What Keeps You Loyal To A Brand?

chevy598

Sorry, I meant the 3.8L

imidazol97

The motor and the transmission has been refined throughout the years and makes a very driveable car for my needs which match 80% or more of the people wanting a full size car. Some people want to treat the 3800 as old but it's probably much better refined than some "newer" motors with high horsepower ratings tweaked for maximum advertising power. They really should advertise torque at the lower motor speed to compare driveability.

chevy598

I think the only reason its being phased out is because of AWD. GM either can't or won't you is it on awd models.

ateixeira

JD Power is the industry standard of all OEM's

I have issues with how they measure their IQ scores.

It's all about the methodology. In their IQ study, the Mini scored poorly due to a cup holder design.

What does a cup holder have to do with quality? I mean, who cares? How much weight should that carry?

Another one - the Hummer H2 scored poor in quality for getting low gas mileage. Gas mileage had NOTHING to do with quality! In fact the H2 drinks gas quite well, extremely high quality fuel consumption, a little too well in fact.

I define quality as things not breaking, i.e. everything works and doesn't need to be fixed. Neither the cup holder nor the fuel consumption are defects.

This inconsistency also explains why VW does extremely well in their IQ studies and then absolutely LOUSY on their Dependability Study (which IMO has much more value).

And by the way, the argument that JDP is the standard of all OEMs only means they're not independent and unbiased. They can't be by that very fact.

-juice

grbeck

Chevy598: I don't know why everybody makes a big deal about small cars like the fit, yaris, aveo. I had a Chevette in '87 that would get 30+mpg on the highway, but that was at a 55 mph speed limit.

Even at 55 mph, driving a Chevette - or even riding in one - could charitably be described as "punishment."

Driving at 80 mph was literally taking your life in your hands.

The new small cars feel like a Lexus compared to that Chevette - at 55 mph or 80 mph.

The big difference between the Chevette and the Fit/Yaris/Versa/Aveo isn't so much the mileage, as it is the level of refinement, safety and driving pleasure one experiences when driving the two cars, while achieving similar mileage.

chevy598

I understand there is a way better level of refinement in todays small cars compared to older ones. Similar mileage just shows how little profit there is in small cars. Even the Japanese never totally update their small cars. Most of the redesigned sub compacts have a lot off carry over parts under the hood. Nobody wants to spend billions updating a Echo 4 cylinder for such low profit, low volume vehicles. Imagine what Toyota could do mileage wise if they invested half as much as they do on the Camry.

lemko

If you REALLY want to see crude, sit in a 1975 AMC Gremlin and compare it to a current Corolla. I remember seeing a Gremlin at Carlisle this past September and I couldn't believe anybody got away with selling a car like that 30 years ago. Soviet-bloc would best describe the interior.

louiswei

I had a Chevette in '87 that would get 30+mpg on the highway

Yeah, but the Fit has 40 extra HP compare to your Chevette (109 vs 65) and can get close to 40 MPG on highways.

62vetteefp

Could you show me where the Mini scored poorly due to a cupholder? Just would like to see where you got the data. I guess it could be in the IQ database but I would have thought that would be an APEAL item.


This inconsistency also explains why VW does extremely well in their IQ studies and then absolutely LOUSY on their Dependability Study (which IMO has much more value).

And where is this data coming from? VW scored 3rd from last on their IQS for 2006. Are you sure you are not looking at APEAL data which measures stuff like inconveniences and layout?

And by the way, the argument that JDP is the standard of all OEMs only means they're not independent and unbiased. They can't be by that very fact.

OK, not sure how you came up with this. They get their data from individual owners throughout the country. They then compile the data and sell it to the OEM's. No advertising. No reason to "bias" the data. If you want to buy the data you can to. They only give out the top three winners in each category for free to the public. You want the actual quantitative data you gotta put out some cash.

andre1969

If you REALLY want to see crude, sit in a 1975 AMC Gremlin and compare it to a current Corolla.

Oh yeah, I remember that one! I remember at one time, I thought a Gremlin might have been a better car than a Pinto or Vega, because it was actually derived from a compact car, instead of built from the get-go to be a subcompact. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Now I don't remember the last time I've been in a Pinto or Vega, but I can't imagine them being much more wretched than that Gremlin was that we saw!

On the subject of the Chevette, remember that '76 or so model that we saw at Hershey? I thought that actually looked like a nice, fairly well-trimmed little car for the era! IIRC though, it had some kind of uplevel trim option on it that dressed it up considerably. And I'd imagine it was still a horrible car to drive at highway speeds.

ateixeira

It was definitely the Initial Quality study, I read that about the Mini Cooper in JDP's own press release when the results were first announced. It was about 2 years ago, when the Mini was new.

I think the Mini did well on the APEAL study.

-juice

62vetteefp

I gotta agree that the IQS should be mostly items that break or poor fit or whatever. The H2 gas complaint was funny when it came out. What did they expect?

grbeck

If build quality was the criteria for choosing an American-built subcompact in the 1970s, the Pinto was easily the winner. The Vega and the Gremlin weren't even close. The Pinto even beat those two in mechanical reliability.

The Gremlin had lots of components sourced from other car companies that should have been sturdy - especially the Chrysler-built Torqueflite automatic - but with that AMC magic touch, just didn't work all that well. I remember that the transmission in our 1973 Gremlin wouldn't always hold on "park." AMC probably didn't have enough money to make everything work together as a whole.

As for the Chevette - I once car-pooled with a woman who had a 1978 Chevette sedan. It was fairly well optioned for a Chevette, but at highway speeds, the noise levels were unbelievable. The ride was even worse.

Lemko, I learned to drive on a 1973 AMC Gremlin. We knew it was a crappy car even then...

ateixeira

The H2 is so heavy that a Monroney sticker isn't required, and I believe it doesn't even count towards GM's CAFE requirements.

Consumers sort of didn't know what to expect, and of course mileage stinks on those.

-juice

imidazol97

People were used to different appearances in interiors then than they are expecting now. Look at Ford and Chevies from the 50s and 60s as far as the dash boards and interiors go. The Gremlin suffered from its name at the time, IMHO.

A buddy had a Pacer. They had worked the suspension and chassis to make the car have a softer ride. The car makers had trouble making a small car because their methods seemed to start with a large car and adapting the parts to a smaller car. IIRC the Pacer had some kind of rubber isolation between the frame for the motor and the rest of the car. Interesting concept for the time to get away from small car ride, noise and vibration. But not real popular for long. Anybody wanna buy a Pacer brochure? I think I have one tucked away in a box somewhere. Wonder how much I can get for...

grbeck

The Gremlin had bad build and materials quality even for its time.

Chevrolet and Ford dashboards looked well assembled even for that time, and Chevrolet had some pretty nice interiors for the price in the 1950s and 1960s. Ford interiors improved greatly after 1963 or so, and really got better with the debut of the LTD in 1965.

nvbanker

it feels like they use small-car seats in them, like something that was originally intended for the Sentra.

I have a skinny butt, but still prefer a wider seat. For me, the Accord and Fusion still felt fine, but who knows?

You're right, and the new Accord feels cramped to me. But I have a big [non-permissible content removed], and am 220lbs. I fit great in the Camry, but was too tight in the Honda.

lilengineerboy

I still miss the seats in the Contour. They had VERY agressive side bolstering and a lot of lumbar support. You actually sat in them as opposed to on them. Even with leather I stayed planted during HPDE and autocrosses. It was a lot of fun. They were very comfortable on trips, it felt like the car was giving you a hug.
I'm skinny and narrow for the most part though, so I fit fine in the seats. I miss that car.

fintail

A friend of mine has an 03 Accord, leather...I am 6'1" and maybe around 200, so I consider myself medium-large. The side bolsters on that car are very confining and I have to adjust myself whenever I ride in it.

My C43 had smaller seats, with larger but more pliant bolsters. I felt like the car was 'hugging' me in when I first got it, and I didn't really like that. But it seemed natural after awhile.

The new car has bigger seats, more room to move. My old S-class had fairly wide (for buckets) seats, and I could actually move around in the seat. Not sporty supporting though.

nvbanker

My old S-class had fairly wide (for buckets) seats, and I could actually move around in the seat. Not sporty supporting though.

Yes, they did, didn't they? They were like sitting on a small mattress, and tipped too and fro as you drove....

fintail

I've heard more than once that a big Mercedes has the best seats for larger people. The German physique can be less than petite as well, so they know what they are doing in this regard.

I'm on my 4th MB now, and I have liked the seats in all of them.

oldcem

The Chevette would only make 80 if it wasn't equipped with A/C. With A/C, GM geared the car even lower, so top speed was barely 70 on flat ground. My great aunt had one with air - most miserable interstate car I ever drove. Went from Dayton, Ohio to Louisville, Ky., with the gas floored, and, couldn't keep up with traffic on the interstate. The stupid thing even had a vinyl top.

Regards:
Oldengineer

m1miata

The Civic HX got some 44 MPG freeway or more! Now that was a bargain of car, no longer offered. And it was better looking than the Fit.
-Loren

m1miata

I think I would rather have owned the Maverick, which is said to have a long lasting 6 cylinder engine, than a Pinto which could explode into flames in an accident. Looked pretty cheap to me. That said, the style actually wasn't all that bad. Perhaps better than the Mustang/Pinto of that era.
-Loren

nvbanker

The Pinto was more substantial than you may think. And the famous Pinto letter was a fraud, nonetheless, they did have a tendency to burst into flames, if hit from behind by an Impala at 70+ mph, causing, should you survive the impact (highly unlikely) to burn to death.

m1miata

The Mustangs of that era seem to be a rare find today, though they surprisingly sold well. I was thinking they looked too much like the Pinto, but they did sell -- low power and all - no problem. Yeah, those were sad times for autos, with 55 MPH speed limits, and no HP. How about 80 MPH speedometers on a Corvette. My poor little ol' Olds Starfire sure was not a state-of-the-art car, by any measure. GM through some cars together during the gas crunch.
-Loren

m1miata

My neighbor had a Pinto woodie. wagon. May I say, a cute car, in red. The power was on the cute side too, as it had no get up or go. Compared to the bland of today, one may say at least it had some style.
-Loren

andre1969

I think the Pintos were still pretty dangerous, but do agree reports of death and injury from explosions are still greatly exaggerated. Here's a video of a Pinto crash test. Now granted, it's being whacked with a 1971 Impla, but it doesn't look like it's really being done at that high of a speed. Heck, the Impala looks like it barely even flinches! But it looks like it penetrates the Pinto right up to the rear axle, immediately, squashing the fuel tank. When they tally up the total number of burn deaths from Pintos, I wonder how many were actually from the car in back? In that video above, it looks like it's the Impala that's getting engulfed in flames! Still, I guess the Impala driver could just exit the car, unharmed, while the Pinto driver could very well be unconscious or already dead.

However, I'm sure that just about any small RWD car of the time would have yielded the same results, since back then they simply hung the gas tank out behind the axle, as there was no place else to put it. I've also heard that, for all the hoopla over the Pinto, overall its death rate was no worse than your typical small car of the time.

And interestingly, the cars still sold well even once they got their nickname of "The Barbeque that seats four". In the final year, 1980, I think they still sold around 165,000 of them. A pretty strong showing for an outmoded car with a firestarter reputation offered by a faltering company on the eve of a recession and fuel crisis.

Now one Ford car I've always thought was really dangerous was the original Falcon and the Mustangs that were based on it. They used a "drop in" gas tank that also served as the floor of the trunk. Ford did many of their cars like this back in the 60's, and it's a bad design, as it doesn't take much of an impact to buckle the trunk floor, which ruptures the tank and spills fuel into the inside of the car. But it's worse on a smaller, lighter car, which is going to crumple more easily. If you look under those old Falcons and Mustangs, there's like 2 inches between the back of the gas tank and the dainty little ribbon of a bumper. It really doesn't look like there's much protection back there.

These cars were very prone to fuel leaks when rear-ended, but for some reason, they dodged the notoriety that the Pinto got. I do remember the original Mustang taking some flak back in the late 80's or early 90's, though, because a high school kid who bought an old one got rear-ended at low speed, and burned to death. But nowadays, so few of them are probably daily drivers anymore, that it's most likely a moot point.

imidazol97

I'm foggy on the model years involve in the fire issue on Pintos. I had a 1980 Mustang and was rear ended by a silly woman driver in a full-sized old Ford at 35. I don't know how the gas tank was built on that car but the rear of the trunk crumpled to five a 6-inch deep V just inside the trunk. My credit card was down inside the V and I had to dig it out... No fire.

Later I won a 79 Mustang Pace Car and thought it was different from the Pinto with its fire problem. I was stunned when I crawled under it and found the same rubber mat of 1/4 to 3/8 inch thickness on the front side of the gas tank. Apparently the fire problem was caused by gas coming out of punctured tanks from the axle hitting the tank (actually tank hitting the axle) and then on secondard impacts the sparks from metal hitting ignited the gasoline; hence the rubber mat to stop sparks in the immediate puncture area.

I was happy to flip that car after using for a few months.

lemko

...a guy at work has a 1977 Mercury Comet - the Maverick's sister. His car has the 250 inline six cylinder, is banana yellow and has a typical '70s plaid interior in earth tones. The Maverick and Comet were supposed to have been replaced by the Granada and Monarch in 1975, but still soldiered on for 3 more seasons. The Granada and Monarch basically were Mavericks and Comets with Mercedes-esque bodies as the mechanicals were identical.

andre1969

I'm foggy on the model years involve in the fire issue on Pintos.

The Pinto was sold from 1971-1980, although I heard there were some leftover 1980 models that were re-serial numbered and sold as 1981's. The fire issue didn't involve the wagons, only the hatchback and sedan models (the sedan looked like a hatchback, but only had a small, metal trunk that opened, instead of a big hatch. They issued a running change on the Pinto that was supposed to correct the fire issue, for 1976 I believe. I'm not sure what all it entailed, but I believe part of it was the rubber mat.

The 1974-78 Mustang II was based on the Pinto, but I don't think it ever had any issues. And the 1979+ Mustang was actually based on the Fairmont "Fox" platform. I was under the impression that these were actually pretty well thought out with regards to safety at the time.

A few years ago, once the controversey came out over the full-sized Crown Vics exploding when they get rear-ended at high speed, I remember looking up under some of my cars at the time to see just how they were laid out. My '89 Gran Fury had a little rubber mat in front of the gas tank, but my '79 New Yorker and my grandma's '85 LeSabre didn't. On all of these cars, though, the gas tank was mounted a fairly good distance from the rear axle.

On the Ford cars, the gas tank sits vertical, right behind the axle. In the trunk, this results in a deep well between the gas tank and the rear of the car for luggage, and then a narrow shelf above the tank and axle that the spare tire squeezes into. Unfortunately, since the tank is wedged in so tightly, it's easy for a rear-end collision to pinch the tank between the axle and the well of the trunk, causing it to rupture. And it seems like in a rear-end collision, body-on-frame cars tend to buckle right about at the rear axle, where the frame rails curve up and over.

At least in the case of the Crown Vic, though, I hear you have to rear end them at something like 70 mph to make them blow. With the Pinto, I've heard that it could be done at speeds as low as 19 mph!

lemko

Yeah, and a fuel model rocket engines help too! Remember the controversy about the 1973-87 Chevrolet/GMC saddle tanks? Since you have a truck of that vintage, do you notice any potential for it to explode?

andre1969

Since you have a truck of that vintage, do you notice any potential for it to explode?

Well, the tank hangs on the outside of the frame rails, so I can see how it would be more vulnerable than a tank that was mounted inside the frame rails. But IIRC, the 1967-72 models actually had the tank inside the cab, which has got to be more dangerous!

The tank is roughly half under the cab and half under the bed, and and it has a big plastic shield that wraps from the outside edge and underneath, back to the frame.

I'd imagine that in a side impact, by the time the tank was really getting breached, the cab of the truck would most likely be pretty well trashed. It would take a pretty hard side impact, or a very lucky one I'd guess, to rupture the tank.

I don't feel particularly vulnerable driving the truck. I never give the tanks a second thought. But I don't want to find out first hand how well they hold up, either! :surprise:

I've been having the worst luck with that truck lately, too. It's been rear-ended twice in about two months (minor damage both times...to my truck at least. The Hyundai Elantra, and especially the I30 from the first time fared much worse). Oh, and yesterday I had a buffoon in a Metro run a stop sign and pull out right in front of me. He came very close to getting t-boned. Guy must've been suicidal or soemthing! And the annoying thing is, as I laid into the horn and swerved around him, all he did was shoot me a nasty look, like it was MY fault!

rockylee

http://www.mitsubishimotors.com/MMNA/jsp/company/concepts.do?loc=en-us#Mitsubish- - iConceptX

This might not make me a loyal Mitsubishi buyer but it's something from a foreign car manufactor that has me interested enough to consider realistically buying which is rare. :surprise:

I guess we will see just how good it is next year.

Rocky

bumpy

What, no drooling over the Chevy WTCC Ultra?

You do know that the Evo X will be Hyundai-powered. :surprise:

rockylee

The Chevy WTCC, looks nice. It looks like a new and improved cobalt.

The EVO-X is being powered by a Hyundai powerplant ????? I knew the 08' Lancer was going to be but are you sure the EVO-X is getting the same treatment ????

I read the 08' Lancer was going to be powered by the new "world engine" co-developed by Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and some other company I can't remember ?

If it does have "hyundai power" that means it will at least have Delphi fuel injectors in it !

Rocky

bumpy

I read the 08' Lancer was going to be powered by the new "world engine" co-developed by Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and some other company I can't remember ?

DCX. GEMA power all around, though the Evo gets better heads, internals, and such.

rockylee

bumpy,

thanx.... I can't wait to see it in person. This is the first product from mitsubishi that I'm willing to give a closer look.

Rocky

bumpy

Second product, after the Stealth.

rockylee

When the Stealth was made when I was in junior high-high school and thus I wasn't in the market and couldn't afford a new car.

Rocky

m1miata

Hey cool, a car shaped like a giant DustBuster !

:shades: Loren

m1miata

I owned the first Stealth sold around my area. That car sure got the looks during the first year owned.
-Loren

lilengineerboy

Hey cool, a car shaped like a giant DustBuster !
Were you talking about a Lumina APV or the new Civic?

m1miata

Chevy WTCC Ultra
Looks like a DustBuster.

rockylee

ROTFLMAO @ Loren....Whatever.....you must have some dirt in your eyes Loren ? :P It looks way better than the Civic

Rocky

rockylee

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/2016

Rocky

P.S. Ford, appears to have taken design cues from the Gator and added them to the new Ford SD's :surprise: YUCK !!!
This is good if you are a GM, fan.....

rockylee

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/2014

Rocky

rockylee

http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/2011

Rocky

imidazol97

The Civic SI down the road that a son owns gets my Dustbuster vote. Plus I hate dustbuster for their poor batteries and failures-bought a Dirt Devil and it's great. The dustbuster/black&decker name is one I hate now so calling anything dustbuster is a real negative.

nvbanker

Ford, appears to have taken design cues from the Gator and added them to the new Ford SD's YUCK !!!
This is good if you are a GM, fan.....

The secret weapon Ford has used for years now, is that they actually build a heavy duty truck that's bigger, not just heavier, and more industrial looking. GM builds two trucks - that are identical but for the grille work, in different weights. I'm thinking this new Ford truck will sell just fine.....