THAT'S what I forgot about that last rental. There were more Mitsubishi Galants there than i think I've ever seen in my life! I wonder what percentage of those go fleet - 105%?
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
They probably rank it by how many ping pong balls they can fit in the car or something. IIRC cars like a Versa or PT Cruiser have been classified as "mid size" too.
Actually I've found a formula that comes VERY close to ranking a car's interior volume. If you multiply shoulder room x headroom x legroom for the front seat, divide by 1728, that gives you the interior volume for the front seat. Do the same for the back seat, and then add the two together, and you get the total interior volume.
My 2000 Intrepid had 104 cubic feet of interior space, while a 2000 Impala was rated at 105. I remember doing the calculations and came up with 104.4 for the Intrepid, and 104.6 for the Impala. The EPA rounds to the nearest whole number, but I remember finding some manufacturer website awhile back, and it backed up my estimates of 104.4 and 104.6!
I remember doing that formula for a 1976 Century, and came up with 103.6 cubic feet for the 4-door, and something like 94.8 for the coupe. I'm curious as to what the EPA would have rated it at, but I don't think they started rating interior volumes until 1978.
A lot of those old cars were really generous in shoulder room, and in sedan form at least, legroom was good, but they often came up short in headroom, and that would take a big bite out of total interior volume. That doesn't necessarily mean your head was any closer to the ceiling though. Headroom takes into account the entire height of the passenger cabin, so a low-slung car with low seats might actually give you more clearance between your head and ceiling than a taller car with a higher seating position, but the taller car would get a bigger number for headroom.
Last Updated: March 30. 2011 10:22AM Judge approves old GM liquidation David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Washington- A federal bankruptcy judge late Tuesday signed an order officially approving a plan to liquidate the remains of old General Motors Corp.
Judge Robert Gerber in New York also approved a clean-up plan reached between old GM and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Gerber approved a consent decree that included another $51 million settlement to cover dozens of sites. The $51 million is in addition to a previously announced $773 million nationwide deal to clean up 89 polluted sites in 14 states, including 47 in Michigan.
The move should clear the way for creditors and former bondholders of old GM to get shares in new GM by mid-April. It also will result in the cancelling of old GM stock, which still trades over-the-counter.
A total of 150 million new shares and warrants to purchase 123 million shares in new GM will be distributed to creditors and to pay for other claims, including the environmental trusts and to wind down the remainder of the estate.
Kirk Ludtke, an auto analyst at CRT Capital, recommended in a research note today that investors buy some outstanding old GM bonds that are trading at around 28 percent of face value, because he believes they will be worth more once they are exchanged for shares of new GM stock.
The U.S. government, which gave GM a $49.5 billion bailout and still owns 33 percent of new GM, has endorsed the wind-down plan. The Canadian and Ontario governments gave GM a separate $9.5 billion bailout, and they also urged approval of the plan.
New GM was formed by the sale of old GM's "good" assets to a new, government-sponsored company that emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009.
Old GM, now known as Motors Liquidation Co., will go out of business later this year - and no later than Dec. 15, the company told Gerber.
What a nice bit of news! Pollution "Runs Deep". :lemon:
Interesting, I wonder if the fleets use that to make size distinctions. Did you figure that out by yourself? Sounds like a bit of work!
Oh yeah, I have heard of Corolla being counted as "midsize" as well, seems like a stretch. I know my Impala rental was counted as "fullsize", I can agree with that one. In Europe, a 3er/C class is counted as fullsize.
I was actually thinking of renting "premium" on my last trip, but had read the GM was in that category, so I decided not to risk it. I wouldn't have been thrilled. But I have read Lacrosse is a common car in that category too, much better.
Interesting, I wonder if the fleets use that to make size distinctions. Did you figure that out by yourself? Sounds like a bit of work!
Somehow, I figured that out back in high school! Don't ask me how, though...maybe my mind worked better in those days! But, I guess it's really just a sort of an index, and doesn't take into account things such as how much a wheel well might cut into the back seat area, or how badly the sides curve in above where the shoulder room measurement is taken (and some fuselage-shaped cars have it curve in below as well), or how much space the driveshaft or transmission hump takes up, or the jut-out from the dashboard, etc.
Just for kicks, I just tried this for my '79 New Yorker. The EPA lists it has having 108 cubic feet. Well, using the specs from a 1979 New Yorker brochure, I ended up with 106.57 cubic feet, which would round up to 107. So, I thought my formula wasn't perfect. But then I used the specs from a 1979 Newport brochure, which, believe it or not, are slightly different. And this time came up with 107.6 cubic feet, which would round to 108! And, to its credit, on the EPA site, for the fullsized Chryslers, it just says "Chrysler". They don't break it out into Newport versus New Yorker.
The main difference in the specs is shoulder room. The Newport is listed at 61" front and rear, while the New Yorker is 60.2" up front, 60.1" in back. So maybe the door panels are padded a bit more thickly, and that takes up a bit of the available shoulder room?
Conversely, how many of the Cruze sales are initial demand vs. sustainable demand? And how many of the Cruze sales were to fleets?
Are strong initial sales a sign of imminent failure? No, but that's today's spin. We gotta spin this into something negative.
Reading the 56 reviews by buyers points to strong enthusiasm for the car by purchasers. Seeing lots of them out on the roads might get some people more interested. I'd worry more about sales growth than decline if you are an avid GM hater.
Nope, current generation Tundra, 5.7L double cab, loaded to the gills. Actually was one of the early adopters of the new model. Borrowed it myself to move furniture, amazing engine, drives like a car...
I think he's about about 85k on it and only issue was a recall for something in the front end.
oh you mean the one with the fisher price interior. Well why didnt you say you moved some furniture with it...it must truly be an amazing vehicle then :P . funny how you remember every little problem with his sierra's but you cant remember the one problem with the tundra. :confuse: it was probly that pesky little camshaft problem they were plagued with. :lemon: yes truly an amazing truck...i guess thats why they are cemented to the dealers lots :shades: oh yeah and i hope you werent moving any valuable furniture with the tundra...you know...that bed bounce problem and all :shades:
Are strong initial sales a sign of imminent failure? No, but that's today's spin. We gotta spin this into something negative.
No, strong initial sales aren't a sign of imminent failure, but at the same time, you can't take them to mean that a model can keep up that sales rate. For instance, I remember when the "bathtub" 1991 Caprice came out, initially it outsold the 1990 model by something like 20% (I'm too lazy to actually add the numbers from my old car book up right now) But once that initial demand was met, and the novelty factor wore off, it slacked off.
Now, in the Caprice's case, I think GM purposely kept production a bit low, because it lowerered their CAFE ratings. And, the main reason they dumped it was simply because they figured out they could make a lot more profit building 4-door Tahoes and Yukons out of the same assembly plant.
I think the Cruze will do well. But it's still too soon to see if it'll stay at this same sales rate, improve, or slack off a bit.
oh you mean the one with the fisher price interior.
Funny you'd mention that. I actually kinda like the current Tundra, but I remember when it first came out, I thought the interior seemed awfully cheap and plasticky. Seemed like GM and Ford were getting their act together with big truck interiors, while Nissan, Toyota, and Dodge were cheaping out. I think Dodge has actually stepped it up a bit with the latest Ram, though. Dunno if Nissan has done anything with their Titan, though.
Now, in the Caprice's case, I think GM purposely kept production a bit low, because it lowerered their CAFE ratings. And, the main reason they dumped it was simply because they figured out they could make a lot more profit building 4-door Tahoes and Yukons out of the same assembly plant.
Yep. One of those plants was in Linden, NJ. At the time you'd have thought they'd struck gold with those Tahoes. I was sorry to see the Capices go. Today the plant is shuttered. In fact while we used to have plants for all the Big 3 none of them are left.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Well, the US automakers have higher overall market share than the Japanese; selling less cars means their selling more trucks. The trucks are more profitable. Not a bad business model.
Isn't that the business model that pushes them towards bankruptcy whenever the price of gas goes up or the economy goes downhill? :confuse:
Worldwide, GM is on the pace to take back the No. 1 position from Toyota it lost to in 2008 this year. GM almost caught up with Toyota in 2010 by a hair but GM has much higher momentum going into 2011.
Ford made $6.6 billion dollar net profit in 2010 worldwide. GM $4.7 billion.
That's a text book business move. Get rid of the bad assets and the greedy union, start from a clean paper.
US government should do the same too; get rid of the debts and the entitlements, starts from a very small and lean government, very little and only the essential tax and spending, let the people to be responsible for their own life. That's what made the US rising to the world leader over a century ago, this is what should make us retaining the leader position again. Short pain in exchange for the long gain.
Let us know when GM repays TARP. Is GM taking all that profit and repaying the government the principal and interest they owe? Or are they giving some out to the unions and execs. in bonuses?
"The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that the money it gave to banks during the financial crisis has been paid back, and then some. The bank bailout -- part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- is now $6 billion in the black, a profit that might ultimately rise to $20 billion, according to the Treasury."
"CBO estimates that the roughly $80 billion auto bailout will end up costing taxpayers $14 billion. And HAMP, which is a grants program and was never expected to return a profit to taxpayers, will eventually cost $13 billion."
I'm glad to see though that you agree the government should be small and only do the essential. Bailing out poorly run companies isn't one of the essentials.
Where does the /1728 come from, is it some kind of standard in the industry?
that's how many cubic inches are in a cubic foot (12 x 12 x 12), and you divide by that to convert the interior volume to cubic feet.
And I think that extra-thick padding might have something to do with it. For instance, Lemko's '89 Brougham is rated at 110 cubic feet of interior volume, while an '89 Caprice is rated the same, despite having a couple inches less legroom in back. I think the padding on the door panels is so thick though, that it might cut the shoulder room rating by as much as two inches, compared to a Caprice. And an '89 Crown Vic is rated slightly higher, at 111 cubic feet. And even the diminutive '89 Electra is rated at 111 cubic feet!
If I were to rank the trucks, I'd put the Silverado at the top, the Ford F-150, second, and the Dodge third. I think Nissan beefed up the interior of the Titan a bit. Now, I might need a regular screwdriver to tear it apart when before all I needed was my bare hands.
I remember passing by the huge Ford plant in Edison, NJ. I hear it too is gone - probably replaced by a Super Wal~Mart. Funny how good jobs are replaced by crap jobs. We had a big Whitman's Chocolates plant on Roosevelt Blvd. above Grant in NE Philly. It was torn down and replaced by another stupid shopping center including...what else?...a Wal~Mart! :sick:
If I were to rank the trucks, I'd put the Silverado at the top, the Ford F-150, second, and the Dodge third.
Ford's engine line up is interesting. I don't know why GM is still saddling the 4.3 and 4.8 v8 with 4 speeds. You get a lot more HP and torque with the Ford 5.0 and similar FE vs GM's 5.3. Go with the EB and you get big block v8 levels of torque and a bit better FE vs. the 5.0 and much better compared to the 6.2 according to EPA ratings anyway.
I'm curious to see what the real world FE of the 3.5 EB is. If it is reliable and can achieve the EPA fuel ratings then it's a winner.
As far as the upcharge for the EB (ecoboost), it depends on the truck config you're looking at. It can be as high as $5k or as little as $750 depending on the trim level and truck config. I'd gladly pay that for 420 ft-lbs of torque at 2,500rpm.
The Ram is IMO the best looking of them all. If you don't need the payload ability then it seems to be the best riding of the bunch since it uses coil springs over leafs. It really comes down to how you'd use the truck.
Weren't the rear door panels recessed on the 1982 Malibu thus eliminating the ability to roll down the windows?
Yep, GM did that on all of the RWD '78-88 intermediates. On coupes, the recessed armrests in back were a really nice touch, and since people didn't expect coupe windows to roll down anymore, it was a good idea. But on the sedans and wagons, I think it just screamed of cost-cutting. But, it did help to make the interiors feel more roomy. A downsized Caprice or Impala has something like 61.5" of shoulder room in back, where a Malibu might have 57". But when you figure an armrest might stick out 3" on either side, or 6" total, having them recessed in the Malibu might have actually made it more comfortable for 3 across seating than in the full-sized cars!
Chrysler tried eliminating the roll-down rear windows in the 1981 Reliant and Aries K-cars. However, this was pure cost-cutting, as there was no recessing of the armrests. Enough customers complained though, that during the 1982 run, they put in roll-down windows. Supposedly, it turns out that on a massive scale like that, it wasn't any cheaper to make the windows stationary. And, in 1982, the more upscale LeBaron and Dodge 400 came out, and I believe those had roll-down rear windows from the get-go, so it was probably just easier to make 'em all roll down.
If I were going to get a new truck, I think I'd spring for a Ram with the Hemi. And I hate to admit, the Ram's good looks are what sways me the most!
But, that Ford F-150 is tempting, if it really can make its EPA rating! 17/23 is pretty damned impressive for something like that. In contrast, a Crown Vic is 16/24, and using the comparable rating system, my Park Ave is 16/25.
It's kinda wild to think that in my type of driving, getting an F150 could actually cut my fuel bill! Slightly better local mileage, PLUS not having to put premium fuel in it!
I wonder why GM never did anything more with that 4.2 inline-6? I wonder if that would've made a good replacement for the hoary old 4.3?
I wonder why GM never did anything more with that 4.2 inline-6? I wonder if that would've made a good replacement for the hoary old 4.3?
The 4.2 is probably the only thing positive I have to say about the Trailblazers. My guess is being an I6, maybe it's to long for the engine bay of the 1/2 tons.
If that were the case, you'd think they would at least do what Ford has done and use their 3.6 as a base engine. No way would I want the 4.3. Sure it has decent torque, but I didn't like that engine 10 years ago. I certainly wouldn't want it now, particularly still being saddled to an over geared 4 speed. Yuck.
I agree, the Ram with a Hemi is sweet. They sound great too. For me the choice would come down to the Ram or F150. My main issue is the Ram may not have enough payload capacity. I have a 32' travel trailer that has over 1,200lbs of tongue weight I wouldn't mind being able to routinely tow. We keep it at a seasonal lake side campsite, so I've only towed it once with the Expe. From the dealer to the lake.
I need something stout to be able to tow it somewhere on vacation if I ever chose to do so. The tongue weight is the biggest issue. Most of 1/2 tons can handle the 9k GWR of the trailer, but it's the tongue weight that is an issue. I really don't want a 3/4 ton truck/SUV. I can't stand how they ride/drive for everyday running around. Maybe I'm just not manly enough;)
Yeah, the Ford plant in Edison is gone - all the vehicle plants in NJ are gone.
I grew up 20 miles from the big Ford plant in Mahwah. Last I looked it is now the headquarters for Sharp, USA.
I was in the plant once as a Cub Scout - insanely loud but interesting as all get out.
As it turned out they weren't the best neighbors in the world - the dumped tons and tons of solvent and such is the local woods and are just now getting hit with having to clean it up. There were a lot of plants of all types that got caught in that behavior.
On the back windows that don't roll down - I remember my folks having maybe a mid-80s Cutlass Ciera with back windows that didn't roll down. I discovered it as a back seat passenger looking for the crank when my dad says there is none. Didn't like that a bit.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
On the back windows that don't roll down - I remember my folks having maybe a mid-80s Cutlass Ciera with back windows that didn't roll down. I discovered it as a back seat passenger looking for the crank when my dad says there is none. Didn't like that a bit.
Are you sure that wasn't a Cutlass Supreme, Fezo? The back windows on the Ciera 4-door models did roll down, but not very far. Slightly less than half-way, as I recall. Now, if it was a 2-door Ciera, it would've had stationary windows.
My grandparents had an '82 Malibu Classic wagon that they bought in February of that year. Being cold, they didn't even think about the back windows and stuff like that. And nobody even realized they didn't roll down until one hot April day a couple months later, I went to church with my grandparents. They let me sit up front, and Grandmom sat in back. She started fumbling around, and finally blurted out something like "how the hell do you roll the window down?" That's when we realized you DIDN'T roll the back windows down. Your only option was the little vent quarter-window that flipped open.
Grandmom had a few other choice words about that car, and would sometimes call it "The Most Expensive Cheap Car We Ever Owned".
It was an incredibly gutless car, too. It had a 229 Chevy V-6 that had 110 hp, and I think something like 170 ft-lb of torque. And being a wagon, probably weighed around 3400 lb I'd guess. I wonder why the Chevy 229 was so weak on torque, for its displacement? The Buick 231 was usually good for around 190-ft-lb, and more when it went to fuel injection. I think Ford's 232 "Essex" V-6 was good for around 195-205 ft-lb in those days.
Is it typical to get 56 out of 56 reviews with excellent ratings for a car and it turn out to be a so-so car?
I don't mean a one out of a thousand case like the '91 Caprice. I mean typical as in usual or common.
My first look at the Cruze was two weeks ago in a parking lot and I think it is a great looking car. I will not be suprised to see it become their top selling car with 40 mpg hwy, $3.69 gas, and 18% of us wanting for more jobs in the USA.
"General Motors announced the sale of its stake in Delphi Automotive LLP back to Delphi. The sale will show up as a $1.6-billion gain in the automaker's first-quarter earnings.
Delphi Automotive, one of the world’s largest automotive suppliers, was formed in the 1990s by the spin-off of a number of GM component operations."
I think 55/56 cars get overlooked sometimes because of the great looking 57's. Also, when you talk 55/56 it tends to be dominated by Chevy. The Ford's, Plymouth's and Dodges of that era were nice looking too. As were most of the different models those years. Personally, I'd be torn between the 55 DeSoto and Dodge or the 55/56 Buick and Olds.
The sneek peaks seem to indicate twin tailights on the upcoming Malibu. I wonder if the 2014 Impala will go with triples? Actually, if it was done tastefully, it might not be a bad idea bringing a bit of heritage into the new global models. Many Europeans and some Asians have a fondness for old American iron.
My first look at the Cruze was two weeks ago in a parking lot and I think it is a great looking car. I will not be suprised to see it become their top selling car with 40 mpg hwy, $3.69 gas, and 18% of us wanting for more jobs in the USA.
The Cruze is a good looking car. It does have a lot of competition though. The new Elantra and Focus will be more than capable competition. I'm sure the Elantra will be priced aggressively no doubt.
I certainly don't see the Cruze becoming the best selling car in the US. It's still a ways behind the Corolla and Camry in monthly sales.
I think there's just something about the '55-56 Fords that are a bit wallflowerish. They're not ugly, but just not eye-grabbing, either. They're something that Aunt Bea would drive (and indeed, she did drive a black '55 or '56 Ford convertible in the Andy Griffith Show). They were popular cars in the day though...it's just that the Chevies were more popular, and had a more youthful appeal to them.
I always thought the '55-56 Plymouth was a good looking car. It had a forward rake to the front-end that gave it an aggressive look, and I thought the long-ish rear deck gave it nice proportions. Ford and especially Chevy probably had the advantage in engines, though.
I didn't like the '55 Plymouth grille as it was a throwback to the early '50s with that thick central bar. The '55 Plymouth would've really looked sharp with a grille similar to the '58.
Mopar did something vaguely similar to that in export markets, with the DeSoto Diplomat. Here's a 1956:
I think it looks fairly attractive, with the slim mesh grille (although a '58 Plymouth is a bolder lattice). My only issue with it is the bumper that juts out worse than those 5 mph bumpers in the 70's! That protruding bumper probably worked better with the bulkier grille of the '55-56 Plymouth.
With models such as that 56 Plymouth, it is easy to see why GM usually ruled styling in the 50's and 60's. Yes, GM had some collossal blunders, such as the grotesque 58 Buicks and Oldsmobiles, 59-60 Chevies.
With models such as that 56 Plymouth, it is easy to see why GM usually ruled styling in the 50's and 60's. Yes, GM had some collossal blunders, such as the grotesque 58 Buicks and Oldsmobiles, 59-60 Chevies.
Actually, the 1956 Plymouth was a pretty popular car. I don't think it set a sales record for them, but it scored some serious gains against the '56 Chevy and Ford that year. And as popular as it was, the '57 would prove even more popular, setting a sales record that would stand for Plymouth until 1971 or so.
Personally, I don't think there was a bad looking Big-Three car in 1955-56. They might've had some imperfect details here and there, but overall, I'd say those were two of the best years ever, style-wise.
Well if you don't count fleet sales, then Toyota is in the lead.
Yeah it's only one month, but you have to admit Ford has really been on a roll. I don't know what to make of fleet sales. For one thing Ford really doesn't have a fleet queen anymore (Impala) and I'm sure they sell every F series than can to fleets, those rarely get dumped back into the used market in less than 2 years.
It seems most companies are keeping vehicles longer, my wife used to get a new car every 2 years or 50k miles, which ever came first. Now it's 80k and a minimum of 3 years.
Akerson's discontent is driven by his perception that GM is no different from any other consumer-products company. Citing Coca-Cola (KO) as an example, Akerson recently told The Wall Street Journal that a GM car was just like the can of Diet Coke he was drinking during the interview.
Comments
Actually I've found a formula that comes VERY close to ranking a car's interior volume. If you multiply shoulder room x headroom x legroom for the front seat, divide by 1728, that gives you the interior volume for the front seat. Do the same for the back seat, and then add the two together, and you get the total interior volume.
My 2000 Intrepid had 104 cubic feet of interior space, while a 2000 Impala was rated at 105. I remember doing the calculations and came up with 104.4 for the Intrepid, and 104.6 for the Impala. The EPA rounds to the nearest whole number, but I remember finding some manufacturer website awhile back, and it backed up my estimates of 104.4 and 104.6!
I remember doing that formula for a 1976 Century, and came up with 103.6 cubic feet for the 4-door, and something like 94.8 for the coupe. I'm curious as to what the EPA would have rated it at, but I don't think they started rating interior volumes until 1978.
A lot of those old cars were really generous in shoulder room, and in sedan form at least, legroom was good, but they often came up short in headroom, and that would take a big bite out of total interior volume. That doesn't necessarily mean your head was any closer to the ceiling though. Headroom takes into account the entire height of the passenger cabin, so a low-slung car with low seats might actually give you more clearance between your head and ceiling than a taller car with a higher seating position, but the taller car would get a bigger number for headroom.
Judge approves old GM liquidation
David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau
Washington- A federal bankruptcy judge late Tuesday signed an order officially approving a plan to liquidate the remains of old General Motors Corp.
Judge Robert Gerber in New York also approved a clean-up plan reached between old GM and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Gerber approved a consent decree that included another $51 million settlement to cover dozens of sites. The $51 million is in addition to a previously announced $773 million nationwide deal to clean up 89 polluted sites in 14 states, including 47 in Michigan.
The move should clear the way for creditors and former bondholders of old GM to get shares in new GM by mid-April. It also will result in the cancelling of old GM stock, which still trades over-the-counter.
A total of 150 million new shares and warrants to purchase 123 million shares in new GM will be distributed to creditors and to pay for other claims, including the environmental trusts and to wind down the remainder of the estate.
Kirk Ludtke, an auto analyst at CRT Capital, recommended in a research note today that investors buy some outstanding old GM bonds that are trading at around 28 percent of face value, because he believes they will be worth more once they are exchanged for shares of new GM stock.
The U.S. government, which gave GM a $49.5 billion bailout and still owns 33 percent of new GM, has endorsed the wind-down plan. The Canadian and Ontario governments gave GM a separate $9.5 billion bailout, and they also urged approval of the plan.
New GM was formed by the sale of old GM's "good" assets to a new, government-sponsored company that emerged from bankruptcy in July 2009.
Old GM, now known as Motors Liquidation Co., will go out of business later this year - and no later than Dec. 15, the company told Gerber.
What a nice bit of news! Pollution "Runs Deep". :lemon:
Regards,
OW
Oh yeah, I have heard of Corolla being counted as "midsize" as well, seems like a stretch. I know my Impala rental was counted as "fullsize", I can agree with that one. In Europe, a 3er/C class is counted as fullsize.
Somehow, I figured that out back in high school! Don't ask me how, though...maybe my mind worked better in those days! But, I guess it's really just a sort of an index, and doesn't take into account things such as how much a wheel well might cut into the back seat area, or how badly the sides curve in above where the shoulder room measurement is taken (and some fuselage-shaped cars have it curve in below as well), or how much space the driveshaft or transmission hump takes up, or the jut-out from the dashboard, etc.
Just for kicks, I just tried this for my '79 New Yorker. The EPA lists it has having 108 cubic feet. Well, using the specs from a 1979 New Yorker brochure, I ended up with 106.57 cubic feet, which would round up to 107. So, I thought my formula wasn't perfect. But then I used the specs from a 1979 Newport brochure, which, believe it or not, are slightly different. And this time came up with 107.6 cubic feet, which would round to 108! And, to its credit, on the EPA site, for the fullsized Chryslers, it just says "Chrysler". They don't break it out into Newport versus New Yorker.
The main difference in the specs is shoulder room. The Newport is listed at 61" front and rear, while the New Yorker is 60.2" up front, 60.1" in back. So maybe the door panels are padded a bit more thickly, and that takes up a bit of the available shoulder room?
GM sold 97k cars
The avg of the 5 foreign companies was 59k sales per company (296k/5)
That puts GM above avg if not near the very top.
And it's a top 20 list!!!
Yeah, where's the rest of the list?
So when GM does good sales, it must be fleet. Plenty of spin to go around.
Are strong initial sales a sign of imminent failure? No, but that's today's spin. We gotta spin this into something negative.
Reading the 56 reviews by buyers points to strong enthusiasm for the car by purchasers. Seeing lots of them out on the roads might get some people more interested. I'd worry more about sales growth than decline if you are an avid GM hater.
I think he's about about 85k on it and only issue was a recall for something in the front end.
oh you mean the one with the fisher price interior. Well why didnt you say you moved some furniture with it...it must truly be an amazing vehicle then :P . funny how you remember every little problem with his sierra's but you cant remember the one problem with the tundra. :confuse: it was probly that pesky little camshaft problem they were plagued with. :lemon: yes truly an amazing truck...i guess thats why they are cemented to the dealers lots :shades: oh yeah and i hope you werent moving any valuable furniture with the tundra...you know...that bed bounce problem and all :shades:
No, strong initial sales aren't a sign of imminent failure, but at the same time, you can't take them to mean that a model can keep up that sales rate. For instance, I remember when the "bathtub" 1991 Caprice came out, initially it outsold the 1990 model by something like 20% (I'm too lazy to actually add the numbers from my old car book up right now) But once that initial demand was met, and the novelty factor wore off, it slacked off.
Now, in the Caprice's case, I think GM purposely kept production a bit low, because it lowerered their CAFE ratings. And, the main reason they dumped it was simply because they figured out they could make a lot more profit building 4-door Tahoes and Yukons out of the same assembly plant.
I think the Cruze will do well. But it's still too soon to see if it'll stay at this same sales rate, improve, or slack off a bit.
Funny you'd mention that. I actually kinda like the current Tundra, but I remember when it first came out, I thought the interior seemed awfully cheap and plasticky. Seemed like GM and Ford were getting their act together with big truck interiors, while Nissan, Toyota, and Dodge were cheaping out. I think Dodge has actually stepped it up a bit with the latest Ram, though. Dunno if Nissan has done anything with their Titan, though.
Both Ford and GM have higher profit and higher market share than Toyota now, all with fleet sales included.
Seat padding and door thickness could do a bit, I think.
Yep. One of those plants was in Linden, NJ. At the time you'd have thought they'd struck gold with those Tahoes. I was sorry to see the Capices go. Today the plant is shuttered. In fact while we used to have plants for all the Big 3 none of them are left.
Isn't that the business model that pushes them towards bankruptcy whenever the price of gas goes up or the economy goes downhill? :confuse:
The data was for the US market.
Worldwide, GM is on the pace to take back the No. 1 position from Toyota it lost to in 2008 this year. GM almost caught up with Toyota in 2010 by a hair but GM has much higher momentum going into 2011.
Ford made $6.6 billion dollar net profit in 2010 worldwide. GM $4.7 billion.
US government should do the same too; get rid of the debts and the entitlements, starts from a very small and lean government, very little and only the essential tax and spending, let the people to be responsible for their own life. That's what made the US rising to the world leader over a century ago, this is what should make us retaining the leader position again. Short pain in exchange for the long gain.
"The Treasury Department announced Wednesday that the money it gave to banks during the financial crisis has been paid back, and then some. The bank bailout -- part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- is now $6 billion in the black, a profit that might ultimately rise to $20 billion, according to the Treasury."
"CBO estimates that the roughly $80 billion auto bailout will end up costing taxpayers $14 billion. And HAMP, which is a grants program and was never expected to return a profit to taxpayers, will eventually cost $13 billion."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/30/news/economy/tarp_program/index.htm?hpt=T2
I'm glad to see though that you agree the government should be small and only do the essential. Bailing out poorly run companies isn't one of the essentials.
that's how many cubic inches are in a cubic foot (12 x 12 x 12), and you divide by that to convert the interior volume to cubic feet.
And I think that extra-thick padding might have something to do with it. For instance, Lemko's '89 Brougham is rated at 110 cubic feet of interior volume, while an '89 Caprice is rated the same, despite having a couple inches less legroom in back. I think the padding on the door panels is so thick though, that it might cut the shoulder room rating by as much as two inches, compared to a Caprice. And an '89 Crown Vic is rated slightly higher, at 111 cubic feet. And even the diminutive '89 Electra is rated at 111 cubic feet!
I wonder if new style door panels, often recessed or kind of concave, can have an impact too. Although I guess that is more of an elbow room impact.
Ford's engine line up is interesting. I don't know why GM is still saddling the 4.3 and 4.8 v8 with 4 speeds. You get a lot more HP and torque with the Ford 5.0 and similar FE vs GM's 5.3. Go with the EB and you get big block v8 levels of torque and a bit better FE vs. the 5.0 and much better compared to the 6.2 according to EPA ratings anyway.
I'm curious to see what the real world FE of the 3.5 EB is. If it is reliable and can achieve the EPA fuel ratings then it's a winner.
As far as the upcharge for the EB (ecoboost), it depends on the truck config you're looking at. It can be as high as $5k or as little as $750 depending on the trim level and truck config. I'd gladly pay that for 420 ft-lbs of torque at 2,500rpm.
The Ram is IMO the best looking of them all. If you don't need the payload ability then it seems to be the best riding of the bunch since it uses coil springs over leafs. It really comes down to how you'd use the truck.
Yep, GM did that on all of the RWD '78-88 intermediates. On coupes, the recessed armrests in back were a really nice touch, and since people didn't expect coupe windows to roll down anymore, it was a good idea. But on the sedans and wagons, I think it just screamed of cost-cutting. But, it did help to make the interiors feel more roomy. A downsized Caprice or Impala has something like 61.5" of shoulder room in back, where a Malibu might have 57". But when you figure an armrest might stick out 3" on either side, or 6" total, having them recessed in the Malibu might have actually made it more comfortable for 3 across seating than in the full-sized cars!
Chrysler tried eliminating the roll-down rear windows in the 1981 Reliant and Aries K-cars. However, this was pure cost-cutting, as there was no recessing of the armrests. Enough customers complained though, that during the 1982 run, they put in roll-down windows. Supposedly, it turns out that on a massive scale like that, it wasn't any cheaper to make the windows stationary. And, in 1982, the more upscale LeBaron and Dodge 400 came out, and I believe those had roll-down rear windows from the get-go, so it was probably just easier to make 'em all roll down.
But, that Ford F-150 is tempting, if it really can make its EPA rating! 17/23 is pretty damned impressive for something like that. In contrast, a Crown Vic is 16/24, and using the comparable rating system, my Park Ave is 16/25.
It's kinda wild to think that in my type of driving, getting an F150 could actually cut my fuel bill! Slightly better local mileage, PLUS not having to put premium fuel in it!
I wonder why GM never did anything more with that 4.2 inline-6? I wonder if that would've made a good replacement for the hoary old 4.3?
The 4.2 is probably the only thing positive I have to say about the Trailblazers. My guess is being an I6, maybe it's to long for the engine bay of the 1/2 tons.
If that were the case, you'd think they would at least do what Ford has done and use their 3.6 as a base engine. No way would I want the 4.3. Sure it has decent torque, but I didn't like that engine 10 years ago. I certainly wouldn't want it now, particularly still being saddled to an over geared 4 speed. Yuck.
I agree, the Ram with a Hemi is sweet. They sound great too. For me the choice would come down to the Ram or F150. My main issue is the Ram may not have enough payload capacity. I have a 32' travel trailer that has over 1,200lbs of tongue weight I wouldn't mind being able to routinely tow. We keep it at a seasonal lake side campsite, so I've only towed it once with the Expe. From the dealer to the lake.
I need something stout to be able to tow it somewhere on vacation if I ever chose to do so. The tongue weight is the biggest issue. Most of 1/2 tons can handle the 9k GWR of the trailer, but it's the tongue weight that is an issue. I really don't want a 3/4 ton truck/SUV. I can't stand how they ride/drive for everyday running around. Maybe I'm just not manly enough;)
I grew up 20 miles from the big Ford plant in Mahwah. Last I looked it is now the headquarters for Sharp, USA.
I was in the plant once as a Cub Scout - insanely loud but interesting as all get out.
As it turned out they weren't the best neighbors in the world - the dumped tons and tons of solvent and such is the local woods and are just now getting hit with having to clean it up. There were a lot of plants of all types that got caught in that behavior.
On the back windows that don't roll down - I remember my folks having maybe a mid-80s Cutlass Ciera with back windows that didn't roll down. I discovered it as a back seat passenger looking for the crank when my dad says there is none. Didn't like that a bit.
Are you sure that wasn't a Cutlass Supreme, Fezo? The back windows on the Ciera 4-door models did roll down, but not very far. Slightly less than half-way, as I recall. Now, if it was a 2-door Ciera, it would've had stationary windows.
My grandparents had an '82 Malibu Classic wagon that they bought in February of that year. Being cold, they didn't even think about the back windows and stuff like that. And nobody even realized they didn't roll down until one hot April day a couple months later, I went to church with my grandparents. They let me sit up front, and Grandmom sat in back. She started fumbling around, and finally blurted out something like "how the hell do you roll the window down?" That's when we realized you DIDN'T roll the back windows down. Your only option was the little vent quarter-window that flipped open.
Grandmom had a few other choice words about that car, and would sometimes call it "The Most Expensive Cheap Car We Ever Owned".
It was an incredibly gutless car, too. It had a 229 Chevy V-6 that had 110 hp, and I think something like 170 ft-lb of torque. And being a wagon, probably weighed around 3400 lb I'd guess. I wonder why the Chevy 229 was so weak on torque, for its displacement? The Buick 231 was usually good for around 190-ft-lb, and more when it went to fuel injection. I think Ford's 232 "Essex" V-6 was good for around 195-205 ft-lb in those days.
I don't mean a one out of a thousand case like the '91 Caprice. I mean typical as in usual or common.
My first look at the Cruze was two weeks ago in a parking lot and I think it is a great looking car. I will not be suprised to see it become their top selling car with 40 mpg hwy, $3.69 gas, and 18% of us wanting for more jobs in the USA.
Delphi Automotive, one of the world’s largest automotive suppliers, was formed in the 1990s by the spin-off of a number of GM component operations."
GM Sells Delphi Stake (AutoObserver)
They built Thunderbirds and the first 7 Edsels...
Here's number 200,000
And number 2,211,511
I haven't found the last car picture but it was an 81 Fairmont Futura.
Google Mahwah Ford plant and you'll find a bunch of things.
I remember them making low end Mercurys in the day. They were probably building 59 Fords the day I was in there.
I knew a guy in high school who had a summer cushy job there that would have marsha7 ranting no end.....
The Cruze is a good looking car. It does have a lot of competition though. The new Elantra and Focus will be more than capable competition. I'm sure the Elantra will be priced aggressively no doubt.
I certainly don't see the Cruze becoming the best selling car in the US. It's still a ways behind the Corolla and Camry in monthly sales.
I always thought the '55-56 Plymouth was a good looking car. It had a forward rake to the front-end that gave it an aggressive look, and I thought the long-ish rear deck gave it nice proportions. Ford and especially Chevy probably had the advantage in engines, though.
I think it looks fairly attractive, with the slim mesh grille (although a '58 Plymouth is a bolder lattice). My only issue with it is the bumper that juts out worse than those 5 mph bumpers in the 70's! That protruding bumper probably worked better with the bulkier grille of the '55-56 Plymouth.
Actually, the 1956 Plymouth was a pretty popular car. I don't think it set a sales record for them, but it scored some serious gains against the '56 Chevy and Ford that year. And as popular as it was, the '57 would prove even more popular, setting a sales record that would stand for Plymouth until 1971 or so.
Personally, I don't think there was a bad looking Big-Three car in 1955-56. They might've had some imperfect details here and there, but overall, I'd say those were two of the best years ever, style-wise.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110401/bs_afp/usautosales_20110401175641
Ford trucks had another great month.
And GM is still ahead for the year. :shades:
Straightline
Yeah it's only one month, but you have to admit Ford has really been on a roll. I don't know what to make of fleet sales. For one thing Ford really doesn't have a fleet queen anymore (Impala) and I'm sure they sell every F series than can to fleets, those rarely get dumped back into the used market in less than 2 years.
It seems most companies are keeping vehicles longer, my wife used to get a new car every 2 years or 50k miles, which ever came first. Now it's 80k and a minimum of 3 years.
'Like a Can of Diet Coke'
Akerson's discontent is driven by his perception that GM is no different from any other consumer-products company. Citing Coca-Cola (KO) as an example, Akerson recently told The Wall Street Journal that a GM car was just like the can of Diet Coke he was drinking during the interview.
LOL!!!