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In the family sedan market, the Impala is simply outdated.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