Based on history, why is it a crime to be import-biased? Did GM (or the other D2) make the best cars in the world between 1972 and 2008?
Sheesh, I surely believe you put the cut-off way earlier than reality.
How soon some forget how crappy '70's Japanese cars often were, too...as well as cars like the VW Rabbit. Were the domestics great? Maybe not great, but I think an unbiased view would concede that, generally, U.S. cars still were the best in the world, dollar-for-dollar, well into the '70's.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It's not about how crappy the competition was. It's about the decisions which led to the demise of cars the D3 produced. The competition then blew ahead of the D3 in the car market like Ferrari racing a VW Bug!
But not to digress, Mark Reuss has a brilliant idea with a parts-bin concept. I hope the bean-counters and Akerson give it the Green Light. AFAIC, this would give Caddy a world-class CAR.
About the "cut-off". I would put it at 1972 afic but here is generally depiction of the decline. It wasn't an actual one year cuttoff but it started early in the 70's.
By 1969, imports had increased their share of the U.S. auto market, with Volkswagen selling 548,904 vehicles, followed by Toyota with 127,018 vehicles. In response to this, the domestic auto makers introduced new compact and sub-compact cars, such as the Ford Pinto and Maverick, the Chevrolet Vega, and the AMC Gremlin, Hornet and Pacer. However, design and manufacturing problems inflicted a number of these cars and led to unfavorable perceptions of the cars.
The auto industry was severely affected by the 1973 oil crisis Arab embargo. Small fuel-efficient cars from foreign automakers took a sharply higher share of the U.S. auto sales market. The federal government initiated fuel efficiency standards (known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE) in 1975, effective as of 1978 for passenger cars, and as of 1979 for light trucks. For passenger cars, the initial standard was 18 miles per gallon (mpg), and increased to 27.5 mpg by 1985.
General Motors began responding first to the high gas prices, by downsizing most of their models by 1977.
I bought a 1977 GP because it still was a decent sized car.
General Motors began responding first to the high gas prices, by downsizing most of their models by 1977.
GM actually HAD to react first, because they had the most to lose. I remember reading that in 1975, GM had the worst CAFE average of the Big Three, at something like 11.4 mpg. I think Chrysler was actually the best off around 14.
Now, that doesn't mean that, car for car, GM models fared worse than the competition, but merely that GM was far more dependent on big cars.
That year, Chrysler only had two models bigger than a compact that sold more than 100,000 units. They were the Chrysler Cordoba, at around 150,000, and the intermediate Plymouth Fury, at around 115-120,000. In contrast, the compact Dart sold around 205,000 units, and the Valiant/Duster sold around 265,000.
Meanwhile, at GM, they sold about 275K Novas, 285K Chevelle/Malibus, 259k Monte Carlos, and around 414K full-sized Chevies. And further up the ranks, Pontiac, Olds, Buick, and Cadillac were even more dependent on bigger cars.
As for GM, and the domestic industry's decline, I'd agree with you that the early 70's were definitely the turning point. That doesn't mean that the cars were suddenly inferior to the competition, but merely that, in many respects, they weren't as good as the models they were replacing.
Interestingly though, that had been going on for quite some time. For instance, 1965 was a definite turning point. A record number of cars were built that year, and quality started slipping. I remember Consumer Reports noting a record number of sample defects in just about all of the new cars they tested that year. And, going back even further, most cars built in 1957-59 weren't as well-built as 1956 and earlier models.
I remember an old episode of CR that published a letter from a subscriber asking, of the 1959 Chevy, if it was possible for GM to roll their sheetmetal any thinner?! And, as the years went by, the answer to that question would prove to be, time and time again, YES!! (to be fair though, EVERYBODY started using thinner sheetmetal over the years.)
Thanks for the correction. I had read that in these forums so I assumed it to be true (I know, never believe...). But the point is still valid. Why have a super sports car with a crappy interior? It's so close to ideal, yet falls short.
That's why I'm so glad the lady in charge of products at GM won over in regards to the quality of the interior on the Cruze. It was headed toward being another crummy interior if the bean counters had had their way. Just think if they got the engine/tranny combo better - it might lead its class of vehicles.
How soon some forget how crappy '70's Japanese cars often were, too...as well as cars like the VW Rabbit. Were the domestics great? Maybe not great, but I think an unbiased view would concede that, generally, U.S. cars still were the best in the world, dollar-for-dollar, well into the '70's.
All cars were crappy in the '70s. If your choice was a Vega vs. a Corolla, I'd take the Corolla of the day, thank you. Not even close.
The difference (as I've pointed out before) is that the other makes largely cleaned up their messes, while GM kept on messing for 20-30 years. THAT makes a big difference in brand perception.
Totally unrelated - is the forum software now auto-adding the replier's name to the chain of subject in the header of each post for EVERY reply? It's getting kind of unwieldy!
Neither the Vega or Corolla would even be on my radar! I would, however, take a nice Dodge Dart if economy was my goal!
I'd have absolutely NO problem with any 1977-79 era GM B or C body gasoline-powered car! Those were, and still are, excellent cars! Heck, I wouldn't mind having something like a 1979 Chevrolet Caprice Classic as a daily driver today!
Neither the Vega or Corolla would even be on my radar! I would, however, take a nice Dodge Dart if economy was my goal!
If you wanted bare-bones transportation in those days, I'm sure a Corolla would have beaten the pants off a Vega. But, if you wanted a nicer small car with an automatic and a/c, I have a feeling the playing field would have been leveled considerably.
Darts and Valiants could be fairly economical, but as the 70's wore on, the slant six just didn't take well to emissions controls, and by '74-76, you might have been just as well off with the 318 V-8!
A Chevy Nova with a straight-six might be a fairly well-balanced car. I personally prefer the Mopars, because they have more legroom up front, and like the fact they still offered a true hardtop right up through the end in '76, but I think a Nova would be my second choice in a small (for the early/mid 70's) car.
oyota fans may not like this, but I think a big reason that Toyota was successful in moving up its cars was that it emulated GM in areas like ride, comfort and quiet. I've referred to Camry before as today's '63 Impala (except the Chevy back then had better looks). I've always felt that one of the strategic mistakes GM made was focusing too much on its larger cars for too long. A couple of decades ago a big 88 or Lesabre was really a good vehicle. But too often GM let the Intermediates and small cars slide. Then the Intermediates became the new full sized car after oil sky rocketed and GM had their money in the wrong vehicles. Fast forward to today and what is one of GM's current defecits? It's 4 banger isn't real competitive. There is a new 2.5L 4 in the works that should fix this, but its years behind of when it should have happened. Ford did this awhile back already.
I think GM pretty much laid the groundwork for the modern mainstream family car with the 1978 Malibu and its siblings. The car was a benchmark when it came to space efficiency. 102 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 17 cubic foot trunk, in a package that was 193" long, about 72" wide, ~54.7" tall, and on a 108.1" wheelbase. All this, despite having the inefficiencies of rear-wheel drive, body-on-frame construction, and a live rear axle.
Most intermediates today don't do much better, if any, despite having transverse engines, unit-body construction, an independent rear suspension that allows the gas tank to be put under the back seat, and the spare tire under the trunk floor, where the gas tank used to be, and an extra several inches in height (both roof and decklid).
Unfortunately, for the longest time, it seemed like GM abandoned this formula. They should have taken everything that was good about this formula and improved upon it, but they didn't, for the longest time. In fact, the Malibu actually got a bit worse in later years. Reliability took a bit of a hit for 1980, although one bright spot was a standard 229 V-6. The 1978-79 models used a 200 V-6 that was really too small and weak for a car this size. For 1981, reliability took another hit, as the rudimentary computer controls of the time started to infiltrate the cars. Also that year, IIRC, they dropped the 305 V-8 from sedans and coupes, leaving you with just a 267 V-8 as the top engine, although you could still get a 305 in the wagon. For '82, I think it was more of the same, although finally, for 1983, the 305 came back in the sedans.
The Malibu was pushed to the wayside to make room for the Celebrity, which bowed for 1982. It was about 400-500 lb lighter than the Malibu, and more fuel-efficient, offering a standard 2.5 4-cyl and optional 2.8 V-6, but it had a cheap, flimsy feel to it. Chevy ran the Celebrity alongside the Malibu in '82-83, and the Malibu actually outsold it both years! This, despite the lingering recession and scarce, expensive gasoline.
The Celebrity gave way to the Lumina, which was even worse in some respects. It was bigger on the outside than a Celebrity, and heavier, but really no roomier on the inside. It was also pretty bad in the reliability ratings, although it would improve in later years. By the time the Impala replaced it for 2000, the car was getting a bit bulky. A good 7-8" longer than the old '78-83 Malibu had been, wider, taller, and heavier, but somehow coming off more cramped inside. And this would only get worse for 2006, when the car was restyled.
Meanwhile, the Japanese kept on improving their cars, and moving into larger and larger size classes. IMO, the Japanese first hit the 1978-83 Malibu benchmark with cars like the 2002 Camry, 2002 Altima, and 2003 Accord. And from there on, they just kept improving.
IMO, the only domestic that really hits it is the Fusion. It's not huge on the outside, but feels reasonable on the inside. The current Malibu is a decent effort, but IMO suffers from a narrow passenger cabin and tight legroom in back. And the Chrysler 200/Dodge Avenger, while a bit wider perhaps, still has a tight back seat and a small trunk.
In the past, I tended to prefer domestics to Japanese cars mainly because the domestics gave you a roomier, more comfy interior. Kinda odd that nowadays, among intermediates at least, it's the Accord/Altima/Camry that lead in roominess, rather than the domestics.
Yes. That's where the Camry comparison does fall apart. They haven't even had a coupe and convertible since 08. I can't even think when the wagon bit the dust - though I know someone in here will have it off the top of their heads quicker than I could look it up....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I think the last Camry wagon was the 1992-96 generation, but not positive. Those things were really oddly proportioned, but very roomy inside, given their external dimensions.
That's right, Camry wagon last existed in 96, Accord in 97, both to be replaced in the market by pointless crossovers. The Accord was always decent looking, the 92-96 Camry was bizarre but so much so that it became interesting.
I loved the Accord wagon and the Camry was interesting enough. I hate that wagons are going the way of the dodo.
Those previous generation Camry (and Accord) hatchbacks were pretty neat. Had I not been so darned focused on 4 doors back in 80 I'd have gotten an Accord instead of the dreaded Rabbit. I could have managed the hatch but the 4 door Accord was just out of what I figured as my range. Two years later I took my losses and bought a used Accord sedan.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
1978 Malibu and its siblings. The car was a benchmark when it came to space efficiency
It was efficient, but you can't just go by numerical analysis. You mentioned the 92-96 Camry in a subsequent post. I bought a 93 after looking at a lot of different cars. That Camry may not have had the best quantitative numbers, I don't really know, but from a practical standpoint it seemed to be the most efficient combination of everything I looked at that year. Well laid out, nothing seemed wasted space and everything seemed to be located at exactly the right place in it. As for those Camry wagons, looks aside, I saw a lot of them as taxicabs at Washington National (Reagan) many years after they had come out, so I suspect they had to be very durable and reliable models. Even though they were FWD, they seemed to hold up like a full sized RWD V8 GM or Ford from those days. That Camry was definitely one of the best cars I ever bought.
I thought the Accord wagons were very nice looking. And the Camry with dual rear wipers, that makes up for many sins. Remember the 83-86 (maybe axed earlier) Camry 5 door hatch? I think they all retired to the PNW as I see them now and then still. And speaking of overengineering from another thread, the 92-96 Camry was very much overbuilt - they go on forever. I can say nice things about The Beige too :shades:
Actually, the '92-96 Camry's pretty impressive, looking at the interior volume numbers. I just pulled it up on the EPA's website. 97 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 15 cubic foot trunk (actually 14.9 according to Consumer Guide, but I think the Malibu was really 16.6; the EPA rounds off to the nearest whole number).
103.1 inch wheelbase, 187.8" long, 69.7" wide, 55.1" tall. Oh, and the wagon had a third row, so it could theoretically seat 7 people, something the Malibu couldn't do.
I was actually in a '92-96 era Camry taxi in DC just last January. It was showing its age, but considering the age, miles, and how it was being used, I was impressed.
In contrast, the secretary at work has an '00-01 Camry, and I rode in it around the same time. I remember being totally unimpressed and thinking it was actually kind of crappy. Now granted, it was at least a decade old and cars have improved since then. But, compared to my old '00 Intrepid or '00 Park Ave, it still felt kinda crappy. It didn't have all the Fischer-Price plastics and Playskool buttons and knobs my Park Ave does, but it still had a flimsy feel to it, with soft-touch materials that felt thin and fragile. And it was kinda cramped (although the EPA rates it at 97 cubic feet of passenger volume as well), and the seats seemed smallish, like they belonged in a compact car rather than an intermediate.
I have heard that the '92-96 Camry really was overbuilt and almost "too good" for this class of vehicle, so they de-contented and cheapened it for '97-01.
I have heard that the '92-96 Camry really was overbuilt and almost "too good" for this class of vehicle, so they de-contented and cheapened it for '97-01.
I totally agree on that. I never cared for that next gen Camry and I think it was the one with the engine sludge issue too. Speaking of old cabs, I was in Charlottesville, VA and got a very old, like maybe late 90's Buick Roadmaster. I glanced at the odometer and it showed over 267K. Didn't ride bad, although it had those lousy seats from back then. I think it was using the 350 engine by then, and that is one strong and reliable powerplant and drive train.
Toyota Corolla was much of a car, but, take a look at the American competition. The Vega or the Pinto, for instance? Yukko! Did anyone on here ever purchase a Chevy Vega, and if they did, how did you like it?
I would take a Datsun 510 sedan over the whole lot of 'em, yes I would, and have a little racer on my hands ta boot.
Did anyone on here ever purchase a Chevy Vega, and if they did, how did you like it?
I didn't purchase a Vega, but a good friend bought a brand new '74 Vega GT Hatchback, four speed, in metallic dark Blue. He used all the money he had saved for a couple of years working at McDonald's - his first exposure to GM. Really sharp car. We took turns carpooling to college together, so I rode in it all the time. I'd say it was a really nice looking, kind of sporty car for its day. Operationally quite good.
But after only 2-3 years, rust appeared around the windshield and the rear window (at the lower corners especially), and by 1977 it had holes in those locations. This was really common on the Vegas I saw in Southern California (where there is no snow and no road salt). My friend became more and more disgusted with the car, joking that he was going to drive it until it became a convertible.
His engine lasted longer than many, finally the block corroded through and got coolant in the cylinders around 60-70K miles or so.
On a related note, I just today saw a powder blue Pinto hatchback of about '74 or '75 vintage (it had the big 5mph bumpers) driving in front of me. Haven't seen one of those for a LONG time.
I did live in the rust belt, and I'd see the kind of rust you described on Vegas, in four or five years. Still, unacceptable.
My grandparents bought the first Vega our dealer got in...a cheapo sedan with 3-speed. They only put 6,000 miles on it in seven years!
GM replaced for free rusty front fenders for several years. I'd like to think they'd have repaired what your friend's car had, if it happened in two or three.
Believe it or not, the Vega was the small-car darling of the enthusiast magazines back then, for styling, handling, options list, and multiple bodystyles.
A friend's father worked at the Lordstown plant then. He had a '73 two-door sedan with Custom interior and GT steering wheel and gauge package. He did drive it for over 100K miles, I do remember that, but I couldn't tell you what he did to it in that time. I do know people who bought more than one Vega over the years.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My brother had a 72 Vega, my mom had a 72 Corolla and a buddy had a 72 510.
The 510 was easily the hands down winner. The Vega was OK but had the Vega rust and head gasket issues. The Corolla was a great little vehicle. My mom sold it to my brother for $500 to be paid when he sold it (college bot at the time) and maybe a year and a half later he sold it to his girlfriend for $500. What a deal!
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I did live in the rust belt, and I'd see the kind of rust you described on Vegas, in four or five years. Still, unacceptable.
When I would go to the midwest in those days, there was rust on a LOT of cars, so it wasn't uncommon. What was different about the Vega was how quickly it happened, and how it happened even in non-salted dry climates. I always wondered what was different about the metal/prep/etc. that caused that to happen.
It did seem that the '74's were worse in the rust respect than the earlier years. I wonder if there was a process change or supplier change at the restyle in '74?
I think Vega's rustproofing (or lack thereof) was the same from '71 to mid'74. I can remember reaching up underneath a new mid-year '74 and finding out that they finally started installing inner fender liners up front then.
The '76 had much-better rustproofing and the industry's only 5 yr./60K mile engine warranty. I hated the yellow taillights that year though. I guess I could still enjoy a '76 GT wagon, without the yellow taillights. Styling-wise, I like the '74 and '75 best. The '71-73 had doll-tiny bumpers, mirrors, and taillights I think. I did think the panel express was a neat concept...available with one or two front seats!
Even saying, let's exclude the Vega from the conversation. Dollar-for-dollar (accent on that), do we really think cars like Nova-size and up were worse values than what the Japanese were selling then? Recall that '70's Accords also had front fenders that rusted up top like Vegas and also had CVCC serious engine issues.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I like the early Vegas with the thin bumpers, nice looking cars - nicer looking than the competition, and everything looked awesome on paper. Shame they were made out of a paper-metal mix.
I'd take a Vega wagon maybe with an engine from a turbo Cobalt SS.
Had a friend years back who traded a somewhat troublesome Opel GT for an early Vega which turned out even more troublesome. Premature rust, engine failure, suspension problems. He moved on to Ford and shortly thereafter tried Japanese. I haven't heard from him in a long time, but the last car he was driving that I know about was Japanese. I think Vega and Pinto really hurt Detroit's reputation in smaller cars for a long time thereafter. The carfmakers probably thought cheap, low margin so cut corners. Unfortunately the consumers responded thinking Detroit had lowered their product quality on everything as a result of cars like these.
Even saying, let's exclude the Vega from the conversation. Dollar-for-dollar (accent on that), do we really think cars like Nova-size and up were worse values than what the Japanese were selling then?
Around 1974-75, weren't domestic compacts selling at a bit of a premium, whereas larger cars might have been discounted somewhat?
My grandparents bought a brand-new Dart Swinger hardtop in '75, and paid about $5,000 for it. My Mom bought a brand-new LeMans coupe that year, and also paid around $5,000. Other than the engines (225 slant six on the Dart, Pontiac 350-2bbl on the LeMans) the cars were equipped similarly. Power steering, brakes, air conditioning, 3-speed automatic, vinyl interior, bench seat, AM/FM radio. Otherwise, nothing fancy. No power windows/locks/seats, no upgraded sport rims, fancy stereos, tilt, etc. I think the Dart might have had a vinyl roof though, while the LeMans didn't.
But yeah, to answer your question, dollar for dollar and pound for pound, it was hard to beat the larger domestic cars in those days.
Even saying, let's exclude the Vega from the conversation. Dollar-for-dollar (accent on that), do we really think cars like Nova-size and up were worse values than what the Japanese were selling then? Recall that '70's Accords also had front fenders that rusted up top like Vegas and also had CVCC serious engine issues.
I think the reason we bring up Vega is to compare apples to apples. The biggest Japanese cars of the day were in the Pinto/Vega class. I don't believe they had anything like the Nova. So in some ways all sides are correct - the Japanese cars were better than the American cars in the same class. But of course there were American cars where the Japanese had no competition, so of course the American cars were better in that regard.
The early Accords may have rusted a lot, but not here in CA like the Vegas. Pretty much no other cars had rust out here. I'm sure the Japanese makers weren't used to US conditions (I doubt they salt in Japan, which IMHO is a dumb practice anyway). But they learned.
Re: CVCC problems. I remember being impressed that while the US makers were whining about the new emission standards, Honda was innovative and came up with engine technology that allowed fuel to burn so cleanly that they didn't need the catalytic converters that all other makes started using. I hadn't heard of the CVCC problems. How bad were they? I don't have the impression they were anything like the magnitude of GM diesel car or V8-6-4 type problems, but I could see that a more complex fuel handling process would add possibilities for problems.
Camry wagon last existed in 96, Accord in 97, both to be replaced in the market by pointless crossovers
They're cash cows, so not totally pointless.
But yeah, the arrival of the RAV4 in '96 and the CR-V in '97 (coincidence?!) basically meant they replaced those wagons with crossovers based on smaller platforms, yet they could get similar or more money for them with the 4x4 styling.
Everyone did it, though. You had to.
We get an Equinox and a Terrain and even a fleet only Saturn Vue replica (Chevy whats-her-name?), but no Cruze wagon or even 5 door, no Malibu wagon, even the Maxx is gone.
Nah, they serve several functions - easy ingress/egress, elevated seating position for good view, generally good visibility (RAV4 - no), wagon space levels, ground clearance + AWD for snow.
The FWD ones do seem a bit pointless.
Can we blame them, though?
CR-V sells great, RAV4 not far behind.
They could offer the Civic 5 door but it would probably cannibalize the CR-V and costs less, so it would lower sales $$$.
Same for Toyota - they have a Corolla Fielder overseas, which is a real wagon, not a 5 door hatch like the Matrix/Vibe, but it too would eat in to RAV4 sales, which again are more profitable.
GM does it - see above.
Ford's the exception - Focus 5 door looks pretty cool to me. But the Escape probably outsells it 100 to 1.
I wonder how much of that function is actually used rather than bought for the idea of it. As you mention, visibility is often terrible too, the AWD systems are seldom utilized, they are terrible off road and don't handle well on the road. I suppose for older drivers the height is nice, but you can do most of the rest in a small minivan or tall wagon - which is what these are when one scrapes away the marketing junk. If only sales were connected to the actual goodness of a vehicle, then Tempos and Citations would have been awesome :shades:
I wonder how much of that function is actually used rather than bought for the idea of it.
If people bought things only for actual used functions, then our economy would really go into the cr@pper!
I have steadfastly avoided SUVs, as I don't get snow and have no need to tow anything. I don't like bouncy rides for no good reason, and I don't like vehicles that handle, well, like a truck.
We have a minivan for cargo hauling and it gets quite good mileage and rides much more like a car, plus still has a higher seating position. I guess I'm not concerned enough about my image. :surprise:
If I were to ever get an SUV it would be a smaller one. I can almost see some value there for the boxy storage in a smaller package.
The other thing about SUVs is their tendency to roll easily. They're great in front or rear-end collisions, but forget about maneuvering. Somebody I worked with rolled and totaled their two week old Range Rover while avoiding somebody who cut in front of them. And my mother ran a stop sign she didn't see while in an unfamiliar area in her Highlander, was T-boned, and rolled over a couple of times. I doubt a car would have rolled in the same situation. Luckily and surprisingly, she was barely injured and even her dog in the car was only bruised.
The last wagon I really paid much attention to was the 2005 era Dodge Magnum. About as much cargo volume as the old '78-83 Malibu, but in a much bigger package. Visibility out the rear was horrible, too.
I wonder if one reason they really don't do car-based wagons that much anymore is that they would be too easy to overload? Cars these days really don't have much of a weight capacity...put four beefy adults and fill the trunk with luggage, and now that the Crown Vic and its ilk are gone, you'll probably exceed the GVWR of just about any car out there.
Add another 100-200 lb for a wagon body, and you suddenly have a lot more cargo area just begging to be filled, but at the same time, that's another 100-200 lb that you DON'T have anymore in payload capacity. Unless you beef up the car. And then that might affect its fuel economy, the EPA might make them certify the different body style, it might have to get subjected to crash testing, etc.
Probably easier, in the end, to just make a crossover, give it some seductive marketing, and watch it sell like hotcakes, compared to the wagon version that might not do so hot.
Well, a trend is a trend. Every one has to have one. Or six.
Even the lux brands, Audi had nothing a couple of years ago and now 2 of them are not enough, they need a 3rd.
Ours is AWD and I do need at least one snow car in our fleet, visibility is fantastic, and it probably has one of the best rides in its class. Hip point for the seats means easy in or out.
I love real wagons (not just hatchbacks, I'm talking extended roofs with D-pillars) but how many are still available? VW. And....wow, is that it?
There are simply no choices left.
Maxx is gone. Magnum is gone (fails visibility test anyway). Legacy wagon is gone, Outback only now. Focus wagon is gone, the 5 door comes close. Would make my short list today, though. Still not really a wagon, though.
You almost have to downsize and get a box like the Cube/Soul or just settle for a B-segment 5 door. They are not exactly family-sized, though.
Oh, TSX wagon exists, and A4 Avant, plus other lux wagons. Not the same price class as the Equinox/CR-V/Escape, though.
Andre, that was some serious cash for a Dart Swinger in '75, although I do remember GM prices went up quite a bit for '75 with the advent of catalytic converters and radial tires standard. Our '74 Impala Sport Coupe stickered at the bottom for $4,408, and our '77 Impala Coupe stickered at the bottom for $5,503. Both were the standard V8, auto, PS, PB, whitewalls, wheel covers, AM radio, bumper guards, extra moldings (wheel opening and rubber-insert side moldings), plus the '74 had a white painted top and rear seat speaker. Those prices included destination charges.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My Grandmom traded her black 1964 Chevrolet Biscayne sedan for a new 1973 mustard yellow 1973 Vega. It was a P.O.S. especially compared to that very solid 1964 full-size Chevy. Even to my eight year-old eyes, I could tell it was a poorly made car. The headliner was this perforated particle-board stuff that looked like it was warped. There were a lot of flimsy looking hard plastic pieces in the interior, and it was cramped even for a kid. I don't think it ran well either. It had a buzzy exhaust note like an angry lawn mower. I frequently recall sitting in the back seat with my little brother as my Grandmom talked to the Chevrolet technician next to the Vega with its hood up.
It's all just resting on the higher margin product. Maybe some wagons were almost intentionally designed poorly to move people into higher profit offerings. Carmakers aren't always clueless, they tell people what they want just as much as people tell carmakers what they want.
I'd take an E63 wagon over any SUV out there. If I was going to go the SUV route and couldn't get an ugly green 80s diesel G-wagen with a plaid interior, I might just go the full [non-permissible content removed] and get a used RR Sport/X5-6/Cayenne, then I can cut people off and drive obliviously, and not feel bad about it :shades:
It's funny though that for Europe and Asia, local makes still offer tons of wagons. But perhaps the locals don't haul such heavy items, along with roads being narrower and fuel being more expensive etc.
Ford's cash paid for EcoBoost tech, which is now spreading to performance oriented models.
Mazda sells enough CX7/9s to keep losing money on Miatas.
Toyota green lighted the FT-86, paid for with crossover profits no doubt.
We can complain, or we can look at it the way Porsche looks at a Cayenne and now Panamera - the company can make profits to build more interesting vehicles in other segments.
Step in to a time machine, and tell someone from 10 years ago that neither Volvo nor Subaru would sell a single station wagon, and they would call you a liar.
Comments
Sheesh, I surely believe you put the cut-off way earlier than reality.
How soon some forget how crappy '70's Japanese cars often were, too...as well as cars like the VW Rabbit. Were the domestics great? Maybe not great, but I think an unbiased view would concede that, generally, U.S. cars still were the best in the world, dollar-for-dollar, well into the '70's.
But not to digress, Mark Reuss has a brilliant idea with a parts-bin concept. I hope the bean-counters and Akerson give it the Green Light. AFAIC, this would give Caddy a world-class CAR.
Mark Reuss Ultimate CAR
Now THAT is a CAR! :shades:
Regards,
OW
By 1969, imports had increased their share of the U.S. auto market, with Volkswagen selling 548,904 vehicles, followed by Toyota with 127,018 vehicles. In response to this, the domestic auto makers introduced new compact and sub-compact cars, such as the Ford Pinto and Maverick, the Chevrolet Vega, and the AMC Gremlin, Hornet and Pacer. However, design and manufacturing problems inflicted a number of these cars and led to unfavorable perceptions of the cars.
The auto industry was severely affected by the 1973 oil crisis Arab embargo. Small fuel-efficient cars from foreign automakers took a sharply higher share of the U.S. auto sales market. The federal government initiated fuel efficiency standards (known as Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE) in 1975, effective as of 1978 for passenger cars, and as of 1979 for light trucks. For passenger cars, the initial standard was 18 miles per gallon (mpg), and increased to 27.5 mpg by 1985.
General Motors began responding first to the high gas prices, by downsizing most of their models by 1977.
I bought a 1977 GP because it still was a decent sized car.
Regards,
OW
GM actually HAD to react first, because they had the most to lose. I remember reading that in 1975, GM had the worst CAFE average of the Big Three, at something like 11.4 mpg. I think Chrysler was actually the best off around 14.
Now, that doesn't mean that, car for car, GM models fared worse than the competition, but merely that GM was far more dependent on big cars.
That year, Chrysler only had two models bigger than a compact that sold more than 100,000 units. They were the Chrysler Cordoba, at around 150,000, and the intermediate Plymouth Fury, at around 115-120,000. In contrast, the compact Dart sold around 205,000 units, and the Valiant/Duster sold around 265,000.
Meanwhile, at GM, they sold about 275K Novas, 285K Chevelle/Malibus, 259k Monte Carlos, and around 414K full-sized Chevies. And further up the ranks, Pontiac, Olds, Buick, and Cadillac were even more dependent on bigger cars.
As for GM, and the domestic industry's decline, I'd agree with you that the early 70's were definitely the turning point. That doesn't mean that the cars were suddenly inferior to the competition, but merely that, in many respects, they weren't as good as the models they were replacing.
Interestingly though, that had been going on for quite some time. For instance, 1965 was a definite turning point. A record number of cars were built that year, and quality started slipping. I remember Consumer Reports noting a record number of sample defects in just about all of the new cars they tested that year. And, going back even further, most cars built in 1957-59 weren't as well-built as 1956 and earlier models.
I remember an old episode of CR that published a letter from a subscriber asking, of the 1959 Chevy, if it was possible for GM to roll their sheetmetal any thinner?! And, as the years went by, the answer to that question would prove to be, time and time again, YES!! (to be fair though, EVERYBODY started using thinner sheetmetal over the years.)
Myself, I'd take the Camaro over the Corvette. Convertible, please, in green.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just trying to keep it real here.
Thanks for the correction.
I had read that in these forums so I assumed it to be true (I know, never believe...).
But the point is still valid. Why have a super sports car with a crappy interior? It's so close to ideal, yet falls short.
That's why I'm so glad the lady in charge of products at GM won over in regards to the quality of the interior on the Cruze. It was headed toward being another crummy interior if the bean counters had had their way. Just think if they got the engine/tranny combo better - it might lead its class of vehicles.
All cars were crappy in the '70s. If your choice was a Vega vs. a Corolla, I'd take the Corolla of the day, thank you. Not even close.
The difference (as I've pointed out before) is that the other makes largely cleaned up their messes, while GM kept on messing for 20-30 years. THAT makes a big difference in brand perception.
Sadly, like Shifty says, Corvette interiors do tend to age in dog years.
I'd have absolutely NO problem with any 1977-79 era GM B or C body gasoline-powered car! Those were, and still are, excellent cars! Heck, I wouldn't mind having something like a 1979 Chevrolet Caprice Classic as a daily driver today!
If you wanted bare-bones transportation in those days, I'm sure a Corolla would have beaten the pants off a Vega. But, if you wanted a nicer small car with an automatic and a/c, I have a feeling the playing field would have been leveled considerably.
Darts and Valiants could be fairly economical, but as the 70's wore on, the slant six just didn't take well to emissions controls, and by '74-76, you might have been just as well off with the 318 V-8!
A Chevy Nova with a straight-six might be a fairly well-balanced car. I personally prefer the Mopars, because they have more legroom up front, and like the fact they still offered a true hardtop right up through the end in '76, but I think a Nova would be my second choice in a small (for the early/mid 70's) car.
You can edit the title when you reply.
Pretty soon the title is going to take the whole page and we'll have to go to the next page to see the post.
Now we need Chevy to actual make an Impala.
An attractive family sedan.
A sleek convertible.
A station wagon.
A pickup truck (early El Caminos).
Most intermediates today don't do much better, if any, despite having transverse engines, unit-body construction, an independent rear suspension that allows the gas tank to be put under the back seat, and the spare tire under the trunk floor, where the gas tank used to be, and an extra several inches in height (both roof and decklid).
Unfortunately, for the longest time, it seemed like GM abandoned this formula. They should have taken everything that was good about this formula and improved upon it, but they didn't, for the longest time. In fact, the Malibu actually got a bit worse in later years. Reliability took a bit of a hit for 1980, although one bright spot was a standard 229 V-6. The 1978-79 models used a 200 V-6 that was really too small and weak for a car this size. For 1981, reliability took another hit, as the rudimentary computer controls of the time started to infiltrate the cars. Also that year, IIRC, they dropped the 305 V-8 from sedans and coupes, leaving you with just a 267 V-8 as the top engine, although you could still get a 305 in the wagon. For '82, I think it was more of the same, although finally, for 1983, the 305 came back in the sedans.
The Malibu was pushed to the wayside to make room for the Celebrity, which bowed for 1982. It was about 400-500 lb lighter than the Malibu, and more fuel-efficient, offering a standard 2.5 4-cyl and optional 2.8 V-6, but it had a cheap, flimsy feel to it. Chevy ran the Celebrity alongside the Malibu in '82-83, and the Malibu actually outsold it both years! This, despite the lingering recession and scarce, expensive gasoline.
The Celebrity gave way to the Lumina, which was even worse in some respects. It was bigger on the outside than a Celebrity, and heavier, but really no roomier on the inside. It was also pretty bad in the reliability ratings, although it would improve in later years. By the time the Impala replaced it for 2000, the car was getting a bit bulky. A good 7-8" longer than the old '78-83 Malibu had been, wider, taller, and heavier, but somehow coming off more cramped inside. And this would only get worse for 2006, when the car was restyled.
Meanwhile, the Japanese kept on improving their cars, and moving into larger and larger size classes. IMO, the Japanese first hit the 1978-83 Malibu benchmark with cars like the 2002 Camry, 2002 Altima, and 2003 Accord. And from there on, they just kept improving.
IMO, the only domestic that really hits it is the Fusion. It's not huge on the outside, but feels reasonable on the inside. The current Malibu is a decent effort, but IMO suffers from a narrow passenger cabin and tight legroom in back. And the Chrysler 200/Dodge Avenger, while a bit wider perhaps, still has a tight back seat and a small trunk.
In the past, I tended to prefer domestics to Japanese cars mainly because the domestics gave you a roomier, more comfy interior. Kinda odd that nowadays, among intermediates at least, it's the Accord/Altima/Camry that lead in roominess, rather than the domestics.
I loved the Accord wagon and the Camry was interesting enough. I hate that wagons are going the way of the dodo.
Those previous generation Camry (and Accord) hatchbacks were pretty neat. Had I not been so darned focused on 4 doors back in 80 I'd have gotten an Accord instead of the dreaded Rabbit. I could have managed the hatch but the 4 door Accord was just out of what I figured as my range. Two years later I took my losses and bought a used Accord sedan.
It was efficient, but you can't just go by numerical analysis. You mentioned the 92-96 Camry in a subsequent post. I bought a 93 after looking at a lot of different cars. That Camry may not have had the best quantitative numbers, I don't really know, but from a practical standpoint it seemed to be the most efficient combination of everything I looked at that year. Well laid out, nothing seemed wasted space and everything seemed to be located at exactly the right place in it. As for those Camry wagons, looks aside, I saw a lot of them as taxicabs at Washington National (Reagan) many years after they had come out, so I suspect they had to be very durable and reliable models. Even though they were FWD, they seemed to hold up like a full sized RWD V8 GM or Ford from those days. That Camry was definitely one of the best cars I ever bought.
103.1 inch wheelbase, 187.8" long, 69.7" wide, 55.1" tall. Oh, and the wagon had a third row, so it could theoretically seat 7 people, something the Malibu couldn't do.
I was actually in a '92-96 era Camry taxi in DC just last January. It was showing its age, but considering the age, miles, and how it was being used, I was impressed.
In contrast, the secretary at work has an '00-01 Camry, and I rode in it around the same time. I remember being totally unimpressed and thinking it was actually kind of crappy. Now granted, it was at least a decade old and cars have improved since then. But, compared to my old '00 Intrepid or '00 Park Ave, it still felt kinda crappy. It didn't have all the Fischer-Price plastics and Playskool buttons and knobs my Park Ave does, but it still had a flimsy feel to it, with soft-touch materials that felt thin and fragile. And it was kinda cramped (although the EPA rates it at 97 cubic feet of passenger volume as well), and the seats seemed smallish, like they belonged in a compact car rather than an intermediate.
I have heard that the '92-96 Camry really was overbuilt and almost "too good" for this class of vehicle, so they de-contented and cheapened it for '97-01.
I totally agree on that. I never cared for that next gen Camry and I think it was the one with the engine sludge issue too. Speaking of old cabs, I was in Charlottesville, VA and got a very old, like maybe late 90's Buick Roadmaster. I glanced at the odometer and it showed over 267K. Didn't ride bad, although it had those lousy seats from back then. I think it was using the 350 engine by then, and that is one strong and reliable powerplant and drive train.
I would take a Datsun 510 sedan over the whole lot of 'em, yes I would, and have a little racer on my hands ta boot.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I didn't purchase a Vega, but a good friend bought a brand new '74 Vega GT Hatchback, four speed, in metallic dark Blue. He used all the money he had saved for a couple of years working at McDonald's - his first exposure to GM. Really sharp car. We took turns carpooling to college together, so I rode in it all the time. I'd say it was a really nice looking, kind of sporty car for its day. Operationally quite good.
But after only 2-3 years, rust appeared around the windshield and the rear window (at the lower corners especially), and by 1977 it had holes in those locations. This was really common on the Vegas I saw in Southern California (where there is no snow and no road salt). My friend became more and more disgusted with the car, joking that he was going to drive it until it became a convertible.
His engine lasted longer than many, finally the block corroded through and got coolant in the cylinders around 60-70K miles or so.
On a related note, I just today saw a powder blue Pinto hatchback of about '74 or '75 vintage (it had the big 5mph bumpers) driving in front of me. Haven't seen one of those for a LONG time.
My grandparents bought the first Vega our dealer got in...a cheapo sedan with 3-speed. They only put 6,000 miles on it in seven years!
GM replaced for free rusty front fenders for several years. I'd like to think they'd have repaired what your friend's car had, if it happened in two or three.
Believe it or not, the Vega was the small-car darling of the enthusiast magazines back then, for styling, handling, options list, and multiple bodystyles.
A friend's father worked at the Lordstown plant then. He had a '73 two-door sedan with Custom interior and GT steering wheel and gauge package. He did drive it for over 100K miles, I do remember that, but I couldn't tell you what he did to it in that time. I do know people who bought more than one Vega over the years.
The 510 was easily the hands down winner. The Vega was OK but had the Vega rust and head gasket issues. The Corolla was a great little vehicle. My mom sold it to my brother for $500 to be paid when he sold it (college bot at the time) and maybe a year and a half later he sold it to his girlfriend for $500. What a deal!
When I would go to the midwest in those days, there was rust on a LOT of cars, so it wasn't uncommon. What was different about the Vega was how quickly it happened, and how it happened even in non-salted dry climates. I always wondered what was different about the metal/prep/etc. that caused that to happen.
It did seem that the '74's were worse in the rust respect than the earlier years. I wonder if there was a process change or supplier change at the restyle in '74?
The '76 had much-better rustproofing and the industry's only 5 yr./60K mile engine warranty. I hated the yellow taillights that year though. I guess I could still enjoy a '76 GT wagon, without the yellow taillights. Styling-wise, I like the '74 and '75 best. The '71-73 had doll-tiny bumpers, mirrors, and taillights I think. I did think the panel express was a neat concept...available with one or two front seats!
Even saying, let's exclude the Vega from the conversation. Dollar-for-dollar (accent on that), do we really think cars like Nova-size and up were worse values than what the Japanese were selling then? Recall that '70's Accords also had front fenders that rusted up top like Vegas and also had CVCC serious engine issues.
I'd take a Vega wagon maybe with an engine from a turbo Cobalt SS.
Around 1974-75, weren't domestic compacts selling at a bit of a premium, whereas larger cars might have been discounted somewhat?
My grandparents bought a brand-new Dart Swinger hardtop in '75, and paid about $5,000 for it. My Mom bought a brand-new LeMans coupe that year, and also paid around $5,000. Other than the engines (225 slant six on the Dart, Pontiac 350-2bbl on the LeMans) the cars were equipped similarly. Power steering, brakes, air conditioning, 3-speed automatic, vinyl interior, bench seat, AM/FM radio. Otherwise, nothing fancy. No power windows/locks/seats, no upgraded sport rims, fancy stereos, tilt, etc. I think the Dart might have had a vinyl roof though, while the LeMans didn't.
But yeah, to answer your question, dollar for dollar and pound for pound, it was hard to beat the larger domestic cars in those days.
I think the reason we bring up Vega is to compare apples to apples. The biggest Japanese cars of the day were in the Pinto/Vega class. I don't believe they had anything like the Nova. So in some ways all sides are correct - the Japanese cars were better than the American cars in the same class. But of course there were American cars where the Japanese had no competition, so of course the American cars were better in that regard.
The early Accords may have rusted a lot, but not here in CA like the Vegas. Pretty much no other cars had rust out here. I'm sure the Japanese makers weren't used to US conditions (I doubt they salt in Japan, which IMHO is a dumb practice anyway). But they learned.
Re: CVCC problems. I remember being impressed that while the US makers were whining about the new emission standards, Honda was innovative and came up with engine technology that allowed fuel to burn so cleanly that they didn't need the catalytic converters that all other makes started using. I hadn't heard of the CVCC problems. How bad were they? I don't have the impression they were anything like the magnitude of GM diesel car or V8-6-4 type problems, but I could see that a more complex fuel handling process would add possibilities for problems.
They're cash cows, so not totally pointless.
But yeah, the arrival of the RAV4 in '96 and the CR-V in '97 (coincidence?!) basically meant they replaced those wagons with crossovers based on smaller platforms, yet they could get similar or more money for them with the 4x4 styling.
Everyone did it, though. You had to.
We get an Equinox and a Terrain and even a fleet only Saturn Vue replica (Chevy whats-her-name?), but no Cruze wagon or even 5 door, no Malibu wagon, even the Maxx is gone.
Maxx was the only Malibu I would have even touched, it was very European. A rare sight already.
And in other markets, wagons still find as many buyers as ever. Image is everything here.
The FWD ones do seem a bit pointless.
Can we blame them, though?
CR-V sells great, RAV4 not far behind.
They could offer the Civic 5 door but it would probably cannibalize the CR-V and costs less, so it would lower sales $$$.
Same for Toyota - they have a Corolla Fielder overseas, which is a real wagon, not a 5 door hatch like the Matrix/Vibe, but it too would eat in to RAV4 sales, which again are more profitable.
GM does it - see above.
Ford's the exception - Focus 5 door looks pretty cool to me. But the Escape probably outsells it 100 to 1.
OK. Sorry. I'm exaggerating.
It's actually 200 to 1.
If people bought things only for actual used functions, then our economy would really go into the cr@pper!
I have steadfastly avoided SUVs, as I don't get snow and have no need to tow anything. I don't like bouncy rides for no good reason, and I don't like vehicles that handle, well, like a truck.
We have a minivan for cargo hauling and it gets quite good mileage and rides much more like a car, plus still has a higher seating position. I guess I'm not concerned enough about my image. :surprise:
If I were to ever get an SUV it would be a smaller one. I can almost see some value there for the boxy storage in a smaller package.
The other thing about SUVs is their tendency to roll easily. They're great in front or rear-end collisions, but forget about maneuvering. Somebody I worked with rolled and totaled their two week old Range Rover while avoiding somebody who cut in front of them. And my mother ran a stop sign she didn't see while in an unfamiliar area in her Highlander, was T-boned, and rolled over a couple of times. I doubt a car would have rolled in the same situation. Luckily and surprisingly, she was barely injured and even her dog in the car was only bruised.
I wonder if one reason they really don't do car-based wagons that much anymore is that they would be too easy to overload? Cars these days really don't have much of a weight capacity...put four beefy adults and fill the trunk with luggage, and now that the Crown Vic and its ilk are gone, you'll probably exceed the GVWR of just about any car out there.
Add another 100-200 lb for a wagon body, and you suddenly have a lot more cargo area just begging to be filled, but at the same time, that's another 100-200 lb that you DON'T have anymore in payload capacity. Unless you beef up the car. And then that might affect its fuel economy, the EPA might make them certify the different body style, it might have to get subjected to crash testing, etc.
Probably easier, in the end, to just make a crossover, give it some seductive marketing, and watch it sell like hotcakes, compared to the wagon version that might not do so hot.
Even the lux brands, Audi had nothing a couple of years ago and now 2 of them are not enough, they need a 3rd.
Ours is AWD and I do need at least one snow car in our fleet, visibility is fantastic, and it probably has one of the best rides in its class. Hip point for the seats means easy in or out.
I love real wagons (not just hatchbacks, I'm talking extended roofs with D-pillars) but how many are still available? VW. And....wow, is that it?
There are simply no choices left.
Maxx is gone. Magnum is gone (fails visibility test anyway). Legacy wagon is gone, Outback only now. Focus wagon is gone, the 5 door comes close. Would make my short list today, though. Still not really a wagon, though.
You almost have to downsize and get a box like the Cube/Soul or just settle for a B-segment 5 door. They are not exactly family-sized, though.
Oh, TSX wagon exists, and A4 Avant, plus other lux wagons. Not the same price class as the Equinox/CR-V/Escape, though.
Wow, may the wagon RIP. They really are dead.
I'd take an E63 wagon over any SUV out there. If I was going to go the SUV route and couldn't get an ugly green 80s diesel G-wagen with a plaid interior, I might just go the full [non-permissible content removed] and get a used RR Sport/X5-6/Cayenne, then I can cut people off and drive obliviously, and not feel bad about it :shades:
I still see image as key, however.
Ford's cash paid for EcoBoost tech, which is now spreading to performance oriented models.
Mazda sells enough CX7/9s to keep losing money on Miatas.
Toyota green lighted the FT-86, paid for with crossover profits no doubt.
We can complain, or we can look at it the way Porsche looks at a Cayenne and now Panamera - the company can make profits to build more interesting vehicles in other segments.