at ANYTHING on the GM stand at the last car show we attended.
When you piss off a LOT of people, who're probably buying their first car, with their OWN money, then you've probably pissed off a lot of people for life. And so long as they are satisfied with their subsequent cars (as my wife has been with her Toyotas and Hondas), then it will take alot more than just styling to win them back.
They just looked it styling-wise.
My 67 has(mind you it was the last year for this car - the original ones were in 1959!):
100% Unibody construction. 3000lbs.(Actually it's a bit too light - you can't put it on normal car lifts without risking bending it a bit - but an alignment rack works dandy)
Shoulder belts front and rear(!).
Collapsable steering collumn.
Padded dash(as opposed to hard metal)
Saftey cage and door reinforcement. First car made to try to survive rolling over.
Crumple zones, front and rear.(and yes the hood crumples, too - there's a small seam/weaker area in the middle)
And it has A/C, power antenna, and so on. Most models also have power windows(mine doesn't - no big loss). Looks positively old syyling-wise, but it's thoroughly modern underneath.
It's equally as advanced ay my mid 80s Buicks were, and worlds better than a 60s Mustang. Of course, they weren't that fast, but anyone can put a big engine in a car.
(note -they did put a 3.0L in a few models - with 200hp at the wheels and a top speed of 130mph, yeah it was plenty fast
The mission of GM is a car for everyone which it looks like they're still aspiring to so No, all things being equal, a 15% market share would be a disaster.
I think that a previous poster got it right when he questioned that after burning someone, how do you get them back. It's going to be hard.
But the point is, those aren't anything special at all.
Let's have fun with this.
First car with fuel injection(this has to be 1920s?)
First unibody car(1940s?)
First car with struts(1950s?)
First car with fold-away headlights(1940s?)
Way to go GM! 30 years to catch up!
One has to conclude that very very very few people had GM products that "burned" them. After all, with 50% of the market, it would only take a few years of sales to burn everyone in the USA.
GM did invent electric starters.
No doubt the Mercedes probably had more substance beneath the style in comparison to the Pontiac in terms of brakes, suspension and engine refinement. Have never driven a Mercedes but did own a 65 Pontiac Grand Prix 421 HO at one time. It was quick and went very fast, but could not stop well nor handle. It was ponderous. This was true even though it had the aluminum drum/wheel combo and hd susp option.
That is what it was, brakes locking up and a feeling the car would spin around.
For those complaining about Toyota's growing pains as they develop new models with NEW TECHNOLOGY, lets see how their cars fare...give them a chance. The J cars and X cars were disasters and were a marketing horror story, people turned off GM, and GM could be arrogant because there wasn't that much choice in those days. However many did not forget.
For the record my 1992 Cavalier was a pretty good car for 60,000 miles. It did start to feel loose and so it was time to trade it in. For those who prefer used cars, I'd stay away from that one, it's best days were over.
P.S. Peeling paint isn't a safety issue, but it is really annoying.
And one more thing...who remembers the Firenza. Maybe they were only in Canada because I think they were British, but what a :lemon: they turned out to be. Those cars wouldn't save the styling of any company.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I dunno about struts, I always associated them with cheap cars, mainly because it seems like cheap cars were the first to go to them en masse? And I remember people whining when the Civic went from the double wishbone to struts. Still, my Intrepid has struts and I've never had a problem with 'em, so I can't complain.
The 1942 DeSoto had hidden headlights and by that time they were considered nothing new. It's just that DeSoto happened to be the only domestic offering them that year, IIRC.
As for collapsible steering columns, I think all cars sold in the US were required to have them starting in 1967. I dunno about padded dashboards, but my '67 Catalina is padded. Padding was optional on many cars in the late 50's, but often it was just a thinly padded vinyl covering right over the metal. So if your head hit it, it really didn't cushion you that much. Basically like putting a rock in a sock and hitting someone with it. The sock ain't gonna reduce the impact much!
They started requiring front shoulder belts in cars starting January 1, 1968, although convertibles were exempted. I dunno when the rear shoulder belt became required. The auto manufacters also seemed to go out of their way to make the shoulder belts as annoying to use as possible. I don't know when they finally went to the normal, integrated lap/shoulder belt, but I'd imagine around 1973-74? We had a '72 Impala, but nobody wore seatbelts back then, so I can't remember how they were. Ditto Mom's '75 LeMans. My '76 has the integrated belt, but they position it so that it ends up rubbing the side of my neck!
I'm not sure when Ford started making unit bodies, but the 1958 Lincolns were unitized. I believe the '58 T-bird was, as well. I think unit-body design is something that, as you go to larger vehicle sizes, becomes less important. Still, even in something like the 1960 Mopars, when they went unit body, they were able to drop the floor pan by about 3-4 inches versus the body-on-frame 1959's, so it did increase interior room. A 1965 Plymouth Fury is also bigger inside than a 1965 Chevy, but that might have more to do with the fact that the Chevy is swoopier, while the Plymouth is more brick-like, and less to do with the fact that the Plymouth was unitized.
I wonder how reliable a 1920's fuel injection system would be? But then, how reliable is a 1920's carburetor? I think GM's first use of fuel injection was in 1957 as an option on the Chevy 283, and standard in the Bonneville. Chrysler offered Bendix electronic fuel injection in 1958, as a $400 or so option on the Fury, Adventurer, 300D, and D-500. It was unreliable, really only gave them like 5-10 more horsepower, and I think they only sold like 100 units total so equipped. All but a handful were converted back to more reliable dual quads.
Chrysler also offered fuel injection on the 1981 Imperial. It was so reliable that it was common to convert them back to 2-bbl carbs.
I think GM might also hold the record for the last vehicle sold with a carburetor...the 1990 Caprice/Electra/Custom Cruiser wagons, which had Olds 307-4bbls. The Caprice sedan used a 305 with TBI, and I think that year the Brougham went to a 305 TBI. Chrysler used carbs in the 318 car engine up through the end in 1989. I think trucks went to TBI for 1987. In police cars, the 318-4bbl actually used a GM carburetor from 1985-89! Carbs were getting so rare by that point I guess, that Chrysler had to outsource to GM for them!
The name was also used as a package on the Starfire clone of the Chevy Monza in the 70's. I don't know if it was a performance package or just a trim package though.
FWIW I don't think the Skyhawk was ever a hot seller, either. The typical Olds and Buick buyer just didn't want a small car no matter how bad fuel prices got, and the typical small car buyer wasn't thinking Olds/Buick!
I think my '67 Catalina handles and stops okay. But then, it just has a 400-4bbl which I'd guess put out around 325-330 gross hp at the time? Also, I have radial tires on it, which I'm sure helps out considerably compared to those old bias-plys. I just have the regular drum brakes, which I think are 11" all around. Very over-boosted, which can be scary if you're not used to them!
I don't know about the mechanical fuel injection problems of others, but the unit used in those 60s cars (the 220SE is very similar to the 280SE, so you get about 10 years of production there) very rarely develops problems if maintained and is often preferred to the carbs. The disc brakes on these cars are also very competent. It drives like a modern car, as I am sure you know.
You should also mention the competition history of these cars...1-2-3 a Monte Carlo was unprecedented, and I don't think it has happened since. Dozens upon dozens of other road and track victories in the 60s too. I can easily say it was the most advanced sedan in the world when new.
I can tell you why it applies with MY wife.
Her '92 Sunbird wasn't necessarily 'bad'. She wasn't exactly 'burned' by it. It had the very typical issues one can expect from an early 90's J-body. In fact, it wasn't really any worse (or better) than the late 80's Chevy truck she had prior to that, or her early 80's Malibu she had when she got out of high school.
In fact, she was fairly satisfied with her '92 Sunbird. Oh sure, it had squeeks and rattles and the motor made odd noises and the tranny groaned and it was on it's second alternator and the starter was acting up and you had to watch the fluid levels, but c'mon, aren't ALL cars like that when they get 60-90k on them?
Well, that's what she thought anyway. Afterall, she (and her family) had ALWAYS had GM cars.
And then we started dating and went on a long road trip from Texas up to Yellowstone and through Montana, Idaho and off-roading in Utah in my parents old '89 Toyota 4-runner. With nearly 170k on the odometer at that time.
And that old 4x4 with damn near 2x the mileage on it (HARD mileage) rode BETTER with LESS squeeks/groans/rattles etc. than her '92 Sunbird.
And THAT is why she refuses to look at GM cars anymore. We bought a 4runner for ourselves in '98 and she said that SUV was tighter when we sold it, with 120k on it, than her Sunbird was with less than 10k on it.
So NO, she wasn't exactly 'burned' by her Sunbird. Like most GM owners I think she was fairly 'satisfied'; she even told me that if we hadn't met, she probably would have bought another GM product. She just had not had ANY long term exposure to anything else. Once she did, she never looked back.
And there is no way in hell that 'styling' will ever get her back.
10. Long Reach:Shared vehicle platforms can create problems. the Cadillac SRX and CTS share platforms resulting in common seat and steering wheel positions. but the SRX's wider track and body make for a long reach-and-swing to get inside the SUV.
Interesting note is that shared architectures does not have to mean that the seats are in the same positions. The Impala and LaCrosse have the seats and steering wheel moved outboard to give more room to the console than the Century/Regal and Grand Prix. I surmize that the STS moved the seats outboard from the CTS/SRX but am not sure.
Of course, in hindsight, it's a lot better than those stupid alphanumeric names that Cadillac and Lincoln are now using in place of those grand old model names!
That is one heck of a date!!
I think that rorr nailed it. I'm the only import buyer in my family. When my father (69 years old) was complaining to me about problems with his 04 Century and 00 Impala, I tiold him that when I stopped buying GM, I stopped dealing with those dumb problems. His response was "but I like GM"
After 50 years of American cars, mostly GMs, he'll never buy an import....
and he'll keep dealing with dumb problems
The problem with the rear drum brakes as I recall was "grabby" or too-aggressive lining. The result (in the days before ABS) was that the rear brakes would lock up before the fronts, and unless you were going in a straight line, the car would tend to swap ends during hard braking.
Not too safe for the average driver. The government tried to force GM to recall the cars, but GM filed suit to block this move. The federal court decided in favor of GM. Not only was the decision wrong, but the judge (Thomas Jackson) took an unconscionably long time in reaching his conclusion.
They started requiring front shoulder belts in cars starting January 1, 1968, although convertibles were exempted. I dunno when the rear shoulder belt became required. The auto manufacters also seemed to go out of their way to make the shoulder belts as annoying to use as possible. I don't know when they finally went to the normal, integrated lap/shoulder belt, but I'd imagine around 1973-74? ... My '76 has the integrated belt, but they position it so that it ends up rubbing the side of my neck!
You are pretty much right on the money, even though you are barely old enough to remember. Obviously, you've done a lot of reading.
Collapsible steering columns and padded dashboards were included in the first set of federal safety standards, which went into effect on 1/1/68. However, most domestic cars had such columns in the 1967 model year, ahead of the standard. Ford cars used a large padded hub instead of a collapsible column in '67.
Padded dashes go back at least a decade earlier (as an option), but as you point out, they weren't very effective then (and of course no testing was required).
You're right about the effective date for front shoulder belts. They weren't required for the rear outboard seats in cars until the early part of the 1990 model year, and as I recall, trucks, vans, and SUVs didn't need them until 1992 models. A big push came from a 1986 NTSB report that widely publicized the shortcomings of lap-only belts in the rear seats.
The integrated lap/shoulder belt in front seats was mandated beginning with 1974 models, but most if not all European cars had them before then. In the early 70s, Mercedes and Volvo had them in the rear outboard seats as well. More comfortable belts for domestic makers came later in the decade, beginning as I recall with the 1976 Chevette and spreading to the GM large cars in 1977.
One could argue that it was Pyrrhic victory at best.
I remember this case, and it did seem to drag on for a long time. And during that time, GM's X-cars, not to mention GM itself, were receiving lots of unfavorable publicity.
So GM fought the government, and ultimately prevailed in court, but the company's image and the widely hyped X-cars (which were a big deal when introduced) were dragged through the mud for way too long. Better to have quietly recalled the cars and fixed the problem...
With the exception of her first two cars, a 1957 Plymouth and a 1959 Rambler, my Mom has always driven GM. Her last GM car was a 1986 Monte Carlo, and it was a good car. She gave it to me when it was about 12 years old, with 179,000 miles on it. I got T-boned 3 months later, with about 192,000 and that was the end of it.
But in 1989 my Mom & stepdad moved to southern MD, probably about 40-45 miles from where my Mom works and closer to 65-70 from where my stepdad works. They started riding to work together, and racking up miles fast. He had an '84 Tempo that they ran into the ground. Traded it in early 1992, IIRC, for a leftover '91 Stanza. The Tempo had 160,000 miles on it, so if anything, considering what it was, I'd say that would be an incentive to go with another Ford! But they bought the Stanza.
The Stanza actually wasn't that reliable, and the Monte was more comfortable and on the highway not that much more expensive to run in those days of cheap gas, so they alternated between the two. Then after Mom gave me the Monte, they relied on the Stanza and its iffy transmission until they bought a '99 Altima. Then they sold the Stanza about a year or two later.
I'm not really impressed with the Altima either. It's ugly, not that comfortable, and has narrow, thin, uncomfortable seats. It's also not all that fast, or at least doesn't feel it. But it's lasted. It did crap out its first tranny around 35,000 miles, but it was replaced under warranty with no fuss and now the car is up over the 200,000 mile mark.
So in my Mom & stepdad's case, no GM or domestic product in particular actually burned them or pissed them off, sending them running and screaming to the imports. It's just that they found an import they liked better.
I do remember that back in 1986, my Mom did kinda like the Calais and the Grand Am. Now one of those might have ended up sending them running and screaming to an import! :P Thankfully, Granddad talked her into getting the Monte.
In my case, just about every car I've ever bought was used...sometimes VERY used, so if it ended up being a POS edition, chances are it had to do with old age and neglect moreso than who built it to begin with. So I can't say GM ever burned me badly enough to swear them off. Neither has Chrysler. But at this point, GM just doesn't make anything that really catches my eye and makes me really want it. Actually, I don't think ANYBODY makes a car that really gets me excited anymore, but if forced to buy, I'd probably go with either a Charger or an Altima.
Said the ostrich with his head in the sand.
In business class they said "If you always do what you have always done, you will only get what you always got!
Meaning, you can't improve or move forward if you don't risk and try something new sometimes. You are satisfied, but you have no idea what else is available. That's fine, but it is not the best way to make the best possible choice.
And why this unquestionable loyalty? If you got the lemon X car that spins out of control, or a J-car that has monumental problems, would GM call you and make sure you were looked after?
I had about 15 American cars in a row and always thought they were superior. Then I took a test drive in a ________just for the fun of it, and I couldn't go back.
It's like a favorite restaurant. It is nice to keep going back, but one day, if you are adventurous, you will find one you like better.
You might be comfortable with what you buy, but unless you are willing to risk and try something, you are in a bit of a rut....difficult to advance.
Oh yes, regarding styling and GM. If GM made the most beautiful cars in the world I wouldn't go back, now if they were the most beautiful, and had similar handlng, at least as reliable, same safety features, hold value, similar warranty, same comfort level, and cost no more, I would consider a GM.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250