Among the many qualities the outgoing Aveo was not known for, confident handling might top the list. It thus comes as no surprise that GM dumped the wet Kimchi-noodle Daewoo platform in favor of a new architecture woven from a few Opel Corsa DNA strands. High-strength steel makes up 60 percent of the new car's structure -- roughly the same percentage Ford quotes for the Fiesta. North American models have additional bracing at each corner.
GM still doesn't lead during these improvement times. That is what remains frustrating.
Ding, Ding, Ding: We Have a Winner First, the good news: Both of these cars are worthy contenders in the compact economy segment.
The bad news: The 2011 Chevy Cruze got whupped by the 2012 Ford Focus, 87.5 points to 78.3. Why? Maybe it's because Ford has its sights set on world dominance, while Chevy seems satisfied to continue being better than itself rather than its competitors. Yes, the Cruze is superior to the Cobalt it replaces, just as the Cobalt was vastly improved over the Cavalier. But that strategy shows only progress rather than leadership.
While acknowledging your point, we poked by a parked Cruze yesterday and as I was looking at it from all angles mentioned to my wife that it's a small car I would not mind being seen in. That a heck of a lot of progress.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Interesting responses below the article...including from Cruze owners. Personally, I like the Cruze's styling much, much better than the Focus. But then I'm not a kid.
You always hold magazine reviews up as the end-all, be-all. Do you then think that Motor Trend's "Car of the Year" award for the Volt means it is hands-down better than any other new car out there?
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
"GM hopes to get American consumers accustomed to the idea of paying more for GM’s small cars – and, in return, getting more amenities and higher-quality content than expected. If GM can build in a price cushion before Toyota Corollas and Honda Civics are back in full supply, GM will be in a better position to compete for customers in what could become a compact-segment sales brawl. “Toyota and Honda could price aggressively when they come back, which could lead to an excess of supply in this segment, and price wars,” said Jessica Caldwell, senior U.S. industry analyst for Edmunds.com. “Raising prices now as a precursor to that could be helpful, because if GM is going to have to battle Toyota and Honda with incentives, they won’t lose as much margin.”
They have gone nutso on tiny cars where if the initial crash doesn't finish you off, the many air bags will complete the job..The Sonic and the other current subcompact fit the profile..Aveo??, maybe.
The 2012 Malibu will not offer the 3.6 V-6, only 4-bangers from Govt Motors..In scanning the local Chevy dealer websites there are only about 6 new 2011 V-6 Malibus available and all MSRPs are over 30k...Sorry pricing for a car equipped with "touring tires", probably stalls around 110mph..
The 2012 Impala will offer the 3.6 engine, however maintaining the old "W" body...My 2006 Pontiac GT w/SC engine will whip its butt..and it is not really all that swift..another antique "W" creation..
The 3.6 is the mainstay engine thru all divisions and the mainstay at Caddy where the pricing runs into the high 40ks...
After being an owner of some 34 GM cars to date, I am really not too excited about the lineup, but then again it is being politically driven by imposing regulations on every aspect of our life..However at my age, it won't really impact my life, but all you younger ones will suffer the "CHANGE." Too bad!!!!!!!!
Nobody pays MSRP for a Malibu though. $3K off the top right now, and paying invoice or less on top of that. Great value, which is why I think it topped May's best-selling cars list.
I can't tell you the last time I saw a V6 Malibu on a dealer's lot.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The reviews are just that. The point is that the improvements are catch up not leading. The tests are pretty much better than what you could come up with in a back to back comp, don't you agree?
The Volt is first step to electric powered vehicles that GM made. It does set a trend which is also met by the competition, however.
The Cruze is a huge step for GM. I admit that. You already know I would take the Focus in a "heart beat" over the Cruze.
I'm considering a new vehicle next year, around March, and the Chevy Sonic will be on the list. I'll also be considering the Ford Fiesta, Ford Focus, Hyundai Elantra and Accent, and what I think I'll end up with - the redesigned Subaru Impreza. I don't want a fully optioned vehicle, and the first number in the MSRP price had better start with a 1.
All auto manufacturers should be looking at the economy, and considering if the middle class is getting richer or poorer. There certainly seems to me to be a disconnect between what manufacturers make, and family incomes. I think Chevy would be smart to make a car smaller and less costly than even the Sonic. And certainly they'd be smart to build a PU that was smaller and less costly than a Colorado.
A coworker made an observation that there aren't really any compact pickups anymore, or at least not what they were like 20+ years ago. Whatever happened to little trucks like the old Datsuns, Chevy LUVs, and Ford Couriers?
Whatever happened to little trucks like the old Datsuns, Chevy LUVs, and Ford Couriers?
Yeah, I don't know what happened to that market. The compact trucks today are huge by Ford Courier standards and they don't sell all that well anymore. For one thing a full-size truck gets similar fuel economy compared to a compact, so maybe that has something to do with it.
I compared a v6 F150 to a 4cyl Ranger and the mileage difference is not much.
17/23 for the f150 and 19/24 for a 4cyl Ranger. The v6 Ranger (15/20) actually gets worse mileage than the f150.
A 2wd 4cyl Colorado is rated at 18/25, still that's really not that much better than the f150 if you consider how much more power and capability the F150 will provide.
I'm thinking the D3 is far more concerned with the full-size market and that's where they are putting their development money.
Whatever happened to little trucks like the old Datsuns, Chevy LUVs, and Ford Couriers?
They got bigger and have morphed into the Nissan Frontier, Toyota Tacoma, Chevy Colorado and Ford Ranger.
Just like today's Civic is the same size as the 80's Accord (ditto for Corolla and Camry), the pickup trucks have gotten larger in response to consumer demand.
Remember when the Dodge Dakota was marketed as a "mid size" truck - bigger than the compacts but smaller than a full size?
Now there is just medium, large and extra large for trucks.
For one thing a full-size truck gets similar fuel economy compared to a compact, so maybe that has something to do with it.
Exactly. Given a choice between a compact/mid-size and full-size, with similar FE, but the full-size offering more capability and cargo-hauling/towing, any truck buyer will take the full-size. What little FE superiority that compact/mid-size trucks is virtually gone now, especially with the EcoBoost V6 on the F-150.
The only place I see Rangers now are in fleets, and I rarely (if at all) see the Colorado/Canyon twins on dealer lots, let alone on the road.
UAW President Bob King has pledged to organize a foreign automaker this year to expand its bargaining power beyond the U.S. companies it has negotiated with for seven decades. While Detroit is mostly retooling old plants, overseas car companies are building and expanding U.S. factories. The union is seeking to revive membership ranks that declined 75 percent to 376,612 last year from its peak of 1.5 million.
Hyundai’s lower wages and benefits have given it hourly labor costs of about $44 to $48 an hour, compared to $52 an hour at Toyota Motor Corp. (7203)’s U.S. plants and about $58 an hour at the U.S. factories of General Motors Co. (GM), Ford Motor Co. (F) and Chrysler Group LLC, according to Sean McAlinden, chief economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Know what the workforce says????
“I don’t see any problems here. I don’t see how they could help me out,” said Long, who’s worked at the Hyundai Motor Co. (005380) assembly plant in Montgomery, Alabama, for five years. Of the union representatives who came to his home this year, he said, “I really didn’t give them the time of the day.”
And what have I been saying about pricing at GM??? Toyota as well!!!!
“If a company makes the bad business decision to engage in anti-union activity, suppress the rights of freedom of speech and assembly, we will launch a global campaign to brand that company a human-rights violator,” King said in a Jan. 12 speech in Detroit. “We do not want to fight, but we will not run from a fight.”
Hyundai’s lower costs allow it to price the Sonata sedan built in Alabama starting at $19,395, compared to Toyota Camry that starts at $19,820 and a Chevrolet Malibu that starts at $21,975. Hyundai’s U.S. sales rose 24 percent last year, more than twice the industrywide gain of 11 percent, and its U.S. market share rose to 4.6 percent from 2.7 percent in 2005.
Sheesh! There isn't ANY currently manufactured vehicle, foreign or domestic, that is as nice as that 1987 Buick Grand National. Can ANYBODY meet that standard anymore?
Overcompensation took over practicality for pickup buyers?
That new 6cyl F150 appears to be fairly economical though.
To put in perspective, I've owned a mid-size BOF SUV and 2 full-size BOF SUVs. The full-size ride better, get similar fuel economy and don't cost that much more (unless you go crazy with options or buy a luxury SUV).
Actually my Expedition gets about the same fuel economy as my '01 Pathfinder would get and the Expe weighs nearly 2klbs more, has more power and can tow 4k lbs more (not to mention a much higher payload capacity). Since I bought the Expe 1 year old, I actually paid less for it vs the new Pathfinder LE I bought in '01.
IMO, the full-size offers a lot more passenger room vs. a compact truck. I guess if didn't need to haul or tow much and were willing to have a compact truck as an extra vehicle it would make sense.
On my trip to NC last month I was visiting family and a couple of streets over from them was a house that had 3!!! Grand Nationals, all black in the driveway. I didn't get close to see if they were GNX's or not but they appeared to be in excellent condition. What was one part funny, and another part a crying shame was the house only had a 1 car garage so at least 2 if not all of them had to be parked outside.
There isn't ANY currently manufactured vehicle, foreign or domestic, that is as nice as that 1987 Buick Grand National. Can ANYBODY meet that standard anymore?
Seriously? The lack of a decent performing suspension and brakes alone would keep me out of one.
Yes it was a cool car back in the day. But what were they good for other than 0-60 and qtr mile runs.
I had a buddy that had an '86 T-Type in HS. Yes it was fast, but scary in the turns.
From old car memories.com So just how fast was the 1987 Grand National? It consistently obtained 14 second 1/4 mile times in auto magazine tests back in the day, beating its competition with ease. Motor Trend magazine (August 1987 issue), did speed and performance tests of the seven fastest new American cars. The test included the 1987 Chevrolet Corvette, 1987 Ford Mustang GT, 1987 Chevrolet Camaro Iroc-Z, 1987 Pontiac Trans Am GTA, 1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, 1987 Dodge Daytona Z, and 1987 Buick Grand National. The end result was the GN beat its 6 rivals with ease in the acceleration tests. The GN went 0-60 mph in 6.07 seconds and completed the 1/4 mile in 14.73 seconds @ 95.1 mph. The closest competitor to the GN was the Mustang GT (0-60 mph in 6.54 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 15.13 seconds @ 94.1 mph). The braking (60-0 mph in 149 ft) and the skidpad (0.79 g) numbers in the Motor Trend test for the GN were pretty good, but not enough to beat its competition. Part of the problem was the GN's P215/65VR15 tires were the narrowest in the seven car test. And the rear drum brakes were no match for the five cars in the test that had rear disc brakes. Where the GN fell far behind its competitors was with its dismal 122.72 mph top speed Motor Trend obtained. Motor Trend asked the question - "how can the strongest-engined best-in-acceleration vehicle be the slowest top-speed car?" Motor Trend figured since the 1987 GN had new VR speed rated tires, the speed-limiting chip from the 1986 GN should no longer be needed. Motor Trend after a little research discovered - "the [Buick] engineers were concerned with front-end lift at high speeds, and determined that 125 mph was a good limit to maintain the stability they felt necessary, so the chip stayed for this year." The GN was using a 10 year old Regal body style which had been only slightly updated since its 1978 model year debut, so the problem with front end lift at speeds over 125 mph was no surprise.
Heck, a new Camry v6 probably offers similar all around performance to a stock '87 GN while getting substantially better FE and far more reliable. Granted those GN had a ton of attitude. Car dealer down the road has one for sale. Still looks cool. Don't think I'd want it for a daily driver anymore though.
A new mustang or Camaro would simply trounce it and the legendary GNX.
Who cares? An '87 Grand National is exponentially more attractive and cooler than any Camry!
Okay, take out Camry, insert v6 Malibu. My point is the performance/efficiency of an 87 Grand National does not stand out today, particularly if you consider the FE. 15/23 from a 245Hp, 3,500 lb car?
The only reason the GN stands out because back in the 80's just about everything was awful. The GN had legendary performance from what was a sleepy coupe. I fully admit back then I always liked the Regal and Cutlass.
Plus back then it was cool the GN and T-Type could just about out run anything, well except for thieves.
My buddy had his '86 T-Type for about 2 months. He made the mistake of driving it to the mall. Went in for 15 minutes and came out to an empty parking space. He ended up replacing it with an '87 Mustang 5.0 LX notch back with a 5 speed manual. It didn't look as good as a Regal, but man that car was a sleeper.
I have an '11 Malibu. The '87 GNX is mega-cooler in every way.
That isn't what I'm talking about. Lemko just asked if anyone making anything that's up to the standards of an '87 GN.
The 87 GN is definitely a cool car. My point is that the standards it was built to in 1987 are easily met by many vehicles today. Remember that in 1987, the GN was about $18k, which is roughly $35k today. Lots of cars in the 35K range today offer far more than what the GN did. Styling is subjective of course.
Those with some nostalgia can still get one. Many good samples available for under $20k. Forget a new Malibu, get a real car for a daily driver.
I'd guess today, the closest thing available to a Buick Regal GN would be a Dodge Challenger. It can be had with 372hp & 400ft-lbs of torque, cool styling (subjectively), for a base price of $32k.
Notice how no one says the '11 Regal Turbo is mega cool, however. That's the point. That's because it's not on the roads (or even in dealers) yet, eating Optima's for breakfast... :P
If a company makes the bad business decision to engage in anti-union activity, suppress the rights of freedom of speech and assembly, we will launch a global campaign to brand that company a human-rights violator,EKing said in a Jan. 12 speech in Detroit. We do not want to fight, but we will not run from a fight.E
Translation: We're shocked that Hyundai doesn't see the value of giving control of its factories to us and paying us millions a year in worker dues.
EDIT: About the GNX, the modern replacement for it is the CTS-V. I know which one I'd rather have. And you can get one with manual, no less. 0-60 in ~4.1 seconds 1/4 mile in 12.4 seconds Slalom: 67-70mph depending upon the test.
I think we'd objectively all have to admit, the domestic manufacturers aping the foreign makers over the past twenty years has resulted in a homogenous mix of cars...nothing distinctly as "American" as an '87 GNX. It's also resulted in us having to buy options by the package instead of individually as in the old days, and having like six colors out and three inside to choose from, instead of 16 out and 5 in like the old days. Sometimes I'd give up the 'finesse' to go back and enjoy reasonably-priced cars that had decent resale in three years so you could buy the new one. Who the hell can afford to do that today?
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Somebody brought it up a long time ago, but it deserves to be repeated: American automakers forgot how to build American cars. For too long, they've been making poor imitations of European and Asian cars. They've got to go back to making distinctly American cars. Vehicles like the Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are definitely a good step in the right direction.
The 2011 Regal CXL Turbo is on the road now. Quite a boring performance formula for too big a price tag.
The window sticker on the Buick CXL-Turbo starts at $28,745 but the model I tried had the T07 optional package that added another $5,690 for a final sticker of $35,185 (including shipping), which put it in direct competition with the Audi A4 and BMW 3-Series. If you can live with a less powerful 182 bhp engine, the base Regal is less costly at a starting price of $26,245.
Both the Buick Regal and Olds Cutlass coupes back then were very attractive cars.
From '81 to '88, I liked the Monte Carlos as well--I actually liked them better than Cutlass coupes. The Grand Prix I didn't like outside at all, but it had a great instrument panel--always a GP tradition.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
From '81 to '88, I liked the Monte Carlos as well--I actually liked them better than Cutlass coupes. The Grand Prix I didn't like outside at all
I guess I'll have to agree as I really don't remember the pre-FWD grand prixs at all.
I too like the Monte Carlo, particularly the SS in the late 80's. My uncle had an '87 that he'd let me take out occasionally when I was in HS. I thought I was cool as hell cruising around in that car.
It drove decent, sounded nice, but wasn't all that fast considering it only had like 170HP from its 305. IMO, Chevy should have used the injected 305 offered in the Camaro, or better yet the 350.
In the east, where I lived, the Monte Carlo SS had 180 hp, which seemed like a lot in those days. I owned new '81 and '82 Monte Carlos and put a deposit on an '85 Monte SS, burgundy, but changed my mind and ordered a Celebrity Eurosport instead.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
In the east, where I lived, the Monte Carlo SS had 180 hp,
My memory could be failing, it probably was 180HP. It certainly wasn't slow for the time anyway. IIRC the 0-60 was in the high 7's to low 8s. Quick for the mid to late 80's but definitely ordinary today.
180HP certainly wasn't bad back then, but Ford was getting 225 from an injected 302 then and Chevy was getting at least 190 out of the port injected 305 IIRC. It just seemed the SS got a little short changed considering GM had access to a higher HP 305 or 350 at the time. The 350 would have be awesome in the SS.
Come on OW, you're being disingenuous here. What can a Sonata, Camry, or Malibu truly be bought for? My Malibu's MSRP was $24,555 but I paid $20.6K. Bluetooth, power driver's seat with power lumbar, satellite radio, aluminum wheels, floor mats, side moldings, OnStar, spare tire (!), 5 yr/100K powertrain warranty and optional paint color. Can a Sonata or Camry with similar equipment be bought for that? I ask because I honestly don't know...although I think I have a hunch.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Old school friend of mine has an 85 SS, his childhood dream car. He bought it in the late 90s with something like 50K on it. Black on burgundy, fairly pristine condition. I drove it once. Low end power was very good and it sounded great with the t-tops off - modified exhaust I am sure. However, vague steering, ponderous handling, worrisome brakes (but worlds better than his 83 Monte Carlo CL where there is no feel and you plan stops in advance)...after driving European cars, hard to go that route for me now.
Comments
Among the many qualities the outgoing Aveo was not known for, confident handling might top the list. It thus comes as no surprise that GM dumped the wet Kimchi-noodle Daewoo platform in favor of a new architecture woven from a few Opel Corsa DNA strands. High-strength steel makes up 60 percent of the new car's structure -- roughly the same percentage Ford quotes for the Fiesta. North American models have additional bracing at each corner.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Regards,
Wayne
Ding, Ding, Ding: We Have a Winner
First, the good news: Both of these cars are worthy contenders in the compact economy segment.
The bad news: The 2011 Chevy Cruze got whupped by the 2012 Ford Focus, 87.5 points to 78.3. Why? Maybe it's because Ford has its sights set on world dominance, while Chevy seems satisfied to continue being better than itself rather than its competitors. Yes, the Cruze is superior to the Cobalt it replaces, just as the Cobalt was vastly improved over the Cavalier. But that strategy shows only progress rather than leadership.
Move Over, Cruze!
Regards,
OW
You always hold magazine reviews up as the end-all, be-all. Do you then think that Motor Trend's "Car of the Year" award for the Volt means it is hands-down better than any other new car out there?
GM Confident In New Small-Car Pricing (AutoObserver)
Either that, or it'll take small car buyers out of the market for a year.
Hope I didnt give the designers any ideas but come on, its not like theyre broke, we bailed em out!
The 2012 Malibu will not offer the 3.6 V-6, only 4-bangers from Govt Motors..In scanning the local Chevy dealer websites there are only about 6 new 2011 V-6 Malibus available and all MSRPs are over 30k...Sorry pricing for a car equipped with "touring tires", probably stalls around 110mph..
The 2012 Impala will offer the 3.6 engine, however maintaining the old "W" body...My 2006 Pontiac GT w/SC engine will whip its butt..and it is not really all that swift..another antique "W" creation..
The 3.6 is the mainstay engine thru all divisions and the mainstay at Caddy where the pricing runs into the high 40ks...
After being an owner of some 34 GM cars to date, I am really not too excited about the lineup, but then again it is being politically driven by imposing regulations on every aspect of our life..However at my age, it won't really impact my life, but all you younger ones will suffer the "CHANGE." Too bad!!!!!!!!
I can't tell you the last time I saw a V6 Malibu on a dealer's lot.
The Volt is first step to electric powered vehicles that GM made. It does set a trend which is also met by the competition, however.
The Cruze is a huge step for GM. I admit that. You already know I would take the Focus in a "heart beat" over the Cruze.
Regards,
OW
What? Perfect set up to advance Hyundai/Kia. :shades:
Regards,
OW
At least, in the Fusion line, I don't like the chrome venetian blind look as much as the Chevy truck grille
All auto manufacturers should be looking at the economy, and considering if the middle class is getting richer or poorer. There certainly seems to me to be a disconnect between what manufacturers make, and family incomes. I think Chevy would be smart to make a car smaller and less costly than even the Sonic. And certainly they'd be smart to build a PU that was smaller and less costly than a Colorado.
Yeah, I don't know what happened to that market. The compact trucks today are huge by Ford Courier standards and they don't sell all that well anymore. For one thing a full-size truck gets similar fuel economy compared to a compact, so maybe that has something to do with it.
I compared a v6 F150 to a 4cyl Ranger and the mileage difference is not much.
17/23 for the f150 and 19/24 for a 4cyl Ranger. The v6 Ranger (15/20) actually gets worse mileage than the f150.
A 2wd 4cyl Colorado is rated at 18/25, still that's really not that much better than the f150 if you consider how much more power and capability the F150 will provide.
I'm thinking the D3 is far more concerned with the full-size market and that's where they are putting their development money.
That new 6cyl F150 appears to be fairly economical though.
They got bigger and have morphed into the Nissan Frontier, Toyota Tacoma, Chevy Colorado and Ford Ranger.
Just like today's Civic is the same size as the 80's Accord (ditto for Corolla and Camry), the pickup trucks have gotten larger in response to consumer demand.
Remember when the Dodge Dakota was marketed as a "mid size" truck - bigger than the compacts but smaller than a full size?
Now there is just medium, large and extra large for trucks.
Exactly. Given a choice between a compact/mid-size and full-size, with similar FE, but the full-size offering more capability and cargo-hauling/towing, any truck buyer will take the full-size. What little FE superiority that compact/mid-size trucks is virtually gone now, especially with the EcoBoost V6 on the F-150.
The only place I see Rangers now are in fleets, and I rarely (if at all) see the Colorado/Canyon twins on dealer lots, let alone on the road.
Hyundai’s lower wages and benefits have given it hourly labor costs of about $44 to $48 an hour, compared to $52 an hour at Toyota Motor Corp. (7203)’s U.S. plants and about $58 an hour at the U.S. factories of General Motors Co. (GM), Ford Motor Co. (F) and Chrysler Group LLC, according to Sean McAlinden, chief economist with the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Know what the workforce says????
“I don’t see any problems here. I don’t see how they could help me out,” said Long, who’s worked at the Hyundai Motor Co. (005380) assembly plant in Montgomery, Alabama, for five years. Of the union representatives who came to his home this year, he said, “I really didn’t give them the time of the day.”
Go Hyundai!!! Here's the full read:
Hyundai Confounds UAW
And what have I been saying about pricing at GM??? Toyota as well!!!!
“If a company makes the bad business decision to engage in anti-union activity, suppress the rights of freedom of speech and assembly, we will launch a global campaign to brand that company a human-rights violator,” King said in a Jan. 12 speech in Detroit. “We do not want to fight, but we will not run from a fight.”
Hyundai’s lower costs allow it to price the Sonata sedan built in Alabama starting at $19,395, compared to Toyota Camry that starts at $19,820 and a Chevrolet Malibu that starts at $21,975. Hyundai’s U.S. sales rose 24 percent last year, more than twice the industrywide gain of 11 percent, and its U.S. market share rose to 4.6 percent from 2.7 percent in 2005.
HEE,HEE. Go UAW...Sayonara, GM.
Regards,
OW
Try Harder
Can GM at least meet the 1987 standard? SHEESH!
Regards,
OW
That new 6cyl F150 appears to be fairly economical though.
To put in perspective, I've owned a mid-size BOF SUV and 2 full-size BOF SUVs. The full-size ride better, get similar fuel economy and don't cost that much more (unless you go crazy with options or buy a luxury SUV).
Actually my Expedition gets about the same fuel economy as my '01 Pathfinder would get and the Expe weighs nearly 2klbs more, has more power and can tow 4k lbs more (not to mention a much higher payload capacity). Since I bought the Expe 1 year old, I actually paid less for it vs the new Pathfinder LE I bought in '01.
IMO, the full-size offers a lot more passenger room vs. a compact truck. I guess if didn't need to haul or tow much and were willing to have a compact truck as an extra vehicle it would make sense.
Seriously? The lack of a decent performing suspension and brakes alone would keep me out of one.
Yes it was a cool car back in the day. But what were they good for other than 0-60 and qtr mile runs.
I had a buddy that had an '86 T-Type in HS. Yes it was fast, but scary in the turns.
From old car memories.com
So just how fast was the 1987 Grand National? It consistently obtained 14 second 1/4 mile times in auto magazine tests back in the day, beating its competition with ease. Motor Trend magazine (August 1987 issue), did speed and performance tests of the seven fastest new American cars. The test included the 1987 Chevrolet Corvette, 1987 Ford Mustang GT, 1987 Chevrolet Camaro Iroc-Z, 1987 Pontiac Trans Am GTA, 1987 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, 1987 Dodge Daytona Z, and 1987 Buick Grand National. The end result was the GN beat its 6 rivals with ease in the acceleration tests. The GN went 0-60 mph in 6.07 seconds and completed the 1/4 mile in 14.73 seconds @ 95.1 mph. The closest competitor to the GN was the Mustang GT (0-60 mph in 6.54 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 15.13 seconds @ 94.1 mph). The braking (60-0 mph in 149 ft) and the skidpad (0.79 g) numbers in the Motor Trend test for the GN were pretty good, but not enough to beat its competition. Part of the problem was the GN's P215/65VR15 tires were the narrowest in the seven car test. And the rear drum brakes were no match for the five cars in the test that had rear disc brakes. Where the GN fell far behind its competitors was with its dismal 122.72 mph top speed Motor Trend obtained. Motor Trend asked the question - "how can the strongest-engined best-in-acceleration vehicle be the slowest top-speed car?" Motor Trend figured since the 1987 GN had new VR speed rated tires, the speed-limiting chip from the 1986 GN should no longer be needed. Motor Trend after a little research discovered - "the [Buick] engineers were concerned with front-end lift at high speeds, and determined that 125 mph was a good limit to maintain the stability they felt necessary, so the chip stayed for this year." The GN was using a 10 year old Regal body style which had been only slightly updated since its 1978 model year debut, so the problem with front end lift at speeds over 125 mph was no surprise.
Heck, a new Camry v6 probably offers similar all around performance to a stock '87 GN while getting substantially better FE and far more reliable. Granted those GN had a ton of attitude. Car dealer down the road has one for sale. Still looks cool. Don't think I'd want it for a daily driver anymore though.
A new mustang or Camaro would simply trounce it and the legendary GNX.
Who cares? An '87 Grand National is exponentially more attractive and cooler than any Camry!
Okay, take out Camry, insert v6 Malibu. My point is the performance/efficiency of an 87 Grand National does not stand out today, particularly if you consider the FE. 15/23 from a 245Hp, 3,500 lb car?
The only reason the GN stands out because back in the 80's just about everything was awful. The GN had legendary performance from what was a sleepy coupe. I fully admit back then I always liked the Regal and Cutlass.
Plus back then it was cool the GN and T-Type could just about out run anything, well except for thieves.
My buddy had his '86 T-Type for about 2 months. He made the mistake of driving it to the mall. Went in for 15 minutes and came out to an empty parking space. He ended up replacing it with an '87 Mustang 5.0 LX notch back with a 5 speed manual. It didn't look as good as a Regal, but man that car was a sleeper.
The GN may have been cool on the outside, but it's a different story once you get in. Yuck.
If you had taken away the designer's T-squares, I don't think they could have developed an interior at all!
That being said, a college buddy of mine had a GN, fitted with hand controls, as he lost the use of his legs in a rodeo accident.
Good highway ride, two-door styling, adequate headroom and legroom even in the back seat.
Regards,
OW
That isn't what I'm talking about. Lemko just asked if anyone making anything that's up to the standards of an '87 GN.
The 87 GN is definitely a cool car. My point is that the standards it was built to in 1987 are easily met by many vehicles today. Remember that in 1987, the GN was about $18k, which is roughly $35k today. Lots of cars in the 35K range today offer far more than what the GN did. Styling is subjective of course.
Those with some nostalgia can still get one. Many good samples available for under $20k. Forget a new Malibu, get a real car for a daily driver.
I'd guess today, the closest thing available to a Buick Regal GN would be a Dodge Challenger. It can be had with 372hp & 400ft-lbs of torque, cool styling (subjectively), for a base price of $32k.
Those were very nice coupes in their day.
That's because it's not on the roads (or even in dealers) yet, eating Optima's for breakfast... :P
Translation: We're shocked that Hyundai doesn't see the value of giving control of its factories to us and paying us millions a year in worker dues.
EDIT:
About the GNX, the modern replacement for it is the CTS-V. I know which one I'd rather have. And you can get one with manual, no less.
0-60 in ~4.1 seconds
1/4 mile in 12.4 seconds
Slalom: 67-70mph depending upon the test.
The window sticker on the Buick CXL-Turbo starts at $28,745 but the model I tried had the T07 optional package that added another $5,690 for a final sticker of $35,185 (including shipping), which put it in direct competition with the Audi A4 and BMW 3-Series. If you can live with a less powerful 182 bhp engine, the base Regal is less costly at a starting price of $26,245.
Regards,
OW
From '81 to '88, I liked the Monte Carlos as well--I actually liked them better than Cutlass coupes. The Grand Prix I didn't like outside at all, but it had a great instrument panel--always a GP tradition.
I guess I'll have to agree as I really don't remember the pre-FWD grand prixs at all.
I too like the Monte Carlo, particularly the SS in the late 80's. My uncle had an '87 that he'd let me take out occasionally when I was in HS. I thought I was cool as hell cruising around in that car.
It drove decent, sounded nice, but wasn't all that fast considering it only had like 170HP from its 305. IMO, Chevy should have used the injected 305 offered in the Camaro, or better yet the 350.
My memory could be failing, it probably was 180HP. It certainly wasn't slow for the time anyway. IIRC the 0-60 was in the high 7's to low 8s. Quick for the mid to late 80's but definitely ordinary today.
180HP certainly wasn't bad back then, but Ford was getting 225 from an injected 302 then and Chevy was getting at least 190 out of the port injected 305 IIRC. It just seemed the SS got a little short changed considering GM had access to a higher HP 305 or 350 at the time. The 350 would have be awesome in the SS.