Well as Buick fans such as Lemko, myself, and you, we all want some cool vehicals. The Enclave, is a great start to a new era. The Lucerne, is nice but it needs RWD and about 50 more horses under the hood. The LaCrosse, is also very nice and would be perfect if it had AWD, as a option and a better interior with some more creature features. I wouldn't mind one bit if they made the LaCrosse, RWD/AWD and dropped a LS-2 under the hood or used the 2-mode hybrid to help power the 3.6 like Lexus, does with the GS. It doesn't need to be a full-bore sport sedan but they could add a selectable Magneride suspension to keep it as sporty as the MKZ, but with a bunch more muscle.
The Buick Velite, would be the perfect Hardtop coupe. Why ? Well for starters if they took a cue from Volvo, and made it a hardtop convertible like Volvo's C-70, it would be the only premium luxury vehical outside of the FWD C-70 in the segment. Shoot if they added AWD, to it that would be better yet because it then could be a 4-season car and would do well in places like the North East, and Mid West. Saabs 9-3 convertible could be more of a sports car while the Velite, would be more of a boulevard cruiser with Delphi's Magneride suspension. GM, could sell it in the high $40's and they would sell like hotcakes. Imagine if they did a Tiger Woods, edition that came with Golf Apparel. OMG, you'd see em' at every country club in america. Rocky, without any doubt would have one. I can guarantee you that !!!! :shades:
I just hope that 4th Buick, will be the Velite Convertible. Buick, needs a halo car really bad. The Velite, is sweet enough that people could honestly believe the worlds best golfer drives a Buick. :shades:
Yeah I think it will be called the Super, based on what I've read.
buickboy, is the "Super" kinda what you are looking for ? The horsepower will come from the LS-4 V8 with 303 or more horsepower and a more sportier interior, so I've read.
Perhaps lemko, or somebody else knows more details ?
The Super was the cheaper of the two larger Buicks back in the day, slotted below the Roadmaster. Both of them were on the larger C-body shared with Cadillac. The Special and Century were still below the Super, on the smaller B-body that was shared with Oldsmobile.
It odd in my opinio that I have been loyal to Chrysler fo the past decade. I never really did like them that much, and I remember my mom's old 70's Dodge, and that I vowed never to buy one. But then, in 1994, I purchased a top of the line Intrepid with the gold wheels, leather, and blue paint. Six years later, I traded in the Intrepid for a four seater convertible, which I thought would've been a Toyota Solara, but ended up being a Chrysler Sebring jxi. And now, this March, six more years, I bought a silver Magnum R/T, even though I planned to get a Nissan Murano. It makes me wonder what Chryler I'll buy in 2012.
that "Custom" might have meant something was back in the 40's and early 50's. Dodge and DeSoto used "DeLuxe" and "Custom" to denote their cheaper and more expensive series, respectively. Which I find odd, because I'd think that if something was "DeLuxe", it would be upscale? :confuse: Plymouth went with "DeLuxe" for the cheap model and "Special DeLuxe" for the upscale model, while Chrysler actually gave their cars real names, like Royal, Windsor, and New Yorker.
Well, there was the Olds Custom Cruiser too. Whereas Chevy would have an Impala and Caprice wagon and Pontiac would have a Catalina/Bonneville Safari, Olds just called theirs "Custom Cruiser", leaving the Delta name out of it.
As for Chrysler, I've always been a fan of them in the past, especially when it comes to antique cars. But nowadays, I'm just going to pick whatever fits my needs and wants the best. Back in 1999 when I bought my Intrepid, it seemed like the best car for me at the time. The Altima was kind of a joke back then, and the Accord and Camry were too tiny for my tastes and I thought kind of expensive for what you got. I would've rather pushed an Impala than driven a Taurus. And I wasn't crazy about the 2000 Impala, so that ain't saying much! And I do have to admit, the 0.9% financing was pretty enticing!
But now it's 7 years later. The Accord, Camry, and especially Altima have improved. I think the Ford 500 is the automotive equivalent of euthanasia, but I do like the Fusion. I even like the 2006+ Impala better than its predecessor. I like the Charger and 300 too, but while 7 years ago the Intrepid was a no-brainer for me, today, a Chrysler isn't necessarily the obvious choice. Oh, and I almost forgot about the Saturn Aura. The Malibu doesn't do anything for me, and the G6 doesn't do much more, but I kinda like the Aura.
I kinda like the Malibu, based on the spy shots I've seen of it. I'll have to wait until the real thing is out before I pass judgement on it. My first car was a Malibu, a 1980 coupe, and I liked it at the time. I'd say that for its era it was a very competitive car (although maybe for a 1980 that's damning it with faint praise?) Honestly, I don't think the current Malibu is a BAD car, just a nondescript car that is easily overlooked, and simply outclassed by many of its competitors. I'd like the Malibu to become a car that I'd want because I'm attracted to it, and not simply because it comes at a cheap price.
Well the good thing is the Malibu, will move upmarket to where the current Impala, is at in size. We all know the Impala, is going to RWD, and will grow a bit more in size.
I like you am impressed by what I see. However, truthfully one will have to drive and see it in person to make a sound judgement. I'm just glad for the consumers sake the 2-Mode hybrid will be available for awesome fuel economy.
Let's see, a bit larger FWD? How about a used couple year old Cadillac Deville? A Malibu redo will likely be more Japan car like than anything. If I want an Accord, I would buy an Accord. I see little at Chevy to be excited about, unless you have lots of cash burning in your pocket and feel the need to Corvette. -Loren
that I don't really like is the way midsized sedans seem to be getting smaller and smaller trunks. It used to be that the current Accord, with its ~14.8 cubic foot trunk, was considered below par, but now it's about average. The '02-06 Camry had a ~17 cubic foot trunk, but the '07 is more like 15 cubic feet. The '07 Sebring has shrunk up to ~13 cubic feet, from ~16 in the '01-06 model.
The Malibu has shrunk up a bit, as well. The 1997-03 Malibu's trunk was 17.3 cubic feet, whereas the '04+ is down to 15.4. The G6 has 14 cubic feet, while the Aura has 14.9, so I imagine the swoopier '08 Malibu will lose a bit of trunk space as well.
Even the '07 Altima has dropped from its predecessor, from ~16.2 cubic feet to ~15.3. Rounding it out we have the Fusion at 15.8 cubic feet and the Sonata at 16.3.
And it's not like any of these are what you'd consider small cars. They're all within in an inch or two of wheelbase and maybe 1-3 inches in length of the 1980 Malibu I once had (108.1" wb, 192.7" overall length). Yet it was a less-efficient RWD, body-on-frame design that was much more low-slung than today's cars. But it had a bigger trunk!
You'd think that with FWD, the higher rear decks of cars today, and moving the gas tank from under the trunk to under the back seat, and then moving the spare tire under the trunk floor, that a car of similar external dimensions would have gained SOMETHING in trunk space over the past 25 years? :confuse:
I'm not sure what made me loyal to Chrysler. My first car was a 1977 Chrysler Newport, so that may have held some nostalgic factor for me. Since, I tried 2 Pontiacs (huge disappointments) and I went to imports, but it was my first convertible, a 2001 Chrysler Sebring, that brought me back 'home'. I had that until I traded it for a 2005 Chrysler Crossfire. I've had great luck with the dealerships as they've always treated me very well. I like the products, and I'm already looking into my next vehicle from Daimler-Chrysler which may be either an Aspen or the Dodge Nitro. Not sure, but I'll definitely be staying with the brand for a long time to come.
but I think the first thing that turned me on to Chrysler was an old 1953 DeSoto Firedome that my Granddad bought in the late 70's. It had belonged to his brother-in-law's mother, who had a heart attack while driving it and hit a parked car. Years later she passed away (not as a result of the accident, probably another heart attack or other illness). When they settled the estate, Granddad bought the thing for like $100-200, and for under 80 bucks was able to get all the parts he needed to fix the accident damage, although he never did repaint it to match. It was kind of a pale aqua green with a dark bluish green hood and fender!
I was about 8 when he bought that thing, and when I started to get close to driving age, I really had my eye on it. Right around the time I turned 16, Granddad sold the thing! :mad: His rationale was that he didn't want me driving something that old that I'd bring back to him to fix every time it broke down. Well, I ended up doing that with my Mom's '80 Malibu that I got instead, so I don't see the difference! :P
In late 1989 I bought a 1969 Dodge Dart GT hardtop, and that thing really sold me on Chryslers. Even if it was 20 years out of touch with the stuff Chrysler was building at the time! One thing I always liked about Chryslers in general though, is that they usually felt a bit roomier inside than equivalent Ford or GM products. They usually seemed to handle a bit better too, although ride quality could suffer a bit. Oh well, at least that meant the floaty 70's models wouldn't make you nearly as seasick, either!
If I was in the market for an SUV, I think I might check out the Nitro. The more I look at 'em, the more I like 'em.
Look at my Forester - great cargo space but a tight back seat. Consumer Reports has a "biggest box" test and they squeezed in more space than the last gen Pathfinder, and the Forester is much smaller outside.
Then look at the Scion xB. The back seats is tremendous. Huge. More room than a Lexus LS460 by far. Comfy enough for 3. But you have about 12" of room for luggage. You can probably only fit one single suitcase.
Omen of things to come? Can we say a dark cloud on the horizon, and a larger investor not wanting to get all wet? Headlines: Kerkorian sells full stake in GM. -Loren
Yeah, but they can only push the back seat so far back, or else the rear wheels transform it from 3-across seating to 2-across. Now if you stretch out the wheelbase and at the same time, reduce the rear overhang, that will probably increase the back seat room while reducing trunk volume, unless you raise the decklid or square off the rear of the car more to maintain trunk volume.
Now with some cars, I can kinda see where the trunk space went. The 2007 Altima, for example, is a bit smaller overall than the 2006, and I'd imagine much of that came from the trunk area. With the '07 Camry, the way they sloped and sculpted the rear area, giving it a bit of a neoclassic look, probably cut into the trunk volume more than the '02-06, which was more squared off in the rear.
Plus, I'm not really seeing much of an increase in back seat room, either in many cases. I don't find the '07 Camry to be any roomier in back than the '06. Nor do I find the '04-07 Malibu any roomier than the '97-03.
Sometimes, as they make these cars taller, they raise the height of the back seat, and that will cause the legroom measurement to increase, but will do nothing for kneeroom, which is often more critical if you have long legs. And then often the higher seat will put your head into the ceiling!
There are probably more midsized cars on the market today that force me to duck when I'm in the back seat than there were back in the 70's!
Would ya say Bank of America made a good buy, in picking up his shares of GM? I personally would not assume the risk, but then again, I may never be as rich as those which gamble. And I am sure they have looked at all the angles of such an investment, and feel confident. Wish them luck. I can see some automobiles, like the Cadillac, Corvette, and the SUV/Trucks as being of some interest to the car buying public. Most of the rest, IMHO, is not all that exciting, as in also ran cars. If we have a national health care system established in the US of A, that may be a good sized plus for GM and Ford. The debt, and that ball and chain of retired workers, and all the payoffs to lower the head count, seems like all too much for GM. Cadillac and Corvettes, along with other cars by GM, are still made here in the States. I just hope it remains profitable to do so for GM. As we all know, a bankruptcy then recovery is always a last plan for GM and Ford, though it would be painful to many. If management at GM and Ford do succeed in a miraculous turnaround, I say hats off to them! -Loren
I hear ya. My L300 has 17.5 cubic feet of space in the trunk and not a lot of room in the rear seat.
I remember the Saturn L-series taking a lot of flak when it first came out because it was about the same size as a Malibu on the outside, but had a much more cramped back seat. IIRC though, the L-series also has a driving position a bit further back from the front wheels than a Malibu. The further back you push the front seat, the more it's going to take out of the back seat unless you stretch the wheelbase. Or push the rear seat further back between the wheel wells, which ends up turning your so-called midsized car into what really amounts to a 4-seater. I noticed this with the new Hyundai Sonata. The wheel wells intrude so far back there that, while the shoulder room measurement might sound deceptively roomy, you really don't want to put 3 people back there for long!
I guess I just still expect a midsized sedan to have a midsized back seat AND a midsized trunk, and not have to compromise on anything.
...if I had Kerkorian's money, I'd have bought it all in a New York second. The catch would be that GM would have to start building the kinds of cars I like. A thoroughly modern, ultra-high quality full-size RWD Cadillac and Buicks would be on the market in no time! To heck with the stupid alphabet soup and dairy product names - they'd be the Cadillac Fleetwood and the Buick Roadmaster! A Lexus LS would look like a 1987 Hyundai Excel next to them.
Good, and bring back the Eldorado. Cadillac, with no Eldorado? What in the world are they thinking? A test drive of the CTS proved positive in my score book. Was pleased with that car. I have not driven a modern day FWD Deville. Will test one out. I too like RWD, but in the large auto, I imagine FWD is OK. Reviews indicate good road manners overall. Now the new one is called DTS. Wow, another proud name is now begraben - German letters and numbers now on American cars?
The next Explorer will be a crossover??? Are they serious? Kill the best selling mid sized SUV in the country since 1991 now??? Oh the humanity! That's just nuts. I for one, a 6 time Explorer buyer, can't use a cross over to tow my toys. I've already defected to Toyota for my cars, now I'm going to have to leave Ford for my trucks as well. How sad.... I'm very disappointed.
And how about the Fairlane name going on a crossover car? A Fairlane 500 cool looking car would be a nice addition to the current line. But we get a cross-dresser car -- whoopee. In this case, using alphabet soup naming would have been a blessing - sparing the Fairlane the embarrassment of become yet another sorta tall car/van/SUV looking thing. Hey, if it comes off looking neat in some funky way, and is a versatile car, then great, but please, it ain't no Fairlane. -Loren
Kill the best selling mid sized SUV in the country since 1991 now???
Ancient past - the sales are as good as last month, and Explorer isn't hot for at least two years. For me it's a lower middle-class gas price squeeze victim. Rich never bought them at the first place. It was bought mostly by those whose double $40-50K/yer (or less) income was accustomed to gas price at $1/gal, but when the bill at pump almost trippled (amongst other things), the car had to go, as it was not as critical to have all that hauling capacity and there were other more efficient choices.
For me it's a lower middle-class gas price squeeze victim. Rich never bought them at the first place. It was bought mostly by those whose double $40-50K/yer (or less) income
Hmmmm, interesting generalization. I'm sure you're right, and I'm the exception. I've bought 6 of them since 1994 because they're so well designed, and my income is > $200K per year. But despite sales declines, what am I going to get to tow my toys with, that is a similar size and toughness, with the refinement it also has, and real 4WD? The Trailblazer is ghastly inside, and underpowered. The 4runner is very trucky and not designed well for the 3rd seat. Seems odd to kill it, and whatever Ford brings out to replace it won't be an Explorer, it'll be some name with an F in front of it, because someone there is in love with alliteration......
Don't they notice that what they're talking about building to replace the Explorer, is already here, and is being killed due to NO Sales, the Freestyle?
what am I going to get to tow my toys with, that is a similar size and toughness,
Oh, you mean you are actually one of the 3 people in America that actually needs and SUV becuase you need and SUV and you are not a Soccer Mom trying to be macho? Ford also tried to replace the Mustang with the Probe and that didn't work out so well either. Hopefully they will figure it out before its too late.
Typical Ford: milk it, but starve to death. Then act surprised when losing market share and having to discount below cost. That "it paid for itself ten times over so lets keep it around as long as suckers buy it" attitude works for a while, but if you don't know when to stop, you lose big in long run.
Doesn't Dodge or GMC have something for ya to tow with? Denali ?
HELL no - neither of them impress me. It's Ford or Toyota who have the design and technology edge going right now - both Dodge and GMC are so old tech (drum brakes on the Dodges, pushrods in both, plug wires in the GMs) I could get about an 86 Ford and be up to date with Dodge & GM. If Toyota ever got the design to the Ford level in trucks, I'd probably be over there.
"I never meant to say that there is no place for vehicle like Explorer - just not in sales numbers as posted in 90s"
I am not an Explorer fan by any means, but their sales numbers are pretty impressive considering the number of competitors they have now, versus back in the early - mid 90's. Now, everybody and their brother (and brother's cousin) makes an suv.
Back then it was a too-small Cherokee, and a Blazer that was originally designed to be only a 2 door. So the 4 door Blazer was awkward, and the Cherokee was too small.
The main reason the Explorer was a hit is that the competition simply missed entirely. Rodeo was the best selling import, too, and it wasn't all that good, in hindsight.
The segment is so much better now. Merely good isn't good enough.
I had just graduated college and was working full-time at what I thought was a good-paying job. That was around the time that small SUVs were really starting to take off in popularity, and I have to admit, I wanted one. Back then, IMO at least, there really wasn't any such thing as a midsized SUV. It was kind of like how the car market used to be back in the 50's...there were "standard sized", and "everything else"!
I remember the biggest lure of the Explorer, at that time, was the low price. It wasn't exciting to look at, but it gave you a lot of truck for the money, coming in thousands below the competition. I think the one I looked at was only around $22K. The biggest ripoff, as I recall, seemed to be the Chevy Blazer. Very expensive for what you got, and it just seemed junky. I think it was around $26-27K. The one I thought was the coolest was the Pathfinder. I think it also stickered around $26-27K, and the only thing I really didn't like about it was that it didn't have a sliding sunroof. IIRC it just had these two little pop-up panels in front, one over each seat.
I did look at a Trooper as well, which I guess was about as close to midsized as an SUV was back then. It was really nice, and I loved the HUGE sunroof it had! I think it was stickering for close to $30K though. I also looked at a Rodeo, which just seemed junky. And a Toyota 4runner, which while nice, just seemed boring. For some reason a Jeep never even crossed my mind at that point in time.
Overall though, the Explorer seemed a pretty good compromise at the time. I guess kinda like that old saying, "jack of all trades, master of none"?
Egads, andre! A 4Runner seemed boring, but the EXPLORER seemed like the essence of excitement????
There was a REASON the Explorer was thousands less.
The Trooper was always the toughie of the group, I think. But BOY OH BOY, could it ever guzzle a gallon of gas. And Troopers were always pricey. And then Mitsu had the jumbo Montero all the while as well, but no-one ever heard of that model. Talk about large, I guess maybe that one was full-size rather than mid-size...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Egads, andre! A 4Runner seemed boring, but the EXPLORER seemed like the essence of excitement????
Oh no no no, I didn't mean that to imply that the Explorer was the end all and be all of SUV's! It's just that, for the price, I was pleasantly surprised by the Explorer. I think it was all about expectation versus reality. I wasn't expecting much from the Explorer, so in a nutshell, it delivered. But with the 4runner, I was expecting more I guess, and as a result it just didn't live up to my expectations. Price aside, the 4runner would've been the obvious choice, but once you factor in the lower price of the Explorer, it seemed more attractive.
But in the end, I would've been more than willing to pay the price premium to get into the Pathfinder versus the Explorer, but with the 4runner, I just wouldn't have been as willing to go that far into debt.
Oh well, in the end, none of them handled as well, accelerated as well, or were even as comfortable for me as the '68 V-8 Dart I was driving at the time. And from the EPA ratings, I doubt fuel economy would've been much better, either! As I recall, the Trooper was rated at 13/17, which is about what my Dart got!
Back then, I used to think Mistubishis were junky, so I don't think I would have even considered one at the time. Although in retrospect I do like both generations of Diamante.
If I had to get an SUV today, I dunno what I'd pick. They've come a long way since 1993, but they've also put on a lot of weight and girth. And it seems like the curb weight often goes up faster than the GVWR, making for a big, tough-looking vehicle that's frighteningly easy to overload. Although sometimes I wonder if the limiting factor here is tires, and not the structure of the vehicle itself?
Dad had a Cherokee that kept falling apart. To replace it at first he wanted a Blazer, but when the Explorer came out his heart was set on that. It failed to meet his expectations, and he started buying Land Cruisers for his fleet.
My dad had a fall-apart S10 Blazer...overpriced hunk of junk as Andre mentions. He replaced it with an Exploder, which seemed like going from a Hyundai Excel to a Mercedes S600. For the time, they seemed like a competent enough vehicle. 1991 was a long time ago. For some reason, he didn't touch Ford after that, even though the vehicle was OK. He's had good luck since with a Dodge truck, and worse luck with minivans, but he still came back.
Huh ... interesting to hear you tell your story, Andre. I went through the same sort of issues, but 5 years earlier.
Wanted to get a 4-door SUV in 1988 ... at the time, the only two available were the Cherokee and the Trooper. The Pathfinder, Bronco II and S-10 Blazer only came as 2-door models.
The Cherokee was, IIRC, in the low 20's, while the Trooper was under 20K. We actually bought a dealer demo with 5K on the clock for something like $17K. 120HP and a 4-speed automatic made for one slow vehicle. We owned an Isuzu P'up at the time as well, so we were brand loyal to Isuzu for a time.
I don't really have brand loyalty but Lincoln is my favorite. So far I've owned Mercury, Lincoln, Chevy, Kia. Not including Lincoln (which I loved) I would probably never buy American again. And definetely not anything GM. So far so good with the 04 Optima, i'll be keeping it at least for the next 3 years.
I love my new 2007 Infiniti G35 sedan, Has lots of room and handles like a sports car with it's rear wheel drive and 306 horsies. Have owned Nissan Maximas and am now on my second Infiniti G35 and none have ever let me down. The Infiniti Dealers in San Diego have been terrific with their good high level service and workmanship. Never found a reason to change brands as I have full faith in Infiniti. Buy one and enjoy.
Comments
The Buick Velite, would be the perfect Hardtop coupe. Why ? Well for starters if they took a cue from Volvo, and made it a hardtop convertible like Volvo's C-70, it would be the only premium luxury vehical outside of the FWD C-70 in the segment. Shoot if they added AWD, to it that would be better yet because it then could be a 4-season car and would do well in places like the North East, and Mid West. Saabs 9-3 convertible could be more of a sports car while the Velite, would be more of a boulevard cruiser with Delphi's Magneride suspension. GM, could sell it in the high $40's and they would sell like hotcakes. Imagine if they did a Tiger Woods, edition that came with Golf Apparel. OMG, you'd see em' at every country club in america.
I just hope that 4th Buick, will be the Velite Convertible. Buick, needs a halo car really bad. The Velite, is sweet enough that people could honestly believe the worlds best golfer drives a Buick. :shades:
Rocky
buickboy, is the "Super" kinda what you are looking for ? The horsepower will come from the LS-4 V8 with 303 or more horsepower and a more sportier interior, so I've read.
Perhaps lemko, or somebody else knows more details ?
Rocky
Always reminds me of something like a Ford "Custom", which was anything but.
Fintail, how in the heck do you know so much about these ancient cars I've never heard of ? :P
Rocky
Cars are an OCD subject...I read a lot as a kid.
You sure did read alot to know specifics about cars way before our time.
Rocky
Rocky
Well, there was the Olds Custom Cruiser too. Whereas Chevy would have an Impala and Caprice wagon and Pontiac would have a Catalina/Bonneville Safari, Olds just called theirs "Custom Cruiser", leaving the Delta name out of it.
As for Chrysler, I've always been a fan of them in the past, especially when it comes to antique cars. But nowadays, I'm just going to pick whatever fits my needs and wants the best. Back in 1999 when I bought my Intrepid, it seemed like the best car for me at the time. The Altima was kind of a joke back then, and the Accord and Camry were too tiny for my tastes and I thought kind of expensive for what you got. I would've rather pushed an Impala than driven a Taurus. And I wasn't crazy about the 2000 Impala, so that ain't saying much! And I do have to admit, the 0.9% financing was pretty enticing!
But now it's 7 years later. The Accord, Camry, and especially Altima have improved. I think the Ford 500 is the automotive equivalent of euthanasia, but I do like the Fusion. I even like the 2006+ Impala better than its predecessor. I like the Charger and 300 too, but while 7 years ago the Intrepid was a no-brainer for me, today, a Chrysler isn't necessarily the obvious choice. Oh, and I almost forgot about the Saturn Aura. The Malibu doesn't do anything for me, and the G6 doesn't do much more, but I kinda like the Aura.
I agree the Aura, is pretty special. How bout a Aura Greenline.
Rocky
I like you am impressed by what I see. However, truthfully one will have to drive and see it in person to make a sound judgement. I'm just glad for the consumers sake the 2-Mode hybrid will be available for awesome fuel economy.
Rocky
-Loren
The Malibu has shrunk up a bit, as well. The 1997-03 Malibu's trunk was 17.3 cubic feet, whereas the '04+ is down to 15.4. The G6 has 14 cubic feet, while the Aura has 14.9, so I imagine the swoopier '08 Malibu will lose a bit of trunk space as well.
Even the '07 Altima has dropped from its predecessor, from ~16.2 cubic feet to ~15.3. Rounding it out we have the Fusion at 15.8 cubic feet and the Sonata at 16.3.
And it's not like any of these are what you'd consider small cars. They're all within in an inch or two of wheelbase and maybe 1-3 inches in length of the 1980 Malibu I once had (108.1" wb, 192.7" overall length). Yet it was a less-efficient RWD, body-on-frame design that was much more low-slung than today's cars. But it had a bigger trunk!
You'd think that with FWD, the higher rear decks of cars today, and moving the gas tank from under the trunk to under the back seat, and then moving the spare tire under the trunk floor, that a car of similar external dimensions would have gained SOMETHING in trunk space over the past 25 years? :confuse:
I was about 8 when he bought that thing, and when I started to get close to driving age, I really had my eye on it. Right around the time I turned 16, Granddad sold the thing! :mad: His rationale was that he didn't want me driving something that old that I'd bring back to him to fix every time it broke down. Well, I ended up doing that with my Mom's '80 Malibu that I got instead, so I don't see the difference! :P
In late 1989 I bought a 1969 Dodge Dart GT hardtop, and that thing really sold me on Chryslers. Even if it was 20 years out of touch with the stuff Chrysler was building at the time! One thing I always liked about Chryslers in general though, is that they usually felt a bit roomier inside than equivalent Ford or GM products. They usually seemed to handle a bit better too, although ride quality could suffer a bit. Oh well, at least that meant the floaty 70's models wouldn't make you nearly as seasick, either!
If I was in the market for an SUV, I think I might check out the Nitro. The more I look at 'em, the more I like 'em.
Look at my Forester - great cargo space but a tight back seat. Consumer Reports has a "biggest box" test and they squeezed in more space than the last gen Pathfinder, and the Forester is much smaller outside.
Then look at the Scion xB. The back seats is tremendous. Huge. More room than a Lexus LS460 by far. Comfy enough for 3. But you have about 12" of room for luggage. You can probably only fit one single suitcase.
-juice
But, given that I use the trunk much more than I do the back seat, I'm OK with that design decision.
-Loren
GM will be better without him.
-juice
Yeah, but they can only push the back seat so far back, or else the rear wheels transform it from 3-across seating to 2-across. Now if you stretch out the wheelbase and at the same time, reduce the rear overhang, that will probably increase the back seat room while reducing trunk volume, unless you raise the decklid or square off the rear of the car more to maintain trunk volume.
Now with some cars, I can kinda see where the trunk space went. The 2007 Altima, for example, is a bit smaller overall than the 2006, and I'd imagine much of that came from the trunk area. With the '07 Camry, the way they sloped and sculpted the rear area, giving it a bit of a neoclassic look, probably cut into the trunk volume more than the '02-06, which was more squared off in the rear.
Plus, I'm not really seeing much of an increase in back seat room, either in many cases. I don't find the '07 Camry to be any roomier in back than the '06. Nor do I find the '04-07 Malibu any roomier than the '97-03.
Sometimes, as they make these cars taller, they raise the height of the back seat, and that will cause the legroom measurement to increase, but will do nothing for kneeroom, which is often more critical if you have long legs. And then often the higher seat will put your head into the ceiling!
There are probably more midsized cars on the market today that force me to duck when I'm in the back seat than there were back in the 70's!
-Loren
I remember the Saturn L-series taking a lot of flak when it first came out because it was about the same size as a Malibu on the outside, but had a much more cramped back seat. IIRC though, the L-series also has a driving position a bit further back from the front wheels than a Malibu. The further back you push the front seat, the more it's going to take out of the back seat unless you stretch the wheelbase. Or push the rear seat further back between the wheel wells, which ends up turning your so-called midsized car into what really amounts to a 4-seater. I noticed this with the new Hyundai Sonata. The wheel wells intrude so far back there that, while the shoulder room measurement might sound deceptively roomy, you really don't want to put 3 people back there for long!
I guess I just still expect a midsized sedan to have a midsized back seat AND a midsized trunk, and not have to compromise on anything.
-Loren
Ancient past - the sales are as good as last month, and Explorer isn't hot for at least two years. For me it's a lower middle-class gas price squeeze victim. Rich never bought them at the first place. It was bought mostly by those whose double $40-50K/yer (or less) income was accustomed to gas price at $1/gal, but when the bill at pump almost trippled (amongst other things), the car had to go, as it was not as critical to have all that hauling capacity and there were other more efficient choices.
Same with Trailblazer.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Hmmmm, interesting generalization. I'm sure you're right, and I'm the exception. I've bought 6 of them since 1994 because they're so well designed, and my income is > $200K per year. But despite sales declines, what am I going to get to tow my toys with, that is a similar size and toughness, with the refinement it also has, and real 4WD? The Trailblazer is ghastly inside, and underpowered. The 4runner is very trucky and not designed well for the 3rd seat. Seems odd to kill it, and whatever Ford brings out to replace it won't be an Explorer, it'll be some name with an F in front of it, because someone there is in love with alliteration......
Don't they notice that what they're talking about building to replace the Explorer, is already here, and is being killed due to NO Sales, the Freestyle?
I think it's a bad move, not a bold move.
Oh, you mean you are actually one of the 3 people in America that actually needs and SUV becuase you need and SUV and you are not a Soccer Mom trying to be macho?
Ford also tried to replace the Mustang with the Probe and that didn't work out so well either. Hopefully they will figure it out before its too late.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Remind you of the Taurus and Ranger?
-juice
2018 430i Gran Coupe
HELL no - neither of them impress me. It's Ford or Toyota who have the design and technology edge going right now - both Dodge and GMC are so old tech (drum brakes on the Dodges, pushrods in both, plug wires in the GMs) I could get about an 86 Ford and be up to date with Dodge & GM. If Toyota ever got the design to the Ford level in trucks, I'd probably be over there.
I am not an Explorer fan by any means, but their sales numbers are pretty impressive considering the number of competitors they have now, versus back in the early - mid 90's. Now, everybody and their brother (and brother's cousin) makes an suv.
The main reason the Explorer was a hit is that the competition simply missed entirely. Rodeo was the best selling import, too, and it wasn't all that good, in hindsight.
The segment is so much better now. Merely good isn't good enough.
-juice
I remember the biggest lure of the Explorer, at that time, was the low price. It wasn't exciting to look at, but it gave you a lot of truck for the money, coming in thousands below the competition. I think the one I looked at was only around $22K. The biggest ripoff, as I recall, seemed to be the Chevy Blazer. Very expensive for what you got, and it just seemed junky. I think it was around $26-27K. The one I thought was the coolest was the Pathfinder. I think it also stickered around $26-27K, and the only thing I really didn't like about it was that it didn't have a sliding sunroof. IIRC it just had these two little pop-up panels in front, one over each seat.
I did look at a Trooper as well, which I guess was about as close to midsized as an SUV was back then. It was really nice, and I loved the HUGE sunroof it had! I think it was stickering for close to $30K though. I also looked at a Rodeo, which just seemed junky. And a Toyota 4runner, which while nice, just seemed boring. For some reason a Jeep never even crossed my mind at that point in time.
Overall though, the Explorer seemed a pretty good compromise at the time. I guess kinda like that old saying, "jack of all trades, master of none"?
There was a REASON the Explorer was thousands less.
The Trooper was always the toughie of the group, I think. But BOY OH BOY, could it ever guzzle a gallon of gas. And Troopers were always pricey.
And then Mitsu had the jumbo Montero all the while as well, but no-one ever heard of that model. Talk about large, I guess maybe that one was full-size rather than mid-size...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Oh no no no, I didn't mean that to imply that the Explorer was the end all and be all of SUV's! It's just that, for the price, I was pleasantly surprised by the Explorer. I think it was all about expectation versus reality. I wasn't expecting much from the Explorer, so in a nutshell, it delivered. But with the 4runner, I was expecting more I guess, and as a result it just didn't live up to my expectations. Price aside, the 4runner would've been the obvious choice, but once you factor in the lower price of the Explorer, it seemed more attractive.
But in the end, I would've been more than willing to pay the price premium to get into the Pathfinder versus the Explorer, but with the 4runner, I just wouldn't have been as willing to go that far into debt.
Oh well, in the end, none of them handled as well, accelerated as well, or were even as comfortable for me as the '68 V-8 Dart I was driving at the time. And from the EPA ratings, I doubt fuel economy would've been much better, either! As I recall, the Trooper was rated at 13/17, which is about what my Dart got!
Back then, I used to think Mistubishis were junky, so I don't think I would have even considered one at the time. Although in retrospect I do like both generations of Diamante.
If I had to get an SUV today, I dunno what I'd pick. They've come a long way since 1993, but they've also put on a lot of weight and girth. And it seems like the curb weight often goes up faster than the GVWR, making for a big, tough-looking vehicle that's frighteningly easy to overload. Although sometimes I wonder if the limiting factor here is tires, and not the structure of the vehicle itself?
Dad had a Cherokee that kept falling apart. To replace it at first he wanted a Blazer, but when the Explorer came out his heart was set on that. It failed to meet his expectations, and he started buying Land Cruisers for his fleet.
This was all through his work.
-juice
Wanted to get a 4-door SUV in 1988 ... at the time, the only two available were the Cherokee and the Trooper. The Pathfinder, Bronco II and S-10 Blazer only came as 2-door models.
The Cherokee was, IIRC, in the low 20's, while the Trooper was under 20K. We actually bought a dealer demo with 5K on the clock for something like $17K. 120HP and a 4-speed automatic made for one slow vehicle. We owned an Isuzu P'up at the time as well, so we were brand loyal to Isuzu for a time.
Paul
El Cajon, CA