My '91 Escort had a soft-touch dash top, something you won't find in a loaded Fiesta today. Or any B-segment car I've tried. Of course, using that inflation calculator, my Escort also cost more.
We are spoiled with the added content, though. All I required for my Escort was A/C and a cassette player.
The younger folks here are asking themselves, what's a cassette player?
Yeah, my Dad was expecting a nav system and all kinds of other gadgets with that Focus that weren't available on a subcompact not too long ago. Back in the day, most of his cars had an AM radio and a heater as about the only creature comforts. Power windows? Power locks? Dad wasn't going to waste his hard-earned money on such frivolity!
I hate that you can't get a cassette player in a car nowadays! All my older music is still on cassette! My 2002 Cadillac Seville STS was cool because it had both a cassette player and a 6-disc CD player! CDs are on their way out. My sister plugs her iPod into the dashboard of her Focus. I have a port for an iPod on my Cadillac DTS, but no iPod to plug into it.
Remember how 8-tracks would have some songs broken in half? Say, you had an 8-track of Three Dog Night, the label would read TRACK ONE "Shambala Part 1" then TRACK TWO "Shambala Part 2." God, that was annoying hearing that click in the middle of your favorite song!
CD quality, I'm not going to use an Ipod. The quality of a 128 or 256Khz MP3 or AAC file leaves a lot to be desired.
I think Acura got it right with DVD- Audio which is higher quality than CD. Apple's gone backwards with sound quality, for the only and sole benefit of being able to fit 100 songs on 1 CD's worth of memory.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Some audiophiles won't give up on them. Guess they like the hiss.
"U.S. music-cassette sales are up about 50% to 23,000 albums so far this year, compared with the same period last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan. But that statistic doesn't include all private tape production or sales of blank and used tapes.
Steve Stepp, president of National Audio Co., the largest U.S. cassette-tape manufacturer, says he has seen a surge in cassette-tape sales. He says he has doubled his staff to about 60 from 30 in 2009 to increase production at his Springfield, Mo., factory."
All things considered, I think new cars are a bit of a bargain these days.
I agree. Yes sticker prices seem high, but it has been like that for as long as I can remember.
I remember going to the dealer as a kid with my grandpa when he bought his '83 Delta 88 Royale. No power windows or seats, just cloth, cruise, and A/C. I remember it having a sticker price over $11k, that's nearly $26k today.
Could you imagine today paying $26k for a 140hp 4 door sedan with no leather, no power anything, cruise, and A/C? I don't think it had a cassette deck either. My wife's '11 Taurus is a base model that had a sticker of around 26k. It has over 260hp , FI, a 6speed trans, traction control, ABS, 4 wheel disk brakes, power windows, power drivers seat, CD, cruise, airbags, and a few other features not even dreamed of in 1983. Not to mention it's probably 3 to 4 seconds quicker 0-60 while getting much better FE.
So all and all I'd say we are getting a bit more for our money.
CD quality, I'm not going to use an Ipod. The quality of a 128 or 256Khz MP3 or AAC file leaves a lot to be desired.
You can't make the music my kids listen to sound any worse whether it was on vinyl, cassette, CD, or 128k/256k mp3;)
Anymore, I listen to music in the car more than anywhere else. I keep most of my music in my android phone. I plug it into the aux port in my Expedition. It sounds as good as the music coming over the air or from Sat radio. Granted it's a factory system, so you're not going to notice much difference between CD or Ipod.
I have 6 disks in the in dash changer too. I really can't tell much difference in sound quality. I just like having every song in my library accessible all of the time. No more lugging around a brief case of cassettes or binders of CDs.
When I'm riding the tractor while mowing, I usually will stream music via Pandora. It all sounds good enough to me.
Your right, a lackluster sound system will make a lackluster source sound just fine.
Your sound sytem is only as good as its weakest link.
Satellite Radio is a big disappointment with sound quality. The potential and technology are there, unfortunately the companies that provide the service are greedy cheap bastards that downgrade and compress the signals that get beamed out to people. I'm not suprised anything sounds as good as Satellite Radio.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Not to mention it's probably 3 to 4 seconds quicker 0-60 while getting much better FE.
Might be even faster than that. The Olds 307 had 150 hp in 1980, but then dropped to 140 from 1981-90. However, as engine management/computers/emissions/etc improved, they did get better performance out of them. For instance, I remember Fintail posting a 0-60 time from a 1981 consumer Guide, of a Pontiac Bonneville with a 307, and they got 0-60 in around 14 seconds. But by 1985, Consumer Guide got a Delta 88 Royale Brougham Holiday LS or some long-winded name like that to do 0-60 in 12 seconds. Same 140 hp setup, and same (although improved for better reliability) 4-speed automatic.
It really is amazing how far cars have come with regards to performance, but I guess as we get used to it, we take it for granted. For example, that 0-60 time of 9.8 seconds for the new Regal sound really horrible, and by today's standards it is. Especially for a car purporting to be a bit premium.
But, I found an old road test of a 1957 DeSoto Firedome convertible, same as what I have, except mine's a hardtop coupe, and they got 0-60 in around 9.7 or 9.8 seconds. Consumer Reports, in their April '57 auto issue, bitched about the DeSotos being TOO fast (if there is such a thing :P ), and that they were over-powered for their price class, and blah-blah-blah. And in a sense, a DeSoto was sort of the same market as that Buick Regal. A bit premium, but not luxury. Back then they just called it "middle-priced".
So it's funny how 55 years ago, 9.8 seconds is almost pavement-ripping, yet today it elicits yawns and even a little embarrassment. And back then, it took 5.6 liters (341 cubic inches) to get that kind of performance, whereas the Regal is doing it with just a 2.4.
For example, that 0-60 time of 9.8 seconds for the new Regal sound really horrible, and by today's standards it is. Especially for a car purporting to be a bit premium.
For what it's worth, the 1995 Dodge Neon had a claimed 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds with a stick, so yeah, Buick has to do better.
Regarding cars being "too powerful" I agree, that it is impossible as you can always modulate the throttle to compensate for "too much" power :P
The Honda salesman told me a lot of customers were complaining in 2002 about the new 2003 Accords with the 240 HP V6 being too powerful. I wrote it off as salesmanship, but maybe he was being honesT! :confuse:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Your right, a lackluster sound system will make a lackluster source sound just fine.
Your sound sytem is only as good as its weakest link.
There are a number of realities here. First, a car is a lousy environment for a sound system, since there is a lot of background noise (even in a quiet car). Second, a LOT of current recordings are recorded to make the overall tracks seem louder, through inaccurate compression of the music to raise volume. This has the effect of killing the volume differences between the quietest and loudest parts of the music. And any recording that is crappy is going to sound that way regardless of CD or MP3.
Higher bit-rate MP3s are pretty darn close to CD quality. I'd argue that in a noisy car with mostly poorly mixed audio recordings, you are not going to tell the difference between CD and MP3 if you have a direct (vs. FM) connection.
Of course if you do have an advanced sound system using 5 channel DVD sound (like my Acura TL), then that's a bunch better. But the market has pretty much spoken and it's a very limited specialty format.
For what it's worth, the 1995 Dodge Neon had a claimed 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds with a stick, so yeah, Buick has to do better.
Did yours have the stick, or the automatic? IIRC, even the automatic was a decent performer for the time. When it wasn't blowing a head gasket or having some other issue, that is.
I remember seeing a test of the fatter, heavier 2000 Neon, and its 0-60 time was 10.0 seconds, with the 3-speed automatic.
As for the new Regal, one problem with that 9.8 second time is that anybody who bought an older Regal with the 200 hp 3.8 is going to be extremely spoiled, as those things were good for 0-60 in around 8-8.5 seconds (~6.5 if supercharged). So, the sad reality is that a 15 year old base Regal will walk the new one like a dog.
You can also find adaptor for various format that plug in to cassette players, which is why some people miss them.
Nowadays it's A2DP live streaming - no cables at all...
Back in 2007, one of my friends went to the GM show in Carlisle with me, in my '76 LeMans. It just has an AM/FM radio. He had some kind of transmitter/adaptor for his iPod, that allowed him to play it over the radio speakers.
It was pretty cool, or would have been, if the LeMans's radio would have worked reliably. Sometimes I'd hit a bump and it would go out, hit another and it would come back on. At one point, we went about 1/2 hour with no music at all, but I had forgotten that I had the volume cranked up. So, needless to say, when it finally came back on, to the tune of the Doobie Brothers singing "Black Water", it scared the hell out of both of us!
I hate that you can't get a cassette player in a car nowadays! All my older music is still on cassette
I think CD players will be in cars for awhile yet. Lemko, you don't have to go Ipod. You can just hook a Boombox with cassette into your computer, get a fairly cheap software like Roxio or Net Zero (they'll also ehance the sound quality) off of Amazon and then convert into your My music folder and burn CD's in whatever order and combination you want. Once you do it a couple of times it is really pretty easy as long as you've got the time - and a lot cheaper than buying a bunch of I-Tunes downloads with limited rights and restrictions on them. It's also a way to listen to all that music you've got sitting around while you convert and make the CD's (and start feeling young!).
went to the GM.com site yesterday and priced a 2011 Silverado ext cab 4X4 LS with the 4.8 V8. After 4500 in incentives, the price was $28700 roughly. That is only a couple thousand dollar increase in MSRP in a decade from the one I bought. I think my incentives were right around 4500 too, back in '01. Mine had bedliner, autotrac, posi, and trailer pkg which would have to be added on, and my MSRP was around $31k before rebates, etc.
That's only a 1% per year price increase over a decade and I'm sure there are lots of added on treats in a new one that were not in an '01. Prices have stood still. Couple that with the loss of value of a dollar over the ten years, or look at wage growth over those ten years. Affordability is way up.
The '91 GMC Sonoma Syclone had 4WD and a turbo 4.3 V6. C&D got 1.3 seconds for 0-30 and 4.3 secs for 0-60 from it. Now a turbo Regal has slightly under half the displacement and is over 50% slower to 60. But MPGs are doubled.
Might be even faster than that. The Olds 307 had 150 hp in 1980, but then dropped to 140 from 1981-90. However, as engine management/computers/emissions/etc improved, they did get better performance out of them. For instance, I remember Fintail posting a 0-60 time from a 1981 consumer Guide, of a Pontiac Bonneville with a 307, and they got 0-60 in around 14 seconds. But by 1985, Consumer Guide got a Delta 88 Royale Brougham Holiday LS or some long-winded name like that to do 0-60 in 12 seconds.
I was thinking an 83 olds 88 with a 307 might be able to pull off an 11 second 0-60. Most times I've seen for the new taurus (non SHO) is 7.5-7.9. So I figured 3-4 seconds would cover it.
Though I imagine the 307 had enough torque for normal driving that you wouldn't notice the lack of top end HP until you stomped on it.
It's kind of that way with my Expedition. Around town and routine driving it almost feels livelier than the Taurus. It has tons of torque under 3k rpm and relatively short gearing (20mph is 4k rpm in 1st gear), so it feels strong. It's only when you really put your foot into it at higher speeds when you realize it doesn't have much left.
The Taurus OTOH, pulls a lot harder the more you get on it. It's plenty quick for a mainstream sedan.
Compared to some of my wife's previous company cars it drives like a sport sedan. I think the '03 Taurus with the ancient 3.0 vulcan v6 was the worst. That had to be a 11-12 second car. Man was it slow. Add a few people and a hot day with the A/C on and merging onto a busy highway could be a scary experience.
Did yours have the stick, or the automatic? IIRC, even the automatic was a decent performer for the time. When it wasn't blowing a head gasket or having some other issue, that is.
I had a '95 Neon Sport Coupe with the DOHC 2.0 which was 150hp with a 5 speed. IIRC it was in the 7.5 0-60 range. I beat the hell out of that car until I traded it in after 3 years and 70k miles. I never had anything major go wrong with it.
A buddy of mine at the time had a '94 Civic si hatchback and we used to go out to the country and race. It was generally 50/50 based on who got the better launch. Still made me mad as the Honda was only rated for 127HP or something like that. Even from a dead even rolling start I couldn't pull away from the Si. I believe the Honda was a bit lighter though.
As for the new Regal, one problem with that 9.8 second time is that anybody who bought an older Regal with the 200 hp 3.8 is going to be extremely spoiled, as those things were good for 0-60 in around 8-8.5 seconds (~6.5 if supercharged). So, the sad reality is that a 15 year old base Regal will walk the new one like a dog.
True, but I sure hope the new model drives a heck of a lot nicer.
Though I imagine the 307 had enough torque for normal driving that you wouldn't notice the lack of top end HP until you stomped on it.
I remember the biggest problem with my grandmother's '85 LeSabre was that it wanted to upshift way too early. I found that shifting it manually helped acceleration a lot. As long as you didn't accidentally throw it into park (which I did once Thankfully, no damage)
Peak torque was 255 ft-lb, at 2000 rpm, and hp was 140 at 3200, so it did top out at a pretty low rpm. However, my grandmother's car seemed to catch its second wind around 80 mph, I discovered. I often wondered if it was because at that point, it was going too fast to downshift, but fast enough that it was close to a sweet spot for power and torque? It only had an 85 mph speedo, so I don't know how fast I ever got it to, but it still seemed to have some guts when the needle pegged.
My grandfather had a '94 Taurus with the Vulcan. We didn't think it was a bad car at the time, but I'm sure I'd hate it now, if I ever had to experience it again! Granddad gave up driving when he turned 90 back in 2004. Offered to give it to me, but I didn't need it, so one of the other grandkids got it. Still has it, as far as I know. I remember seeing it back in 2009 at a family get together. My cousin was talking about what a dog the car is...and one of their other cars is a Toyota Corolla!
Peak torque was 255 ft-lb, at 2000 rpm, and hp was 140 at 3200, so it did top out at a pretty low rpm. However, my grandmother's car seemed to catch its second wind around 80 mph, I discovered.
Well, it certainly had to be spinning more than 2k rpm at 80mph. My guess is at higher speeds HP comes into play, so it's probably more related to peak HP and gearing. With the tall gearing those cars had you never experienced all of the HP until the engine could be turning enough rpm to develop full HP. Meaning they made max HP at 40 or so in 1st then 80 or so in second.
Gearing is probably one of the biggest reasons for increased performance of cars today (well that along with the broad powerbands DOHC engines with VVT have today). It makes a huge difference. Consider than my Expedition has a max HP of 300 at 5000rpm. The gearing allows it to hit 5k rpm at 25 or so through 1st, 45-50 in second, and 75-80 in 3rd. That makes a huge difference vs the old 4 speed that probably was 40 in 1st and close to 75 in second.
My 5.3 powered Suburban with 3.73 gears would go about 75 in second @ 5k rpm. The Expe's 5.4 has a lot more torque, but having 6 gears makes it feel completely different and far more responsive. Having more torque at a lower rpm also makes a difference too.
My grandfather had a '94 Taurus with the Vulcan. We didn't think it was a bad car at the time, but I'm sure I'd hate it now, if I ever had to experience it again!
In '94 it wasn't bad. It was a bit out dated then, but in '03 it was getting smoked by 4cyl Cam/cords. They were reliable though. I know a few people that reliably got over 200k miles out of those engines. They were just crude and didn't have much power.
Well, it certainly had to be spinning more than 2k rpm at 80mph. My guess is at higher speeds HP comes into play, so it's probably more related to peak HP and gearing.
Yeah, I wish that car had a tach, because I'd really be curious as to what it was actually turning at. I know it had a 2.73:1 axle, and I think the overdrive gear was either 0.67:1 or 0.70:1. So effectively, in 4th you had around a 1.9:1
My old Intrepid had a 3.89:1 axle and overdrive was around 0.67:1, which effectively came to around a 2.6:1. It would do 2000 rpm @60, 2500 @75, so that would mean around 2667 rpm @80.
So, with 1.9 being around 73% of 2.6, if the cars had the same diameter tire, that would mean the Buick would only be pulling around 1950 rpm @80, in 4th gear! I'm too lazy to look it up or do the math right now, but the Buick probably did have a larger overall tire diameter. It only had a 15" rim versus the Intrepid's 16", but the Intrepid had 225/60 tires, while I had 215/75's on the Buick (original spec was a 205/75/R15).
With the tall axle ratios they used to have back then, I guess it's no wonder those early 4-speeds used to hunt alot. Full-sized cars with the 305 and 4-speed got an even taller 2.56:1 axle, and I think midsized cars might have been taller, still. I think there were still some 2.41:1 axles floating around at that time. They'd usually go into overdrive around 45 mph, which in the case of my grandmother's Buick would put it at around 1100 rpm, I guess.
My 1985 Consumer Guide also has a test of a Cutlass Supreme with a 307 V-8, and it had a 2.14:1 axle! It just had a 3-speed automatic though, so I guess they slipped that tall axle in there to try and still give you some degree of good highway fuel economy. They didn't list a 0-60 time, but gave it a 4 out of 5 for acceleration, which judging from the other tests in that issue, would put it anywhere from around 9.5 to 12.5 seconds. My guess would be closer to the 12.5!
The fact that the Regal can do that 0-60 with a puny 2.4 is impressive. Still, I want at least a V-6 in that car.
Yeah, in and of itself, 0-60 in 9.8 seconds with a 3600+ lb car with only a 2.4 does sound impressive. But, where it falls apart is when you see much lesser cars that can do a lot better.
For example, the Nissan Altima only has 175 hp from a 2.5 4-cyl, but I've seen 0-60 times posted as low as 7.3 seconds. However, it's also a lot lighter, at around 3100-3200 lb I guess, and I think that 7.3 is sort of like the mythical 1965 Catalina 2+2 that did it in 3.9. It can be done, and you might even be able to do it more than once, in the right conditions. But you can't count on it reliably. I think something like 8-8.5 is more typical, unless you're at the stoplight revving the engine while holding on the brake.
I've seen 0-60 times for the current Malibu, with a 2.4, at 8.7 seconds, which doesn't sound too bad. Actually, considering the Malibu is a bit of a porker itself for its size, I'm surprised that the Regal is that much slower.
I've seen 0-60 times for the current Malibu, with a 2.4, at 8.7 seconds, which doesn't sound too bad. Actually, considering the Malibu is a bit of a porker itself for its size, I'm surprised that the Regal is that much slower.
That's kind of how I see it. I've also seen preliminary reviews on the new Camry with a 2.5 4cyl being in the high 7 second range and returns substantially better FE w/o direct injection. Granted it's 400-500 pound lighter. Still, the rule of thumb is every 100 pounds reduces FE by 1%. The Camry is getting a lot more than 5% higher FE. Considering it doesn't have DI and only .1L more of displacement GM's 2.4 seems like an under achiever to me.
Especially when the same engine does better in the Equinox and Terrain. It just doesn't make sense. Where are they losing so much efficiency with the Verano?
Maybe the 'nox was over-rated, and customers complained? If so they could be going more conservative with the EPA ratings on the Verano.
Dodge has come a long way. Aren't they using 6 speeds and looking at adding 8 speeds on some models now?
Yep, in fact even now you can get an 8-speed with the 3.6. I think it's an $895 or so option. Gives the V-6 economy a nice little boost from 18/27 to 19/31.
Oh, as for the Dodge Neon, this site does list some more respectable 0-60 times. However, some of them are R/T's, and I'm wondering if the ES model that did it in 8.1 might've had a stick shift? I remember the test I saw was of a stripper 132 hp, 3-speed auto Neon, and it was an early 2000 model, so maybe they improved them a few months later on? The 2000 Neon was rushed out around April of 1999, and I've heard it was a lame attempt to be able to claim "first new car of the new millenium", or something like that.
However, some of them are R/T's, and I'm wondering if the ES model that did it in 8.1 might've had a stick shift?
I think it did. My wife bought a '00 Neon ES 5-speed before we got married, and IIRC an 0-60 time of about 8 seconds sounds about right.
HUGE difference between the 5-speed stick and the ancient 3-speed auto. The Neon just felt more fun-to-drive, and lighter, with the manual. the auto really dogged it down.
Nowadays, the differences are virtually non-existent. Nothing replaces the feeling of a three-pedaled car, but the performance and FE penalties of an automatic are all but gone.
I had the old ancient 3 speed auto that tended to have a short lifespan unfortunately (60K miles). Figure it added somewhere between .5 and 1 full second to the 0-60 time, so it would either run neck and neck with the new Regal, or beat it by a nose.
When my head gaskets were bad, they simply leaked coolant to where I was really low on coolant and then the engine would overheat only when I came to a stop. Wind was enough to keep the engine cool, so I suppose it would still run if we did races from 20-80 MPH instead of 0-60 :P
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"General Motors took a calculated risk that it could retain Pontiac drivers under its umbrella, and the gamble appears to have paid off — with even more success than they enjoyed in previous years when Pontiac was still an option for returning customers."
Yes, I think in 1994 to maybe 1997 consumers were still choosing the 3-speed auto over the manual. But by 1998 I have to think people were getting fed up with the ancient transmission that only lasted 60,000 miles, and the fact that they offerred it still in 2000 defines more than anything why they wen't bankrupt twice in recent history.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
He said he chose the lightly used 2009 Mazda 6 Sedan last year because it looked sporty, and the speedo went up to 160 MPH! (It's the 4-banger version) :P
Hahahah. I think I was about 12 years old when I stopped paying attention to how high the speedometer went.
I'm guessing you can tell he's not into cars as much as me.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Give it a few years and maybe the brand will live again, at least as a special edition or trim.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Isn't the multitude of brands part of what got GM into the mess in the first place? It's not like the original meanings of each brand (in Pontiac's case, sportiness) were still preserved in the models that were available.
One of Steve Jobs' first activities on return at Apple was to KILL a huge number of products. He's been quoted as saying to other companies "you make some great products.... and some crap ones. Ditch the crap."
One of the original arguments of all those brands was that the same rebadged vehicle would sell to different demographics at each brand, thus increasing sales. This study seems to indicate that there's not been a loss of sales due to killing off a brand.
GM should focus on continuous improvement of existing products to excellence, not adding more junk to the portfolio.
Jobs killed everything that didn't have his stamp of approval on it. :P
Heck, I could even see GM bringing Saturn back. Those loyalty numbers are pretty impressive.
There's a reason companies have paid a lot of money to create such "new" brands like Packard-Bell and Gateway, or morph old ones, like turning Eddie Bauer into a fashion house (guess they should have stuck with outdoor gear).
I look but for the exact opposite reason - when the speedo reads up to some ridiculous speed, the usable portion of it is tiny. They actually use only about 1/4th of the available space, labels are 20mph apart, and the markings are tiny.
120mph is more than enough, that way 60 is right at the top, half way around.
160mph is not only stupid-optimistic, but actually reduces the visibility of the speeds where that Mazda can actually travel. Dumb.
If they wanted an automatic transmission, they had no choice for the first couple of years! The Neon didn't finally get a 4-speed automatic until the 2002 model year.
I remember back when I bought my 2000 Intrepid, thinking it was pathetic how low the fuel economy was on a lot of the smaller cars. Here's how they stacked up:
One reason I bought the Intrepid versus the Stratus was the improved fuel economy. Kinda ironic, buying a bigger car to SAVE on fuel! I remember they only had one Stratus on the lot, a 2.5 V-6 model that, IIRC, had leather, sunroof, and alloys. It was priced about the same as my Intrepid, with a sticker of around $21K. The Stratus actually seemed fairly comfortable to me, but the Intrepid just seemed like a lot more car, even though it lacked the leather, sunroof, and alloys.
More brands would fit right into the "order your own" dream that keeps cropping up. If you want a new car and have a few weeks, why buy one on the lot when you can have one custom built at the factory for you?
Some people like plastic doors or cladding you know.
Comments
My '91 Escort had a soft-touch dash top, something you won't find in a loaded Fiesta today. Or any B-segment car I've tried. Of course, using that inflation calculator, my Escort also cost more.
We are spoiled with the added content, though. All I required for my Escort was A/C and a cassette player.
The younger folks here are asking themselves, what's a cassette player?
The Nav system was me in the back seat, saying Dad you just missed the turn.
Nowadays it's A2DP live streaming - no cables at all...
That's an easy one to answer: it's an improvement over the 8-track players.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ah, nostalgia....
converting Your VHS tapes
Regards,
OW
I think Acura got it right with DVD- Audio which is higher quality than CD. Apple's gone backwards with sound quality, for the only and sole benefit of being able to fit 100 songs on 1 CD's worth of memory.
"U.S. music-cassette sales are up about 50% to 23,000 albums so far this year, compared with the same period last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan. But that statistic doesn't include all private tape production or sales of blank and used tapes.
Steve Stepp, president of National Audio Co., the largest U.S. cassette-tape manufacturer, says he has seen a surge in cassette-tape sales. He says he has doubled his staff to about 60 from 30 in 2009 to increase production at his Springfield, Mo., factory."
Miss the Hiss? Fanatics Flip for Tunes on Cassette Tapes (WSJ)
I remember a series of similar posts a few years back, only it was about 8 track fanatics.
Queen's Bicycle Race always fooled ours. The long silent part in the middle, where they ring the bells.
I agree. Yes sticker prices seem high, but it has been like that for as long as I can remember.
I remember going to the dealer as a kid with my grandpa when he bought his '83 Delta 88 Royale. No power windows or seats, just cloth, cruise, and A/C. I remember it having a sticker price over $11k, that's nearly $26k today.
Could you imagine today paying $26k for a 140hp 4 door sedan with no leather, no power anything, cruise, and A/C? I don't think it had a cassette deck either. My wife's '11 Taurus is a base model that had a sticker of around 26k. It has over 260hp , FI, a 6speed trans, traction control, ABS, 4 wheel disk brakes, power windows, power drivers seat, CD, cruise, airbags, and a few other features not even dreamed of in 1983. Not to mention it's probably 3 to 4 seconds quicker 0-60 while getting much better FE.
So all and all I'd say we are getting a bit more for our money.
You can't make the music my kids listen to sound any worse whether it was on vinyl, cassette, CD, or 128k/256k mp3;)
Anymore, I listen to music in the car more than anywhere else. I keep most of my music in my android phone. I plug it into the aux port in my Expedition. It sounds as good as the music coming over the air or from Sat radio. Granted it's a factory system, so you're not going to notice much difference between CD or Ipod.
I have 6 disks in the in dash changer too. I really can't tell much difference in sound quality. I just like having every song in my library accessible all of the time. No more lugging around a brief case of cassettes or binders of CDs.
When I'm riding the tractor while mowing, I usually will stream music via Pandora. It all sounds good enough to me.
Your sound sytem is only as good as its weakest link.
Satellite Radio is a big disappointment with sound quality. The potential and technology are there, unfortunately the companies that provide the service are greedy cheap bastards that downgrade and compress the signals that get beamed out to people. I'm not suprised anything sounds as good as Satellite Radio.
Might be even faster than that. The Olds 307 had 150 hp in 1980, but then dropped to 140 from 1981-90. However, as engine management/computers/emissions/etc improved, they did get better performance out of them. For instance, I remember Fintail posting a 0-60 time from a 1981 consumer Guide, of a Pontiac Bonneville with a 307, and they got 0-60 in around 14 seconds. But by 1985, Consumer Guide got a Delta 88 Royale Brougham Holiday LS or some long-winded name like that to do 0-60 in 12 seconds. Same 140 hp setup, and same (although improved for better reliability) 4-speed automatic.
It really is amazing how far cars have come with regards to performance, but I guess as we get used to it, we take it for granted. For example, that 0-60 time of 9.8 seconds for the new Regal sound really horrible, and by today's standards it is. Especially for a car purporting to be a bit premium.
But, I found an old road test of a 1957 DeSoto Firedome convertible, same as what I have, except mine's a hardtop coupe, and they got 0-60 in around 9.7 or 9.8 seconds. Consumer Reports, in their April '57 auto issue, bitched about the DeSotos being TOO fast (if there is such a thing :P ), and that they were over-powered for their price class, and blah-blah-blah. And in a sense, a DeSoto was sort of the same market as that Buick Regal. A bit premium, but not luxury. Back then they just called it "middle-priced".
So it's funny how 55 years ago, 9.8 seconds is almost pavement-ripping, yet today it elicits yawns and even a little embarrassment. And back then, it took 5.6 liters (341 cubic inches) to get that kind of performance, whereas the Regal is doing it with just a 2.4.
For what it's worth, the 1995 Dodge Neon had a claimed 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds with a stick, so yeah, Buick has to do better.
Regarding cars being "too powerful" I agree, that it is impossible as you can always modulate the throttle to compensate for "too much" power :P
The Honda salesman told me a lot of customers were complaining in 2002 about the new 2003 Accords with the 240 HP V6 being too powerful. I wrote it off as salesmanship, but maybe he was being honesT! :confuse:
Your sound sytem is only as good as its weakest link.
There are a number of realities here.
First, a car is a lousy environment for a sound system, since there is a lot of background noise (even in a quiet car).
Second, a LOT of current recordings are recorded to make the overall tracks seem louder, through inaccurate compression of the music to raise volume. This has the effect of killing the volume differences between the quietest and loudest parts of the music. And any recording that is crappy is going to sound that way regardless of CD or MP3.
Higher bit-rate MP3s are pretty darn close to CD quality. I'd argue that in a noisy car with mostly poorly mixed audio recordings, you are not going to tell the difference between CD and MP3 if you have a direct (vs. FM) connection.
Of course if you do have an advanced sound system using 5 channel DVD sound (like my Acura TL), then that's a bunch better. But the market has pretty much spoken and it's a very limited specialty format.
Did yours have the stick, or the automatic? IIRC, even the automatic was a decent performer for the time. When it wasn't blowing a head gasket or having some other issue, that is.
I remember seeing a test of the fatter, heavier 2000 Neon, and its 0-60 time was 10.0 seconds, with the 3-speed automatic.
As for the new Regal, one problem with that 9.8 second time is that anybody who bought an older Regal with the 200 hp 3.8 is going to be extremely spoiled, as those things were good for 0-60 in around 8-8.5 seconds (~6.5 if supercharged). So, the sad reality is that a 15 year old base Regal will walk the new one like a dog.
Nowadays it's A2DP live streaming - no cables at all...
Back in 2007, one of my friends went to the GM show in Carlisle with me, in my '76 LeMans. It just has an AM/FM radio. He had some kind of transmitter/adaptor for his iPod, that allowed him to play it over the radio speakers.
It was pretty cool, or would have been, if the LeMans's radio would have worked reliably. Sometimes I'd hit a bump and it would go out, hit another and it would come back on. At one point, we went about 1/2 hour with no music at all, but I had forgotten that I had the volume cranked up. So, needless to say, when it finally came back on, to the tune of the Doobie Brothers singing "Black Water", it scared the hell out of both of us!
I think CD players will be in cars for awhile yet. Lemko, you don't have to go Ipod. You can just hook a Boombox with cassette into your computer, get a fairly cheap software like Roxio or Net Zero (they'll also ehance the sound quality) off of Amazon and then convert into your My music folder and burn CD's in whatever order and combination you want. Once you do it a couple of times it is really pretty easy as long as you've got the time - and a lot cheaper than buying a bunch of I-Tunes downloads with limited rights and restrictions on them. It's also a way to listen to all that music you've got sitting around while you convert and make the CD's (and start feeling young!).
That's only a 1% per year price increase over a decade and I'm sure there are lots of added on treats in a new one that were not in an '01. Prices have stood still. Couple that with the loss of value of a dollar over the ten years, or look at wage growth over those ten years. Affordability is way up.
Gas is a different story.
I was thinking an 83 olds 88 with a 307 might be able to pull off an 11 second 0-60. Most times I've seen for the new taurus (non SHO) is 7.5-7.9. So I figured 3-4 seconds would cover it.
Though I imagine the 307 had enough torque for normal driving that you wouldn't notice the lack of top end HP until you stomped on it.
It's kind of that way with my Expedition. Around town and routine driving it almost feels livelier than the Taurus. It has tons of torque under 3k rpm and relatively short gearing (20mph is 4k rpm in 1st gear), so it feels strong. It's only when you really put your foot into it at higher speeds when you realize it doesn't have much left.
The Taurus OTOH, pulls a lot harder the more you get on it. It's plenty quick for a mainstream sedan.
Compared to some of my wife's previous company cars it drives like a sport sedan. I think the '03 Taurus with the ancient 3.0 vulcan v6 was the worst. That had to be a 11-12 second car. Man was it slow. Add a few people and a hot day with the A/C on and merging onto a busy highway could be a scary experience.
I had a '95 Neon Sport Coupe with the DOHC 2.0 which was 150hp with a 5 speed. IIRC it was in the 7.5 0-60 range. I beat the hell out of that car until I traded it in after 3 years and 70k miles. I never had anything major go wrong with it.
A buddy of mine at the time had a '94 Civic si hatchback and we used to go out to the country and race. It was generally 50/50 based on who got the better launch. Still made me mad as the Honda was only rated for 127HP or something like that. Even from a dead even rolling start I couldn't pull away from the Si. I believe the Honda was a bit lighter though.
As for the new Regal, one problem with that 9.8 second time is that anybody who bought an older Regal with the 200 hp 3.8 is going to be extremely spoiled, as those things were good for 0-60 in around 8-8.5 seconds (~6.5 if supercharged). So, the sad reality is that a 15 year old base Regal will walk the new one like a dog.
True, but I sure hope the new model drives a heck of a lot nicer.
I remember the biggest problem with my grandmother's '85 LeSabre was that it wanted to upshift way too early. I found that shifting it manually helped acceleration a lot. As long as you didn't accidentally throw it into park (which I did once
Peak torque was 255 ft-lb, at 2000 rpm, and hp was 140 at 3200, so it did top out at a pretty low rpm. However, my grandmother's car seemed to catch its second wind around 80 mph, I discovered. I often wondered if it was because at that point, it was going too fast to downshift, but fast enough that it was close to a sweet spot for power and torque? It only had an 85 mph speedo, so I don't know how fast I ever got it to, but it still seemed to have some guts when the needle pegged.
My grandfather had a '94 Taurus with the Vulcan. We didn't think it was a bad car at the time, but I'm sure I'd hate it now, if I ever had to experience it again! Granddad gave up driving when he turned 90 back in 2004. Offered to give it to me, but I didn't need it, so one of the other grandkids got it. Still has it, as far as I know. I remember seeing it back in 2009 at a family get together. My cousin was talking about what a dog the car is...and one of their other cars is a Toyota Corolla!
Well, it certainly had to be spinning more than 2k rpm at 80mph. My guess is at higher speeds HP comes into play, so it's probably more related to peak HP and gearing. With the tall gearing those cars had you never experienced all of the HP until the engine could be turning enough rpm to develop full HP. Meaning they made max HP at 40 or so in 1st then 80 or so in second.
Gearing is probably one of the biggest reasons for increased performance of cars today (well that along with the broad powerbands DOHC engines with VVT have today). It makes a huge difference. Consider than my Expedition has a max HP of 300 at 5000rpm. The gearing allows it to hit 5k rpm at 25 or so through 1st, 45-50 in second, and 75-80 in 3rd. That makes a huge difference vs the old 4 speed that probably was 40 in 1st and close to 75 in second.
My 5.3 powered Suburban with 3.73 gears would go about 75 in second @ 5k rpm. The Expe's 5.4 has a lot more torque, but having 6 gears makes it feel completely different and far more responsive. Having more torque at a lower rpm also makes a difference too.
My grandfather had a '94 Taurus with the Vulcan. We didn't think it was a bad car at the time, but I'm sure I'd hate it now, if I ever had to experience it again!
In '94 it wasn't bad. It was a bit out dated then, but in '03 it was getting smoked by 4cyl Cam/cords. They were reliable though. I know a few people that reliably got over 200k miles out of those engines. They were just crude and didn't have much power.
Yeah, I wish that car had a tach, because I'd really be curious as to what it was actually turning at. I know it had a 2.73:1 axle, and I think the overdrive gear was either 0.67:1 or 0.70:1. So effectively, in 4th you had around a 1.9:1
My old Intrepid had a 3.89:1 axle and overdrive was around 0.67:1, which effectively came to around a 2.6:1. It would do 2000 rpm @60, 2500 @75, so that would mean around 2667 rpm @80.
So, with 1.9 being around 73% of 2.6, if the cars had the same diameter tire, that would mean the Buick would only be pulling around 1950 rpm @80, in 4th gear! I'm too lazy to look it up or do the math right now, but the Buick probably did have a larger overall tire diameter. It only had a 15" rim versus the Intrepid's 16", but the Intrepid had 225/60 tires, while I had 215/75's on the Buick (original spec was a 205/75/R15).
With the tall axle ratios they used to have back then, I guess it's no wonder those early 4-speeds used to hunt alot. Full-sized cars with the 305 and 4-speed got an even taller 2.56:1 axle, and I think midsized cars might have been taller, still. I think there were still some 2.41:1 axles floating around at that time. They'd usually go into overdrive around 45 mph, which in the case of my grandmother's Buick would put it at around 1100 rpm, I guess.
My 1985 Consumer Guide also has a test of a Cutlass Supreme with a 307 V-8, and it had a 2.14:1 axle! It just had a 3-speed automatic though, so I guess they slipped that tall axle in there to try and still give you some degree of good highway fuel economy. They didn't list a 0-60 time, but gave it a 4 out of 5 for acceleration, which judging from the other tests in that issue, would put it anywhere from around 9.5 to 12.5 seconds. My guess would be closer to the 12.5!
Yeah, in and of itself, 0-60 in 9.8 seconds with a 3600+ lb car with only a 2.4 does sound impressive. But, where it falls apart is when you see much lesser cars that can do a lot better.
For example, the Nissan Altima only has 175 hp from a 2.5 4-cyl, but I've seen 0-60 times posted as low as 7.3 seconds. However, it's also a lot lighter, at around 3100-3200 lb I guess, and I think that 7.3 is sort of like the mythical 1965 Catalina 2+2 that did it in 3.9. It can be done, and you might even be able to do it more than once, in the right conditions. But you can't count on it reliably. I think something like 8-8.5 is more typical, unless you're at the stoplight revving the engine while holding on the brake.
I've seen 0-60 times for the current Malibu, with a 2.4, at 8.7 seconds, which doesn't sound too bad. Actually, considering the Malibu is a bit of a porker itself for its size, I'm surprised that the Regal is that much slower.
That's kind of how I see it. I've also seen preliminary reviews on the new Camry with a 2.5 4cyl being in the high 7 second range and returns substantially better FE w/o direct injection. Granted it's 400-500 pound lighter. Still, the rule of thumb is every 100 pounds reduces FE by 1%. The Camry is getting a lot more than 5% higher FE. Considering it doesn't have DI and only .1L more of displacement GM's 2.4 seems like an under achiever to me.
Maybe the upcoming 2.5 will rectify these issues.
Dodge has come a long way. Aren't they using 6 speeds and looking at adding 8 speeds on some models now?
They just need to hurry and replace the Caliber and 200/Avenger.
Especially when the same engine does better in the Equinox and Terrain. It just doesn't make sense. Where are they losing so much efficiency with the Verano?
Maybe the 'nox was over-rated, and customers complained? If so they could be going more conservative with the EPA ratings on the Verano.
http://www.insideline.com/hyundai/elantra/2011/2012-honda-civic-vs-2011-chevrole- t-cruze-vs-2011-hyundai-elantra-comparison-test.html
Verano: 9.0s to 60mph
Cruze LTZ 1.4T: 9.3s to 60mph
Verano: 20mpg observed
Cruze LTZ: 25mpg observed
So Cruze is just a few ticks off the pace, but 25% more fuel efficient.
Yep, in fact even now you can get an 8-speed with the 3.6. I think it's an $895 or so option. Gives the V-6 economy a nice little boost from 18/27 to 19/31.
Oh, as for the Dodge Neon, this site does list some more respectable 0-60 times. However, some of them are R/T's, and I'm wondering if the ES model that did it in 8.1 might've had a stick shift? I remember the test I saw was of a stripper 132 hp, 3-speed auto Neon, and it was an early 2000 model, so maybe they improved them a few months later on? The 2000 Neon was rushed out around April of 1999, and I've heard it was a lame attempt to be able to claim "first new car of the new millenium", or something like that.
I think it did. My wife bought a '00 Neon ES 5-speed before we got married, and IIRC an 0-60 time of about 8 seconds sounds about right.
HUGE difference between the 5-speed stick and the ancient 3-speed auto. The Neon just felt more fun-to-drive, and lighter, with the manual. the auto really dogged it down.
Nowadays, the differences are virtually non-existent. Nothing replaces the feeling of a three-pedaled car, but the performance and FE penalties of an automatic are all but gone.
When my head gaskets were bad, they simply leaked coolant to where I was really low on coolant and then the engine would overheat only when I came to a stop. Wind was enough to keep the engine cool, so I suppose it would still run if we did races from 20-80 MPH instead of 0-60 :P
Pontiac Owners Remain Loyal to GM, Edmunds.com Study Says (Inside Line)
Give it a few years and maybe the brand will live again, at least as a special edition or trim.
He said he chose the lightly used 2009 Mazda 6 Sedan last year because it looked sporty, and the speedo went up to 160 MPH! (It's the 4-banger version) :P
Hahahah. I think I was about 12 years old when I stopped paying attention to how high the speedometer went.
I'm guessing you can tell he's not into cars as much as me.
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Isn't the multitude of brands part of what got GM into the mess in the first place? It's not like the original meanings of each brand (in Pontiac's case, sportiness) were still preserved in the models that were available.
One of Steve Jobs' first activities on return at Apple was to KILL a huge number of products. He's been quoted as saying to other companies "you make some great products.... and some crap ones. Ditch the crap."
One of the original arguments of all those brands was that the same rebadged vehicle would sell to different demographics at each brand, thus increasing sales. This study seems to indicate that there's not been a loss of sales due to killing off a brand.
GM should focus on continuous improvement of existing products to excellence, not adding more junk to the portfolio.
Heck, I could even see GM bringing Saturn back. Those loyalty numbers are pretty impressive.
There's a reason companies have paid a lot of money to create such "new" brands like Packard-Bell and Gateway, or morph old ones, like turning Eddie Bauer into a fashion house (guess they should have stuck with outdoor gear).
VW Bugatti anyone?
I look but for the exact opposite reason - when the speedo reads up to some ridiculous speed, the usable portion of it is tiny. They actually use only about 1/4th of the available space, labels are 20mph apart, and the markings are tiny.
120mph is more than enough, that way 60 is right at the top, half way around.
160mph is not only stupid-optimistic, but actually reduces the visibility of the speeds where that Mazda can actually travel. Dumb.
I remember back when I bought my 2000 Intrepid, thinking it was pathetic how low the fuel economy was on a lot of the smaller cars. Here's how they stacked up:
Intrepid 2.7: 20/29 (18/27 in today's ratings)
Stratus 2.5 V-6: 19/27 (17/25)
Stratus 2.4 4-cyl: 20/28 (17/26)
Neon 2.0 4-cyl: 25/31 (22/28)
One reason I bought the Intrepid versus the Stratus was the improved fuel economy. Kinda ironic, buying a bigger car to SAVE on fuel! I remember they only had one Stratus on the lot, a 2.5 V-6 model that, IIRC, had leather, sunroof, and alloys. It was priced about the same as my Intrepid, with a sticker of around $21K. The Stratus actually seemed fairly comfortable to me, but the Intrepid just seemed like a lot more car, even though it lacked the leather, sunroof, and alloys.
Don't do it...Chevrolet suffered (badly) while Saturn was getting the attention.
It waters GM down when they have to spread themselves so thin.
Some people like plastic doors or cladding you know.