Cars of My Past

6sptl

You are making me feel real old (turned 42 today). All French auto brands left the USA in the 70's and 80's Renault, Peugeot and Citroen. The Italian Fiat went the same way. They disappeared mostly because of low market penetration, bad reliability and poor service networks. :lemon: :lemon: Volkswagen also almost left the market during that time, still a :lemon: . They were promptly replaced by our present japanese manufacturers. In a way Renault has had a resurgence in the USA under the Nissan brand. Nissan's newest compact's (versa and sentra) are broadly based on Renault vehicles.

arumage

My first vehicle was a 1988 Ford Aerostar that faintly smelled out freshly mown grass. I made money mowing grass while I was in high school. The van was quickly followed by a 1995 Olsmobile Cutlass Supreme. I should have kept driving the van. :sick:

hpmctorque

Was the Cutlass that good?

arumage

The Cutlass was bad. The dash pieces were hard plastic and consistently broke. The brakes were terrible, dash guages stopped working, and hoses failed. Finally, the engine overheated at 130,000 miles without any visible indications which warped the head. Antifreeze poured into the block, and that was bye-bye engine. I think I just had a lemon though. My friend had a 1991 Lumina that he is still driving today. It has basically the same components, including the engine. He has over 200,000 miles on it.

The Aerostar was simple and gas mileage wasn't that great, but it was only in the shop once in 10 years for a minor problem.

lemko

Did that Cutlass have the 3.1 V-6? Aaarrrghhh! Horrid engine!

arumage

It sure did. I agree completely. I picked out that car too. Oh, to be young and naive. :P

andre1969

Shame the car ended up being such a junker. Was your Supreme a coupe or sedan? I always liked the coupe style, but I remember looking at a used 1988 oh, around 1990, and thinking that it looked pretty flimsy. Those cars just seemed to have a lot of junky, plasticky, interior parts that were just waiting to fall off.

There was a lady at work who had a 1992 or so Cutlass coupe. It was a high-powered model, but I can't remember if it had the Quad 4 or the DOHC 3.4. It gave her no end of trouble, and I think in the end she traded it on an Altima.

john_324

Always liked the convertible version myself...good looking, sorta "adult" sportiness to it. And loved that crazy "basket handle" bar-thing (not sure it was a real roll bar or not...)

andre1969

Yeah, I'll admit, every once in awhile I'd see a convertible Supreme pop up at a local used car lot and I'd be tempted. I'd prefer it to not have that basket handle thing, but I could still tolerate it. By that time, I'd imagine the Cutlass Supreme was about the largest convertible you could get...unless you went for something exotic like a Rolls or Bentley

arumage

It was a sedan. In 1995, it had only two engine choices: 3.1L 160hp SOHC V6 or 3.4L 210hp DOHC V6. If she had a 1992 model, she had the 3.1L 140hp SOHC V6 or the 3.4L 210hp DOHC V6. I always liked the convertible too.

hpmctorque

As you probably know, lemko, as one who's partial to GM, while the 3.1 V6 may have been trouble prone, the 2.3 Quad 4 was even worse. Introduced with great promise, due to its power and fuel economy, this engine blew head gaskets like virtually no other. The successor to this engine was the OHC 2.4, a redesigned but much improved version of the Quad 4. This 2.4, which isn't related to the current Ecotec 2.0T/2.2/2.4 family, is excellent. The Quad 4 equipped Cutlass Supremes could have been exciting cars that combined performance and economy, if only the engine hadn't had that darn head gasket vulnerability. I'm referring only to the 5-speed manual ones, because the automatic that was bolted onto the Quad 4 was the old 3-speed unit, unlike the the 4-speed transaxles that came with the 2.8/3.1 V6s. This made little sense, since the high revving, low torque Quad 4's performance would have been greatly enhanced with that extra gear, whereas it made relatively less difference with higher torque OHV V6s.

Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and maybe others had been using 4-speed automatics with their four cylinders for a few years, which begs the question, why couldn't GM do the same? Does anyone here know? The Cutlass Ciera's use of the 3-speed unit is a little more justifiable because that model used the ancient low revving, low horsepower, but relatively high torque (not in absolute terms, but relative to horsepower) OHV Iron Duke four. Also, the Supreme was supposed to be Oldsmobile's modern replacement for the Ciera. The only answer I can think of is production capacity and cost issues took precedence over having a competitive product.

I also wish to see GM succeed, and I think Waggoner and Lutz are doing a credible job at turning the company around, but the examples I cited above were unjustifiable, in my opinion.

lemko

My girlfriend briefly had a 1999 Oldsmobile Cutlass sedan with the 3.1 V-6. The car had chronic cooling system problems and I believe it was about to succumb to the dreaded intake manifold problem before I conviced her to ditch the car. Not only that, it was a thinly disguised Malibu with really ugly taillights and an interior that best could be described as "contemporary rental car." It was not an Oldsmobile by my definition. I had a 1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency with the 403 V-8 and my Dad has a super-awesome 1955 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Starfire convertible. Those were Oldsmobiles!

hpmctorque

I owned a '72 98 4 door hardtop with the 455 ci Rocket engine and a '85 98 Brougham with the 231 ci V6 (the predecessor to the 3.8). The '85 was the first model year of the platform generation used by your Park Avenue, as you know. Both Oldmobiles were good cars, so I was disappointed when GM discontinued the Olds brand. The '72 succumbed to rust and other issues with ~127K on the odometer, and the '85 lost its third transmission at ~151K. Each of these cars had other needs, in addition to the problems mentioned, so it didn't pay to fix them. I've also owned other GM, Ford and Mopar products, and my overall experience, taking the good with the not so good, has been good. My experience with Japanese brands has also varied, but overall has been good.

oldfarmer50

Purchased used with 21k on the dial. Ran it up to 158K during my teen years. Beat the thing to death but it wouldn't die. Only reason I got rid of it was because I started seeing the road go by between my feet.

hpmctorque

What engine did the satellite have?

lemko

Those big 1970s Oldsmobile Ninety-Eights were something to behold! I loved the classy ads where the car would be parked in front of Tiffany's. Fortunately, my Park Avenue doesn't seem to be displaying any mechanical ailments. If it pukes a tranny, it's all over. It would be a sad day.

hpmctorque

I don't know what year your PA is ('90 or '91?), but by ~'89 GM had improved the 4-speed transaxle, so that it wasn't as problematic as in the '85-~'87 model years. In those years it was notoriously troublesome. How many miles does yours have on it?

"If it pukes a tranny, it's all over."

If the engine and body are in good shape, it would probably be worthwhile to repair the tranny, when it goes. These cars are rapidly becoming somewhat rare, which could add to the collector appeal, though not much to the value, unfortunately. The downsized GM FWD large bodies (how's that for an oxymoron) were once very numerous, but you don't see many pre-'92s on the road nowadays. Clean, well maintained ones are especially rare. If you should be intent on getting rid of yours, please let me know first.

andre1969

If the engine and body are in good shape, it would probably be worthwhile to repair the tranny, when it goes.

I don't think the transmissions on these cars are really all that complicated or expensive to fix, either. I'd imagine a rebuilt one might run about $1000 or so? I think I'd be willing to sink a grand into a car that was in otherwise nice shape.

I think a transmission in something like my Intrepid is around $2500 or so, and some of these newer 5 and 6 speed trannies can run $4000 or more! Now if my Intrepid pukes its tranny, it's probably time to call it a day. Mechanically, the car does feel fine, but it has about 127,000 miles on it, and is starting to look just a little bit ghetto, with a dent in the passenger-side door, a small hole in the rear bumper fascia, and its faded, yellowing plastic headlights. It's kinda funny how old cars seem to get a bit of character as they age and pick up battle scars here and there. But newer ones just start looking junky!

british_rover

I miss my 89 bonneville from time to time but I couldn't take it with me when I moved and my co-workers buddy needed a car so it had to go.

Most of those year H-bodies I see now are all trashed. I wouldn't mind having a 1990 or so SSE that had all of the electronics working.

eltonron

My first car was a sexy Volkswagen Beetle with an automatic stick. It could easily go from 0-60 in about six days, provided it started on a gradually descending and lengthy incline.
However, it DID have a sunroof and a radio that got three stations, which was all that was really required for cruising chicks up-and-down Van Nuys Blvd. on a Wednesday night!


Eltonron
Host- Automotive News and Views

arumage

I think it's all the fiberglass and plastic that makes newer cars look junkier as they age versus the old classics.

Kirstie_H

Erm... what model year was that again? :P

hpmctorque

Oh, those Beetles with Auto Sticks were really unappealing. No power and no fun, kind of like the '70 Datsun 510 with the Borg Warner automatic that I owned. The lesson learned from that 510 is don't buy a compromise; that is, if you need an automatic, don't buy a car that can't possibly be satisfying with an automatic, or semi-automatic in the case of the old Beetle. An example of the opposite would arguably be the Chrysler K-cars, in all their variations (I hope everyone has digested their food!). The manuals on these cars had awful linkages, and, in some cases, ratios that were too wide to be fun to drive. Since the 3-speed transaxle was acceptable and reliable, at least, the automatic was preferable to the manual on these. My 2 cents.

lemko

My Park Avenue's a 1988 model. The paint is shot, but everything else is in great shape.

hpmctorque

"The paint is shot..."

Well, that diminishes the argument for replacing the automatic, but, what the heck, it's your beater, so if you like the car otherwise, why not invest $1,000 - $1,500, if you like the car otherwise? Fortunately, it's a hypothetical matter at the moment, because the tranny is okay, and by the time the tranny goes the car might have other issues, besides the paint.

eltonron

Obviously a clever but unfortunately unsuccessful ploy to divulge my true age. Nice try, babe.

Eltonron
Host- Automotive News & Views

british_rover

Ehh all of the GM products from that time have bad paint.

Most of the domestics from that time had questionable paint at best.

hpmctorque

"if my Intrepid pukes its tranny, it's probably time to call it a day."

Well, maybe not, depending on whether you evaluate it from an insurer's or dealer's mentality, or from a cost-to-own standpoint. 127K isn't alot nowadays, as you know. I don't think it would be a mistake, from a financial perspective, to fix the tranny, and run the Intrepid to 200K or more. But, fortunately, this is all hypothetical, as it is with lemko's PA, since your tranny may go the distance. Didn't Chrysler have their 4-speed transaxle issues sorted out by the second generation Intrepid?

" It's kinda funny how old cars seem to get a bit of character as they age and pick up battle scars here and there. But newer ones just start looking junky!"

I understand your point! A potential bonus from fixing the tranny, then, would be that in a few years your Intrepid will acquire the character you refer to.

andre1969

I've seen Lemko's Park Ave, and what he considers "shot" paint is probably not what the rest of us would consider "shot" paint! Grbeck and I met up with Lemko for one of the Carlisle events last summer and I took a picture of his Park Ave.

The danged thing looks like a brand-new car...heck, no beater should look that good! :P IIRC, the clearcoat was getting a bit thin on the roof, but that was about it. If I had a "beater" like Lemko's park Ave and it needed a $1000 or so transmission, I'd pay for it.

Lemko, has that paint deteriorated any more since last summer?

andre1969

Well, maybe not, depending on whether you evaluate it from an insurer's or dealer's mentality, or from a cost-to-own standpoint. 127K isn't alot nowadays, as you know. I don't think it would be a mistake, from a financial perspective, to fix the tranny, and run the Intrepid to 200K or more. But, fortunately, this is all hypothetical, as it is with lemko's PA, since your tranny may go the distance. Didn't Chrysler have their 4-speed transaxle issues sorted out by the second generation Intrepid?

I think Chrysler did pretty much have the transmission problems sorted out by around 1998, although in applications with a more powerful engine, such as the 3.2/3.5 or minivan 3.3/3.8, or heavier vehicles (again, the minivans) they could still be a bit troublesome. I've never had any problems with my transaxle, but just to play it safe I get it serviced every 30,000 miles. I think the owner's manual calls for 100,000 miles on "schedule A" and 50,000 miles on "schedule B". No wonder the things failed so often! As an aside, GM tried to push 100,000 mile service intervals on their lightweight THM-200C tranny back in the late 70's. And they wonder why the things failed! :sick:

while 127,000 miles isn't a horrendous amount, I think it's also high enough to come to the realization that the car isn't going to last forever, so I should plan accordingly. And I'm not saying that just because it's an Intrepid...if it was a Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc, I'd still be thinking the same thing.

My Mom & stepdad have a 1999 Altima that has about 220,000 miles on it. They carpool to work together, which is probably about 150 miles round trip per day, of mostly highway driving. They're thinking about getting a new car. I told them they should just drive the thing till it drops at this point, but the only problem is, they travel down to Florida alot. It's one thing to have your engine seize or tranny drop when you're close to home, but having it die 1000 miles from home can leave you with a vulnerable feeling!

As for my Intrepid though, I guess I'll find out how long it'll last, because I'm planning on keeping it until something major goes wrong with it. And I doubt if it's going to depreciate any further than it already has!

arumage

They should just look at getting a new vehicle AND keeping the Altima. Just drop full insurance coverage on the Altima and keep driving it to work. They can save the new vehicle for the longer trips and special occasions. When the Altima finally kicks the bucket, the new vehicle will be nice and broken in.

lemko

It's starting to get thinner on the roof and hood. The sides still look the same. If I use this wax called "Color Back" which I've seen at R&S Strauss and comes in blue, white, red, and black, it doesn't look too bad. My Dad had a bottle of this stuff lying around from God knows when. I tried it and it works to some extent.

andre1969

that actually is a good thought; I'll run it by my Mom & stepdad the next time I talk to them. I have no idea how much they'd get in trade for a 220K Altima, anyway...probably not much. And I doubt if liability-only insurance would cost much for the Altima. Heck, it might even be worthwhile to keep the full coverage. My insurance is only around $500 per year for my Intrepid, but dropping it to liability-only would only save me about $200 per year.

lemko

My brother-in-law has a 1997 Nissan Altima with about 210K on it that he uses as a beater car. It does look every bit of its 210K miles, especially by my standards. However, it's been more reliable than the 2000 Mercedes-Benz S430 he bought new. I was at his place for Xmas and a catalogue for the 2007 Altima was on his kitchen counter.

hpmctorque

The appearance of the '07 Altima hasn't changed all that much, considering it's new platform, but my early take on it is that it's significantly improved over the previous generation. The numerous little changes add up to a better car.

andre1969

Hmmm, in the past I had usually had reservations about the Altima, because the 4-cyl/auto had relatively low EPA ratings, something like 23/29. In contrast I think the Accord/Camry were usually around 24/34. To be fair though, most of my driving is local, so I probably wouldn't notice the difference.

Nice to see that the '07 Altima, with a 2.5/cvt, is rated at 26/34. Maybe I'll check into an Altima the next time around. I always did like the '02-06, despite the EPA estimate.

autoboy16

Is a 1995 Honda Accord exv6. It has 118kmiles on it and it runs like new! For being an older model, it drives better IMO than my sisters 00' millenia! Her brakes are too grabby and the power comes on too slow! For me, VTEC keeps it on tap when and wherever I need it!

It has flaws like its seats looking worn and some bruises around the car, but I liked it like that! I call them battle scars! It helps the car stand out in those parking lots! They're small but hey any car here in miami can get them.

After a good wash and a fresh coat of wax, it shines so beautifully in the moonlight...

-Cj♥Accord

rockylee

You need to accidentally leave a 2008' CTS catalog on his counter.

Rocky

PF_Flyer

Mine was a 1966 Chrylser Newport with a 383 V-8. You could fit my entire band and their equipment in that sucker!

First NEW car was a 1981 Sentra, pictured here with my wife's first new car, a 1979 Datsun B210

See more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com

I just noticed the trash can on the extreme left of the pic that is still with us and hasn't aged a day! :P

andre1969

Mine was a 1966 Chrylser Newport with a 383 V-8. You could fit my entire band and their equipment in that sucker!

Our program director at work used to have a 1966 Chrysler Newport 2-door hardtop. I don't think it was his first car, though. I had a '67 Newport hardtop for about 5 months. It had the Barracuda-ish roofline, which I really don't like on these cars...I prefer the other roofline with the triangular quarter windows.

My '67 really wasn't such a great car, but to be fair it was 32 years old when I got it! I would've held onto it, but then I bought my 2000 Intrepid, and just had too many cars. Plus, my uncle lent me the down payment on the 'Trep, and I still owed him $2,000 for an '88 LeBaron he had sold to us when I was married, about 4 years before. By then I was finally out of the debt that bad marriage got me into, so I made a focused effort to pay my uncle back, and the proceeds from selling that Newport went towards that.

PF_Flyer

The '66 was great. It finaly had 228,000 miles on it when I took it for its last trip to the "yard" where I fortunately got to sell it per pound!

Coming to Philly on the 10th?

jiamin

1979 Monte Carlo, with a huge dent on right side door. Four tires with three different sizes...

autoedu

Cars I've owned

1st Car - 1985 Nissan 200SX (Survived two years of High School)
2nd Car - 1993 Corolla
3rd Car - 1991 Volvo 940
4th Car - 2001 Elantra
5th Car - 2002 Camry
6th Car - 2002 Saab 93 Convertible (Current)
7th Car - 2005 Volvo S40 (Current)

Love them all but something about your first car that makes you remember. The 200SX was a 2-door 5 speed, with over 120K, radio didn't work, no AC, had a moonroof, pop-up headlight, and many imperfections but it was a joy to drive and I loved it. Drove it when I got my DL and until I finished HS then it finally broke down

Saab by far is the most fun to drive.

chuck1959

'64 Rambler Station Wagon! I think it was a 660 (?) Cross Country. Anyway it was in the middle of the model lineup. It was former owned by an 70 year old woman who had bought it new. I got it in 1975. What a great car!

daedalus34r

... a 1998 Buick Regal LS. Dad used it from 98-02, put 105k miles on the clock. I got it in 02summer and used it for high school senior year. IN four years i only put another 25k on the clock so now its sittin pretty around 130k. Its been a great first car, simple, easy to use, fast enough and very comfortable. Its' also been very reliable, with only one major repair job needed to the coolant intake, after that its just general maintanence with oil and whatnot.

I added a huge soundsystem with subs so now its the cruising car my friends and I use, it actually makes me driver slower since im relaxing listening to the music. Its not like the handling of the car makes you want to drive sporty so it worked out ok.

bigo08

Cars I've Owned

1. 1997 Land ROver Discovey
2. 2002 Cadillac Deville DHS
3. 2000 Lincoln LS V8 (Currnet)

By far my the most fun to drive has to be my current car the LS

fezo

The first one I actually bought was a 1969 Volvo 142 with 44K on it in 1973. I like it in a lot of ways but it had its glitches and when you put Volvo in the same sentence as glitches you have a big $$$ problem.

The big "safety" car had the longest gearshift on the floor that I have ever seen! Cannot imagine the damage that could inflict in a crash. Was comfortable as all get out. AM radio with push buttons. The owners manual was written in British English so you had to translate anything you read. The instructions on changing a "tyre" were hysterical.

And, naturally, it gave new meaning to the word slow. I would not have bet money on being able to take on a Beetle off the line. Oh, and the brakes squeaked almost always.

Had over 150K on it when I sold it and even then I was thinking about how much it would take to sink into it and make it last another couple of years.

nvbanker

Big fan of the H bodies myself - owned several back in the day - just lost my 88 Olds a couple of years ago, as my son totalled it on Super Bowl Sunday..... They weren't the most reliable, but they were very comfortable, handled very easily, were peppy in the short rows, and very space efficient - also got good mileage. I thought they were the perfect big car....

andre1969

They weren't the most reliable, but they were very comfortable, handled very easily, were peppy in the short rows, and very space efficient - also got good mileage. I thought they were the perfect big car....

That space efficiency was one thing I really liked about the H-body, too. They didn't quite have the shoulder room to be a big, comfy, 3-across car like the RWD B- and C-bodies. However, by the time you factor in the driveshaft/tranny hump, armrests, seat contouring, etc, those bigger cars really weren't the most comfy 6-seaters in the world, either. And to be honest, while I like the expansive feeling of a car with generous shoulder room, it's not like I'm regularly carting around 4 or 5 passengers.

I always thought it was interesting that the FWD '85-90 C-body, on the same 110.8" wheelbase as the H-body, had more legroom in the back. I'm guessing that since the H-body had a slightly more rakish roofline, they had to move the back seat up a bit to maintain headroom, and that cut into the legroom a bit?

nvbanker

Very likely you're right, andre. The C Body was also a favorite of mine - even more space efficient - but so common across the brands, it did GM a lot of damage. That's where the name Oldsmobuick came from.... I still liked 'em.