I think I'd do the current 'Vette thing, mostly because I'm not a mechanic in the slightest sense of the word and especially at that point in my life, I wouldn't want to have to worry about anything happening in God-knows-where, AZ!
One advantage of modernized classics is that they are nearly impossible to kill as everything is simple mechanically and everything critical has been swapped out and replaced with modern parts that will last 10-20 years.
It's really the best way to go - you get modern driving and reliability and you're still driving around a classic car that turns heads.
40-50K on such a vehicle isn't so far-fetched now with some very basic cars now reaching towards 30K.
Of course, the American carmakers did not do business with Japan. One thing is for certain, and that is no German or Japanese automaker did anything to contribute to the American war effort
That was WWII of course. But, the Toyota company did provide a jeep version they called BJ to U.S. military during Korean war.
If you're seriously considering a vette, I'd get a c5 or newer as the hydroformed rails are light years ahead of the old frame work on the c4 and below. Those older frames provide so much flex, they actually crack the fiberglass making trips to your local boat store the norm.
I think any one who grew up in the 50's or 60's should visit at least part of Route 66. I driven on some different sections. My favorite is in Arizona. They have preserved an original portion from just west of Flagstaff (Williams I think) to Kingman. You can continue on to Oatman from there. Oatman gets all of the publicity, but I think that the section I discussed is more what a typical drive on it would have been like for Midwesterner or Easterner driving in the Southwest back then. There is a place off of it called Grand Canyon Caverns that is actually a neat little tour of a cave area. We had a Buick rental car. I think you have to drive it with some American iron. Either a Corvette, or a Detroit boat (including station wagons). The Buick rental worked and I know lemko and Uplander would approve! I returned to Flagstaff on I-40 and the drives really are different. Someday I think I'd like to drive the loneliest highway Rt 50 through Nevada and Utah...and don't forget the rock 'n roll oldies CD's.
My current ball cap is a Route 66 one. Like you say, not many original parts left. We were on a stretch of it near Santa Fe last summer. Route 50 is fun too - did some of that one a couple of times connecting from family at Carson City over to Ely, and I really like heading north at Ely on 93. Love those "great basins" with the endless views.
I think those Chevy ads had a big effect on me. "See the USA, in your Chevrolet." I grew up on the Dinah Shore version.
You guys are killing me! Maybe in a year or two I'll convince the Mrs that taking her entire vacation in one fell swoop for the year is a good idea and do the big drive.....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
GM and Ford both had operations in Japan and Germany. When those nations developed a taste for injustice, Ford and GM continued to take in profits from those divisions - control was not really lost until the declaration of war. Not exactly blood free hands, there. Of course, we then aided the British and Soviets, who both knew an awful lot about creating injustice, themselves...but facts should never get in the way of anything. Operation paperclip made it all worth it, though...
Regarding the Route 66 drive, I say you risk it and do it in a vintage ride. Maybe something freshly redone, or maybe even with modern mechanicals.
Oh man, there was a '59 Chevy in the family that was my brother's college car in the 60s. I had to drive it some and it was a truly gutless wonder. I liked the fins - don't know what engine it had but it must have been the base.
I don't know why Chevy doesn't use an updated version of this song in their commercials. I always thought it was effective. Maybe try different artists giving the song their own style.
I always liked their magazine ads in the early '70's too, with a shiny Chevy and a good-looking family at some scenic or historic American vacation spot.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I liked the fins - don't know what engine it had but it must have been the base.
I remember reading an old road test of a 1959 Chevy...one of those old "Uncle Tom" McCahill tests. The car had a 348 with tri-power (a Pontiac term, but I can't remember what Chevy called their 3-2bbls) and 280 hp. It also had a 3-speed Turboglide. 0-60 came up in something like 13.1 seconds, which IMO is kind of a dog for something like that.
I've heard that the Turboglide might have been the culprit. Normally, three speeds are better than two, but I've heard that with Chevy transmissions, that wasn't always the case. I think the 2-speed Powergide might have actually been a better choice.
Also, IMO, isn't 280 hp kind of low for something that displaces 348 CID and has 3-2bbl carbs? Just to show what the competition was putting out, that year Plymouth got 230 hp out of a 318-2bbl, 260 out of the 4-bbl, and 305 out of a 361 2-bbl! Smaller Ford V-8s were a bit doggish that year, it seems, with a 200 hp 292, 225 hp 332, but their 352 put out a decent 300 hp. Dunno if that was with a 2- or 4-bbl carb, though.
And looking at those specs, I see it's no wonder that '59 Chevy folded up a couple years ago, when the IIHS ran it head-on into a new Malibu. For something the size of a current Crown Vic (bigger wheelbase actually, but the CV would have more overhang), and having the added weight of a big-block engine, plus 4-door hardtop styling that should require some beefing up and extra weight, 3678 lb isn't much.
Nowadays, a 4-cyl Malibu probably weighs about that much.
This one had a 348 with 4-bbl carb and 250 hp, and a Turboglide. Similar weight, although this one was a hardtop coupe, which normaly weighs less than a hardtop sedan. So, considering the '59 was a bit larger, had 4-doors and still no B-pillar, but weighed about the same, that would indicate to me that it was flimsier.
FWIW, this one at least had a fairly decent acceleration time of 10.1 seconds, which was pretty good back then.
Ten seconds is fine with me these days. Our '59 couldn't get out of the way of it's shadow if a groundhog was biting the tailpipe.
Yeah, around 10 seconds would be fine for me, too. FWIW, I also found some road tests of a '60 and '61 Impala, and both had the 250 hp 348-4bbl setup and Turboglide, like the '58. I think one of them did 0-60 in 10.5 and the other in 10.6 seconds. So that makes me wonder if there was something wrong with the '59 that Uncle Tom tested with the 3x2 carb setup. Maybe there was some issue with the linkage, and the secondaries didn't open upwhen they should have? Or the transmission was acting up?
10-10.6 seconds isn't a horrible acceleration time, but imagine these days, just about any new car on the market is quicker than that. I think the late 90's/00's Taurus with the old 3.0 Vulcan V-6, and around 153 hp, was good for 0-60 in around 10.5-11 seconds, and I've seen tests of the Mopar 300/Charger/Magnum with the 2.7, which were similar.
Must've been the inline 6-cylinder. Anyway, my great-Uncle Johnny had a 1959 Impala flat-top sedan and a highschool friend's grnadfather had a 1959 Parkwood station wagon.
I clearly remember those ads! They were from around 1972 and proclaimed "Chevrolet! Building a Better Way to See the USA!" I can clearly remember the music and everything.
Tires are too thin. Have you had any damage with pothole or RR tracks?
high-performance, low-profile tires from Hankook. EVO's...on one occasion, right after getting about 6 hours of dental work done...crowns and fillings, pretty much the whole works, I pulled out onto E.22nd in Tucson heading west towards downtown.
Crack...bang...clump.
"Oh, that can't be good," I said to my son.
"Great" he replied.
I limped to a Pep Boys on 22nd. He said my tire couldn't be repaired. So I took a motel room along I-10 because I have those little donut tires for spares (I had the next day off of work) and went to Sears at the Park Place Mall in east Tucson first thing next AM. They repaired the tire for about $10 and it was fine and never gave me another problem. Someone must've dropped an auto part or something sharp and metal off of a truck on 22nd St. and I found it!
Love the look of the tire and wheel together, they love the twisties and the freeways but the car does not take a bump very well, it's the tight "sport" suspension. It's built that way on purpose by Mitsubishi.
Heck, my fintail can do it in around 11, and it has a little 2.2 I6. My mom's old 3.8 Taurus felt faster than the fintail, but I swear the old Tempo did it in about 20 seconds. The 00s Taurus vulcan feels slow too. Her Camry with the big-ish 4 seems faster than the old Tauri.
It could've been a basic 283, as well. I think the standard 283 V-8 in a '59 Impala only put out around 195 hp gross, although there were more powerful options.
Among low-priced big cars, I think Plymouth really got it right for '58, by making the 318 their standard V-8 from then on out. They'd keep a 6-cyl around for budget-minded buyers, but no more messing around with under-sized, under-powered V-8's...well, until the 1970's, at least!
It took Ford and Chevy a long time to catch on to this trend. Ford's 292 was no powerhouse, down to 170 hp by 1962! For '63, it was dropped, but replaced by the 164 hp 260 V-8! For '64, they got the 289 enlargement, with 195 hp, and for '68, the 302 with 215 hp. Finally, in 1973, when the cars got too heavy, and emissions controls were cutting power, they made a 351 with 158 net hp the standard engine.
Chevy kept the 283 around through 1967, and it ended that year with 195 hp. It was replaced by a 307 (totally different from the later Olds 307) in '68, and that wasn't much better at 200 hp. CR tested a '68 Impala with this engine and the Powerglide, and got 0-60 in about 14.5 seconds. For 1969, according to my old car book at least (which as been wrong before) they wisely went to a 327 with 235 hp as the base big car V-8. My book also lists that engine in '70, although I think it was getting phased out in favor of the 350. For '71, a 250 hp 350 became the standard big-car V-8.
Meanwhile, Plymouth kept with the 318 as the standard full-sized car V-8 through 1973. In 1974, they went to a standard 360, but in '75 made the 318 a credit engine, and then standard from '76-77, which would be the last of the big Plymouths, with the exception of the short-lived, '80-81 Gran Fury, which again used a 318 as the base V-8.
Yep, there were no 1970 327 Chevy engines...in full-size cars and Monte Carlos the 350 was standard, and the standard V8 in Novas, Camaros, and Chevelles was the 307.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yeah, I had a feeling my book was wrong on that detail. Wouldn't be the first time! The same book also lists the 305 as being offered in the full-sized '76 Chevies, with 145 hp. I wonder if they meant to say 350 though, and just had a transpotion error in printing?
This 145 hp 305 is listed as being standard on the Chevelle wagon, full-sized Chevies, and optional on the Monte Carlo.
But then there's a 165 hp 350 shown as being optional on the Nova, all Chevelles, Camaro, Monte Carlo, and fullsized cars.
And a step down, there was a 140 hp 305 listed as standard V-8 on the Nova and Chevelle (base engine was a 250-6, of course), Monte Carlo, and optional on the Monza.
So I'm wondering if that 145 hp engine they listed was actually a watered-down 350 with a 2-bbl carb?
It just seems dumb to me to offer a 305 with 140 hp and one with 145. But I could see a 350, since even though you didn't have much more hp, you would've still had a lot more torque.
Wasn't the old Chevy 348 basically a truck engine they put in cars as an upgraded engine option? Ironically, I believe the famous 409 was derived from it?
Wasn't the old Chevy 348 basically a truck engine they put in cars as an upgraded engine option? Ironically, I believe the famous 409 was derived from it?
Yeah, it was. Ford made the larger 312 T-bird V-8 an option on the regular cars in 1956, and by '57 was offering 332 and 352 CID versions. Plymouth only offered the 318 in the Fury for 57, but it was offered across the board in '58, with the new 350 wedge showing up as a Fury option and, according to my old car book, being offered across the board, but this book has been wrong before, so I dunno if it was a Fury-only engine that year or not. It was offered in the Dodge Royal/Custom Royal and DeSoto Firesweep as well.
So, in light of that, I guess Chevy figured they had to bring in a bigger engine to go against what Ford and Mopar were doing, and just grabbing one from the truck lineup was the quickest way to go.
Considering that in later years, the smallblock went to 350 and even 400 CID, I wonder why they didn't just offer bigger versions earlier on? Maybe the technology wasn't there yet in the late 50's, to get their smallblock to those sizes?
Throughout it all, the seasoned negotiators must be mindful of appearances after the highly politicized government-backed bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler. Neither side wants to look like it's slipping back into old ways.
The UAW's top agenda will be "jobs, jobs, jobs," UAW Vice President General Holiefield said in May. "It is all about putting America back to work."
For GM and Ford, the talks will be about getting labor costs in line with foreign rivals.
Marty Mulloy, Ford's vice president of labor affairs, said Ford's hourly labor costs are at $58, compared with about $50 for Asian automakers in the U.S.
"We are still above the market," Mulloy said. "That doesn't mean we can't structure a deal which is fair to all parties. That's the challenge."
My question is why you need the UAW to make this happen. How much of the extra cost is directly from the UAW expenses??
At least that gap is narrowing. Not that long ago, I'm thinking that it was something like $45/hr for the transplants, and $60-70/hr for the UAW workers? Of course, that's with all benefits factored in, and NOT their hourly wage!
$50/hour is $104K annual. So probably around $75K salary. At the non-union plants, I'm sure these people are very happy to have the work. No need for a Union that costs extra for no return.
Why can't GM, Ford and Chrysler revamp the need for any UAW costs?
Why can't GM, Ford and Chrysler revamp the need for any UAW costs?
I think it's because they are under a contract, so it's a legal requirement. And the auto companies did agree to those contracts. And in BK they (stupidly) didn't get the contracts voided, so they are still liable. Boat anchor anyone?
The same book also lists the 305 as being offered in the full-sized '76 Chevies, with 145 hp. I wonder if they meant to say 350 though, and just had a transposition error in printing?
I'm going from memory here, but I remember the 305 having 140 hp and the 350 as used in full-size Chevys having 145. I think you could get a 2-barrel 350 (145 hp) in Chevelles, Novas, and Monte Carlos too, as an option of something like $26, but I'll have to look at the brochures online and see.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Exactly as you posted. GM, had it's chance. They sold their soul as per Government Bailout Deal Regulations. Thanks for reminding me.
We'll see if the results are reduced to better products or the same old GM results from a huge HR problem which will render them second rate as in the past.
So the C-11 saved millions of jobs which will now force the new entities to suffer the consequences of higher costs which will be locked in by the same old UAW? Doesn't sound like it was a huge success at the moment. We'll see.
How would you have done things, circlew? Have everyone buy Kias? Remember Kia/Hyundai are heavily subsidized by Korea (and the US).
Just how would you have handled the US auto industry giants? Remember you have to please the taxpayers, politicians, and the Unions who elected you. I'm anxious to hear the solution.
"I could not agreee more. Most on this board are ignorant of the real issues. Hyuandai/Kia are the same company -heavily subsidized by the Korean government since their founding. The US has subsidized the S. Korean economy for 60+ years at the cost of hundreds of billions of US taxpayers dollars."
"I could not agreee more. Most on this board are ignorant of the real issues. Hyuandai/Kia are the same company -heavily subsidized by the Korean government since their founding. The US has subsidized the S. Korean economy for 60+ years at the cost of hundreds of billions of US taxpayers dollars."
The complaints about Paul Ryan's medicare plan is that the gov pays $11k towards your health care plan per person and you need to put in $6k more on your own to get a decent plan. Double that for two people and a good family plan runs $34k. NOW step up again to a gold plated Union health care plan for a family of 4 where it costs nothing ever. Maybe $40k per year would be it's cost. The avg union worker at Delphi had 29 years in and got 10 sick days and 25 or 30 vacation days. Then add 17 or 18 holidays per year. I can't see benefit packages in total being less than $50k per year for an average union worker at GM. 100% free vision and dental too. Then add the pension which they might collect for 35 years if they start at 19 and retire at 49 and live to 84. Then add a $75k golden handshake to finally stop working after 35 or 38 years.
The transplant total worker cost ends up less than just the benefits for the UAW worker.
Wonder how they are even in business? It must be the incompetent engineers and management who somehow managed to float a system like this in the wake of 11% loss of market share over the last couple decades.
Well, it's not such a bad idea, to keep the house of cards operating for a few more years.
After all, they don't even print money any more. They just add it in a computer somewhere. Since the U.S. is already broke, and can't possibly pay it back, why not bail out whomever needs it if it's all monopoly money and fake promises anyways? At least get some mileage out of the world's goodwill and our credit rating before it all implodes in a few years.
Note - this has nothing to do with ethics, either. The ship as sailed and it's far too late to do anything about it. Protect what we can, bail out what we can, and hold on. That cliff is coming sooner than most people realize.
Yeah, it was. Ford made the larger 312 T-bird V-8 an option on the regular cars in 1956, and by '57 was offering 332 and 352 CID versions.
For one summer between junior and senior years of high school I had one of those Fords with the T-bird V-8. It was a fast bugger. I loved it but come September my dad, who did actually own it, sold it.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Sheesh, some 'sour grapes' stuff goin' on here! I would never be so bold to say it'll last forever, but...sheesh!
Wouldn't most people say that manufacturers that had the top sellers but are now down the list, are the ones with problems? And here comes the quake/tsunami issues--which were terrible, no doubt--but if those companies are so 'American', why the problems now?
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I for one am very glad to see the US big three the big three again. In my buying decisions I always give preference to US branded vehicles. I am very satisfied with the GM truck and car in our immediate family and will probably look for another when we decide on a new one. Of course that decision might change depending on future offerings by other manufacturers and my future experience with the cars we own.
I don't care for the "Hey look at me" styling of the Korean cars. I don't think it will age well. The Kia's crooked grin grill and ugly wheels turn me off. So does the Sonata's slanty-eyed wavy grill thing. Time will tell if they have the same type of direct injection problems that Audi has had with theirs; and their high epa numbers I believe come at the expense of some marginally engineered thin-steeled chassis and suspension parts in an attempt to keep their weight down.
There is a huge problem with early 2000s Kia and Hyundai subframes that rust to the point that the wheels can fall off. It is under recall, and to be fair other manufacturers have had this problem, most notably Toyota trucks and Ford Windstar subframes. As cars get lighter, I think this will continue to be problem
I am also not a fan of turbocharging to increase power. I have had 3 turbocharged cars in the past and all three have had head gasket problems. I realize the technology has advanced but I do not think a turbo motor will have the longevity of a non-aspirated one. Will these engines from Hyundai, VW, Gm, etc. make 200k with no problems? I don't think so.
No sour grapes. Sales reflect the product's desirability in the market. The Cruze and 'Bu are the best reasonable priced/high quality cars GM has made in a very long time.
Yes, Toyota and Honda have supply issues, no doubt. GM, Ford, C and the Korean Mob cleaned up in May and June.
BTW, Caddy sales were down and the off-shore premiums were up. What gives with the new "Standard of the World" anyway? :confuse:
Turbo is here to stay. Like it or not. The 10 yr/100K makes me feel confident the issues are at least covered past the normal life I keep my vehicles.
Direct injection neatens the design even more by delivering fuel into the engine cylinders rather than through the valves. The 275-horsepower Optima SX accelerates from zero-to-sixty miles-per-hour in 6.5 seconds, and averages 34 miles-per-gallon on the highway.
Americans have traditionally shied away from turbochargers due to oil coking problems and sluggish hot weather performance. Intercooling and a unique air guide duct reduces the charge temperature by ten degrees Celsius.
In order to ease customer concerns about long-term durability, engineers benchmarked the new engine at 6800 rpm for twenty hours. As with all of the automaker’s vehicles, the high-performance Optima carries a ten year/100,000 mile factory warranty.
But then, you wouldn't want to buy a car assembled by a union worker nor would you buy a car from a company subsidized by their government.
My experience with GM prevents any purchase considering their failed business and horrid service history for my last GM for a very long time. My money bailed them out and we'll see if it ever gets paid back in full.
I want to see how long they last with the NEW and IMPROVED UAW contracts.
You keep supporting them while you still can. Be my very special guest!
Could care less that the Korean government bailed out their auto companies. Their failures seemed to have taught them a lesson.
Now we see if GM can learn. You know they blindly decided to fail. Just admit it.
Comments
One advantage of modernized classics is that they are nearly impossible to kill as everything is simple mechanically and everything critical has been swapped out and replaced with modern parts that will last 10-20 years.
It's really the best way to go - you get modern driving and reliability and you're still driving around a classic car that turns heads.
40-50K on such a vehicle isn't so far-fetched now with some very basic cars now reaching towards 30K.
That was WWII of course. But, the Toyota company did provide a jeep version they called BJ to U.S. military during Korean war.
Course, as always, YMMV.
I think those Chevy ads had a big effect on me. "See the USA, in your Chevrolet." I grew up on the Dinah Shore version.
Yeah Steve, Rt 66 with a 59 Impala flat top and optional 348 engine would work on it, or maybe a Kingswood or Parkwood wagon.
Regarding the Route 66 drive, I say you risk it and do it in a vintage ride. Maybe something freshly redone, or maybe even with modern mechanicals.
How appropriate - English teacher and 59 Chevy bookend rear fins. Only a librarian could top that!
I don't know why Chevy doesn't use an updated version of this song in their commercials. I always thought it was effective. Maybe try different artists giving the song their own style.
I always liked their magazine ads in the early '70's too, with a shiny Chevy and a good-looking family at some scenic or historic American vacation spot.
I remember reading an old road test of a 1959 Chevy...one of those old "Uncle Tom" McCahill tests. The car had a 348 with tri-power (a Pontiac term, but I can't remember what Chevy called their 3-2bbls) and 280 hp. It also had a 3-speed Turboglide. 0-60 came up in something like 13.1 seconds, which IMO is kind of a dog for something like that.
I've heard that the Turboglide might have been the culprit. Normally, three speeds are better than two, but I've heard that with Chevy transmissions, that wasn't always the case. I think the 2-speed Powergide might have actually been a better choice.
Also, IMO, isn't 280 hp kind of low for something that displaces 348 CID and has 3-2bbl carbs? Just to show what the competition was putting out, that year Plymouth got 230 hp out of a 318-2bbl, 260 out of the 4-bbl, and 305 out of a 361 2-bbl! Smaller Ford V-8s were a bit doggish that year, it seems, with a 200 hp 292, 225 hp 332, but their 352 put out a decent 300 hp. Dunno if that was with a 2- or 4-bbl carb, though.
edit: found the '59 Chevy road test online: http://www.xframechevy.com/1959/mechanix-illustrated-a-road-test-of-the-1959-che- vrolet-impala/
Nowadays, a 4-cyl Malibu probably weighs about that much.
Oh, and for comparison, here's a road test of a 1958 Impala:
http://www.55-57chevys.com/coccc/articles/580/58sty1.html
This one had a 348 with 4-bbl carb and 250 hp, and a Turboglide. Similar weight, although this one was a hardtop coupe, which normaly weighs less than a hardtop sedan. So, considering the '59 was a bit larger, had 4-doors and still no B-pillar, but weighed about the same, that would indicate to me that it was flimsier.
FWIW, this one at least had a fairly decent acceleration time of 10.1 seconds, which was pretty good back then.
And it's too bad I can't write scathing similes like Tom McCahill could. He would have said flooring it was like "stepping on a wet sponge." :shades:
Yeah, around 10 seconds would be fine for me, too. FWIW, I also found some road tests of a '60 and '61 Impala, and both had the 250 hp 348-4bbl setup and Turboglide, like the '58. I think one of them did 0-60 in 10.5 and the other in 10.6 seconds. So that makes me wonder if there was something wrong with the '59 that Uncle Tom tested with the 3x2 carb setup. Maybe there was some issue with the linkage, and the secondaries didn't open upwhen they should have? Or the transmission was acting up?
10-10.6 seconds isn't a horrible acceleration time, but imagine these days, just about any new car on the market is quicker than that. I think the late 90's/00's Taurus with the old 3.0 Vulcan V-6, and around 153 hp, was good for 0-60 in around 10.5-11 seconds, and I've seen tests of the Mopar 300/Charger/Magnum with the 2.7, which were similar.
You can blame McCahill for all the emphasis on 0 to 60 times. That was his benchmark. That and making people climb in the trunk for review photos.
high-performance, low-profile tires from Hankook. EVO's...on one occasion, right after getting about 6 hours of dental work done...crowns and fillings, pretty much the whole works, I pulled out onto E.22nd in Tucson heading west towards downtown.
Crack...bang...clump.
"Oh, that can't be good," I said to my son.
"Great" he replied.
I limped to a Pep Boys on 22nd. He said my tire couldn't be repaired. So I took a motel room along I-10 because I have those little donut tires for spares (I had the next day off of work) and went to Sears at the Park Place Mall in east Tucson first thing next AM. They repaired the tire for about $10 and it was fine and never gave me another problem. Someone must've dropped an auto part or something sharp and metal off of a truck on 22nd St. and I found it!
Love the look of the tire and wheel together, they love the twisties and the freeways but the car does not take a bump very well, it's the tight "sport" suspension. It's built that way on purpose by Mitsubishi.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Among low-priced big cars, I think Plymouth really got it right for '58, by making the 318 their standard V-8 from then on out. They'd keep a 6-cyl around for budget-minded buyers, but no more messing around with under-sized, under-powered V-8's...well, until the 1970's, at least!
It took Ford and Chevy a long time to catch on to this trend. Ford's 292 was no powerhouse, down to 170 hp by 1962! For '63, it was dropped, but replaced by the 164 hp 260 V-8! For '64, they got the 289 enlargement, with 195 hp, and for '68, the 302 with 215 hp. Finally, in 1973, when the cars got too heavy, and emissions controls were cutting power, they made a 351 with 158 net hp the standard engine.
Chevy kept the 283 around through 1967, and it ended that year with 195 hp. It was replaced by a 307 (totally different from the later Olds 307) in '68, and that wasn't much better at 200 hp. CR tested a '68 Impala with this engine and the Powerglide, and got 0-60 in about 14.5 seconds. For 1969, according to my old car book at least (which as been wrong before) they wisely went to a 327 with 235 hp as the base big car V-8. My book also lists that engine in '70, although I think it was getting phased out in favor of the 350. For '71, a 250 hp 350 became the standard big-car V-8.
Meanwhile, Plymouth kept with the 318 as the standard full-sized car V-8 through 1973. In 1974, they went to a standard 360, but in '75 made the 318 a credit engine, and then standard from '76-77, which would be the last of the big Plymouths, with the exception of the short-lived, '80-81 Gran Fury, which again used a 318 as the base V-8.
This 145 hp 305 is listed as being standard on the Chevelle wagon, full-sized Chevies, and optional on the Monte Carlo.
But then there's a 165 hp 350 shown as being optional on the Nova, all Chevelles, Camaro, Monte Carlo, and fullsized cars.
And a step down, there was a 140 hp 305 listed as standard V-8 on the Nova and Chevelle (base engine was a 250-6, of course), Monte Carlo, and optional on the Monza.
So I'm wondering if that 145 hp engine they listed was actually a watered-down 350 with a 2-bbl carb?
It just seems dumb to me to offer a 305 with 140 hp and one with 145. But I could see a 350, since even though you didn't have much more hp, you would've still had a lot more torque.
Yeah, it was. Ford made the larger 312 T-bird V-8 an option on the regular cars in 1956, and by '57 was offering 332 and 352 CID versions. Plymouth only offered the 318 in the Fury for 57, but it was offered across the board in '58, with the new 350 wedge showing up as a Fury option and, according to my old car book, being offered across the board, but this book has been wrong before, so I dunno if it was a Fury-only engine that year or not. It was offered in the Dodge Royal/Custom Royal and DeSoto Firesweep as well.
So, in light of that, I guess Chevy figured they had to bring in a bigger engine to go against what Ford and Mopar were doing, and just grabbing one from the truck lineup was the quickest way to go.
Considering that in later years, the smallblock went to 350 and even 400 CID, I wonder why they didn't just offer bigger versions earlier on? Maybe the technology wasn't there yet in the late 50's, to get their smallblock to those sizes?
And yeah, the 409 was an enlargement of the 348.
Throughout it all, the seasoned negotiators must be mindful of appearances after the highly politicized government-backed bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler. Neither side wants to look like it's slipping back into old ways.
The UAW's top agenda will be "jobs, jobs, jobs," UAW Vice President General Holiefield said in May. "It is all about putting America back to work."
For GM and Ford, the talks will be about getting labor costs in line with foreign rivals.
Marty Mulloy, Ford's vice president of labor affairs, said Ford's hourly labor costs are at $58, compared with about $50 for Asian automakers in the U.S.
"We are still above the market," Mulloy said. "That doesn't mean we can't structure a deal which is fair to all parties. That's the challenge."
My question is why you need the UAW to make this happen. How much of the extra cost is directly from the UAW expenses??
Contract Talks 2011
Regards,
OW
Why can't GM, Ford and Chrysler revamp the need for any UAW costs?
Regards,
OW
I don't know.
How do you propose they could do that? Maybe they could just have Oprah snap her fingers and pooof all the union costs go away? LOL
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think it's because they are under a contract, so it's a legal requirement. And the auto companies did agree to those contracts. And in BK they (stupidly) didn't get the contracts voided, so they are still liable. Boat anchor anyone?
Sorry to respond to my own post, but sho' 'nuff, that's what my old car book did! According to this page, right from the '76 full sized Chevy brochure, the base engine was a 145 hp 350 with a 2-bbl carb.
We'll see if the results are reduced to better products or the same old GM results from a huge HR problem which will render them second rate as in the past.
So the C-11 saved millions of jobs which will now force the new entities to suffer the consequences of higher costs which will be locked in by the same old UAW? Doesn't sound like it was a huge success at the moment. We'll see.
Regards,
OW
The answer to the decaying power of the '70's.
Regards,
OW
it'sits chance.How would you have done things, circlew? Have everyone buy Kias? Remember Kia/Hyundai are heavily subsidized by Korea (and the US).
Just how would you have handled the US auto industry giants? Remember you have to please the taxpayers, politicians, and the Unions who elected you. I'm anxious to hear the solution.
"I could not agreee more. Most on this board are ignorant of the real issues. Hyuandai/Kia are the same company -heavily subsidized by the Korean government since their founding. The US has subsidized the S. Korean economy for 60+ years at the cost of hundreds of billions of US taxpayers dollars."
"I could not agreee more. Most on this board are ignorant of the real issues. Hyuandai/Kia are the same company -heavily subsidized by the Korean government since their founding. The US has subsidized the S. Korean economy for 60+ years at the cost of hundreds of billions of US taxpayers dollars."
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/02/18/hyundai-kia-us-auto-sales-soar/
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The transplant total worker cost ends up less than just the benefits for the UAW worker.
Wonder how they are even in business? It must be the incompetent engineers and management who somehow managed to float a system like this in the wake of 11% loss of market share over the last couple decades.
Failure means history in my book. Now that GM is resurrected, let's see just how outstanding their products become.
You think the competition is shaking in their shoes?????? HA!
Most on this board are blind to the REAL GM issues which linger on under their noses.
Regards,
OW
Simple solution.
Regards,
OW
After all, they don't even print money any more. They just add it in a computer somewhere. Since the U.S. is already broke, and can't possibly pay it back, why not bail out whomever needs it if it's all monopoly money and fake promises anyways? At least get some mileage out of the world's goodwill and our credit rating before it all implodes in a few years.
Note - this has nothing to do with ethics, either. The ship as sailed and it's far too late to do anything about it. Protect what we can, bail out what we can, and hold on. That cliff is coming sooner than most people realize.
For one summer between junior and senior years of high school I had one of those Fords with the T-bird V-8. It was a fast bugger. I loved it but come September my dad, who did actually own it, sold it.
Yeah, three of the top four-selling vehicles last month were from Chevrolet. Man, they got problems.
Yes 2 months in a row they are the top sellers. Chevy rules!
Let's see when the UAW contracts are settled if everything continues to come up roses.
Regards,
OW
Wouldn't most people say that manufacturers that had the top sellers but are now down the list, are the ones with problems? And here comes the quake/tsunami issues--which were terrible, no doubt--but if those companies are so 'American', why the problems now?
I don't care for the "Hey look at me" styling of the Korean cars. I don't think it will age well. The Kia's crooked grin grill and ugly wheels turn me off. So does the Sonata's slanty-eyed wavy grill thing. Time will tell if they have the same type of direct injection problems that Audi has had with theirs; and their high epa numbers I believe come at the expense of some marginally engineered thin-steeled chassis and suspension parts in an attempt to keep their weight down.
There is a huge problem with early 2000s Kia and Hyundai subframes that rust to the point that the wheels can fall off. It is under recall, and to be fair other manufacturers have had this problem, most notably Toyota trucks and Ford Windstar subframes. As cars get lighter, I think this will continue to be problem
I am also not a fan of turbocharging to increase power. I have had 3 turbocharged cars in the past and all three have had head gasket problems. I realize the technology has advanced but I do not think a turbo
motor will have the longevity of a non-aspirated one. Will these engines from Hyundai, VW, Gm, etc. make 200k with no problems? I don't think so.
Yes, Toyota and Honda have supply issues, no doubt. GM, Ford, C and the Korean Mob cleaned up in May and June.
BTW, Caddy sales were down and the off-shore premiums were up. What gives with the new "Standard of the World" anyway? :confuse:
Regards,
OW
Direct injection neatens the design even more by delivering fuel into the engine cylinders rather than through the valves. The 275-horsepower Optima SX accelerates from zero-to-sixty miles-per-hour in 6.5 seconds, and averages 34 miles-per-gallon on the highway.
Americans have traditionally shied away from turbochargers due to oil coking problems and sluggish hot weather performance. Intercooling and a unique air guide duct reduces the charge temperature by ten degrees Celsius.
In order to ease customer concerns about long-term durability, engineers benchmarked the new engine at 6800 rpm for twenty hours. As with all of the automaker’s vehicles, the high-performance Optima carries a ten year/100,000 mile factory warranty.
Regards,
OW
So your solution for the UAW in GM (C and F) would have been to do nothing and just have the company(ies) go bankrupt? LOL
That's no solution.
But then, you wouldn't want to buy a car assembled by a union worker nor would you buy a car from a company subsidized by their government. Right?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My experience with GM prevents any purchase considering their failed business and horrid service history for my last GM for a very long time. My money bailed them out and we'll see if it ever gets paid back in full.
I want to see how long they last with the NEW and IMPROVED UAW contracts.
You keep supporting them while you still can. Be my very special guest!
Could care less that the Korean government bailed out their auto companies. Their failures seemed to have taught them a lesson.
Now we see if GM can learn. You know they blindly decided to fail. Just admit it.
So far, so good....until contract time.
Regards,
OW