By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
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