Yeah, around 7.5-7.9 seconds is what I've heard for the supercharged Park Ave. Not earth-shattering by today's standards, but still quicker than anything I've owned in the past. My Intrepid, '88 LeBaron turbo, '57 DeSoto, and '68 Dart V-8 were all around 9.5 seconds. My Catalina might do it in 9, but it's sometimes hard to launch, because it spins out easily. My '89 Gran Fury copcar might've broken 10 seconds on a good day. I'd say everything else I had was more like 11-14 seconds. Now Consumer Reports once tested a '79 St. Regis 318-2bbl and got 0-60 in a pathetic 15.9, but my identical '79 Newport, junkyard fresh with 230K on the engine, would do it in about 12, at least according to my stopwatch.
Oh, my Park Ave got fantastic fuel economy and it still had a lot of pep. I really really miss that about my Park Ave. My Grand Marquis is a pig compared to it.
That 7.5 seconds, though, is done by flooring the engine, dropping it out of neutral, then manually shifting the automatic into 2nd and leaving it there until it hits about 5,000 rpm in 2nd. Not normal driving, and expect the transmission to die after about 30-40 such launches.
The problem with engines like that is that the transmissions won't allow you to EVER get over 3000rpm in normal driving unless you have the accelerator literally at the floor to override the transmission's desire to go up a gear as soon and as often as it can.
The solution is to get your mechanic to raise the shift points by about 1000-1500rpm. I did this in an old Buick of mine a few years back and it turned it into an entirely different car. Of course, gas mileage dropped to about 22mpg combined, as is expected when the car is run properly instead of lugged all the time.
Oh, my Park Ave got fantastic fuel economy and it still had a lot of pep. I really really miss that about my Park Ave. My Grand Marquis is a pig compared to it.
Is it really that much of a difference? My dad had a '92 Crown Vic (pretty much the same since then) and it averaged 18-20 in mixed driving. About the same as what Gramps P/A's got. Hwy would be better with the P/A. I drove the '00 P/A from Tampa to northern Indiana straight through in '03 (left at 2am and got to my parents house by 8pm.. ouch) and averaged about 27mpg with hand calculation, trip computer said 30.1 or something, i've never found those to be 100% accurate, my 07 Expedition included.
A 1988 Park Ave had a base weight of 3300lbs 165hp and a FE rating of 19/29 2005 GM base weight of 4000lbs 224hp and FE of 18/25, hardly a huge difference particularly when comparing weight and a v8 vs v6.
That 7.5 seconds, though, is done by flooring the engine, dropping it out of neutral, then manually shifting the automatic into 2nd and leaving it there until it hits about 5,000 rpm in 2nd. Not normal driving, and expect the transmission to die after about 30-40 such launches.
I've never noticed that with any of the 3800 powered cars I've driven. Actually my wife's 07 GP is the most liberally upshifting GM vehicle I've driven. At a1/4 throttle it usually will wait until after 3k rpm to shift, 4k rpm upshifts with 1/2 throttle, and full throttle upshifts around 5k rpm. It's not bad on downshifting either like every other GM vehicle I've driven that seem to demand being nearly floored for a downshift. Probably why FE isn't what I'd expect, usually in the 22-24 range.
Have you actually tracked your fuel economy with that Grand Marquis, Lemko? I guess it's possible that in your short-trip driving and such, the Grand Marquis might only be pulling 15-16 mpg, while that '88 Park Ave was doing around 19-20?
I know one thing though...I'm looking forward to the fuel economy gains when I move from 5th Ave to Park Ave!
For those who complain they will never buy a GM because it took loans from the g'vment... are you not going to drive on a road built with CAT equipment or in a building erected with CAT equipment?
We can't change the past! We can only change the future. If you use past injustices to defend current and future injustices, you will get a continuing cycle of injustices!
Why don't we try and embarass and expose, and punish every government official who does business by using tax money to bribe and influence businesses. No more tax $ for ballparks, reduced taxes, and bailouts. It does not do society any good to see certain connected individuals get special favors, when others with much less are paying for it. We need to stop wanting to get even because of the past. It is that line of logical that leads to Israeli-Arab, and Irish wars that go on for hundreds of years. It hurts everyone. And if you want to look at our Constitutution - it is written so that the government treats everyone equally.
Maybe we need to do more to public officials then slap their wrists when caught being unethical?
I guess it didn't really sink in how light an 88 Park Ave was until I started thinking about it. 3300lbs?!! Man, a 4cyl Malibu weighs more than that now. With a 169 hp (less torque no doubt) 4cyl, the Malibu EPA ratings are 22/30 w/ 4 speed Auto and 22/33 with 6speed auto.
In comparison updated EPA ratings on the 1988 P/A are 17/26/20 combined for the 4cyl Bu they are 4cyl/4spd 22/30/25 4cyl 6spd 22/33/26 3.6 17/26/20 combined granted it has a lot more power, FE is a bit disappointing with the 3.6 because a 3.5 v6 Accord with a 5speed auto is 19/29/23. A Fusion with 3.5 and 6spd is 18/27/21.
Still, the 33 rating on the Malibu 4cyl 6speed is impressive. That means depending on you driving style and environment, some maybe able to get 35+
>We need to stop wanting to get even because of the past
Exactly. The Obama administration ridicule and bailing of the automakers and their protection of UAW for political reasons are all the _past_. We shouldn't be punishing the current GM. I'll let their products stand on their own, truly-valued merits.
That's possible. The Grand Marquis does MUCH better on the highway. Still, not as good as the Park Ave. I'm sure you will notice a dramatic improvement in fuel economy going from the Fifth Avenue to the Park Avenue. What was the fuel economy like for the 'Trep? Do you think it'll be better or worse with the Park Ave?
Heck, I just thought about it - you've got TWO cars named after NYC streets! Are there any cars named after Philly locations? Well, maybe the Ford Mainliner.
You got that right. Cars are a lot heavier than they used to be. My 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance feels heavier than my wider and longer 1989 Cadillac Brougham. Heck, I think my wife's LaCrosse is actually heavier than the '88 Park Ave.
What was the fuel economy like for the 'Trep? Do you think it'll be better or worse with the Park Ave?
My guess is that the Park Ave will do a bit worse around town, a bit better on the highway. FWIW the Intrepid was rated 20/29, while the supercharged Park Ave was 18/27. I could usually make the Intrepid's EPA estimates without too much trouble, although in later years, living so close to work, and all the other short trips, especially once the weather got colder, could dip as low as 17. I think the best I ever got was about 32.4, back in 2008, coming up to PA for the Carlisle Ford show. That was that day it was brutally hot, but that morning I rode up without using the a/c, and kept my speed pretty much around 58-60..my attempt at hyper-miling, I guess! I had that a/c cranking on the way home, though!
I'm guessing the Park Ave, even though it's a few hundred pounds heavier and has an extra 1.1L worth of engine, should still do better on the highway, simply because it's torquier and has loafier gearing. As long as I keep my foot out of it, I guess. I'm guessing the Park Ave wouldn't have to rely on downshifting as much as the Intrepid did.
My best ever single tank mileage all highway on my 89 Bonneville was 40.1 MPG and that was hand calculated accurate. To get that ratings I had perfect conditions mid 60s F, just the right humidity and no traffic. I also had several modification done to the car to improve fuel mileage. I had dumped all the super restrictive air intake equipment and the tiny stock filter. That was all replaced with a custom cold air intake setup cobbled together with parts from a new 2000ish Explorer, 1993 Camaro and a couple other cars I don't remember.
Full amsoil synthetic in the Engine and Trans a custom belly pan to smooth out the airflow in the front of the car too.Oh I had the tires pumped up to 44 PSI their absolute max rating.
Normally I averaged low 30s on the highway and 25 or 26 combined.
Those were pretty sharp cars back then. Had a neighbor with one back when I was in HS. Neat car, but man was it always breaking down on him. Multiple fuel pump and electrical issues that meant it was often found on the side of the road dead. That guy had some bad luck with cars. He made good money as a OTR salesman and drove like 60k miles a year so he had a new car every year or two. Before the LeBaron, he had the first Lazer turbo I'd ever seen, I think like in 84, another POC. Before that a late 70's to early 80's Toronado diesel. If it was under 20 degrees out, it was getting jumped in the morning.
I've never noticed that with any of the 3800 powered cars I've driven. Actually my wife's 07 GP is the most liberally upshifting GM vehicle I've driven.
GM did raise the shift points for the Pontiac versions of the vehicles to fit with the "sporty" image. But the Buicks and Chevrolets were and still are set to shift about 1000 rpm lower. And as a result, actual 0-60 times are closer to 10 seconds. That's not too bad, though, since 95% of traffic goes 0-60 in closer to 15-20 seconds.(there's always some tool that slows everything down)
But you can get your mechanic to alter these vehicles to shift better.
Nobody here has promoted punishing GM or any other company. I'm simply saying we should neither help nor hinder GM or any other company stay in business, after mismanagement for so many years.
If the new GM wants to stand on its own then they should get private investors, pay off the government loans and get rid of the U.S. government on their board. Right now the new GM has all the rights of a 10-year old (oer welfare case); not being able to support itself or make it's own decisions.
Let me know when GM becomes an Adult again. Until then I will consider GM's models to be possible because the taxpayer has subsidized their R&D costs and any losses on producing the ever-decreasing number they sell.
But yes they are. They recommend not buying because those evil companies took taxpayer's money.
How do you feel about the porkulus bill of $850 billion and the $1.5 trillion bill passed this weekend loaded with pork? Those government people are spending lots of money on lots of things for both parties. Because they've raised the total debt by a few trillion for the months they've been in, are they also 10-year olds? :P
But yes they are. They recommend not buying because those evil companies took taxpayer's money.
So you think that if we sit here and say "Don't buy a PC, or, don't buy a Mac" that this is equivalent (or a reason) to the U.S. government penalizing 1-side by giving the competitor bailout $ to stay in business? You're kidding, right? So with your logic, it would be smart of a business to run its business poorly, such that it gets a bad reputation with the BBS, and thus qualify for government loans/bailouts? :P Meanwhile the successful companies would get nothing, and the stockholders get shafted because the government is keeping the unassisited company from gaining marketshare.
How do you feel about the porkulus bill of $850 billion and the $1.5 trillion bill passed this weekend loaded with pork?
I'm probably against most of it; I don't think we know exactly what it contains. I bet I could agree 10% of it was useful. Government should be involved in our lives to a bare-minimum.
Here's what GM should be doing - issuing stock and repaying the government, like the banks are: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-12-14-citigroup-repay-tarp- - - _N.htm?loc=interstitialskip "Citi (C) is selling $20.5 billion in stock and debt to repay the government. It only has to pay back $20 billion because the remaining $25 billion was converted into a 34% ownership stake in the bank earlier this year. The government plans to sell that entire stake — which has risen in value by more than 20% — during the next year.
The loss-sharing agreement will also end as part of the plan.
After repaying the funds, Citi will no longer face heavy scrutiny and restrictions from the government, including caps on executive pay and dividends."
and "The government stands to earn about $5.7 billion in profit by selling its portion of Citi shares, based on Friday's closing price of $3.95."
"They recommend not buying because those evil companies took taxpayer's money."
They are being rewarded for failure is more like it. :sick:
Dick Wagoner got a 10 million dollar severance package with that bailout. Executive goons who were so called "kicked out" are still on the payroll due to the golden parachuttes that come as one of the benefits of working for the company. Set for life... :sick:
Known fact that GM was too big, floating along with too many brands, too many models and too much overhead. A situation they did to themselves, not us the taxpayer. GM floated along for decades peddling outdated technologies, outdated drivetrains and countless mediocre models that were consistantly criticized by the media, and more or less failed to attract buyers.
I'm not talking Vegas, Cimarrons and Citations either, I'm talking brand new releases like Pontiac G6's with 4 speed autos and 30 year old pushrod engines, Chevy Cheapuinoxs with Chinese boatanchors and idiotic fwd sedans that needed honkin V8's just to keep up with the japanese 6 cylinder mills. I'm talking dumba$$ decisions like civilian HUMMERS in a time of rising gas prices, or offering nearly 40 gas guzzling V8 vehicles (cars, trucks, SUV's ) with the threat KNOWN FACT UNLESS YOU WERE LIVING IN A CAVE! that gas prices were on the rise and were expected to peak in the 4 - 5 dollar range.
It wasn't you or I who made all these (and many, many more) boneheaded decisions! It wasn't you or anyone else who allowed the UAW to walk all over them! It wasn't you or anyone else that allowed GM's beancounters to have as much of an influence in final product as they did. And it wasn't you or anyone else that chose to dilute the brand equity with numerous rebadges. SO WHY ARE WE OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT THIS IDOCRACY?
I want to know why it was so damn important to save this archaic, failing entity? And don't give me the B.S. about saving jobs and economic and social armageddon either because I sure as hell don't see anyone up in arms over the other Detroit failure that is Chrysler and the jobs and economic impact that it will have :sick:
The Obama administration ridicule and bailing of the automakers and their protection of UAW for political reasons are all the _past_. We shouldn't be punishing the current GM. I'll let their products stand on their own, truly-valued merits.
It will become a past after they return the darn bailout.
Their products can stand on their own, and people can buy them if they want. Just don't expect us who are still doubting them to support.
Even the current GM isn't showing the expected progress. Their old ways remain, including their lame production strategies, making excuses, etc. The "past" is alive and kickin'. Is that supposed to be called a change?
Dick Wagoner got a 10 million dollar severance package with that bailout. Executive goons who were so called "kicked out" are still on the payroll due to the golden parachuttes that come as one of the benefits of working for the company.
I would've liked to see him in prison for a while, not for his stupidity and arrogance, but for lying to Congress and the GM stock-holders in Nov. '08, concerning GM's condition. He should have at least had all future income cancelled, and he should have had civil suits brought against him to strip him of any wealth he had accumulated over the years.
SO WHY ARE WE OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT THIS IDOCRACY?
Exactly. Why doesn't everyone who believes in GM, go buy another GM vehicle, or just send them a check, or go buy $20,000 of new-GM stock? I asked this before - if you believe in GM so much, tell us what you've done in the last year to save GM. All there needs to be is a few million people who switch their retirement funds to buy new-GM stock and GM will have plenty of $ to repay it's debts and survive. Who here thinks it would be good to take their investments and throw it into GM - with its rosy future?
That '85 Toronado does look nice. I've always liked those, too. I think the Toro was always my favorite of the 1979-85 E-body. I don't think I've ever seen one with the optional gauges. The temp gauge was standard, a rarity in itself for that era, but the amp and oil pressure gauges were extra-cost.
As for reliability, I think they tended to be one of those cars that was initially rated worse-than-average by CR, but might have improved to average as it aged, and could last forever. The drivetrain was a sturdy Olds 307, and the transmission was a FWD version of the THM200R4 that was used in the RWD cars. It was fairly durable by 1985. My guess is the biggest trouble spots were electrical stuff, emissions, etc...typical 1980's problem areas.
>face heavy scrutiny and restrictions from the government, including caps on executive pay and dividends."
And the only reason Citi wants to pay the money back is so the huge, ungodly executive bonuses can be put into place again. This is the company who didn't want to loan money to people and businesses in the interim because they might lose money; that would have helped the economy grow or to not shrink as fast as it is shrinking. INSTEAD they want to give the money to highly overpaid executives.
Isn't there something wrong with that picture. And thank God for Limbaugh and his listeners for a second source of information about much of the shenanigans going on in DC. Otherwise Madcow on MSNBC and Ophrah would have us all thinking all is just wonderful with our upper class up there living the high life for themselves and their friends.
BEcause of all this we should be wanting GM to sell as many cars as possible to help the cash flow and to get back on their feet. Then they can sell stock and the government, can go back to representing the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" kind of things they should be doing instead of tinkering.
".....Because of all this we should be wanting GM to sell as many cars as possible to help the cash flow and to get back on their feet."
We ARE starting to see this. 11/09 sales for the Lacrosse are UP 63% vs. last Nov. The SRX?? 208%!!! Equinox?? 273%!! Terrain?? UP 387% vs Pontiac Torrent sales last Nov. (that was prior to any talk of shuttering brands). Malibu?? Up 17.4%, down 11.8% ytd, but the Camry while up 10% last month, is DOWN 27.8% ytd. Accord, essentially flat last month, down 25.3% ytd.
BTW, the Lacrosse outsold the Hyundai Genesis by 94% last month, 3400-1751. It trailed Lexus ES sales by 17.4%,4110-3400.
BEcause of all this we should be wanting GM to sell as many cars as possible to help the cash flow and to get back on their feet.
Yes, I think we all WANT GM to do well. But there is a definite difference between WANT and EXPECT. 30+ years of decline with their business strategy does not give me much hope that they will succeed. How many years of failure does it take for you to realize they need drastic change? Are you a Cubs fan?
I'm thinking of this GM-issue practically, not emotionally. Besides trimming some employees, dealers, and the fringe brands, what has really changed at GM to make you expect them to succeed on their own? They still make the same basic type vehicles with the same technology (not superior to the competition) that have not helped GM stop market-share erosion, and continue to have high costs.
I just don't see enough change or change happening fast-enough. Even GM's board saw this after 8 months of what's-his-name.
I'd love for the country to have 2% unemployment and we all make 2X what the rest of the world does, and our technology is much better with lower costs. But until we actually ACHIEVE some things to get us there, WANTING + $1 will get you a cup of coffee at McD's. When GM can do things better at a lower cost then people will buy their vehicles (the Corvette is one vehicle where GM does offer this sort of advantage).
We ARE starting to see this. 11/09 sales for the Lacrosse are UP 63% vs. last Nov. The SRX?? 208%!!! Equinox?? 273%!! Terrain?? UP 387% vs Pontiac Torrent sales last Nov. (that was prior to any talk of shuttering brands). Malibu?? Up 17.4%, down 11.8% ytd, but the Camry while up 10% last month, is DOWN 27.8% ytd. Accord, essentially flat last month, down 25.3% ytd.
While that all looks good, I did see where GM still had more rebates per vehicle than just about any other mfg.
".....I did see where GM still had more rebates per vehicle than just about any other mfg. "
I doubt the rebates are that significant on those models. Maybe $1500. Saturn, Pontiac, and the older models are what is dragging the overall figures down.
Still, GM only had 1 vehicle in the top 10 vehicles sold in November (Silverado), Ford had 3 (f150, Fusion, Escape). Honda had 3 (Accord, CRV, Civic), Toyota (Camry, Corolla), and Nissan (Altima).
No, there is no arguing that. My point about the Malibu was that while the Camcord, which both had a 2+ to 1 advantage in sales last year, has lost ground to the Malibu. Cobalt sales have tanked. They will barely sell 100,000 units in 2009. I would say that we'll see how they rebound when the Cruze arrives.
My other point is that all the new (2008 and newer intros) vehicles are selling quite well right now.
My point about the Malibu was that while the Camcord, which both had a 2+ to 1 advantage in sales last year, has lost ground to the Malibu.
IMO, the Fusion has probably effected Camcord sales more than the Malibu, particularly with the current model. I don't think the Fusion was ever on the top ten list before. Those additional sales have come at the expense of someone. Probably a combo of the Malibu and Camcord.
But yes they are. They recommend not buying because those evil companies took taxpayer's money.
Why don't any of the supporters of GM and the government's bail out of the failed baby worry more about Ford? Here is a company that is managing to marginally succeed, but having GM on artificial life support makes it much more likely that Ford fails. If GM were mostly gone and C was gone then Ford would be much stronger. Yet the bailouts prevented that. I guess socialism is a good thing, why reward Ford for anything?
Even the current GM isn't showing the expected progress. Their old ways remain, including their lame production strategies, making excuses, etc.
Don't forget the Volt Dancers! (that was GM's name for them) ... the ONLY dancers I saw from any company when I visited the LA Auto Show. This is from a car that won't be out for *another year*! Talk about old ways...
Do you think that since I paid for those dancers with my tax money that entitles me to special favors?
You talk so much and I had limited internet access over the Thankgiving, so I fell behind. So I read the last 100 or so posts to catch up.
Congrats Andre on your new purchase! Looks like a great car, and hope it brings miles of smiles. You saved a ton of money by buying used, and it's the same model year as your former Intrepid.
By my rusty math: If GM is actually able to repay $6.7B over 6 months – that suggests to me that another $45B could be generated over another 45 months? [ A shorter period than a lot of car loans . . . ] And GM could therefore either ‘repay’ or ‘buy back’ the additional equity \ aid.
By my rusty math: If GM is actually able to repay $6.7B over 6 months – that suggests to me that another $45B could be generated over another 45 months? [ A shorter period than a lot of car loans . . . ] And GM could therefore either ‘repay’ or ‘buy back’ the additional equity \ aid.
Well your math is right, but the idea GM can generate enough profits to repay another $45 billion over the next 45 mos. is pie in the sky dreaming.
It looks to me the installments to be paid will be provided from previous bailout money (GM has received $52 billion). With the way 2010 car sales are looking, I can't believe GM is in the position to generate that much positive cash flow to maintain those types of payments over the next 45 mos.
They have $17 billion set aside for loan repayment in escrow, which I believe was setup during the restructuring/bailout process. I don't believe GM has turned a profit yet, so I believe they have a long way to go before than can generate enough profits to repay $6 billion a year in debt.
In case you haven't seen the Volt dancers, take a gander here.
Thanks for the link! EVERYBODY should go to that link and take a look at what I've been saying. You think this is good marketing for a car that is a year away? How much are they paying their marketing execs? Can the GM lovers really say they think this is good marketing? I can hear the laughter now if Honda or Toyota had that at their booth.
One YouTube poster put forth this comment, which is a good summary:
"OMG. The more I look at this I find it hard to believe that anyone responsible for this could build a car worth buying. I really hoped the Volt would be a turnaround for GM, but I want to puke after watching this video. Someone should be fired over this nightmare."
Comments
The problem with engines like that is that the transmissions won't allow you to EVER get over 3000rpm in normal driving unless you have the accelerator literally at the floor to override the transmission's desire to go up a gear as soon and as often as it can.
The solution is to get your mechanic to raise the shift points by about 1000-1500rpm. I did this in an old Buick of mine a few years back and it turned it into an entirely different car. Of course, gas mileage dropped to about 22mpg combined, as is expected when the car is run properly instead of lugged all the time.
Is it really that much of a difference? My dad had a '92 Crown Vic (pretty much the same since then) and it averaged 18-20 in mixed driving. About the same as what Gramps P/A's got. Hwy would be better with the P/A. I drove the '00 P/A from Tampa to northern Indiana straight through in '03 (left at 2am and got to my parents house by 8pm.. ouch) and averaged about 27mpg with hand calculation, trip computer said 30.1 or something, i've never found those to be 100% accurate, my 07 Expedition included.
A 1988 Park Ave had a base weight of 3300lbs 165hp and a FE rating of 19/29
2005 GM base weight of 4000lbs 224hp and FE of 18/25, hardly a huge difference particularly when comparing weight and a v8 vs v6.
I've never noticed that with any of the 3800 powered cars I've driven. Actually my wife's 07 GP is the most liberally upshifting GM vehicle I've driven. At a1/4 throttle it usually will wait until after 3k rpm to shift, 4k rpm upshifts with 1/2 throttle, and full throttle upshifts around 5k rpm. It's not bad on downshifting either like every other GM vehicle I've driven that seem to demand being nearly floored for a downshift. Probably why FE isn't what I'd expect, usually in the 22-24 range.
I know one thing though...I'm looking forward to the fuel economy gains when I move from 5th Ave to Park Ave!
Not convincing enough for me, but great effort!...
are you not going to drive on a road built with CAT equipment or in a building erected with CAT equipment?
We can't change the past! We can only change the future. If you use past injustices to defend current and future injustices, you will get a continuing cycle of injustices!
Why don't we try and embarass and expose, and punish every government official who does business by using tax money to bribe and influence businesses. No more tax $ for ballparks, reduced taxes, and bailouts. It does not do society any good to see certain connected individuals get special favors, when others with much less are paying for it.
We need to stop wanting to get even because of the past. It is that line of logical that leads to Israeli-Arab, and Irish wars that go on for hundreds of years. It hurts everyone. And if you want to look at our Constitutution - it is written so that the government treats everyone equally.
Maybe we need to do more to public officials then slap their wrists when caught being unethical?
In comparison updated EPA ratings on the 1988 P/A are 17/26/20 combined for the 4cyl Bu they are 4cyl/4spd 22/30/25 4cyl 6spd 22/33/26 3.6 17/26/20 combined granted it has a lot more power, FE is a bit disappointing with the 3.6 because a 3.5 v6 Accord with a 5speed auto is 19/29/23. A Fusion with 3.5 and 6spd is 18/27/21.
Still, the 33 rating on the Malibu 4cyl 6speed is impressive. That means depending on you driving style and environment, some maybe able to get 35+
Regards,
OW
Actually I just looked it up. Wow! Is it really 15/22 for the performance model? That's not much better than a full-size BOF SUV.
Exactly. The Obama administration ridicule and bailing of the automakers and their protection of UAW for political reasons are all the _past_. We shouldn't be punishing the current GM. I'll let their products stand on their own, truly-valued merits.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Heck, I just thought about it - you've got TWO cars named after NYC streets! Are there any cars named after Philly locations? Well, maybe the Ford Mainliner.
I'd imagine so.
he fuel economy sticker that was on the window read 17/24.
I was going by fueleconomy.gov with the updated ratings and they had the 300hp model rated at 15/22 and the lower hp model rated at 15/23 I think.
My guess is that the Park Ave will do a bit worse around town, a bit better on the highway. FWIW the Intrepid was rated 20/29, while the supercharged Park Ave was 18/27. I could usually make the Intrepid's EPA estimates without too much trouble, although in later years, living so close to work, and all the other short trips, especially once the weather got colder, could dip as low as 17. I think the best I ever got was about 32.4, back in 2008, coming up to PA for the Carlisle Ford show. That was that day it was brutally hot, but that morning I rode up without using the a/c, and kept my speed pretty much around 58-60..my attempt at hyper-miling, I guess! I had that a/c cranking on the way home, though!
I'm guessing the Park Ave, even though it's a few hundred pounds heavier and has an extra 1.1L worth of engine, should still do better on the highway, simply because it's torquier and has loafier gearing. As long as I keep my foot out of it, I guess. I'm guessing the Park Ave wouldn't have to rely on downshifting as much as the Intrepid did.
Full amsoil synthetic in the Engine and Trans a custom belly pan to smooth out the airflow in the front of the car too.Oh I had the tires pumped up to 44 PSI their absolute max rating.
Normally I averaged low 30s on the highway and 25 or 26 combined.
Those were pretty sharp cars back then. Had a neighbor with one back when I was in HS. Neat car, but man was it always breaking down on him. Multiple fuel pump and electrical issues that meant it was often found on the side of the road dead. That guy had some bad luck with cars. He made good money as a OTR salesman and drove like 60k miles a year so he had a new car every year or two. Before the LeBaron, he had the first Lazer turbo I'd ever seen, I think like in 84, another POC. Before that a late 70's to early 80's Toronado diesel. If it was under 20 degrees out, it was getting jumped in the morning.
I always thought these were neat cars. This one looks super clean. Don't know how good they were being fwd with a v8.
GM did raise the shift points for the Pontiac versions of the vehicles to fit with the "sporty" image. But the Buicks and Chevrolets were and still are set to shift about 1000 rpm lower. And as a result, actual 0-60 times are closer to 10 seconds. That's not too bad, though, since 95% of traffic goes 0-60 in closer to 15-20 seconds.(there's always some tool that slows everything down)
But you can get your mechanic to alter these vehicles to shift better.
Nobody here has promoted punishing GM or any other company. I'm simply saying we should neither help nor hinder GM or any other company stay in business, after mismanagement for so many years.
If the new GM wants to stand on its own then they should get private investors, pay off the government loans and get rid of the U.S. government on their board. Right now the new GM has all the rights of a 10-year old (oer welfare case); not being able to support itself or make it's own decisions.
Let me know when GM becomes an Adult again. Until then I will consider GM's models to be possible because the taxpayer has subsidized their R&D costs and any losses on producing the ever-decreasing number they sell.
But yes they are. They recommend not buying because those evil companies took taxpayer's money.
How do you feel about the porkulus bill of $850 billion and the $1.5 trillion bill passed this weekend loaded with pork? Those government people are spending lots of money on lots of things for both parties. Because they've raised the total debt by a few trillion for the months they've been in, are they also 10-year olds? :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
So you think that if we sit here and say "Don't buy a PC, or, don't buy a Mac" that this is equivalent (or a reason) to the U.S. government penalizing 1-side by giving the competitor bailout $ to stay in business? You're kidding, right? So with your logic, it would be smart of a business to run its business poorly, such that it gets a bad reputation with the BBS, and thus qualify for government loans/bailouts? :P Meanwhile the successful companies would get nothing, and the stockholders get shafted because the government is keeping the unassisited company from gaining marketshare.
How do you feel about the porkulus bill of $850 billion and the $1.5 trillion bill passed this weekend loaded with pork?
I'm probably against most of it; I don't think we know exactly what it contains. I bet I could agree 10% of it was useful. Government should be involved in our lives to a bare-minimum.
Here's what GM should be doing - issuing stock and repaying the government, like the banks are: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2009-12-14-citigroup-repay-tarp- - - _N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
"Citi (C) is selling $20.5 billion in stock and debt to repay the government. It only has to pay back $20 billion because the remaining $25 billion was converted into a 34% ownership stake in the bank earlier this year. The government plans to sell that entire stake — which has risen in value by more than 20% — during the next year.
The loss-sharing agreement will also end as part of the plan.
After repaying the funds, Citi will no longer face heavy scrutiny and restrictions from the government, including caps on executive pay and dividends."
and "The government stands to earn about $5.7 billion in profit by selling its portion of Citi shares, based on Friday's closing price of $3.95."
They are being rewarded for failure is more like it. :sick:
Dick Wagoner got a 10 million dollar severance package with that bailout. Executive goons who were so called "kicked out" are still on the payroll due to the golden parachuttes that come as one of the benefits of working for the company. Set for life... :sick:
Known fact that GM was too big, floating along with too many brands, too many models and too much overhead. A situation they did to themselves, not us the taxpayer. GM floated along for decades peddling outdated technologies, outdated drivetrains and countless mediocre models that were consistantly criticized by the media, and more or less failed to attract buyers.
I'm not talking Vegas, Cimarrons and Citations either, I'm talking brand new releases like Pontiac G6's with 4 speed autos and 30 year old pushrod engines, Chevy Cheapuinoxs with Chinese boatanchors and idiotic fwd sedans that needed honkin V8's just to keep up with the japanese 6 cylinder mills. I'm talking dumba$$ decisions like civilian HUMMERS in a time of rising gas prices, or offering nearly 40 gas guzzling V8 vehicles (cars, trucks, SUV's ) with the
threatKNOWN FACT UNLESS YOU WERE LIVING IN A CAVE! that gas prices were on the rise and were expected to peak in the 4 - 5 dollar range.It wasn't you or I who made all these (and many, many more) boneheaded decisions! It wasn't you or anyone else who allowed the UAW to walk all over them! It wasn't you or anyone else that allowed GM's beancounters to have as much of an influence in final product as they did. And it wasn't you or anyone else that chose to dilute the brand equity with numerous rebadges. SO WHY ARE WE OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT THIS IDOCRACY?
I want to know why it was so damn important to save this archaic, failing entity? And don't give me the B.S. about saving jobs and economic and social armageddon either because I sure as hell don't see anyone up in arms over the other Detroit failure that is Chrysler and the jobs and economic impact that it will have :sick:
It will become a past after they return the darn bailout.
Their products can stand on their own, and people can buy them if they want. Just don't expect us who are still doubting them to support.
Even the current GM isn't showing the expected progress. Their old ways remain, including their lame production strategies, making excuses, etc. The "past" is alive and kickin'. Is that supposed to be called a change?
I would've liked to see him in prison for a while, not for his stupidity and arrogance, but for lying to Congress and the GM stock-holders in Nov. '08, concerning GM's condition. He should have at least had all future income cancelled, and he should have had civil suits brought against him to strip him of any wealth he had accumulated over the years.
SO WHY ARE WE OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT THIS IDOCRACY?
Exactly. Why doesn't everyone who believes in GM, go buy another GM vehicle, or just send them a check, or go buy $20,000 of new-GM stock? I asked this before - if you believe in GM so much, tell us what you've done in the last year to save GM. All there needs to be is a few million people who switch their retirement funds to buy new-GM stock and GM will have plenty of $ to repay it's debts and survive. Who here thinks it would be good to take their investments and throw it into GM - with its rosy future?
As for reliability, I think they tended to be one of those cars that was initially rated worse-than-average by CR, but might have improved to average as it aged, and could last forever. The drivetrain was a sturdy Olds 307, and the transmission was a FWD version of the THM200R4 that was used in the RWD cars. It was fairly durable by 1985. My guess is the biggest trouble spots were electrical stuff, emissions, etc...typical 1980's problem areas.
We do agree!
>face heavy scrutiny and restrictions from the government, including caps on executive pay and dividends."
And the only reason Citi wants to pay the money back is so the huge, ungodly executive bonuses can be put into place again. This is the company who didn't want to loan money to people and businesses in the interim because they might lose money; that would have helped the economy grow or to not shrink as fast as it is shrinking. INSTEAD they want to give the money to highly overpaid executives.
Isn't there something wrong with that picture. And thank God for Limbaugh and his listeners for a second source of information about much of the shenanigans going on in DC. Otherwise Madcow on MSNBC and Ophrah would have us all thinking all is just wonderful with our upper class up there living the high life for themselves and their friends.
BEcause of all this we should be wanting GM to sell as many cars as possible to help the cash flow and to get back on their feet. Then they can sell stock and the government, can go back to representing the "of the people, by the people, and for the people" kind of things they should be doing instead of tinkering.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Regards,
OW
One new 2010 Lacrosse CXS. Purchase price: $34,750 or so (MSRP $38,777).
Yes, I'm waiting on the IPO
We ARE starting to see this. 11/09 sales for the Lacrosse are UP 63% vs. last Nov. The SRX?? 208%!!! Equinox?? 273%!! Terrain?? UP 387% vs Pontiac Torrent sales last Nov. (that was prior to any talk of shuttering brands). Malibu?? Up 17.4%, down 11.8% ytd, but the Camry while up 10% last month, is DOWN 27.8% ytd. Accord, essentially flat last month, down 25.3% ytd.
BTW, the Lacrosse outsold the Hyundai Genesis by 94% last month, 3400-1751. It trailed Lexus ES sales by 17.4%,4110-3400.
Yes, I think we all WANT GM to do well. But there is a definite difference between WANT and EXPECT. 30+ years of decline with their business strategy does not give me much hope that they will succeed. How many years of failure does it take for you to realize they need drastic change? Are you a Cubs fan?
I'm thinking of this GM-issue practically, not emotionally. Besides trimming some employees, dealers, and the fringe brands, what has really changed at GM to make you expect them to succeed on their own? They still make the same basic type vehicles with the same technology (not superior to the competition) that have not helped GM stop market-share erosion, and continue to have high costs.
I just don't see enough change or change happening fast-enough. Even GM's board saw this after 8 months of what's-his-name.
I'd love for the country to have 2% unemployment and we all make 2X what the rest of the world does, and our technology is much better with lower costs. But until we actually ACHIEVE some things to get us there, WANTING + $1 will get you a cup of coffee at McD's. When GM can do things better at a lower cost then people will buy their vehicles (the Corvette is one vehicle where GM does offer this sort of advantage).
While that all looks good, I did see where GM still had more rebates per vehicle than just about any other mfg.
I doubt the rebates are that significant on those models. Maybe $1500. Saturn, Pontiac, and the older models are what is dragging the overall figures down.
My other point is that all the new (2008 and newer intros) vehicles are selling quite well right now.
IMO, the Fusion has probably effected Camcord sales more than the Malibu, particularly with the current model. I don't think the Fusion was ever on the top ten list before. Those additional sales have come at the expense of someone. Probably a combo of the Malibu and Camcord.
But yes they are. They recommend not buying because those evil companies took taxpayer's money.
Why don't any of the supporters of GM and the government's bail out of the failed baby worry more about Ford? Here is a company that is managing to marginally succeed, but having GM on artificial life support makes it much more likely that Ford fails. If GM were mostly gone and C was gone then Ford would be much stronger. Yet the bailouts prevented that. I guess socialism is a good thing, why reward Ford for anything?
Don't forget the Volt Dancers! (that was GM's name for them) ... the ONLY dancers I saw from any company when I visited the LA Auto Show. This is from a car that won't be out for *another year*! Talk about old ways...
Do you think that since I paid for those dancers with my tax money that entitles me to special favors?
Can you spell L-A-M-E?
Congrats Andre on your new purchase! Looks like a great car, and hope it brings miles of smiles.
If GM is actually able to repay $6.7B over 6 months –
that suggests to me that another $45B could be generated
over another 45 months?
[ A shorter period than a lot of car loans . . . ]
And GM could therefore either ‘repay’
or ‘buy back’ the additional equity \ aid.
If GM is actually able to repay $6.7B over 6 months –
that suggests to me that another $45B could be generated
over another 45 months?
[ A shorter period than a lot of car loans . . . ]
And GM could therefore either ‘repay’
or ‘buy back’ the additional equity \ aid.
Well your math is right, but the idea GM can generate enough profits to repay another $45 billion over the next 45 mos. is pie in the sky dreaming.
It looks to me the installments to be paid will be provided from previous bailout money (GM has received $52 billion). With the way 2010 car sales are looking, I can't believe GM is in the position to generate that much positive cash flow to maintain those types of payments over the next 45 mos.
GM cash
They have $17 billion set aside for loan repayment in escrow, which I believe was setup during the restructuring/bailout process. I don't believe GM has turned a profit yet, so I believe they have a long way to go before than can generate enough profits to repay $6 billion a year in debt.
Verbosity is one of the 10 virtues.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Thanks for the link! EVERYBODY should go to that link and take a look at what I've been saying. You think this is good marketing for a car that is a year away? How much are they paying their marketing execs? Can the GM lovers really say they think this is good marketing? I can hear the laughter now if Honda or Toyota had that at their booth.
One YouTube poster put forth this comment, which is a good summary:
"OMG. The more I look at this I find it hard to believe that anyone responsible for this could build a car worth buying. I really hoped the Volt would be a turnaround for GM, but I want to puke after watching this video. Someone should be fired over this nightmare."