Oh, I don't think GM has a monopoly on such behavior by any means, but my experience in such things was always GM. That was a long time ago Things like the miserable first go at an OHC engine in the 67 Tempest I learned to drive in (engine blew up at 56K), my brother's Vega (blown head gasket) and my 78 Nova with the experimental paint job.
I was going to put in a truth in posting statement that said certainly the release of the original Focus was just this sort of thing. If they'd had a reasonably flawless release Ford would probably sell twice as many.
I'm genuinely trying to come up with a Japanese equivalent. My made in USA Volkswagen Rabbit would have qualified except for the fact that they never did work out the glitches....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I think people simply preferred the more conventional Ford Falcon to the odd rear-engineered Corvair
In sheer numbers, yes. The Falcon sold over 400,000 units in 1960, compared with about 250,000 for the Corvair. But compared to 1959, Ford's full sized lineup sales fell by 20%, I think, in 1960. Chevy's full sized lineup actually increased sales in 1960 by 10%. This means that the Falcon stole sales from it's bigger siblings, while the Corvair brought more sales in.
True. I read an article in Hemmings Classic Car, which featured the Corvair this month. The writer believes that had GM invested the time and money into the Corvair (remember there was a HI PERF. Spyder, Corsa, and a 200hp Yenko stinger) that Porche invested in the 911, it COULD have been a contemporary to the 911. BTW the '65-'69 STILL looks fresh and modern today.
They were fun cars. I got to drive one for a bit back twenty years ago. Was visiting in North Carolina and someone had one. It drove very nice for something from that time.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The Corvair is still popular at car shows. I think they were dealt an unfair blow by one certain blowhard no nothing writer. Who went on to CR and spread his anti domestic rhetoric that is still pervasive in the halls of Consumer Reports.
Do you want me to take a picture of the paint job on the black Accord a friend has? It's about a 1998, maybe 96, he said. It's experimental. This is the late 90s.
I noticed a few months back that a Honda was knocking and sounding strange as the lady accelerated from a stop sign nearby. I looked up the taillights and it was 11996-1997. I saw it on the hook a couple days later. Guess it blew up on her. I'll take a look down that side road and see if I can see it parked. She probably had to junk it rather than repair it.
See, I have all sorts of anecdotes, real in this case.
>engine in the 67 Tempest
Yours goes back to 1967!!!! That's way back there. How was the maintenance on that Tempest? Lots of problems are caused by poor maintenance such as erratic oil changes and not getting work done on little symptoms which then become big problems. Back in 1967 auto transmissions often went out by 75-90 K miles. Motors were surprisingly good if not needing rebuild work by 100K and 125K miles.
Well, you see, it was my parents car. I don't remember having to get into the oil change business until the car had a few years in it. I don't have much reason to believe the maintenance was great on it but those engines were known to die early.
The car went a long time after that. We put a Buick engine from the junkyard in it. We sold teh car at something like 120K and it went for quite a while after that. We'd see it around town.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I notice that many of the import fans gave up on the Big 3 in the late '70's.
When I was in Auto school 20 yrs ago, we learned that when the Clean Air act came out in 1970, that the American mfrs. would have to get their act together by 1975, but the foreign mfrs. had an extra 5 yrs to meet federal safety and emissions requirements. This is why in 1980, MG, Triumph, Fiat, and the VW Bug went bye bye, as they were said to have no interest in meeting our requirements. I remember working on a couple of Datsun B-210's from the late '70's that had no catalytic converter on them, and they were still quite simple under the hood (no mess of vaccuum hoses).
Now, I'll admit that the Big 4 should've spent more time in R&D, and less time howling over the restrictions, (Honda came out w/ the CVCC engine in the '70's) but one has to wonder: If a 1978 Datsun went into the dealership for a tuneup, and needed the idle mixture adjusted in the process, and all the mechanic had to do was take out his handy-dandy screwdriver to adjust it no one would think anything of it. Yet, if it were a '78 Nova, and the mechanic explained that he had to remove the carb, drill out the idle screw plugs (that kept our hands out of there-considered an emission control) reinstall the carb, adjust it, then reinstall new plugs we'd be like :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: . All to accomplish the same thing.
Omega you say? I think I would rather have the watch. But ya know, it was not a bad rendition of the X body. Here is an ad link I made a bad choice between buying a Cutlass 442 '87 or an '87 98Regency, which looked like a deal price wise. I do believe they priced around the same at the time, and I was thinking that going with newer car and the luxury was the deal. The '87 year of the 98 was a dog, and well " I could'a had a V8." How stupid was I back when. Sure the gas mileage on the V6 was better, but that 180 HP and dual shift sticks of Hurst would have been cooler. And the RWD car was something GM understood and built better at the time. No wierd engine problems with the V8 and I think the tranny was solid. That was a dumb a thing to do as buying a four cylinder Mustang, badly in need of a real engine. Anyway, the Cutlass would have been more like those wonderful cars of say early '70 - style and RWD. Loren
Rear brake lock-up can result in doing some 360* turns. I do recall some car review testing revealed some of this tendancy. I would imagine the transmissions were junk up to say around '88, when a new updated FWD transmission was available. At least that was the Olds. story. Loren
Always blame the messenger, and not the one which did the design and execution. Oh well, somethings never change. For years, I was somewhat mad about what seemed to be the unfair attack on the Corvair. I liked the second redition of this car. Now some decades later, I came to the conclusion that I was but shooting the messenger. GM dropped the ball on the safety / handling for the first Corvairs. VW old Beetles are also noted for some on the border of tipping handling, and not so forgiving handling under higher wind conditions.
If they reintroduced the Corvair, it should be called the Monza and have a mid-engine design, and trunk space - space for a targa top? Loren
If the messenger is a hack writer that had it in for GM why not bad mouth him? As late as 2000 less than 2% of the population considered him anything but a loser.
Did GM do everything right with regards to the Corvair? No they did not. I do think it set back small eco cars in America 20 years by allowing one person to kill a program.
During the 1960s & 70s I was buying Japanese cars and paying the price for constant repairs.
Short history brief for my GM fan as quoted from CNN: He was hired in 1964 by then-Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan as a paid consultant to the Labor Department. He worked on a federal government study on auto safety and helped a Senate subcommittee on the same subject.
In May 1965, Nader left the Labor Department to work on a book about auto safety. "Unsafe at Any Speed" launched him into the public spotlight. The book, published in November 1965, documented safety defects in U.S. cars and criticized the automobile industry's safety practices, specifically targeting the Corvair, which was built by General Motors.
Helped by the revelation that General Motors hired a private detective to investigate Nader's private life, the book became a best seller. Nader subsequently sued GM for invasion of privacy and eventually received $425,000 in an out-of-court settlement.
He used the money to expand his advocacy efforts. Nader's research on auto safety and his lobbying in Washington helped push Congress to pass the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. --------------------------------------- Well, you were dreaming of this 1988 Oldsmobile link I went to the 1986 LA car show, and it was pretty cool. The Buick Wildcat of the future. Nothing ever became of the car though. Porsche had the 959. GM had all the Cadillacs in white, with the man playing piano dressed in white. Trying to think of what GM had back in 1988. The Cadillac Seville, I did like. Don't know just why I like it. Must be the unique look. I liked those small Cadillacs. The Corvettes are nice, but hard on the back to get in and out of that year. Fiero looked neat, but had its own woes. The Grand Prix and Eldorado looked OK. I had an Olds 98 Regency, and it was kinda a classy look. Would have been a fan, but the car let me down. Good comfort and gas mileage, but it was just too troublesome. My cousin sold Oldsmobiles, so I gave that division three tries. My Dad had the '72, I believe was the model year, Cutlass Supreme. Pretty reliable; did not like driving up to higher elevations, but those were the carburetor years, and it tended to overheat. All in all, a great looking car, plenty of power, with white interior and that orange/copper metallic, for lack of a better color description, it would be a nice car to own today, if someone else bought the gas. I think it got say 13 mpg to maybe 15 on the freeway under good conditions. First GM car I drove was the Buick LeSabre of 1961. Smooth power, nice roof-line, with no pillar in the center, so it looked like a hardtop convertible. Really classy and once again, lots of power + gas sucker. Loren
I remember working on a couple of Datsun B-210's from the late '70's that had no catalytic converter on them, and they were still quite simple under the hood (no mess of vaccuum hoses).
What exactly WAS the loophole that let some manufacturers get away without putting catalytic converters on cars? There were a few domestic models that made it past 1975 without a catalytic converter. Back in college, a friend of mine had a 1976 AMC Hornet wagon, which came from the factory with no catalytic converter. In fact, it caused some problems when they started requiring emissions testing around these parts. Initially the car failed because there was no catalytic converter on it, and the inspector wouldn't buy into the concept of a 1975 or later car NOT having a converter.
Luckily, AMC was still (marginally) in existence by then, and my friend's father was able to get documentation from them stating that that car was not required to have a catalytic converter.
He wasn't the only lucky one. My best friend's family bought one of the first Chevrolet Citations in the spring of 1979. This car was a five-door 4-cylinder hatchback finished in two-tone cream and dark green with a orangish interior called "Camel." He started driving it in July 1981, shortly after his 16th birthday, and drove it through his junior and senior years of high school. It took him through undergraduate school, graduate school, and into the first year of his marriage in 1994. The car looked pretty bad by then and the original cream-colored hood was wrecked and replaced with a green one making the car an even odder two-tone. He had racked up 195K miles without much of a hiccup - amazing for one of the much-maligned GM X-cars.
Very interesting info. I'd forgotten about the clean air act and forgotten that the then struggling foreign guys got a pass. I do recall the 70s had all kinds of gizmos to effect clean air standards and affect the gas mileage. I won a 79 Mustang Pace Car with a quarter mile of rubber hose running around the engine compartment to do things and I felt that was because of the silly standards then. It was 4-cyl turbo.
Could a factor in longevity of the car exclusive of sheet metal be in the maintenance of the motor and rest of the car? I have always been an oil changer and did my own chassis lubes.
Loren, there was a guy here at work who had one of those high-output Cutlasses. His was the Hurst edition, which I think came out before they started using the 4-4-2 name again. I think it was a 1983.
I think it was pushing 300,000 miles by the time he got rid of it. He gave it to his neighbor. I remember when I found out he had gotten rid of it, I told him I would've bought it off him! But that was when he told me about the 300K miles!
IIRC, these cars used a beefed-up version of the THM200C-R4 (I think I got that alphabet right!). That transmission is an overdrive version of the lightweight THM200C that was infamous for early failure behind larger engines. The R4 was troublesome for its first few years, but GM did get the kinks worked out of it pretty quickly. Much more quickly than, say, Ford's 4-speed overdrive, which came out in 1980, and I'm not totally convinced that Chrysler EVER got all the kinks worked out of its first 4-speed overdrive automatic!
Also, my Mom had an '86 Monte Carlo V-8 (not the SS, just the regular 305) and my grandparents had an '85 LeSabre with the 307, and both of them had the 200R4 tranny (normal version, not the beefed up Monte SS/Grand National/442 version), and neither had any tranny problems. The LeSabre got retired around 157,000 miles, when the brakes finally went out, and the Monte got T-boned around 192,000.
Lemko's '89 Brougham has that same tranny, and he's up to around 157,000 miles. But the way he maintains his cars, he'd have a 1976 Volare or Accord still looking like a brand-new car! :P
I dunno about my friend, but his father was fanatical about his repairing and maintaining his cars. He was a heavy equipment operator and could fix almost anything.
One of my neighbors bought a new Citation in 1981. It replaced a gorgeous blue 1969-70 Sedan DeVille hardtop. But hey, it was the recession, we thought we were going to run out of fuel, etc, so you did what you had to.
Now this guy is a mechanic and restores old cars. He's helped me in the past mess around with mine, and helped me repaint both of my Darts. But he got so fed up with that Citation that they dumped it after a few months and bought a V-6 Monte Carlo!
I don't think they had the Citation long enough to have much trouble with it, but my neighbor, who was a big do-it-yourselfer, thought it would be a nightmare to take care of.
I think FWD and emissions controls ended up stumping a lot of older mechanics. My Granddad moonlighted as a mechanic back in the day, and I remember he started getting fed up as cars started getting all the emissions crap on them, and especially once they started downsizing, resulting in more cramped engine compartments, and once FWD and more computer controls started running rampant, he just threw up his arms and gave up.
"hearts and minds of the reviewers, publishers, and most importantly test equipment of Consumer Reports Auto Reviews.
Furthermore, they have to make more consistently "better than total crap" cars so that the reliability rankings come back positive on CR's annual reports. "
Not going to happen. CR is one of the only publications that has yet to acknowledge any improvement in GM products. Regardless of what GM puts out their models get low scores in CR road tests.
As for reliability, most GM models score average or above average last time I checked. Do you see lots of inconsistency in GM's ratings? I dont. Not sure where you are getting your information. GM's problem with CR is more about test scores than reliability. Even the models with above average reliability generally have poor overall rankings- see Tahoe for example.
Was having a rear engine really an advantage or just a gimmick?
Some of both. Putting the engine in the back eliminated the transmission hump and driveshaft tunnel, which did wonders for interior room. However, the engine turned out to be quite a bit heavier than expected (325 pounds versus 250 or so), and that extra weight turned out to be too much for the swing-axle setup to handle safely. GM cheaped out and eliminated the rear swaybar, then tried to band-aid that by specifying widely different tire pressures front and rear. Combine that with the general quirkiness of an aluminum flat-6 and a finicky fan belt, and it was just too much for most potential buyers.
"Cadillac is playing catch-up, as is GM. The CTS is a thumbnail of where they are in the landscape. Good, but should be better."
What is wrong with the new CTS? What is it lacking besides the all important pushbutton start? State of the art powertrain, interior, features, sound system, etc.
"Yeah Toyota does repect Honda but they do have respect for Hyundai and GM as well. "
No they dont. This is evidenced by the shortcomings of the Tundra and the fact that Toyota execs in the US make it very clear that there is no cross shopping between their products and inferior Detroit products. I remember reading a comment from a Toyota exec about employee discount sales a few years back and he said they didnt care because their customers dont look at or buy domestic anyway. In other words, Toyota vehicles are so far above their competitors that incentives on inferior vehicles put no pressure on Toyota. Funny how 2 years later they have $5000 in incentives on some new Tundra models.
What exactly WAS the loophole that let some manufacturers get away without putting catalytic converters on cars?
A few engines were lucky enough to meet the 1975 emission standards without a cat (the Honda CVCC being the most famous example), so they didn't get one.
What is LExus' "dual" DI doing? What is even meant by dual DI?
The Lexus version of the Toyota 3.5L V6 has two sets of fuel injectors: one that shoots directly into the cylinder (direct injection) and an auxiliary set that shoots into the intake runners (conventional fuel injection as found on most cars and trucks today). The computer manages both to optimize the fuel-air mixture and placement for the engine's rpm and other conditions.
Exactly. It was not a loophole. There was a level of emissions control that had to be met. p until the 1980 model year you could do it with out a catalytic converter and some makes did exactly that.
Starting in MY 1980 you had to put the cat on whether it actually was needed to meet the standards. My 1980 Accord was the first year for Honda cat converters but it would have met the emissions standards anyway.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I said: "Yeah Toyota does repect Honda but they do have respect for Hyundai and GM as well. "
You said: No they dont.
I will the say following: yes they do respect Hyundai there's was even a thread on "Toyota fearing Hyundai" on these boards that got shut down. Secondly, Toyota did acknowledge that Gm was doing better as a company of late in a press release that I read a couple months ago.
"This is evidenced by the shortcomings of the Tundra and the fact that Toyota execs in the US make it very clear that there is no cross shopping between their products and inferior Detroit products."
What shortcomings on the Tundra are you talking about? The Japanese are not even known for making great heavy duty pick-up trucks like the Domestic Big 3 are sort of the way the Domestics are not known for making good compact or mid-size offerings as opposed to the Japanese Big 3 mid-size or compact car offerings.
"I remember reading a comment from a Toyota exec about employee discount sales a few years back and he said they didnt care because their customers dont look at or buy domestic anyway."
I don't remember reading that article in which a Toyota exec said that their customers don;t buy or look at Domestic offerings for that matter. In my opinion, that would be foolish if a Toyota exec did in fact say that their customers did not look or buy domestic offerings because I feel like alot of current Toyota owners used to buy GM 20-25 years ago and both GM and Toyota are loved companies by the Baby Boomers.
"In other words, Toyota vehicles are so far above their competitors that incentives on inferior vehicles put no pressure on Toyota. Funny how 2 years later they have $5000 in incentives on some new Tundra models."
Yes I would have never thought Toyota would put a 5,000 dollar incentive on a vehicle 2 years ago but like I said before Toyota's reputation is not known for making a great heavy duty pick-up like the Domestic Big 3 do. Their(Toyota's)reputation is known for making Camry's, Corolla's, and RAV4's. But By the same token I am not excusing Toyota for putting a 5,000 dollar incentive on a car because the Domestic Big 3 would take a hit if they put they kind of incentive on a car as would Mazda but Toyota just doesn;t have a reputation for making a great heavy duty pick-up truck.
The problem had less to do with the Falcon than the fact that the 1960 Ford just wasn't a very attractive car compared to the 1959 model, or even the 1960 Chevrolet. One Ford dealer was still trying to unload brand-new 1960 models in early 1962!
Plus, the 1960 Ford had a fair number of quality control problems, as it was rushed into production when Ford management saw the sleek "batwing" 1959 Chevrolet.
cooterbfd: When I was in Auto school 20 yrs ago, we learned that when the Clean Air act came out in 1970, that the American mfrs. would have to get their act together by 1975, but the foreign mfrs. had an extra 5 yrs to meet federal safety and emissions requirements.
Did they really have five extra years? From what I understand, certain small-volume manufacturers may have been exempted for a few years, but not the big manufacturers, foreign and domestic. And Honda was one of the leaders in cleaning up tailpipe emissions during the 1970s.
The government did make exceptions for AMC. A 1969 court decree forbid the domestics from collaborating on emissions reduction technology, because it was felt that they were colluding to stall the development of new technology. AMC, because of its small size and precarious financial position, won an exemption, and was allowed to work with GM on emissions technology. But its cars still had to meet the same standards as the cars of the Big Three.
cooterbfd: This is why in 1980, MG, Triumph, Fiat, and the VW Bug went bye bye, as they were said to have no interest in meeting our requirements.
The VW Bug had already been replaced by the Rabbit in 1980. The main reason the Bug went away was because of the freefall in sales it had experienced since 1970. (People forget that the Bug wasn't all that popular by the late 1970s; its charm had definitely worn thin by that time.) VW began switching to water-cooled engines in the mid-1970s.
MG and Triumph were about out of business in their HOME market by 1979. The Clean Air Act had little, if anything, to do with their demise in the U.S.
cooterbfd: I remember working on a couple of Datsun B-210's from the late '70's that had no catalytic converter on them, and they were still quite simple under the hood (no mess of vaccuum hoses).
Certain Chrysler and AMC engines also didn't have catalytic converters at first, either.
A few engines were lucky enough to meet the 1975 emission standards without a cat (the Honda CVCC being the most famous example), so they didn't get one.
Yeah, but that would mean that a hoary old AMC 258 straight six, which was about three days older than God, was able to meet those emissions standards! :surprise:
And supposedly, Chrysler's big-block V-8's, with Lean Burn, WOULD meet emissions standards, but the gov't made Chrysler stick catalytic converters on them anyway.
"Not going to happen. CR is one of the only publications that has yet to acknowledge any improvement in GM products."
Not true: CR did say the following on GM's offerings in the the April 2007's Annaul issue of 2007 cars:
While significantly improving, some GM products remain mediocre.
"Regardless of what GM puts out their models get low scores in CR road tests."
Not true again: The Outlook just got a goods review(from what I hear anyway) and CR did like the way the CTS drove they just didn;t like the following: emergency stability control engaged too late in accident avoidance manuever test, some materials felt cheap, sevreral minor controls were poorly placed or difficult too use, and the seat mounted safety belts were annoying.
"What shortcomings on the Tundra are you talking about? The Japanese are not even known for making great heavy duty pick-up trucks like the Domestic Big 3 are sort of the way the Domestics are not known for making good compact or mid-size offerings as opposed to the Japanese Big 3 mid-size or compact car offerings. "
who cares? when you have an excellent R&D program it doesnt take long to turn out a top notch product. I am tired of the excuses. Toyota has been making trucks for this market for decades. How long can you say "they are new to the pickup market"? The Tundra has a less than stellar interior and its panel gaps are not up to the GM trucks standard. According to articles I read Toyota people privately said they didnt think GM would really take its pickup interiors to that level. They also said the larger panel gaps were intentional which really means they didnt think competitors would build their trucks to sedan type tolerances. Toyota came out on top in terms of powertrain, but that's about it. The rest of the Tundra is been there, done that.
The incentives on the Tundra prove that NO ONE can leap frog the competition and maintain a competitive price. The Tundra is close to best in class but its also expensive. The competitiveness of the truck market and the excellence of the GM trucks is forcing Toyota to use incentives to keep its plant running at the planned rate. It doesnt mean the Tundra is a bad truck, but thats the market. contrast that with how GM vehicles are bashed for ever having incentives and we get the silly "if you make better vehicles you dont need incentives" argument. Almost everyone needs incentives these days.
Having less power, and torque (and soon to be a lot less power, with the G37 engine), and an antiquated key system, that's two strikes. I can look for a thrid strike, and I'd probably find it, if I really cared to look.
The CTS will do alright. I don't really have a problem with it. But it seems destined to be a step behind, that's all. Cadillac/GM needs to aim higher, that's all.
"Not true again: The Outlook just got a goods review(from what I hear anyway) and CR did like the way the CTS drove they just didn;t like the following: emergency stability control engaged too late in accident avoidance manuever test, some materials felt cheap, sevreral minor controls were poorly placed or difficult too use, and the seat mounted safety belts were annoying. "
I stand corrected, GM has two models that CR thinks are OK. As for the CTS, I cant imagine that its emergency handling is worse than some highly rated luxury cars such as the soft ES350. Give me a break. The car is a sporty RWD sedan, unlike Lexus Cadillac doesnt program its stability systems to come on everytime you round an off ramp at 35mph. Lexus systems have been consistently criticized for being too aggressive.
"While significantly improving, some GM products remain mediocre. "
Yeah products like the Canyon, H2 and trailblazer. These hardly represent the bread and buttter of GM's lineup. The thing is even GM's competent but dull models which should score well in CR do poorly. There is no reason cars like the Impala and Lacrosse shouldnt do well in CR. Yet, mysteriously most mainstream GM models are dinged for being too soft in panic handling situations while Toyota products with similar handling score near the top of their respective categories. The average family sedan is going to pitch, roll and dive- thats just the way it is. I just dont get why GM models are deemed "unsafe" or "not confidence inspiring" when Camrys and Avalons are just fine.
"Regardless of what GM puts out their models get low scores in CR road tests."
Most GM models score mid-pack or lower on CR's rankings, but it has several models in the number 2 or 3 slot for its category. They include the Lucerne CXS, the Corvette Z06, the Outlook, the Acadia, and the Avalanche.
EXCEPT for "Toyota came out on top in terms of powertrain, but that's about it. The rest of the Tundra is been there, done that."
The safety features are two steps ahead of all the competition, everything from 14" brakes with 4-piston calipers to TRAC/VSC as standard equipment(Ford offers virtually NO safety features above front airbags and ABS)!
And of course the best-in class towing ability, which is tied to the superior powertrain, and the extra gears, with full manual capability, and standard dual-zone climate control, and more interior room than a Silverado, plus no loop in the powertrain, limiting your acceleration, so the truck can pass EPA tests......you get the idea.
"Having less power, and torque (and soon to be a lot less power, with the G37 engine), and an antiquated key system, that's two strikes. I can look for a thrid strike, and I'd probably find it, if I really cared to look. "
what are you talking about? Now one has said the G35 is getting the G7's engine. As for torque, the CTS makes 272 lb-ft which is more than the G37 last time I checked. How is that a strike? The CTS also has a richer interior than the G35 and more options. As I said before, the CTS isnt lacking in any important way. When you design car with class competitive power, performance and features and it looks great I dont count that as "aiming too low" as you contend. The bottom line is that its a Cadillac and thus you have a problem with it. There is no merit to your argument that the CTS is destined to be an also ran. Let's not forget it has more power than the just introduced C350 and a better interior. Plus a manual on BOTH engines.
keyless entry and start are antiquated? Surely you jest. the only difference between that and the button are the method of starting the engine. The the CTS you twist as opposed to pressing the brake pedal and pushing a button.
Unsurprising unclever! All my posts make sense to those willing to be objective. For anyone who is hopelessly biased and uninformed they make not make sense. Not necessarily talking about anyone in particular.
" The safety features are two steps ahead of all the competition (Ford offers virtually NO safety features above front airbags and ABS). "
GM trucks have stability control, its just not standard.
"And of course the towing ability, which is tied to the superior powertrain, and the extra gears, with full manual capability, and standard dual-zone climate control, and more interior room than a Silverado...... "
GM trucks have better interiors, dual zone AC, tranny with tow/hail mode, two interiors, best in class economy, flat floor under rear seat for carrying cargo (Toyota has stupid seat frame hardware), fully boxed frames, a more complex 4WD system that can transfer torque to individual wheels, HD models, more engines, more model combinations............
As for towing, I believe the Tundra can tow about 300 more pounds than the Silverado, and thats not including the 2500 or HD models of course. Give me a break.
"I don't consider the C-Class a major player in this segment. "
well why didnt you say so? That changes everything!
Anyway, the C class is major player in this segment. Its competitive in terms of price and performance, its just that the CTS is better. But of course you can just dismiss any car that is inferior to the CTS. The only cars in this class that could be better are G35 and 335 but the 335 is going to be a good bit smaller. The TL, C class, S60, A4, MKZ, etc. are all going to be surpassed. But I'm sure they arent serious competitors in your book.
What exactly was bad about the second generation of Corvair. It looks ten times better than a current Malibu, and dare I say much better than the G6. Loren
You haven't gotten the message: Toyota, good; everything else, bad.
Actually Toyo dug up the button start from some earlier US cars. I'm trying to think which ones had a button on the dash to push to start. I'll have to keep at watch at the classic cruiseins. Ford? Was it Studebaker? But Toyo has it--wonderful new invention. grin. :P
Who cares if Toyota invented it or not? The Japanese/Asians did not invent computers, cellphones, televisions, other electronics, watches, or automotive products, but their "implementations" of them are pretty awesome. That is just part of their cultures- they do improvements on existing technologies.
We have a saying in the field I am in (high tech)- "Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land"
Actually the days of inexpensive standard metal keys for under a buck, and no noisey car alarms, and honking cars when people lock the doors, is something to long for once again.
As for the push buttons, I guess they are OK. What I thought to the coolest thing was the Jaguar toggle switches on those XKE's, but then again, I had no idea of how bad Lucas was when I was but a small boy, and how it would hurt if your head hit those switches. Still like toggles, if not sharp and/or out of the way. My first car, a Ford Taunus had smooth rocker styled switches, which had a futuristic feel to them - kinda neat. Even in the 1960 cars, I guess German and British Fords had the new stuff. Speaking of which, the Astra is coming over from Germany, 100% original ? Or will it be a different car in some fashion? Loren
Comments
I was going to put in a truth in posting statement that said certainly the release of the original Focus was just this sort of thing. If they'd had a reasonably flawless release Ford would probably sell twice as many.
I'm genuinely trying to come up with a Japanese equivalent. My made in USA Volkswagen Rabbit would have qualified except for the fact that they never did work out the glitches....
In sheer numbers, yes. The Falcon sold over 400,000 units in 1960, compared with about 250,000 for the Corvair. But compared to 1959, Ford's full sized lineup sales fell by 20%, I think, in 1960. Chevy's full sized lineup actually increased sales in 1960 by 10%. This means that the Falcon stole sales from it's bigger siblings, while the Corvair brought more sales in.
Do you want me to take a picture of the paint job on the black Accord a friend has? It's about a 1998, maybe 96, he said. It's experimental. This is the late 90s.
I noticed a few months back that a Honda was knocking and sounding strange as the lady accelerated from a stop sign nearby. I looked up the taillights and it was 11996-1997. I saw it on the hook a couple days later. Guess it blew up on her. I'll take a look down that side road and see if I can see it parked. She probably had to junk it rather than repair it.
See, I have all sorts of anecdotes, real in this case.
>engine in the 67 Tempest
Yours goes back to 1967!!!! That's way back there. How was the maintenance on that Tempest? Lots of problems are caused by poor maintenance such as erratic oil changes and not getting work done on little symptoms which then become big problems. Back in 1967 auto transmissions often went out by 75-90 K miles. Motors were surprisingly good if not needing rebuild work by 100K and 125K miles.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The car went a long time after that. We put a Buick engine from the junkyard in it. We sold teh car at something like 120K and it went for quite a while after that. We'd see it around town.
I think some people don't understand the history of CR and especially their hatred of GM in the past from back in that era of the 70s and 80s.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
When I was in Auto school 20 yrs ago, we learned that when the Clean Air act came out in 1970, that the American mfrs. would have to get their act together by 1975, but the foreign mfrs. had an extra 5 yrs to meet federal safety and emissions requirements. This is why in 1980, MG, Triumph, Fiat, and the VW Bug went bye bye, as they were said to have no interest in meeting our requirements. I remember working on a couple of Datsun B-210's from the late '70's that had no catalytic converter on them, and they were still quite simple under the hood (no mess of vaccuum hoses).
Now, I'll admit that the Big 4 should've spent more time in R&D, and less time howling over the restrictions, (Honda came out w/ the CVCC engine in the '70's) but one has to wonder: If a 1978 Datsun went into the dealership for a tuneup, and needed the idle mixture adjusted in the process, and all the mechanic had to do was take out his handy-dandy screwdriver to adjust it no one would think anything of it. Yet, if it were a '78 Nova, and the mechanic explained that he had to remove the carb, drill out the idle screw plugs (that kept our hands out of there-considered an emission control) reinstall the carb, adjust it, then reinstall new plugs we'd be like :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: . All to accomplish the same thing.
I made a bad choice between buying a Cutlass 442 '87 or an '87 98Regency, which looked like a deal price wise. I do believe they priced around the same at the time, and I was thinking that going with newer car and the luxury was the deal. The '87 year of the 98 was a dog, and well " I could'a had a V8." How stupid was I back when. Sure the gas mileage on the V6 was better, but that 180 HP and dual shift sticks of Hurst would have been cooler. And the RWD car was something GM understood and built better at the time. No wierd engine problems with the V8 and I think the tranny was solid. That was a dumb a thing to do as buying a four cylinder Mustang, badly in need of a real engine. Anyway, the Cutlass would have been more like those wonderful cars of say early '70 - style and RWD.
Loren
Loren
If they reintroduced the Corvair, it should be called the Monza and have a mid-engine design, and trunk space - space for a targa top?
Loren
If the messenger is a hack writer that had it in for GM why not bad mouth him? As late as 2000 less than 2% of the population considered him anything but a loser.
Did GM do everything right with regards to the Corvair? No they did not. I do think it set back small eco cars in America 20 years by allowing one person to kill a program.
During the 1960s & 70s I was buying Japanese cars and paying the price for constant repairs.
I did not become a GM fan until 1988.
He was hired in 1964 by then-Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan as a paid consultant to the Labor Department. He worked on a federal government study on auto safety and helped a Senate subcommittee on the same subject.
In May 1965, Nader left the Labor Department to work on a book about auto safety. "Unsafe at Any Speed" launched him into the public spotlight. The book, published in November 1965, documented safety defects in U.S. cars and criticized the automobile industry's safety practices, specifically targeting the Corvair, which was built by General Motors.
Helped by the revelation that General Motors hired a private detective to investigate Nader's private life, the book became a best seller. Nader subsequently sued GM for invasion of privacy and eventually received $425,000 in an out-of-court settlement.
He used the money to expand his advocacy efforts. Nader's research on auto safety and his lobbying in Washington helped push Congress to pass the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
---------------------------------------
Well, you were dreaming of this 1988 Oldsmobile
link I went to the 1986 LA car show, and it was pretty cool. The Buick Wildcat of the future. Nothing ever became of the car though. Porsche had the 959. GM had all the Cadillacs in white, with the man playing piano dressed in white. Trying to think of what GM had back in 1988. The Cadillac Seville, I did like. Don't know just why I like it. Must be the unique look. I liked those small Cadillacs. The Corvettes are nice, but hard on the back to get in and out of that year. Fiero looked neat, but had its own woes. The Grand Prix and Eldorado looked OK. I had an Olds 98 Regency, and it was kinda a classy look. Would have been a fan, but the car let me down. Good comfort and gas mileage, but it was just too troublesome. My cousin sold Oldsmobiles, so I gave that division three tries. My Dad had the '72, I believe was the model year, Cutlass Supreme. Pretty reliable; did not like driving up to higher elevations, but those were the carburetor years, and it tended to overheat. All in all, a great looking car, plenty of power, with white interior and that orange/copper metallic, for lack of a better color description, it would be a nice car to own today, if someone else bought the gas. I think it got say 13 mpg to maybe 15 on the freeway under good conditions. First GM car I drove was the Buick LeSabre of 1961. Smooth power, nice roof-line, with no pillar in the center, so it looked like a hardtop convertible. Really classy and once again, lots of power + gas sucker.
Loren
What exactly WAS the loophole that let some manufacturers get away without putting catalytic converters on cars? There were a few domestic models that made it past 1975 without a catalytic converter. Back in college, a friend of mine had a 1976 AMC Hornet wagon, which came from the factory with no catalytic converter. In fact, it caused some problems when they started requiring emissions testing around these parts. Initially the car failed because there was no catalytic converter on it, and the inspector wouldn't buy into the concept of a 1975 or later car NOT having a converter.
Luckily, AMC was still (marginally) in existence by then, and my friend's father was able to get documentation from them stating that that car was not required to have a catalytic converter.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think it was pushing 300,000 miles by the time he got rid of it. He gave it to his neighbor. I remember when I found out he had gotten rid of it, I told him I would've bought it off him! But that was when he told me about the 300K miles!
IIRC, these cars used a beefed-up version of the THM200C-R4 (I think I got that alphabet right!). That transmission is an overdrive version of the lightweight THM200C that was infamous for early failure behind larger engines. The R4 was troublesome for its first few years, but GM did get the kinks worked out of it pretty quickly. Much more quickly than, say, Ford's 4-speed overdrive, which came out in 1980, and I'm not totally convinced that Chrysler EVER got all the kinks worked out of its first 4-speed overdrive automatic!
Also, my Mom had an '86 Monte Carlo V-8 (not the SS, just the regular 305) and my grandparents had an '85 LeSabre with the 307, and both of them had the 200R4 tranny (normal version, not the beefed up Monte SS/Grand National/442 version), and neither had any tranny problems. The LeSabre got retired around 157,000 miles, when the brakes finally went out, and the Monte got T-boned around 192,000.
Lemko's '89 Brougham has that same tranny, and he's up to around 157,000 miles. But the way he maintains his cars, he'd have a 1976 Volare or Accord still looking like a brand-new car! :P
Now this guy is a mechanic and restores old cars. He's helped me in the past mess around with mine, and helped me repaint both of my Darts. But he got so fed up with that Citation that they dumped it after a few months and bought a V-6 Monte Carlo!
I don't think they had the Citation long enough to have much trouble with it, but my neighbor, who was a big do-it-yourselfer, thought it would be a nightmare to take care of.
I think FWD and emissions controls ended up stumping a lot of older mechanics. My Granddad moonlighted as a mechanic back in the day, and I remember he started getting fed up as cars started getting all the emissions crap on them, and especially once they started downsizing, resulting in more cramped engine compartments, and once FWD and more computer controls started running rampant, he just threw up his arms and gave up.
Furthermore, they have to make more consistently "better than total crap" cars so that the reliability rankings come back positive on CR's annual reports. "
Not going to happen. CR is one of the only publications that has yet to acknowledge any improvement in GM products. Regardless of what GM puts out their models get low scores in CR road tests.
As for reliability, most GM models score average or above average last time I checked. Do you see lots of inconsistency in GM's ratings? I dont. Not sure where you are getting your information. GM's problem with CR is more about test scores than reliability. Even the models with above average reliability generally have poor overall rankings- see Tahoe for example.
Some of both. Putting the engine in the back eliminated the transmission hump and driveshaft tunnel, which did wonders for interior room. However, the engine turned out to be quite a bit heavier than expected (325 pounds versus 250 or so), and that extra weight turned out to be too much for the swing-axle setup to handle safely. GM cheaped out and eliminated the rear swaybar, then tried to band-aid that by specifying widely different tire pressures front and rear. Combine that with the general quirkiness of an aluminum flat-6 and a finicky fan belt, and it was just too much for most potential buyers.
What is wrong with the new CTS? What is it lacking besides the all important pushbutton start? State of the art powertrain, interior, features, sound system, etc.
No they dont. This is evidenced by the shortcomings of the Tundra and the fact that Toyota execs in the US make it very clear that there is no cross shopping between their products and inferior Detroit products. I remember reading a comment from a Toyota exec about employee discount sales a few years back and he said they didnt care because their customers dont look at or buy domestic anyway. In other words, Toyota vehicles are so far above their competitors that incentives on inferior vehicles put no pressure on Toyota. Funny how 2 years later they have $5000 in incentives on some new Tundra models.
A few engines were lucky enough to meet the 1975 emission standards without a cat (the Honda CVCC being the most famous example), so they didn't get one.
The Lexus version of the Toyota 3.5L V6 has two sets of fuel injectors: one that shoots directly into the cylinder (direct injection) and an auxiliary set that shoots into the intake runners (conventional fuel injection as found on most cars and trucks today). The computer manages both to optimize the fuel-air mixture and placement for the engine's rpm and other conditions.
He was right. It was a giant pain in the butt to work on, especially the V6.
Starting in MY 1980 you had to put the cat on whether it actually was needed to meet the standards. My 1980 Accord was the first year for Honda cat converters but it would have met the emissions standards anyway.
You said: No they dont.
I will the say following: yes they do respect Hyundai there's was even a thread on "Toyota fearing Hyundai" on these boards that got shut down. Secondly, Toyota did acknowledge that Gm was doing better as a company of late in a press release that I read a couple months ago.
"This is evidenced by the shortcomings of the Tundra and the fact that Toyota execs in the US make it very clear that there is no cross shopping between their products and inferior Detroit products."
What shortcomings on the Tundra are you talking about? The Japanese are not even known for making great heavy duty pick-up trucks like the Domestic Big 3 are sort of the way the Domestics are not known for making good compact or mid-size offerings as opposed to the Japanese Big 3 mid-size or compact car offerings.
"I remember reading a comment from a Toyota exec about employee discount sales a few years back and he said they didnt care because their customers dont look at or buy domestic anyway."
I don't remember reading that article in which a Toyota exec said that their customers don;t buy or look at Domestic offerings for that matter. In my opinion, that would be foolish if a Toyota exec did in fact say that their customers did not look or buy domestic offerings because I feel like alot of current Toyota owners used to buy GM 20-25 years ago and both GM and Toyota are loved companies by the Baby Boomers.
"In other words, Toyota vehicles are so far above their competitors that incentives on inferior vehicles put no pressure on Toyota. Funny how 2 years later they have $5000 in incentives on some new Tundra models."
Yes I would have never thought Toyota would put a 5,000 dollar incentive on a vehicle 2 years ago but like I said before Toyota's reputation is not known for making a great heavy duty pick-up like the Domestic Big 3 do. Their(Toyota's)reputation is known for making Camry's, Corolla's, and RAV4's. But By the same token I am not excusing Toyota for putting a 5,000 dollar incentive on a car because the Domestic Big 3 would take a hit if they put they kind of incentive on a car as would Mazda but Toyota just doesn;t have a reputation for making a great heavy duty pick-up truck.
Plus, the 1960 Ford had a fair number of quality control problems, as it was rushed into production when Ford management saw the sleek "batwing" 1959 Chevrolet.
Did they really have five extra years? From what I understand, certain small-volume manufacturers may have been exempted for a few years, but not the big manufacturers, foreign and domestic. And Honda was one of the leaders in cleaning up tailpipe emissions during the 1970s.
The government did make exceptions for AMC. A 1969 court decree forbid the domestics from collaborating on emissions reduction technology, because it was felt that they were colluding to stall the development of new technology. AMC, because of its small size and precarious financial position, won an exemption, and was allowed to work with GM on emissions technology. But its cars still had to meet the same standards as the cars of the Big Three.
cooterbfd: This is why in 1980, MG, Triumph, Fiat, and the VW Bug went bye bye, as they were said to have no interest in meeting our requirements.
The VW Bug had already been replaced by the Rabbit in 1980. The main reason the Bug went away was because of the freefall in sales it had experienced since 1970. (People forget that the Bug wasn't all that popular by the late 1970s; its charm had definitely worn thin by that time.) VW began switching to water-cooled engines in the mid-1970s.
MG and Triumph were about out of business in their HOME market by 1979. The Clean Air Act had little, if anything, to do with their demise in the U.S.
cooterbfd: I remember working on a couple of Datsun B-210's from the late '70's that had no catalytic converter on them, and they were still quite simple under the hood (no mess of vaccuum hoses).
Certain Chrysler and AMC engines also didn't have catalytic converters at first, either.
Yeah, but that would mean that a hoary old AMC 258 straight six, which was about three days older than God, was able to meet those emissions standards! :surprise:
And supposedly, Chrysler's big-block V-8's, with Lean Burn, WOULD meet emissions standards, but the gov't made Chrysler stick catalytic converters on them anyway.
Not true: CR did say the following on GM's offerings in the the April 2007's Annaul issue of 2007 cars:
While significantly improving, some GM products remain mediocre.
"Regardless of what GM puts out their models get low scores in CR road tests."
Not true again: The Outlook just got a goods review(from what I hear anyway) and CR did like the way the CTS drove they just didn;t like the following: emergency stability control engaged too late in accident avoidance manuever test, some materials felt cheap, sevreral minor controls were poorly placed or difficult too use, and the seat mounted safety belts were annoying.
who cares? when you have an excellent R&D program it doesnt take long to turn out a top notch product. I am tired of the excuses. Toyota has been making trucks for this market for decades. How long can you say "they are new to the pickup market"? The Tundra has a less than stellar interior and its panel gaps are not up to the GM trucks standard. According to articles I read Toyota people privately said they didnt think GM would really take its pickup interiors to that level. They also said the larger panel gaps were intentional which really means they didnt think competitors would build their trucks to sedan type tolerances. Toyota came out on top in terms of powertrain, but that's about it. The rest of the Tundra is been there, done that.
The incentives on the Tundra prove that NO ONE can leap frog the competition and maintain a competitive price. The Tundra is close to best in class but its also expensive. The competitiveness of the truck market and the excellence of the GM trucks is forcing Toyota to use incentives to keep its plant running at the planned rate. It doesnt mean the Tundra is a bad truck, but thats the market. contrast that with how GM vehicles are bashed for ever having incentives and we get the silly "if you make better vehicles you dont need incentives" argument. Almost everyone needs incentives these days.
The CTS will do alright. I don't really have a problem with it. But it seems destined to be a step behind, that's all. Cadillac/GM needs to aim higher, that's all.
DrFill
I stand corrected, GM has two models that CR thinks are OK. As for the CTS, I cant imagine that its emergency handling is worse than some highly rated luxury cars such as the soft ES350. Give me a break. The car is a sporty RWD sedan, unlike Lexus Cadillac doesnt program its stability systems to come on everytime you round an off ramp at 35mph. Lexus systems have been consistently criticized for being too aggressive.
"While significantly improving, some GM products remain mediocre. "
Yeah products like the Canyon, H2 and trailblazer. These hardly represent the bread and buttter of GM's lineup. The thing is even GM's competent but dull models which should score well in CR do poorly. There is no reason cars like the Impala and Lacrosse shouldnt do well in CR. Yet, mysteriously most mainstream GM models are dinged for being too soft in panic handling situations while Toyota products with similar handling score near the top of their respective categories. The average family sedan is going to pitch, roll and dive- thats just the way it is. I just dont get why GM models are deemed "unsafe" or "not confidence inspiring" when Camrys and Avalons are just fine.
Most GM models score mid-pack or lower on CR's rankings, but it has several models in the number 2 or 3 slot for its category. They include the Lucerne CXS, the Corvette Z06, the Outlook, the Acadia, and the Avalanche.
EXCEPT for "Toyota came out on top in terms of powertrain, but that's about it. The rest of the Tundra is been there, done that."
The safety features are two steps ahead of all the competition, everything from 14" brakes with 4-piston calipers to TRAC/VSC as standard equipment(Ford offers virtually NO safety features above front airbags and ABS)!
And of course the best-in class towing ability, which is tied to the superior powertrain, and the extra gears, with full manual capability, and standard dual-zone climate control, and more interior room than a Silverado, plus no loop in the powertrain, limiting your acceleration, so the truck can pass EPA tests......you get the idea.
DrFill
what are you talking about? Now one has said the G35 is getting the G7's engine. As for torque, the CTS makes 272 lb-ft which is more than the G37 last time I checked. How is that a strike? The CTS also has a richer interior than the G35 and more options. As I said before, the CTS isnt lacking in any important way. When you design car with class competitive power, performance and features and it looks great I dont count that as "aiming too low" as you contend. The bottom line is that its a Cadillac and thus you have a problem with it. There is no merit to your argument that the CTS is destined to be an also ran. Let's not forget it has more power than the just introduced C350 and a better interior. Plus a manual on BOTH engines.
keyless entry and start are antiquated? Surely you jest. the only difference between that and the button are the method of starting the engine. The the CTS you twist as opposed to pressing the brake pedal and pushing a button.
As I've said before, I like the manual. That's great! :shades:
I don't consider the C-Class a major player in this segment.
DrFill
Unsurprising unclever! All my posts make sense to those willing to be objective. For anyone who is hopelessly biased and uninformed they make not make sense. Not necessarily talking about anyone in particular.
" The safety features are two steps ahead of all the competition (Ford offers virtually NO safety features above front airbags and ABS). "
GM trucks have stability control, its just not standard.
"And of course the towing ability, which is tied to the superior powertrain, and the extra gears, with full manual capability, and standard dual-zone climate control, and more interior room than a Silverado...... "
GM trucks have better interiors, dual zone AC, tranny with tow/hail mode, two interiors, best in class economy, flat floor under rear seat for carrying cargo (Toyota has stupid seat frame hardware), fully boxed frames, a more complex 4WD system that can transfer torque to individual wheels, HD models, more engines, more model combinations............
As for towing, I believe the Tundra can tow about 300 more pounds than the Silverado, and thats not including the 2500 or HD models of course. Give me a break.
You know what engine the CTS will have in 2010? if so do tell. Will infinit have anything to compete with the 505hp CTS-V? Didnt think so.
The G35 just came out with 306hp and it is likely to stay there for some time.
well why didnt you say so? That changes everything!
Anyway, the C class is major player in this segment. Its competitive in terms of price and performance, its just that the CTS is better. But of course you can just dismiss any car that is inferior to the CTS. The only cars in this class that could be better are G35 and 335 but the 335 is going to be a good bit smaller. The TL, C class, S60, A4, MKZ, etc. are all going to be surpassed. But I'm sure they arent serious competitors in your book.
4-piston calipers? Traction control? Reclining rear seats? Power rear window? GM says I can't do it.
Take a look at sales. Tundra is climbing, fast! A good Toyota salesman can sell rings around any 1/2 ton Silverado, make it look like a Ford Ranger.
I am hopelessly biased.
To find uniformed, you may need to check your mirrors.
DrFill
That's my point! GM doesn't have a Plan B. The CTS will be played-out by 2010.
BMW has torque the CTS can't match. The G has the 3.7, and Mercedes will cobble together a 300+HP engine by then.
GM doesn't make mid-gen engine for their Cadillacs. That's a problem. They're already behind the IS, G and torque-rich Bimmer!
DrFill
Loren
Actually Toyo dug up the button start from some earlier US cars. I'm trying to think which ones had a button on the dash to push to start. I'll have to keep at watch at the classic cruiseins. Ford? Was it Studebaker? But Toyo has it--wonderful new invention. grin. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
We have a saying in the field I am in (high tech)- "Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land"
As for the push buttons, I guess they are OK. What I thought to the coolest thing was the Jaguar toggle switches on those XKE's, but then again, I had no idea of how bad Lucas was when I was but a small boy, and how it would hurt if your head hit those switches. Still like toggles, if not sharp and/or out of the way. My first car, a Ford Taunus had smooth rocker styled switches, which had a futuristic feel to them - kinda neat. Even in the 1960 cars, I guess German and British Fords had the new stuff. Speaking of which, the Astra is coming over from Germany, 100% original ? Or will it be a different car in some fashion?
Loren