Scary thing is, with every RWD V-8 Mopar I ever owned, when changing the oil fitler, it was almost a prerequisite that you'd spill some on the exhaust manifold. We always just let it burn off! :surprise:
I guess newer engines run hotter though, and plastic is going to burn more easily than painted metal. And they use a lot of plastic under the hood these days. I guess part of it depends on how much pressure the oil is under when it squirts out? I think thats why Honda CR-V's or Elements tended to catch fire with that "double gasket" issue...the oil spray was such a fine mist that it caught fire more easily?
I accidentally "double gasketed" my Intrepid once. Changed the oil filter, but the old gasket got stuck to the bottom of the engine. Put the new filter on, and it didn't feel quite right, so I kept tightening. Turned it on, and dumped oil all over the driveway! That's when I got up underneath and saw that the old gasket got stuck on.
In 20+ years of changing oil, I've NEVER had an oil gasket come off the filter, until that day!
After having a 6speed auto, I certainly prefer a 6 speed. It does improve performance and fuel economy. That said, it doesn't make a 4 speed vehicle undriveable. I'll be interested in seeing how Dodge/Chrysler's upcoming 8 speed will be.
Regardless, 4 speeds are quickly becoming a thing of the past. I'm sure GM will be the last to give up 4 speed transmissions.
LOL, so from this we can deduce at least two things..
GM is ok with you having: - a regular small oil leak. - a small local fire, as long as it doesn't have a nearby fuel source to spread..The wire retainers should solve the spread.. lol
Sheesh, Toyota wishes they only had a recall of 1.5 million vehicles!
Of course, GM has had recalls. But seriously, it's not a matter of keeping track of statements made, when they are so lopsided or worse, hard to believe. A recall of 2,900 vehicles, and you saw two on fire yourself? Wasn't that the statement? I'm too lazy to check, but that's what I seem to remember. Yet, recalls from foreign manufacturers seem to get a free pass from you. It's all about balance.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
SRX in Upstate NY. The second which was the link I posted happened in Michigan, which I was nowhere near. It came up as I googled looking for the recall...
Just 1.
And no, recalls for anybody don't get a free pass from me. I'll criticize when needed. It's when they get ridiculously exagerrated and overblown like the B.S. that the Toyota thread has been nothing but firebombed with for the past 12 months.
And even when proven false! Even when shown to be a hoax, they still get littered across that thread (as well as the dozens of other sites I visit during the day) like a plague. It gets tiring, and I'm not even a Toyota customer.
BTW, this is not an accusation of you. I'll be the first to say you are not one of those folks...
But I took all of about thirty seconds and keyed in "Toyota fire" and "Nissan fire" in google videos and videos came up. For some reason, only GM's show up on this forum.
Wouldn't showing two fires for a recall involving 2,900 vehicles be a bit of overkill?
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
In the interest of accuracy, I see the recall number is 3,996, not 2,900--and the 3,996 number includes sales in China. 3,400-odd units of the recalled product were sold in the U.S.
Still, one of the very smallest recalls in the news for a long time.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'm aware that this particular forum is a GM forum, but as a comparison, Honda recalled a huge number of Fits, including 141K sold in the U.S., for fire hazards last year.
It would appear there is some sensitivity to GM's recuperation in the market place.
FTR, I didn't intend my post to be interpreted as a slam against them. I hold no ill-will towards GM.
And I didn't intend for my levity-like post to be interpreted in any way that might cause someone to feel they have to defend GM, or feel frustrated in having to feel like they have to bottle a potential response. Sorry if that was the case with anyone.
$21500 vs $22800 for gas isn't much difference over 10 years.
I'm pretty cheap frugal that way. I figure I'd rather pay for something more fun to me (like jet fuel), than premium automobile fuel. I'm typing this a block from a warm beach btw. :shades:
Others would get more fun out of driving a performance rig that requires premium and that's fine. Different strokes. Just don't make me put premium in my minivan or grocery getter.
For those who keep score by the numbers, AutoObserver has revamped and put a lot of sales data links at the bottom of the new landing page. For example:
Even with the Pontiac front-end, I liked the car. When I was in that period in between cars after my Intrepid got totaled, I also entertained the idea of a Pontiac G8.
Cost was the biggest factor. Even though it was a lot of car for the money, and even used they seemed a good value, it was still more than I wanted to pay. Another problem is that, with the G8, I felt compelled to get the V-8 GT version, rather than the base V-6.
The V-6 is fast enough I'm sure. I think I've seen 0-60 quoted around 7.5-7.6 seconds, which is about the same as my Park Ave. I'm happy with the PA, so I'm sure a V-6 G8 would've been fine for me. But, it just seems like a car that BEGS for the V-8!
I never checked into it, but I'm sure insurance rates on a G8, regardless of engine, would have been pretty high. With the Park Ave, insurance actually went down compared to the Intrepid.
I like the wagon. You can't get a proper wagon, (not a stupid SUV, crossover, or minivan) unless you want to spend big bucks on a Mercedes, BMW, or Volvo, (not even sure BMW still offers a wagon).
I bought a new 5-speed Corsica in '90 and put 108K trouble-free miles on it...I mean trouble-free. I traded it in the fall of '06, though...I certainly couldn't vouch for what it'd look like now though!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
For what its worth, I feel like I got value for the dollar out of my Corsica...and that's always high on my list. I also think the Corsica is better-looking than a Tempo...at least the first Tempo sedans, that looked chubby and had small wheel openings. I always thought it was strange that the Tempo 2-door never changed styling, but the four-door did (for the better, I think). Maybe Ford was attempting to do a Corsica/Beretta thing, who knows.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'd agree that the Corsica was better looking than a Tempo. For driving experience I don't have a fair comparison since my rental Corsica was pretty new and I'd be comparing that t my dad's old Tempo back then. A new Corsica was definitely better than the Tempo that had a lot of dad miles on it!
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The Corsica/Beretta definitely had an upscale look to them, compared to the Tempo/Topaz. When they first came out, I thought they were really sharp looking...slick and aerodynamic but without resorting to that bloated Ford jellybean look.
But, they just didn't seem to age well, and I thought the interiors were pretty bad. Too much plastic, too many parts, none of it really flowed all that well, etc.
With the Tempo, 2-door sales only accounted for about 25% of total sales, so that might have been why Ford didn't really change it. For 1988-1992, coupe sales fell to more like 5-12%, depending on year, but oddly, in 1993-94, rebounded to about 25%.
I always thought it was interesting that in the final couple years, Ford saw fit to put the Taurus 3.0 V-6 in the Tempo. I guess they sort of had to, since GM was putting 3.1's in the Corsica/Beretta, and Chrysler offered a Mitsubishi 3.0 V-6 in a lot of its k-car derivatives. I wonder if that 3.0 Tempo was much of a performer? Seems to me with 140 hp in that light body, it wouldn't be too bad?
Man, I didn't want to start a Tempo vs. Corsica debate. Neither were very good. Though I will say the Corsica was better looking, but in usual GM fashion the interior was horrible.
Ours was charcoal gray with the ubiquitous gray interior, but my folks also had a '90 Corsica V6, maroon over gray two-tone with the maroon cloth interior. It's one of the last cars I remember with a maroon interior, and even though it was the same interior as ours except for color, the maroon looked so much richer. Kind of a corduroy, semi-fuzzy cloth.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Ha, small world....when the Tempo my family had got in a fender bender, we too had a Corsica rental...I remember I drove it a few times. Didn't seem remarkably bad or good, it was just a generic car. I remember it was bugundy with matching interior, and it was a V6 car. Seemed a lot faster than the Tempo and I remember it had weird pods on each side of the instrument cluster for some controls. I don't remember interior quality specifically, but probably better than a base Tempo...I think the Corsica was intended to be a level higher.
I do remember that moment in time, as the local rental lot also had V6 Tempos - I wanted one of those for our rental, but they were gone when we got there.
Did your Tempo have the motorized seat-and-shoulder belts? I seem to remember that they did--not certain though.
No, mine was an '85, those came a year or two later.
Whoever thought it was a good idea for auto seat belts? Those things were horrible.
My wife had a '92 Saturn that she had during college that had those motorized belts. What a PITA, I remember on 0 degree mornings they'd move at a snails pace and make a bunch awful noises.
Yep, the Corsica and Tempo were outclassed, particularly be '89
Surprising the v6 Corsica was louder on the hwy than a 4cyl tempo. Plus look at the braking distances. My God, it's amazing none of us were killed in those cars. 160-200 feet to stop from 60mph!
My guess is one or two of these things, for why the Corsica was noisier at highway speeds than the Tempo. It was the only car tested that was a hatchback (all open in the back; no bulkhead like the other cars), and the Chevy V6 then had a distinctive rasp. My parents had the V6, and my wife and I had a 4-cyl. Corsica and an '89 Beretta GT I bought new, at the same time. I could identify a Corsica or Beretta V6 coming without even seeing the car.
Honestly, I forgot you could ever get a Corsica hatchback 'til I saw this magazine article. They were a rare sight and didn't last the entire cycle of the car's run.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The 3800 in my wife's GP still has it. Seems every GM pushrod v6 from the 2.8 through 3.8 has that poppy rasp. It's never been music to my ears, but I guess some might like it.
I didn't notice if the Tempo tested was a stick or not. It it was that might explain why it's quieter than what I remember as the 3 speed auto would certainly let that crude 2.3 4cyl rev excessively at highway speed.
It was kind of fun browsing the pages of that '89 Popular Mechanics. Like the add for the $4,800 Mac.
You Old Time GM fans need to read Pletko's post and see why GM has miles to go. This is about CARS. Forget trucks/SUV's.
Why did GM axe the G-8 and NOT make it the Impala/SS?? Embarrassed? or Stupid? That is the same as saying it was Lutz's decision. But why hasn't the Impala = Commodore? ( I still remember Lutz saying 35 mpg CAFE is impossible.)
It's not that GM can't be great it's that they really do not try.
No cars excite. Sure, CTS/V and NEW LaCrosse and Malibu but these are just equal to the competition and the Malibu particularly as well as the CTS better pick up the pace of development to the next design. Cruze looks good and Regal is mediocre, not the home run for Buick it could have been. Being compared to the Sonata will remind everyone. Regal better interior? Blown away by the Sonata Turbo for performance /economy is more the driver here. Who says the Cruze will have pains vs. the new Elantra? Go ahead....Make My Day!
Competition is in front, AFAIC. At all price points. Keep trying, though, GM. There are 2 or 3 points of light! :shades:
I didn't notice if the Tempo tested was a stick or not. It it was that might explain why it's quieter than what I remember as the 3 speed auto would certainly let that crude 2.3 4cyl rev excessively at highway speed.
All four cars in that test were stick shift, which probably explains why their performance was actually not half-bad. I hadn't noticed at first which transmissions the cars used, but for some reason focused on the Tempo's 0-60 in 12.7 seconds and actually being impressed by it! My 1985 Consumer Guide tested an '85 Topaz with the automatic and got 0-60 in 15.9! So at first, I was thinking wow, what an improvement in only 4 years, but I imagine the stick had a lot to do with it.
Also, I wonder if the Tempo, and the Corsica, had air conditioning? They list it as an option on the Spirit and Camry, but make no mention in the other two. Maybe it was part of the LT package in the Corsica? And as for the Tempo, I couldn't imagine a/c actually being standard in a car in that price class?!
As for that GM "engine rasp", are you talking about that noise that makes it sound like an '89 Cavalier Z-24? My Park Ave and my Dad's '03 Regal both have it, but both at least have enough sound deadening that you don't really hear it.
As for that GM "engine rasp", are you talking about that noise that makes it sound like an '89 Cavalier Z-24? My Park Ave and my Dad's '03 Regal both have it, but both at least have enough sound deadening that you don't really hear it.
That's what we are talking about.
My 1985 Consumer Guide tested an '85 Topaz with the automatic and got 0-60 in 15.9! So at first, I was thinking wow, what an improvement in only 4 years, but I imagine the stick had a lot to do with it.
When I was in high school, occasionally driving our loaded 85 Tempo GLX to school, a kid I knew was envious of this car - because he had an absolutely base 85 Tempo L, 5 speed, plain wheel covers, red on red vinyl that would look at home in a lowline 1960s car. His car didn't have AC (although by this time, the AC in our car was lukewarm at best).
I remember buying my fintail, and it seemed like the old beast would spank the Tempo in an acceleration run - and a fintail is no dragster. I guess it's true.
I think the GM rasp is an exhaust issue, especially on the 3.1 but you can catch it in the 2.8 and 3.8 as well.
Brings back memories of the 1984 Skylark Limited I had in high school/college. It had the 2.8L, but was actually the "H.O." version that was standard in the T-Type and optional in other models. Quite an odd combination in this particular car, with a vinyl roof, wire wheel covers and the super-raspy exhaust note. You cold hear this car a half mile away. No speed demon, but it did manage to take out some 5.0 Camaros of the day off the line. I think the Buick had 130-135 hp vs around maybe 150ish for the Camaro?
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
those 2.8's were pretty hot for the time. I just looked up the specs in my old car book...from 1981-84, the HO 2.8 had 135 hp. It was actually knocked down a bit, to 125, for 1985. I always thought that engine first came out for 1980, but I guess that year they only had the 2-bbl carb model, which put out 115 hp. I think it got cut back to 110-112 in later years.
Most Camaro 305's had 150 hp, but there was an upgrade, that boosted it to 165 hp for 1982, 175 for 1983, and 190 for 1984. When you figure in the added weight of the Camaro, plus I'd imagine they probably didn't gear the 150 hp version of the engine all that aggressively, an X-body with a 2.8 might have been able to embarrass it pretty easily.
Really, that 135 hp version was just a 2-bbl? I always thought it was fuel injected? Are you sure it wasn't one of those TBI units? Those things were essentially a carburetor housing with a fuel injector in it.
The only car I ordered new was a solid dark plum '85 Celebrity Eurosport 2-door. I ordered the 2.8 MFI V6 and I absolutely remember that the brochure said it was 130 hp and had a 0-60 time of 10.0 seconds with the 3-speed automatic. Unfortunately, I ordered the car the first week of May and was forced to order the 4-speed automatic, which had no 3rd and 4th gear at 37K miles. My dealer put in a rebuilt one for $100 and I had the car 'til 60K miles with no more trans issues.
I thought about getting a Citation X11, which I knew was the same car under the skin as a Eurosport, but worried about the resale hit, even though the car could be bought new for quite a bit less. Back then I tended to trade every three years or so.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Thats what TBI is...injector where the carb would be. Simple, very effective. My old 2.8 2bl went over 300K, S10.
I wonder how hard it would be to convert an engine from a 4-bbl carb to TBI? I've thought about it with my '85 Silverado, which has the 165 hp 305-4bbl. I think it was a year or two later that they went to TBI. It only boosted peak hp to something like 170, but I imagine probably improved warming up, driveability, fuel economy, etc.
At this age though, probably not worth it. The truck has about 135,000 miles on it, but it's showing its age. The carb seems to be working fine though...starts right up, fast idle works, it cuts down when it should. Doesn't really sputter or try to stall out. Probably runs better now than a lot of 70's and 80's vehicles did when they were new!
My 1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic had the TBI. Remember the 4 bbl carbs with the secondaries welded shut? The '70s and early '80s were truly an Automotive Dark Age! :sick:
Remember the 4 bbl carbs with the secondaries welded shut? The '70s and early '80s were truly an Automotive Dark Age!
Yeah, I'd heard of those, but had never seen one. When I bought my '76 Grand LeMans, I thought it had one of those carbs, simply because it wasn't that hot of a performer. About as quick as my '79 New Yorker, with a 360-2bbl, so I just figured the 350 in the Pontiac was a 2-bbl as well. Until one day when it wouldn't start, and I was under the hood fiddling with the carb, and accidentally bumped the secondary flap with a screwdriver and it opened. At first I thought it was cool that it WAS a 4-bbl after all, but then I started thinking damn, even WITH a 4-bbl, it's a bit of a slug!
Which engines used the 4-bbl housing with the secondaries welded shut, anyway? I've heard the Olds 260 V-8 did, but I'd imagine there were others?
I had a 260 V8. I recall the upper housing was the same shape as my earlier Quadrajet. But I don't recall if the lower housing actually had openings into the manifold where the back two venturies would have been. That's too long ago to remember. I don't recall that it had any welding. I suspect if there were openings they simply were dead ends in the way they had been molded rather than having been 4-barrels modified to take away the other two.
My 1980 260 was slow because it had such a low rear axle ratio for mileage at speed and I only bought the 3-speed automatic. I believe the 4-speed was available as an option, but I didn't think the extra cost would be regained in mileage savings. I wonder if the 4-speed auto had a higher ratio axle for better performance and then the overdrive ratio compensated.
"My 1980 260 was slow because it had such a low rear axle ratio for mileage at speed " " I wonder if the 4-speed auto had a higher ratio axle for better performance and then the overdrive ratio compensated."
A technicality but might as well nip it at some point..(not trying to find fault here...if situation reversed, I would appreciate the correction...hope you agree)
3.42 axle ratio is not lower, but is higher than a 3.73
out of the transmission...a .82 final drive is lower than a .76
Lower ratios refer to higher engine rpms, which broaden the range at which they find greater levels of hp and torque.
A friend of mine had a '79 Nutless Cutlass with a 260v8. Actually it was a nice car. Full gauges, console shifter, t-tops etc. But it quite possibly was the slowest car I've ever driven. It looked good, handled nice and was reliable, but God was is it slow. Had to be 15 seconds + to 60.
I wanted better gas mileage than my 350 Quadrajet 1977 Cutlass. But I think the 1977 was a better car and probably got just about as good mileage in day-to-day driving.
A friend of mine had a '79 Nutless Cutlass with a 260v8.
LOL...one of my friends used to call my '82 an "Oldsmopile Gutless"! I don't know what kind of 0-60 time it would've pulled, but probably around 14-15 seconds. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Regal with the same engine/tranny, and they said 0-60 came up "in about 13 seconds" but didn't actually list a specific time in their stats. However, a lot changed in cars between 1982-85, where even if stats like weight, hp, axle ratios, etc didn't change, the engine management/computer systems/etc did, so they made better use of what little horsepower they had. I doubt my '82 was that "fast"! :sick:
Another one of my friends had an '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260 V-8, and it didn't seem all that bad. I drag raced him one night with my '86 Monte Carlo, which had the 150 hp 305/4-speed automatic, and while I beat him of course, it wasn't like I left him in the dust.
Still, if I ever got one of those cars today, I don't think I'd settle for anything less than a 305 or 307.
Comments
I guess newer engines run hotter though, and plastic is going to burn more easily than painted metal. And they use a lot of plastic under the hood these days. I guess part of it depends on how much pressure the oil is under when it squirts out? I think thats why Honda CR-V's or Elements tended to catch fire with that "double gasket" issue...the oil spray was such a fine mist that it caught fire more easily?
I accidentally "double gasketed" my Intrepid once. Changed the oil filter, but the old gasket got stuck to the bottom of the engine. Put the new filter on, and it didn't feel quite right, so I kept tightening. Turned it on, and dumped oil all over the driveway! That's when I got up underneath and saw that the old gasket got stuck on.
In 20+ years of changing oil, I've NEVER had an oil gasket come off the filter, until that day!
Regardless, 4 speeds are quickly becoming a thing of the past. I'm sure GM will be the last to give up 4 speed transmissions.
I looked up used 2007 Impalas vs Civics within 50 miles of my house. The avg Civic asking price is 13.1K vs 11.6k for the Impala.
In the family sedan market, the Impala is simply outdated. That probably explains why most Impalas are fleet sales.
GM is ok with you having:
- a regular small oil leak.
- a small local fire, as long as it doesn't have a nearby fuel source to spread..The wire retainers should solve the spread.. lol
Too funny
Of course, GM has had recalls. But seriously, it's not a matter of keeping track of statements made, when they are so lopsided or worse, hard to believe. A recall of 2,900 vehicles, and you saw two on fire yourself? Wasn't that the statement? I'm too lazy to check, but that's what I seem to remember. Yet, recalls from foreign manufacturers seem to get a free pass from you. It's all about balance.
1
one
uno
un
won
SRX in Upstate NY. The second which was the link I posted happened in Michigan, which I was nowhere near. It came up as I googled looking for the recall...
Just 1.
And no, recalls for anybody don't get a free pass from me. I'll criticize when needed. It's when they get ridiculously exagerrated and overblown like the B.S. that the Toyota thread has been nothing but firebombed with for the past 12 months.
And even when proven false! Even when shown to be a hoax, they still get littered across that thread (as well as the dozens of other sites I visit during the day) like a plague. It gets tiring, and I'm not even a Toyota customer.
BTW, this is not an accusation of you. I'll be the first to say you are not one of those folks...
But I took all of about thirty seconds and keyed in "Toyota fire" and "Nissan fire" in google videos and videos came up. For some reason, only GM's show up on this forum.
Wouldn't showing two fires for a recall involving 2,900 vehicles be a bit of overkill?
Still, one of the very smallest recalls in the news for a long time.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/Honda_recall/
Would you have posted this to any other forum on edmunds? Not being smart, just wondering though.
FTR, I didn't intend my post to be interpreted as a slam against them. I hold no ill-will towards GM.
And I didn't intend for my levity-like post to be interpreted in any way that might cause someone to feel they have to defend GM, or feel frustrated in having to feel like they have to bottle a potential response. Sorry if that was the case with anyone.
I'm pretty
cheapfrugal that way. I figure I'd rather pay for something more fun to me (like jet fuel), than premium automobile fuel. I'm typing this a block from a warm beach btw. :shades:Others would get more fun out of driving a performance rig that requires premium and that's fine. Different strokes. Just don't make me put premium in my minivan or grocery getter.
For those who keep score by the numbers, AutoObserver has revamped and put a lot of sales data links at the bottom of the new landing page. For example:
Cost was the biggest factor. Even though it was a lot of car for the money, and even used they seemed a good value, it was still more than I wanted to pay. Another problem is that, with the G8, I felt compelled to get the V-8 GT version, rather than the base V-6.
The V-6 is fast enough I'm sure. I think I've seen 0-60 quoted around 7.5-7.6 seconds, which is about the same as my Park Ave. I'm happy with the PA, so I'm sure a V-6 G8 would've been fine for me. But, it just seems like a car that BEGS for the V-8!
I never checked into it, but I'm sure insurance rates on a G8, regardless of engine, would have been pretty high. With the Park Ave, insurance actually went down compared to the Intrepid.
I thought that's how they left the factory.
I had a Corsica for a rental for a few weeks. I remember it being just as bad if not worse than the Tempo I had which was in the body shop.
Our Tempo was trouble free to 100k too, but it was still junk. Though once it hit 100k and after I wrecked it, it went down hill fast.
But, they just didn't seem to age well, and I thought the interiors were pretty bad. Too much plastic, too many parts, none of it really flowed all that well, etc.
With the Tempo, 2-door sales only accounted for about 25% of total sales, so that might have been why Ford didn't really change it. For 1988-1992, coupe sales fell to more like 5-12%, depending on year, but oddly, in 1993-94, rebounded to about 25%.
I always thought it was interesting that in the final couple years, Ford saw fit to put the Taurus 3.0 V-6 in the Tempo. I guess they sort of had to, since GM was putting 3.1's in the Corsica/Beretta, and Chrysler offered a Mitsubishi 3.0 V-6 in a lot of its k-car derivatives. I wonder if that 3.0 Tempo was much of a performer? Seems to me with 140 hp in that light body, it wouldn't be too bad?
I remember my folks' Corsica was actually a column-shift automatic, even though it had bucket seats.
www.gminsidenews.com/forums/746238-post31.html
Here's a similar era Tempo:
www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/2603367084/
I do remember that moment in time, as the local rental lot also had V6 Tempos - I wanted one of those for our rental, but they were gone when we got there.
No, mine was an '85, those came a year or two later.
Whoever thought it was a good idea for auto seat belts? Those things were horrible.
My wife had a '92 Saturn that she had during college that had those motorized belts. What a PITA, I remember on 0 degree mornings they'd move at a snails pace and make a bunch awful noises.
Yep, the Corsica and Tempo were outclassed, particularly be '89
Surprising the v6 Corsica was louder on the hwy than a 4cyl tempo. Plus look at the braking distances. My God, it's amazing none of us were killed in those cars. 160-200 feet to stop from 60mph!
Honestly, I forgot you could ever get a Corsica hatchback 'til I saw this magazine article. They were a rare sight and didn't last the entire cycle of the car's run.
The 3800 in my wife's GP still has it. Seems every GM pushrod v6 from the 2.8 through 3.8 has that poppy rasp. It's never been music to my ears, but I guess some might like it.
I didn't notice if the Tempo tested was a stick or not. It it was that might explain why it's quieter than what I remember as the 3 speed auto would certainly let that crude 2.3 4cyl rev excessively at highway speed.
It was kind of fun browsing the pages of that '89 Popular Mechanics. Like the add for the $4,800 Mac.
Why did GM axe the G-8 and NOT make it the Impala/SS?? Embarrassed? or Stupid? That is the same as saying it was Lutz's decision. But why hasn't the Impala = Commodore? ( I still remember Lutz saying 35 mpg CAFE is impossible.)
It's not that GM can't be great it's that they really do not try.
No cars excite. Sure, CTS/V and NEW LaCrosse and Malibu but these are just equal to the competition and the Malibu particularly as well as the CTS better pick up the pace of development to the next design. Cruze looks good and Regal is mediocre, not the home run for Buick it could have been. Being compared to the Sonata will remind everyone. Regal better interior? Blown away by the Sonata Turbo for performance /economy is more the driver here. Who says the Cruze will have pains vs. the new Elantra? Go ahead....Make My Day!
Competition is in front, AFAIC. At all price points. Keep trying, though, GM. There are 2 or 3 points of light! :shades:
Regards,
OW
All four cars in that test were stick shift, which probably explains why their performance was actually not half-bad. I hadn't noticed at first which transmissions the cars used, but for some reason focused on the Tempo's 0-60 in 12.7 seconds and actually being impressed by it! My 1985 Consumer Guide tested an '85 Topaz with the automatic and got 0-60 in 15.9!
Also, I wonder if the Tempo, and the Corsica, had air conditioning? They list it as an option on the Spirit and Camry, but make no mention in the other two. Maybe it was part of the LT package in the Corsica? And as for the Tempo, I couldn't imagine a/c actually being standard in a car in that price class?!
As for that GM "engine rasp", are you talking about that noise that makes it sound like an '89 Cavalier Z-24? My Park Ave and my Dad's '03 Regal both have it, but both at least have enough sound deadening that you don't really hear it.
That's what we are talking about.
My 1985 Consumer Guide tested an '85 Topaz with the automatic and got 0-60 in 15.9!
The manual certainly had a lot to do with it.
I remember buying my fintail, and it seemed like the old beast would spank the Tempo in an acceleration run - and a fintail is no dragster. I guess it's true.
I think the GM rasp is an exhaust issue, especially on the 3.1 but you can catch it in the 2.8 and 3.8 as well.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
Most Camaro 305's had 150 hp, but there was an upgrade, that boosted it to 165 hp for 1982, 175 for 1983, and 190 for 1984. When you figure in the added weight of the Camaro, plus I'd imagine they probably didn't gear the 150 hp version of the engine all that aggressively, an X-body with a 2.8 might have been able to embarrass it pretty easily.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
I thought about getting a Citation X11, which I knew was the same car under the skin as a Eurosport, but worried about the resale hit, even though the car could be bought new for quite a bit less. Back then I tended to trade every three years or so.
I wonder how hard it would be to convert an engine from a 4-bbl carb to TBI? I've thought about it with my '85 Silverado, which has the 165 hp 305-4bbl. I think it was a year or two later that they went to TBI. It only boosted peak hp to something like 170, but I imagine probably improved warming up, driveability, fuel economy, etc.
At this age though, probably not worth it. The truck has about 135,000 miles on it, but it's showing its age. The carb seems to be working fine though...starts right up, fast idle works, it cuts down when it should. Doesn't really sputter or try to stall out. Probably runs better now than a lot of 70's and 80's vehicles did when they were new!
Yeah, I'd heard of those, but had never seen one. When I bought my '76 Grand LeMans, I thought it had one of those carbs, simply because it wasn't that hot of a performer. About as quick as my '79 New Yorker, with a 360-2bbl, so I just figured the 350 in the Pontiac was a 2-bbl as well. Until one day when it wouldn't start, and I was under the hood fiddling with the carb, and accidentally bumped the secondary flap with a screwdriver and it opened. At first I thought it was cool that it WAS a 4-bbl after all, but then I started thinking damn, even WITH a 4-bbl, it's a bit of a slug!
Which engines used the 4-bbl housing with the secondaries welded shut, anyway? I've heard the Olds 260 V-8 did, but I'd imagine there were others?
My 1980 260 was slow because it had such a low rear axle ratio for mileage at speed and I only bought the 3-speed automatic. I believe the 4-speed was available as an option, but I didn't think the extra cost would be regained in mileage savings. I wonder if the 4-speed auto had a higher ratio axle for better performance and then the overdrive ratio compensated.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
" I wonder if the 4-speed auto had a higher ratio axle for better performance and then the overdrive ratio compensated."
A technicality but might as well nip it at some point..(not trying to find fault here...if situation reversed, I would appreciate the correction...hope you agree)
3.42 axle ratio is not lower, but is higher than a 3.73
out of the transmission...a .82 final drive is lower than a .76
Lower ratios refer to higher engine rpms, which broaden the range at which they find greater levels of hp and torque.
Higher ratios reduce that range..
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
LOL...one of my friends used to call my '82 an "Oldsmopile Gutless"! I don't know what kind of 0-60 time it would've pulled, but probably around 14-15 seconds. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Regal with the same engine/tranny, and they said 0-60 came up "in about 13 seconds" but didn't actually list a specific time in their stats. However, a lot changed in cars between 1982-85, where even if stats like weight, hp, axle ratios, etc didn't change, the engine management/computer systems/etc did, so they made better use of what little horsepower they had. I doubt my '82 was that "fast"! :sick:
Another one of my friends had an '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260 V-8, and it didn't seem all that bad. I drag raced him one night with my '86 Monte Carlo, which had the 150 hp 305/4-speed automatic, and while I beat him of course, it wasn't like I left him in the dust.
Still, if I ever got one of those cars today, I don't think I'd settle for anything less than a 305 or 307.