No, excessive borrowing let GM design the Volt. Truck/SUV "profits" were before all of GM's other costs were rolled in. There really weren't any GM "profits" at all.
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.
While this is not an apples to apples comparison as my Expedition is not a CUV. But I prefer driving it over the Taurus (I never thought I'd prefer driving a BOF SUV over a car, but that's the case over the GP and Taurus). It's easier to get in and out of, it's more comfortable to travel in, and visibility is much better over the Taurus (I'm surprised I haven't hit anything while backing up in parking lots).
I prefer driving Expedition in the city (including Chicago). It's easier to parallel park and drive in tight spaces (granted neither vehicle is small). I can't see jack out of the Taurus, it's horrible. You basically can't see anything out of the rear window (no wonder why Ford offers blind spot detection, rear sonar, and rear view camera etc. it's needed).
The winter is generally one area where a full-size SUV has an advantage with a longer wheelbase vs most cars and CUVs. The 4wd system along with traction and stability control all keep things in check. You pretty much have to do something stupid to get into trouble, like not out driving your ability to stop is key.
Probably the biggest advantage of a Cuv/Suv over a wagon is the 3rd row (I'd probably puke if I had to ride for very long in a rear facing 3rd row seat, and I don't think any child seat is usable in a rear facing seat). Granted a minivan is generally still better unless you need the extra weight capacity and towing ability of an SUV. We use the 3rd row quite often and it's even adult usable. With my parents and inlaws both living hundreds it's nice that we all can ride in one vehicle when going out when they visit. Plus we often have a few extra kids riding along with us in the summer to the lake.
But your likely right that many who buy CUVs would be better served by something else. Like anyone who buys a new Explorer is really going to use the hill ascent/decent features etc.
I can tell you the CR-V handles quite well and the AWD is very effective. Tossed the OEM tires which were lowest rated A/S for the category and the replacements made all the difference in wet/dry traction and handling.
I was blown away by the handling of this CUV and so far the lowest maintenance cost of any vehicle I've ever owned. Cargo space is everything I need. Now that my daughter uses it exclusively, I can borrow it if negotiated correctly!
The CX-9 is also everything that a BoF SUV can accomplish but far better road manners, particularly when the road bends. Blows away the Lamdas in that respect although the cargo space is less than the GM trio.
I fully understand Fin's views on CUVs/SUVs. I looked at them the same way prior to kids and being married etc. At one point I swore I'd never own a minivan. That went out the window after our first kid. Wife had a Probe at the time. The first time I tried to put a child seat in it, I realized quickly some vehicles are more family friendly than others.
That is a nice-looking wagon. That interior looks glove-soft.
A high-school buddy's parents had a '72 Town and Country, but I like the '74 and later styling better. It and the Custom Cruiser are the only wagons of that era I can think of that have skirts!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Love those big old wagons. More than once in my recently ended minivan period I thought that maybe the thing to do was pick up a used last vintage Caprice wagon.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Wasn't Chevy Chase driving one of those on his way to WallyWorld, when he flirted with Christie Brinkley in her Ferrari? I believe that wagon is the universal, elemental opposite of a Ferrari!
There were a few nice "boats" from the 60's and 70's that were cool - Riviera, Toronado, Thunderbird, Continentals, and even the Cordoba.
Speaking of Rivieras, maybe GM could build a new one? Build it on the Camaro platform, keeping about the same dimensions. Do the split-rear-window. Offer the 3.6 and with the option of super or turbocharger. And please get some stylists! Hire some guys that do restos of classic cars and lose the corporate suits, who make every car gray/silver with a black or tan interior!
Great movie; reminds me I need to get out Christmas vacation for the holidays. It was a modified big Ford. The Mercury version had a lot more chrome on it.
Christmas Vacation is one of the best holiday movies ever. In this movie, Clark Griswald drives a Ford Taurus wagon slathered with fake woodgrain ala the Truckster.
the Vega and the comparative Mopar product at that point was the...Dart? Am I missing something? The Plymouth Horizon was an 80's rig...So Chrysler didn't compete in the Corolla-fighter category back in the early 70's like that? Because the Duster/Dart's were considered compacts, weren't they?
I didn't remember the specific issue, but took about fifteen seconds and came across this online:
Some of the early CVCC engines had a problem with the auxiliary valves retaining collars vibrating loose. Once unscrewed, engine oil would leak from the valvetrain into the pre-combustion chamber, causing a sudden loss of power and massive amounts of smoke to emanate from the exhaust pipe. The condition simulated a blown engine, even though the needed repair was quite simple. Honda eventually came up with a fix involving metal retaining rings that slipped over the collars and prevented them from backing out of their threads.
This reminds me of a good many stories I'd heard about people giving someone their Vega when it stopped running, when it was just low on oil. The Vega was designed to shut off when that happened. People added oil and it ran fine.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Chrysler didn't really have anything home-grown that competed with the subcompacts until the 1978 Omni and Horizon. And they had a lot of help from Simca, VW, and Peugeot pulling that one together, so it wasn't completely "home-grown"! Before that, they used captive imports such as the Plymouth Cricket, Dodge Colt, Plymouth Arrow, etc.
I think one reason the domestics really came up short with subcompacts is that it took them forever to invest in 4-door models. The Pinto and Vega were offered only has 2-door models...hatchback, sedan (which still looked like a hatchback) and wagon. Even when the Chevette came out in mid 1975, initially it was only offered as a 2-door hatchback. The 4-door wouldn't show up until 1978, same year as the Omni and Horizon. Ford wouldn't get into 4-door small cars until the 1981 Escort!
And yeah, Dusters and Darts were compacts. The smallest model was the Duster, which was on a 108" wheelbase and around 191" long. The bigger Dart hardtops and 4-door sedans were on a 111" wheelbase, and once they started sticking those bulky, ill-fitting crash bumpers on them, they swelled up as long as 206" overall!
Then you get one and say "what was I waiting for?"
Try carrying one of those baby carriers in one hand, opening the door with the other, squeezing 'em in, later dealing with toddlers kicking the back of your seat.
Then came power sliding doors, space for the whole car pool, and their gear (not to mention YOUR gear if you're a Harry Homeowner like me).
After a while you wonder how you got by without a minivan.
Our big wagon (we all had one, no?) was an Old Custom Cruiser. On paper, it had RWD and a V8, 3 rows, and you could slide a sheet of plywood between the wheel wells in the back. Oh, and it towed our 19' Aristocraft nicely.
Some how it was less than the sum of its parts, though. To call the steering vague would insult the word vague. It wandered all over the lane, guzzled gas like crazy, and was slow. If you got rear ended, the crumple zone was your feet, so close calls were downright scary for anyone sitting back there.
It was a work horse, but my minivan can do all the same stuff minus the heavy towing, and does everything else bettter. A lot better.
Try carrying one of those baby carriers in one hand, opening the door with the other, squeezing 'em in, later dealing with toddlers kicking the back of your seat.
Shame you can't just throw 'em all in the back of the truck anymore, like they did on The Waltons!
There's the 8 seat convertible I've always wanted!
Seriously, though, even with kids 9 and 12, we do a lot of late road trips, they pass out, I gotta carry them in. Nice to be able to use a Fireman's carry and close the doors with the key.
After a while you wonder how you got by without a minivan.
True. Minivans are by far the best people and kid haulers available when it comes to convenience. Particularly with small kids. I think child safety seats are some kind of conspiracy for chiropractors. My God can they be a PITA to install and remove.
Seriously, though, even with kids 9 and 12, we do a lot of late road trips, they pass out, I gotta carry them in. Nice to be able to use a Fireman's carry and close the doors with the key.
LOL! I know the feeling my girls are 9 and 13 and we routinely have several hour trips. Man is it rough when the 9 year old falls asleep in the 3rd row and my 41 year old back has to extract her and carry her into the house. That's one area a sliding door would be a huge benefit.
I think they are even better for hauling stuff. Most everything fits inside out of the weather and you can lock it up. Even for the stuff that needs to go on top, the height still isn't so bad that you need a step stool like you would if you put a rack on a pickup or lots of SUVs.
We had minivans through the kids' high school and college. They really made sense because you were always hauling people and stuff. They are done with college, so we recently downsized to a CRV. It's a decent vehicle for what it is, but I think we went too far!
To call the steering vague would insult the word vague. It wandered all over the lane, guzzled gas like crazy, and was slow.
That pretty much would describe all of the big cars from the 70's and why I have little interest in most of them.
My dad had a '79 Caprice Classic wagon and it wasn't a very good vehicle either. It seemed to need carb work constantly, and I always remember my dad complaining about how slow it was when he would try to pass. I never drove it, but an older buddy of mine and I would take it run errands for my dad. I remember him punching it and all it did was make noise. It was impressively slow. A 140hp weezy v8 in a 4k+lb wagon is not what I consider desirable.
Those rear facing 3rd rows could not have been very safe. I have 2 siblings and I rarely remember using the 3rd row. If it was hot or cold out you'd sweat or freeze your [non-permissible content removed] of back there without any secondary HVAC. Maybe dad liked having us withing "slapping" distance for when we got out of hand;)
In those imitable words: "You either Lead, Follow or get out of the way", GM will follow the leader in the mid-size segment:
The all-new 2013 Chevrolet Malibu hasn’t even hit dealer lots yet (although it will in the coming weeks), but already General Motors has confirmed a third powerplant for its midsize sedan.
At launch, Malibu will only be available in Malibu Eco form, which is essentially a mild hybrid good for 25 city, 37 miles per gallon, with an all-new and up-sized 2.5-liter, naturally aspirated four-cylinder coming later in 2012. Now, GM has confirmed to Leftlane at the media launch that the Malibu will also gain a turbocharged variant before next year is out.
The turbocharged Malibu will make use of a brand-new 2.0-liter four-cylinder being force fed air by a turbocharger. GM hasn’t spilled the beans yet on expected power or fuel economy, but odds are it will be in the same ballpark as the 2.0-liter turbo in the Hyundai Sonata , which cranks out 270 horses and 22 city, 34 highway miles per gallon.
It seems likely the Malibu will be sharing a variant of the engine destined for the upcoming Cadillac ATS compact sedan – especially when you consider that the leaked spec sheet posted by Leftlane shows a 270 horsepower, 250 lb-ft of torque rating for the ATS’ 2.0-liter turbo model.
While the smaller ATS will be able to deliver the true performance expected of a luxury sedan with its base engine, the 2.0 turbo – whether in the same form or a de-tuned form – should provide just the right amount of sport appeal in the midsize Malibu. Of course, for now it is only speculation that the two cars will share their turbocharged engine, but given what is available, it seems like a likely fit.
What stinks is, just like owning a pickup, your family wants to borrow it all the time. And returns it with the fuel tank empty, and dirty inside, and with the seat position all out of whack! :mad:
A similar thing ( I'm thinking) in the mid to late 70's were the trailer towing packages. I bought a 76 or7 4 door new Pontiac ( Catalina?)....not a real memorable car, even in its fashionable white vinyl top and light green paint, but it did have a somewhat stiffened up supension for trailering. The guy who had special ordered the car up and died ,so the dealer was stuck with it.
GM also had something called an F41 package, that gave you a stiffer suspension, but it wasn't beefed up for trailering. It also wasn't all that expensive either, I think $30-50.
Ford had a pretty cool package they offered on their full-sized Crown Vic and Grand Marquis. For around $227 in 1985, you got dual exhaust, a locking differential, and a quicker 3.55:1 axle ratio. I think it boosted the hp from 140 to 155 that year, although they didn't advertise that fact. It also cut your 0-60 time from around 12+ seconds to 10.5, with, surprisingly, very little loss in fuel economy.
That Pontiac Catalina you had sounds like a nice car. I came across a dark green '77 Catalina 4-door for sale a few years back that I really liked. Pontiac 350-4bbl, so it wasn't a slouch, at least. Seller wanted too much for it though, something like $2200. And I had just bought a '79 Chrysler New Yorker for $500, so in my mind, that Catalina wasn't 4x the car the Chrysler was! Here's a pic I took of it at a car show...
IIRC, Ford offered a trailer towing package on the Crown Vic until the early 2000's I think.
Basically like you mentioned Andre, it included dual exhaust, a quicker gear ratio, along with H/D duty cooling, and I think rear leveling air shocks.
My grandpa used to tow a boat and camper with several of his big GM sedans from the 70's and he would add a trans cooler and air shocks.
The days of towing anything substantial with a car are long gone, it was nice back when cars had a full frame and rwd, that allowed them to be optioned to tow something more than a dinky uhaul trailer.
Now days if you want to tow anything more than 1-2klbs you need something other than a car. Some of the minivans can tow 4klbs or so. But keep in mind you can't have 8 adults in a minivan and tow 4k lbs at the same time. It's that way with all vehicles. Just because an F150 is rated to tow up to 11,000+lbs, doesn't mean it can under all conditions.
It also cut your 0-60 time from around 12+ seconds to 10.5, with, surprisingly, very little loss in fuel economy.
I read an article a while back comparing the gas mileage of a pickup with various gear ratios and surprisingly from lowest to highest it didn't make a huge difference. I think the ratio spread was something like 3.31 to 4.10 on a v8 GM pickup. IIRC towing fuel economy actually improved with the 4.10 gears. I'd guess if all you do is highway cruising the taller gearing is probably better, but all around, I prefer having lower ratios.
Andre, my Pontiac had the same body as in the picture, with the paint already mentioned. It had the small (305?..307?) v8. 0-60 ? Probably. It was slow and seemed slower since my previous car was a 74 Grand Am with a 400 incher, and it in turn was slower than the 66 Goat which preceded it. Not great times for the lead-footed.
Regarding gear ratios vs economy, I got a new Dodge...er Ram three -quarter ton (gas) last week with a 6 speed auto. It has a regular cruisin' empty mode and a loaded-for -bear mode selectable via a dash button. I've experimented with it a little. The haul-pull mode holds gears longer, shifts faster, and doesn't go into sixth at all that I've noticed. The fuel economy readout doesn't seem to change much though. I haven't "goosenecked" anything yet, but I think I'll shut off the economy display when I do...don't know whether I could stand to look at it.
I'll (reluctantly )keep an eye on the gauge. This truck's replacing a 21 year old F350 with a 7.3. It towed all the time, but the new one will only be used for that occasionally. I remind myself that the Cummins engine costs 8K more.
My roommate in college had a 1977 Catalina, but it was a light green as opposed to a dark green as the one in the picture. He also had a big dark green 1972 Catalina.
If it was the base V-8, that should be a Pontiac 301-2bbl, which had around 135-140 hp. I remember reading a Consumer Reports road test of a '77 Bonneville Safari wagon with this engine, and 0-60 came up in around 15 seconds. In a 4-door sedan that's not too optioned up, I'd guess it was more like 13 or so?
That must have been quite a shock, going from a '66 GTO, to a '74 Grand Am, to a '77 Catalina. My uncle had a '67 GTO in the early 70's. I'm too young to remember it. It was fast enough to get him in trouble. He actually outran the cops once, down in some little podunk town in Virginia. But then, coming back home, he was dumb enough to drive back through the same town, and they nabbed him!
Oh, and as for my comment about that Catalina not being 4x the car of that '79 New Yorker I bought, I had to re-think that. Currently that New Yorker is sitting in my yard, with two bad power window motors, one functioning windshield wiper, and iffy electronics that don't always ensure a reliable start. So, who knows? Maybe that Catalina would have been 4x the car? Although I'm sure if I had bought it, things would have broken on it, as well. You can't just go buy a ~30 year old car and expect it to be perfect, after all!
these are the ones I didn't seem ta be able ta recall at all.
Before that, they used captive imports such as the Plymouth Cricket, Dodge Colt, Plymouth Arrow, etc.
And now I do remember those...I can now see why I couldn't remember them...there isn't much there to recollect. Flimsy, fly-away import/domestic combos that were barely worth what they were selling for and I doubt they were very reliable rigs at all, either. Never owned one of them, didn't have a family member that had one nor a friend that had one, either, to ask about experiences with them.
Glad we've got so many small car choices that rock now!
Well, the Cricket was European. Designed by Hillman, built by Rootes, or something like that. I don't know much about it, but probably a troublesome car. Only sold in the US from around 1971-73, which were strong years for the US auto industry, and bigger cars were still selling like hotcakes, so Chrysler probably figured it wasn't worth it to keep pushing the Cricket here.
The Colt and Arrow were Mitsubishi products. The dr that owned the veterinary clinic I worked in back in high school had a '79 Plymouth Arrow. She traded it for a new '87 Subaru hatchback...DL or something like that? World-wide, I think that design was known as the Leone? I don't think the Arrow had been a bad little car; it was just time for a new one. IIRC, you could get the 2.6 in them, and it made for a fairly quick little ride.
My grandparents had a 1981 Dodge D-50 pickup, which was built by Mitsubishi. By that time, they might have been mixing Mitsubishi and Mopar, but I'm not sure. It had the Mitsubishi 2.6 4-cyl, but I think the transmission might have been a Mopar Torqueflite. It had a little bout with sudden acceleration when it was about a year old, at the gas station, and that spooked my grandmother enough that she made Granddad get rid of it. He sold it to the neighbor a few doors down, who had it well into the 1990's.
Chrysler also sold a good looking Mitsubishi coupe from around 1978-83, known here as the Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Sapporo.
A 140hp weezy v8 in a 4k+lb wagon is not what I consider desirable
That about sums it up, they were NOT cool, folks, however nostalgic you feel about 'em.
140 hp is not desirable; however, larger engines were offered then. I know you could get 170 hp in a big Chevy wagon in '79, as well as in the coupes and sedans. I'd prefer one of those in a heartbeat (no pun intended) to the yawnmobiles out there today.
We had a '77 Impala new, and I liked it a lot. A friends' parents bought a new '77 Caprice, and at the time I was astounded how completely silent it was. I'd never been in a car that quiet (the Caprice had additional sound insulation over an Impala).
I didn't read all of the thread, so I might be wrong in thinking you were talking about '79. 140 hp might have been all that was around in those big cars in the '80's.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I didn't read all of the thread, so I might be wrong in thinking you were talking about '79. 140 hp might have been all that was around in those big cars in the '80's.
According to wikipedia, the 305 used in the 1979 Caprice lost 15hp and was only 130hp. Even with the optional 350 4bbl with an optional 3.08 rear end barely could break 10 seconds 0-60.
I don't think many Caprices were built with 350s. Kind of like pickups today. Sure, GM and Ford offer 6.2 v8's in a half-ton, but good luck finding one, and if you do, it'll have so many other options you won't want to pay for it.
. I'd prefer one of those in a heartbeat (no pun intended) to the yawnmobiles out there today.
I guess I don't understand. I've had and driven those types of vehicles, and you couldn't give me one. IMO they are the definition of a yawnmobile.
I didn't read all of the thread, so I might be wrong in thinking you were talking about '79. 140 hp might have been all that was around in those big cars in the '80's.
I think 1980 was the last year you could get anything 350-sized in a full-sized GM car. IIRC, the Buick 350 had 155 hp and the Olds had 160. I believe the last Pontiac 350s were in 1978, and for '79 they were using Buick 350's (Olds in California). Chevy still had the 350, but you could only get it in a Camaro, Corvette, or police car.
I want to say that Chevy got the 305-4bbl up to around 155 hp that year, which is very close to those Olds/Buick 350's, but of course it would come up short in torque. And the Olds 307 debuted that year, with 150 hp, but again, it would come up short in the torque department, compared to those 350 engines.
For 1981, the Olds 307 settled down to 140 hp, where it stayed through the end in 1990 (with the exception of the Cutlass 442, which had 170-180 hp). I want to say the 305 dipped to 145 hp for 81-82, but bounced back to 150 for 1983-84. Then for 1985, in the full-sized cars, it went to 165, although it stayed at 150 for midsized cars like the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, and Bonneville G.
Oddly though, around 1987 or so, all GM wagons started using the 140 hp Olds 307. So, if you bought a Caprice sedan or coupe, you either got the 262 or 305, but if you bought the Caprice wagon, you got an Olds 307.
The 307 had a bit more torque, 255 ft-lb, compared to the 305's 245. And I think the 307 hit its peak around 2000 rpm, versus 2400 for the 305. The 307 got its peak hp at a lower rpm as well, but I forget the statistics. I want to say 4400 for the 305, 3200 for the 307, but don't hold me to that!
But regardless, maybe the lower rpm, and the slight boost in torque, made the 307 a better choice in the wagons than the 305? Or maybe it was just something as simple as GM shuffling things around so that V-8 production was roughly 50/50 305/307? As the Electra/98, Toronado/Riviera, and Delta 88/LeSabre downsized in the mid 80's, GM lost a lot of demand for those 307's.
According to wikipedia, the 305 used in the 1979 Caprice lost 15hp and was only 130hp.
I don't trust much of anything anybody puts in wikipedia, nor the "Consumer Guide" books, honestly. When I have time, I'll look in the '79 Caprice brochure to see if the hp is listed. At some point they quit listing hp I think (probably embarrassed!). I know in '77, the 350 was 170 hp and there were quite a few out there. They had the heavier transmission too.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Comments
No, excessive borrowing let GM design the Volt. Truck/SUV "profits" were before all of GM's other costs were rolled in. There really weren't any GM "profits" at all.
Isn't the Outback a wagon? And I see the Forester as an almost-wagon, too.
While this is not an apples to apples comparison as my Expedition is not a CUV. But I prefer driving it over the Taurus (I never thought I'd prefer driving a BOF SUV over a car, but that's the case over the GP and Taurus). It's easier to get in and out of, it's more comfortable to travel in, and visibility is much better over the Taurus (I'm surprised I haven't hit anything while backing up in parking lots).
I prefer driving Expedition in the city (including Chicago). It's easier to parallel park and drive in tight spaces (granted neither vehicle is small). I can't see jack out of the Taurus, it's horrible. You basically can't see anything out of the rear window (no wonder why Ford offers blind spot detection, rear sonar, and rear view camera etc. it's needed).
The winter is generally one area where a full-size SUV has an advantage with a longer wheelbase vs most cars and CUVs. The 4wd system along with traction and stability control all keep things in check. You pretty much have to do something stupid to get into trouble, like not out driving your ability to stop is key.
Probably the biggest advantage of a Cuv/Suv over a wagon is the 3rd row (I'd probably puke if I had to ride for very long in a rear facing 3rd row seat, and I don't think any child seat is usable in a rear facing seat). Granted a minivan is generally still better unless you need the extra weight capacity and towing ability of an SUV. We use the 3rd row quite often and it's even adult usable. With my parents and inlaws both living hundreds it's nice that we all can ride in one vehicle when going out when they visit. Plus we often have a few extra kids riding along with us in the summer to the lake.
But your likely right that many who buy CUVs would be better served by something else. Like anyone who buys a new Explorer is really going to use the hill ascent/decent features etc.
I was blown away by the handling of this CUV and so far the lowest maintenance cost of any vehicle I've ever owned. Cargo space is everything I need. Now that my daughter uses it exclusively, I can borrow it if negotiated correctly!
The CX-9 is also everything that a BoF SUV can accomplish but far better road manners, particularly when the road bends. Blows away the Lamdas in that respect although the cargo space is less than the GM trio.
I do not miss the Yukon Denali one bit! :shades:
Regards,
OW
1975 T&C
A high-school buddy's parents had a '72 Town and Country, but I like the '74 and later styling better. It and the Custom Cruiser are the only wagons of that era I can think of that have skirts!
There were a few nice "boats" from the 60's and 70's that were cool - Riviera, Toronado, Thunderbird, Continentals, and even the Cordoba.
Speaking of Rivieras, maybe GM could build a new one? Build it on the Camaro platform, keeping about the same dimensions. Do the split-rear-window. Offer the 3.6 and with the option of super or turbocharger. And please get some stylists! Hire some guys that do restos of classic cars and lose the corporate suits, who make every car gray/silver with a black or tan interior!
That was the legendary Wagon Queen Family Truckster. It think it was a modified Ford LTD Country Squire wagon.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Some of the early CVCC engines had a problem with the auxiliary valves retaining collars vibrating loose. Once unscrewed, engine oil would leak from the valvetrain into the pre-combustion chamber, causing a sudden loss of power and massive amounts of smoke to emanate from the exhaust pipe. The condition simulated a blown engine, even though the needed repair was quite simple. Honda eventually came up with a fix involving metal retaining rings that slipped over the collars and prevented them from backing out of their threads.
This reminds me of a good many stories I'd heard about people giving someone their Vega when it stopped running, when it was just low on oil. The Vega was designed to shut off when that happened. People added oil and it ran fine.
I think one reason the domestics really came up short with subcompacts is that it took them forever to invest in 4-door models. The Pinto and Vega were offered only has 2-door models...hatchback, sedan (which still looked like a hatchback) and wagon. Even when the Chevette came out in mid 1975, initially it was only offered as a 2-door hatchback. The 4-door wouldn't show up until 1978, same year as the Omni and Horizon. Ford wouldn't get into 4-door small cars until the 1981 Escort!
And yeah, Dusters and Darts were compacts. The smallest model was the Duster, which was on a 108" wheelbase and around 191" long. The bigger Dart hardtops and 4-door sedans were on a 111" wheelbase, and once they started sticking those bulky, ill-fitting crash bumpers on them, they swelled up as long as 206" overall!
Then you get one and say "what was I waiting for?"
Try carrying one of those baby carriers in one hand, opening the door with the other, squeezing 'em in, later dealing with toddlers kicking the back of your seat.
Then came power sliding doors, space for the whole car pool, and their gear (not to mention YOUR gear if you're a Harry Homeowner like me).
After a while you wonder how you got by without a minivan.
Some how it was less than the sum of its parts, though. To call the steering vague would insult the word vague. It wandered all over the lane, guzzled gas like crazy, and was slow. If you got rear ended, the crumple zone was your feet, so close calls were downright scary for anyone sitting back there.
It was a work horse, but my minivan can do all the same stuff minus the heavy towing, and does everything else bettter. A lot better.
Shame you can't just throw 'em all in the back of the truck anymore, like they did on The Waltons!
Seriously, though, even with kids 9 and 12, we do a lot of late road trips, they pass out, I gotta carry them in. Nice to be able to use a Fireman's carry and close the doors with the key.
For those unfamilliar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fireman_carry_Army.jpg
Once they're teens I'll just leave 'em sleeping in the car.
True. Minivans are by far the best people and kid haulers available when it comes to convenience. Particularly with small kids. I think child safety seats are some kind of conspiracy for chiropractors. My God can they be a PITA to install and remove.
LOL! I know the feeling my girls are 9 and 13 and we routinely have several hour trips. Man is it rough when the 9 year old falls asleep in the 3rd row and my 41 year old back has to extract her and carry her into the house. That's one area a sliding door would be a huge benefit.
I think they are even better for hauling stuff. Most everything fits inside out of the weather and you can lock it up. Even for the stuff that needs to go on top, the height still isn't so bad that you need a step stool like you would if you put a rack on a pickup or lots of SUVs.
That pretty much would describe all of the big cars from the 70's and why I have little interest in most of them.
My dad had a '79 Caprice Classic wagon and it wasn't a very good vehicle either. It seemed to need carb work constantly, and I always remember my dad complaining about how slow it was when he would try to pass. I never drove it, but an older buddy of mine and I would take it run errands for my dad. I remember him punching it and all it did was make noise. It was impressively slow. A 140hp weezy v8 in a 4k+lb wagon is not what I consider desirable.
Those rear facing 3rd rows could not have been very safe. I have 2 siblings and I rarely remember using the 3rd row. If it was hot or cold out you'd sweat or freeze your [non-permissible content removed] of back there without any secondary HVAC. Maybe dad liked having us withing "slapping" distance for when we got out of hand;)
The all-new 2013 Chevrolet Malibu hasn’t even hit dealer lots yet (although it will in the coming weeks), but already General Motors has confirmed a third powerplant for its midsize sedan.
At launch, Malibu will only be available in Malibu Eco form, which is essentially a mild hybrid good for 25 city, 37 miles per gallon, with an all-new and up-sized 2.5-liter, naturally aspirated four-cylinder coming later in 2012. Now, GM has confirmed to Leftlane at the media launch that the Malibu will also gain a turbocharged variant before next year is out.
The turbocharged Malibu will make use of a brand-new 2.0-liter four-cylinder being force fed air by a turbocharger. GM hasn’t spilled the beans yet on expected power or fuel economy, but odds are it will be in the same ballpark as the 2.0-liter turbo in the Hyundai Sonata , which cranks out 270 horses and 22 city, 34 highway miles per gallon.
It seems likely the Malibu will be sharing a variant of the engine destined for the upcoming Cadillac ATS compact sedan – especially when you consider that the leaked spec sheet posted by Leftlane shows a 270 horsepower, 250 lb-ft of torque rating for the ATS’ 2.0-liter turbo model.
While the smaller ATS will be able to deliver the true performance expected of a luxury sedan with its base engine, the 2.0 turbo – whether in the same form or a de-tuned form – should provide just the right amount of sport appeal in the midsize Malibu. Of course, for now it is only speculation that the two cars will share their turbocharged engine, but given what is available, it seems like a likely fit.
Expect the Malibu Turbo to arrive late 2012.
Regards,
OW
That about sums it up, they were NOT cool, folks, however nostalgic you feel about 'em.
Funny thing is it was the wallowing suspension that bothered me more than anything. The good RWD/V8 cars were the ones with cop suspensions.
I'm sure there's a worthy quote from the Blues Brothers...
Edit: better yet, just watch the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yil9wlfa0yo
I was thinking the same thing LOL.
Ford had a pretty cool package they offered on their full-sized Crown Vic and Grand Marquis. For around $227 in 1985, you got dual exhaust, a locking differential, and a quicker 3.55:1 axle ratio. I think it boosted the hp from 140 to 155 that year, although they didn't advertise that fact. It also cut your 0-60 time from around 12+ seconds to 10.5, with, surprisingly, very little loss in fuel economy.
That Pontiac Catalina you had sounds like a nice car. I came across a dark green '77 Catalina 4-door for sale a few years back that I really liked. Pontiac 350-4bbl, so it wasn't a slouch, at least. Seller wanted too much for it though, something like $2200. And I had just bought a '79 Chrysler New Yorker for $500, so in my mind, that Catalina wasn't 4x the car the Chrysler was! Here's a pic I took of it at a car show...
Basically like you mentioned Andre, it included dual exhaust, a quicker gear ratio, along with H/D duty cooling, and I think rear leveling air shocks.
My grandpa used to tow a boat and camper with several of his big GM sedans from the 70's and he would add a trans cooler and air shocks.
The days of towing anything substantial with a car are long gone, it was nice back when cars had a full frame and rwd, that allowed them to be optioned to tow something more than a dinky uhaul trailer.
Now days if you want to tow anything more than 1-2klbs you need something other than a car. Some of the minivans can tow 4klbs or so. But keep in mind you can't have 8 adults in a minivan and tow 4k lbs at the same time. It's that way with all vehicles. Just because an F150 is rated to tow up to 11,000+lbs, doesn't mean it can under all conditions.
It also cut your 0-60 time from around 12+ seconds to 10.5, with, surprisingly, very little loss in fuel economy.
I read an article a while back comparing the gas mileage of a pickup with various gear ratios and surprisingly from lowest to highest it didn't make a huge difference. I think the ratio spread was something like 3.31 to 4.10 on a v8 GM pickup. IIRC towing fuel economy actually improved with the 4.10 gears. I'd guess if all you do is highway cruising the taller gearing is probably better, but all around, I prefer having lower ratios.
No kidding, just be sure not to ignore the fuel gauge or the distance to empty display;)
That must have been quite a shock, going from a '66 GTO, to a '74 Grand Am, to a '77 Catalina. My uncle had a '67 GTO in the early 70's. I'm too young to remember it. It was fast enough to get him in trouble. He actually outran the cops once, down in some little podunk town in Virginia. But then, coming back home, he was dumb enough to drive back through the same town, and they nabbed him!
Oh, and as for my comment about that Catalina not being 4x the car of that '79 New Yorker I bought, I had to re-think that. Currently that New Yorker is sitting in my yard, with two bad power window motors, one functioning windshield wiper, and iffy electronics that don't always ensure a reliable start. So, who knows? Maybe that Catalina would have been 4x the car?
Before that, they used captive imports such as the Plymouth Cricket, Dodge Colt, Plymouth Arrow, etc.
And now I do remember those...I can now see why I couldn't remember them...there isn't much there to recollect. Flimsy, fly-away import/domestic combos that were barely worth what they were selling for and I doubt they were very reliable rigs at all, either. Never owned one of them, didn't have a family member that had one nor a friend that had one, either, to ask about experiences with them.
Glad we've got so many small car choices that rock now!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The Colt and Arrow were Mitsubishi products. The dr that owned the veterinary clinic I worked in back in high school had a '79 Plymouth Arrow. She traded it for a new '87 Subaru hatchback...DL or something like that? World-wide, I think that design was known as the Leone? I don't think the Arrow had been a bad little car; it was just time for a new one. IIRC, you could get the 2.6 in them, and it made for a fairly quick little ride.
My grandparents had a 1981 Dodge D-50 pickup, which was built by Mitsubishi. By that time, they might have been mixing Mitsubishi and Mopar, but I'm not sure. It had the Mitsubishi 2.6 4-cyl, but I think the transmission might have been a Mopar Torqueflite. It had a little bout with sudden acceleration when it was about a year old, at the gas station, and that spooked my grandmother enough that she made Granddad get rid of it. He sold it to the neighbor a few doors down, who had it well into the 1990's.
Chrysler also sold a good looking Mitsubishi coupe from around 1978-83, known here as the Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Sapporo.
That about sums it up, they were NOT cool, folks, however nostalgic you feel about 'em.
140 hp is not desirable; however, larger engines were offered then. I know you could get 170 hp in a big Chevy wagon in '79, as well as in the coupes and sedans. I'd prefer one of those in a heartbeat (no pun intended) to the yawnmobiles out there today.
We had a '77 Impala new, and I liked it a lot. A friends' parents bought a new '77 Caprice, and at the time I was astounded how completely silent it was. I'd never been in a car that quiet (the Caprice had additional sound insulation over an Impala).
I didn't read all of the thread, so I might be wrong in thinking you were talking about '79. 140 hp might have been all that was around in those big cars in the '80's.
According to wikipedia, the 305 used in the 1979 Caprice lost 15hp and was only 130hp. Even with the optional 350 4bbl with an optional 3.08 rear end barely could break 10 seconds 0-60.
I don't think many Caprices were built with 350s. Kind of like pickups today. Sure, GM and Ford offer 6.2 v8's in a half-ton, but good luck finding one, and if you do, it'll have so many other options you won't want to pay for it.
. I'd prefer one of those in a heartbeat (no pun intended) to the yawnmobiles out there today.
I guess I don't understand. I've had and driven those types of vehicles, and you couldn't give me one. IMO they are the definition of a yawnmobile.
I think 1980 was the last year you could get anything 350-sized in a full-sized GM car. IIRC, the Buick 350 had 155 hp and the Olds had 160. I believe the last Pontiac 350s were in 1978, and for '79 they were using Buick 350's (Olds in California). Chevy still had the 350, but you could only get it in a Camaro, Corvette, or police car.
I want to say that Chevy got the 305-4bbl up to around 155 hp that year, which is very close to those Olds/Buick 350's, but of course it would come up short in torque. And the Olds 307 debuted that year, with 150 hp, but again, it would come up short in the torque department, compared to those 350 engines.
For 1981, the Olds 307 settled down to 140 hp, where it stayed through the end in 1990 (with the exception of the Cutlass 442, which had 170-180 hp). I want to say the 305 dipped to 145 hp for 81-82, but bounced back to 150 for 1983-84. Then for 1985, in the full-sized cars, it went to 165, although it stayed at 150 for midsized cars like the Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, and Bonneville G.
Oddly though, around 1987 or so, all GM wagons started using the 140 hp Olds 307. So, if you bought a Caprice sedan or coupe, you either got the 262 or 305, but if you bought the Caprice wagon, you got an Olds 307.
The 307 had a bit more torque, 255 ft-lb, compared to the 305's 245. And I think the 307 hit its peak around 2000 rpm, versus 2400 for the 305. The 307 got its peak hp at a lower rpm as well, but I forget the statistics. I want to say 4400 for the 305, 3200 for the 307, but don't hold me to that!
But regardless, maybe the lower rpm, and the slight boost in torque, made the 307 a better choice in the wagons than the 305? Or maybe it was just something as simple as GM shuffling things around so that V-8 production was roughly 50/50 305/307? As the Electra/98, Toronado/Riviera, and Delta 88/LeSabre downsized in the mid 80's, GM lost a lot of demand for those 307's.
I don't trust much of anything anybody puts in wikipedia, nor the "Consumer Guide" books, honestly. When I have time, I'll look in the '79 Caprice brochure to see if the hp is listed. At some point they quit listing hp I think (probably embarrassed!). I know in '77, the 350 was 170 hp and there were quite a few out there. They had the heavier transmission too.