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 remember Consumer Reports testing one of those 130 hp Caprices, and getting 0-60 in about 15.4 seconds! They also tested a Crown Vic with a 129 hp 502, and I think it was good for 13.9, and a St. Regis with a 135 hp 318 that pulled a miserable 15.9!
And yeah, I'm pretty sure the 350 was pretty rare in the downsized '77-79 Impalas and Caprices, and probably more rarer in the later years. It would be more common in the wagons, but still not exactly plentiful.
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 it's more about the styling, the color choices, variety, etc of those old cars than the actual driving experience. And the nostalgia. And in my case, I just like the extra stretch-out room. Todays' cars just feel claustrophobic to me. Also, a lot of those old cars just seemed to fit my body better than many of the new ones. Even though seats are contoured and more ergonomic these days, they often feel hard and unsupportive to me, and a bit under-sized. And it's not like I'm fat, or have a big butt, or anything like that!
I think emissions controls started tightening again in 1979, and that prompted a cut in hp from some engines. The 305-2bbl went from 145 hp to 130, although a 4-bbl version was introduced, only for the Malibu and Monte Carlo, which had 160 hp. It was also used in the Aeroback Cutlass 4-4-2, I believe, and might have shown up in some California Centurys and Regals.
IIRC, the 305-2bbl was also dropped from the Malibu/Monte Carlo that year, but the 267-2bbl came out to replace it as the base V-8, and it had around 125 hp.
For 1980, the 305-2bbl went away completely, and was replaced by the 267.
I just like the extra stretch-out room. Todays' cars just feel claustrophobic to me.
I guess we have crash standards to thank for that. The A pillar and B pillar on my wife's Taurus dwarf those on my Expedition. Add a super high belt line and you feel like your sitting in a tub. Just resting my arm on the door means having my elbow nearly at shoulder height.
Granted, I'm used to driving full-size SUVs so just about everything feels claustrophobic.
Pickups are probably the closest we have to how cars used be made. Outside of color choices, the option/configuration list on an F150 is unbelievable. When was the last time you could have 4 engine choices and 4 axle ratios on the same vehicle (though they're not all optional on any individual trim or configuration)?
I recently test drove an F150 Supercrew Lariat with a split bench front seat. It was impressively comfortable and roomy. The leg room in the back seat was very impressive with 41.5"front/43.5 rear. The Expedition is 39.5" of leg room in the middle row, though I will say my eyes told me the F150 had more 4 more inches of extra leg room, but I don't know how they measure it.
What's sad is the F150 Supercrew dwarfs the leg room available in a Taurus. Who ever thought you'd be more comfortable in a back seat of a pick vs Ford's largest sedan. The Taurus only has 38.1" of rear seat legroom. Looking at very measurable dimension regarding passenger room the F150 just dwarfs a Taurus.
Ours was a mid 80s smog-choked V8. The vehicle was heavy to it could barely get out of its own way.
At least torque was good, for towing.
My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had that 140 hp 307. It didn't seem too bad at the time, but it was also a 4-door sedan, and probably weighed a good 500 lb more more less than the wagon. It had a 2.73:1 axle...dunno if the wagon used a quicker ratio or not, to offset that extra weight?
One major annoyance I remembered was that the transmission liked to upshift too early, almost as if to keep the car away from its peak power band! I discovered that if you shifted it manually, it performed a LOT better! But the shifter was fairly clunky, so you had to be careful so as to not accidentally park it at highway speeds!
Once it went into 4th gear, which was something like 0.667:1, that gave you an effective ratio of around 1.82:1, and the car really had no guts because it was revving TOO slow. But, once you got it to around 85 mph, where the speedometer pegged, it seemed to catch its second wind, I'm guessing because the engine finally got going fast enough again in that top gear to get back into its sweet spot, power wise.
Per Consumer Guide's 1985 test of a similar Delta 88, 0-60 was only good for around 12 seconds. Didn't seem bad at the time, but it sounds horrible today. However, it would sometimes feel more powerful off the line, because you barely had to step on it and it would lunge ahead, whereas today's cars, you have to stomp 'em and wind 'em up more (not trying to re-hash the old OHC versus pushrod wars, though! :P )
Another thing that was good about that car, is that extra weight didn't seem to slow it down much. Whether it just the driver, or six people and a trunk full of luggage, it seemed to take off about the same. In contrast, I remember my 2000 Intrepid, with 200 hp, started to bog down with more than two people on board. And even with my 240 hp supercharged Park Ave, I notice it a little.
My folks bought a new, bright red '77 Impala coupe in Nov. '76. It was a 305, whitewalls, wheel covers, wheel opening moldings, bodyside moldings, AM radio, bumper guards...and that was it...$5,503 sticker. In the showroom at the time was the same identically-optioned car EXCEPT it was a 350 4-barrel and was painted 'Firethorn', a color I liked better than bright red. I about begged my Dad to buy it instead...it was $200 more on the sticker...but my frugal Dad didn't like the extra cost nor the four-barrel carb. Even at our small-town dealer, and the small-town dealer in the college town I attended then, I'd see a fair amount of 350's in Impalas and Caprices. Not as many as 305's of course...but I'd say the 350 was not as rare in '77 as when I was looking at new Monte Carlos in '81 and bought a 267...they were hard-to-find. At one point the window sticker price for a 267 was only a $50 option over the V6. It changed throughout the year though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My grandpa had an '83 Old 88 with the 307. Like you said, it definitely was geared tall. He'd let me drive quite often when I had my learner's permit in '86. I remember a tall hill by his house and I could get the secondaries to kick in going up it and he wouldn't notice.
For the time, 12 seconds 0-60 was probably above average. Plus those v8's had enough torque which during normal driving you really didn't notice any power deficit until you really got on it.
hereas today's cars, you have to stomp 'em and wind 'em up more (not trying to re-hash the old OHC versus pushrod wars, though! :P )
I really don't think that's case much anymore with 6 speed+ transmissions, variable valve timing, and electronic throttle control etc. The latest powertrains have really improved torque output across a wide rpm range.
Ex. Comparing theTaurus to the '07 GP, the Taurus despite it's extra 500+ pounds it feels peppier off the line and quicker at all speeds than the 3800 powered GP ever did. The 3800 likely has more torque off idle, but by 2k rpm that advantage is gone (no car does much acceleration below 2k rpm unless you try to) and gearing makes up any difference anyway.
Chrysler is the only domestic that really hasn't burned me, but I've only owned one Chrysler product and I only had it for 2 years, so while it wasn't 100% reliable, it never cost me much to keep running and I was fairly satisfied with it.
To copy Mitt Romney, I'll bet you $10,000 you'll get burned by Chrysler simply by buying any vehicle they make today and trying to get it up over 100,000 miles, without paying extra to get the extended warranty.
Funny, $10,000 is the amount bet by the National Motorists Association (NMA) that cities will find that red light cameras are useless if they implement smarter more logical traffic engineering solutions rather than tax/revenue solutions.
but you need to focus on more recent events. It's in your best interest really.
I seriously doubt that is good advice. I think the saying "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is much more applicable and truer here! :lemon: :sick:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Being as Domestic vehicles outsell foreign brands the ratio should be much closer....somewhere near 1:1.
Yes, a good point, until you look further and deeper.
First, domestic cars sold because they were "cheap" and a lot of money was placed on the hood in the form of rebates and 5 or 6 year 0% loans. :sick:
People don't want to read about cheap cars. They want to read about good cars. They want to see pictures of well built automobiles. They want to hear about the 0-60 MPH times, and the slalom times of more capable cars than what the US produces. Outside the Vette, V cars and 2010 and newer Mustangs, there really was no reason to discuss anything about American sports cars.
Second, If Japanese, German, and American cars were given equal coverage, the ratio would be 2:1 in favor of foreign. Add in Korea, Sweden, UK, and there are simply far more Foreign choices and only ONE domestic country.
Magazines don't want to talk about the everyday high sellers (they are boring). They want to talk about cars people aspire to and wish that they owned.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
To copy Mitt Romney, I'll bet you $10,000 you'll get burned by Chrysler simply by buying any vehicle they make today and trying to get it up over 100,000 miles, without paying extra to get the extended warranty.
Well, my BIL has almost 180k on his '06 Ram 2500 diesel without anything major failing and my SIL has an '08 Caravan with 90k and no issues. Still I wouldn't bet $10k on any domestic car going 100k w/o a major repair;)
That said, if Chrysler's or any car were that bad, they'd have to charge a lot more for the warranty than they already do. Also they wouldn't be offering those extended warranties if they weren't making plenty of money on them, which they do, so most people don't win. But when you do, it is a good feeling. I just don't like paying for something I hope I never have to use.
You sound like Ron Paul. I like Ron Paul, he's the only real true Republican running in 2012.
I'm not a Republican, but he strikes me as truly different in a good logical way. I have a feeling he'd get rid of Gov't Motors within the first month of his Presidency.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Also they wouldn't be offering those extended warranties if they weren't making plenty of money on them, which they do, so most people don't win.
Your probably right about most companies making money on extended warranties. I imagine Honda's profit margin on those is near 100%. But with Chrysler.... I don't know that they made any money on them, if they did, those profits must have been "misplaced and lost" similar to other financial schemes cause from recent memory Chrysler's been bailed out of bankruptcy twice!
Cerebus gonna say "I don't know where the billions are?"
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
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 remember when my Parents got the '95 Camry (4-cyl) brand new and I was a teenager, my first reaction was "What's the point of getting a Lexus, when you can have this for less?!?"
That was a very COMFY ride.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I imagine Honda's profit margin on those is near 100%. But with Chrysler.... I don't know that they made any money on them, if they did, those profits must have been "misplaced and lost" similar to other financial schemes cause from recent memory Chrysler's been bailed out of bankruptcy twice!
A company going bankrupt can certainly have profits on certain products and services. It's when you add them all up and they equal less than 0 is when the problems develop.
The mortgage business kept GM afloat for several years.
Well, we've all seen Warranty expense figures posted before, and Chrysler is and always was at the top.
In fact, in every measurable way imagineable, Chrysler always comes out at the bottom of the list when you rank them in preferable order for anything remotely having to do with reliability and dependability.
Consumer Reports hits bullseyes with Chrysler and their scores in the 30's. LOL.
If anything, GM stayed afloat because Chrysler performed more pathetically than them and steered some former Mopar customers GM's way!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Well, we've all seen Warranty expense figures posted before, and Chrysler is and always was at the top.
I don't dispute that at all. I've seen the same. What I haven't see though is a break out of warranty expenses between what falls under the mfg provided warranty and the customer purchased extended warranty. I'm sure there are instances where certain warranties are unprofitable.
Like Ford's 6.0 diesel fiasco that cost them billions in warranty claims.
I know ... Durango got a full update, but cars like the 200C and Compass/Caliber and Patriot got half-hearted refreshes.
At the auto show I checked out a Compass - the front door panel is nicer, upgrade with soft materials, but not the rear one. So now they don't even match. It's comical.
Any how, nice to see that their complete efforts (like Durango) are doing well.
At the auto show I checked out a Compass - the front door panel is nicer, upgrade with soft materials, but not the rear one. So now they don't even match. It's comical.
I didn't notice that when I saw a Compass at the Mopar show in Carlisle this past summer. But to be fair, I didn't pay that much attention to it. It's sad that they'll still cut corners like that, though. It makes me think a bit of how when the Neon was still around, if you wanted power windows, you got power for the front only! The back door windows were always crank-only.
I wonder how many people don't check the back seat and don't realize it until later, then feel suckered in.
At the same auto show, I sat in a $49k Durango. Spendy, sure, but why not build a competent product and then charge more for it. I guarantee you the profit margins are better.
I wonder how many people don't check the back seat and don't realize it until later, then feel suckered in.
It happens. Honda did some skimping on the Accord too. My mom still complains she got cheated as the passenger seat in my dad's 09 Accord Ex-L only has a heated seat, not the lumbar seat back. The driver's seat is a properly heated seat. My dad thought something was wrong with it until he confirmed in the owners manual that only the base of the passenger seat is heated.
I wonder how many people don't check the back seat and don't realize it until later, then feel suckered in.
I'm sure there are plenty. I know I've told this story before, but back in February of 1982, my grandparents bought a brand-new Malibu Classic Estate wagon.
Well, come one unseasonably hot Sunday in April, I went to church with them. Grandmom sat in the back seat, and almost immediately started fumbling around. Finally, she's like "how the hell do you roll down the window?!" We looked, and couldn't figure it out. Until we realized that in those cars, you DON'T roll down the rear window! :mad: It's stationary, and as a small consolation, the little quarter window built into the rear of the door would flip out.
Grandmom had a few choice words for that car, Chevrolet, and GM. Probably a good thing we're not Catholic, or else a trip to the confessional would have been in order! :P
In the fall of '84, when they traded that car on their LeSabre, the first thing they checked was to make sure the back windows rolled down! They only went down about half way, but that was good enough.
I also remember, when Grandmom and Granddad bought their '85 Silverado, Grandmom took a tape measure with her, because she wanted to make sure they didn't shrink it down, compared to the '76 GMC they had! I guess she still felt screwed over by that '82 Malibu, that she wanted to make sure GM wasn't pulling any tricks with their trucks. The main thing she was concerned about was the width of the seat. She wanted to make sure it would still hold three people across.
And, somehow, I remember her coming up with a smaller measurement for the front seat cushion width of the '85, compared to the '76! I'm wondering if the tape measure just happened to slip, or she measured wrong somehow, because I can't see there being a difference in the seats. That generation of truck was the same from 1973-87 (and a bit longer in the 3/4+ ton models). The '76 had a crew cab though, while the '85 is just a regular cab. So maybe there was some kind of design difference in the seats?
Well, come one unseasonably hot Sunday in April, I went to church with them. Grandmom sat in the back seat, and almost immediately started fumbling around. Finally, she's like "how the hell do you roll down the window?!" We looked, and couldn't figure it out. Until we realized that in those cars, you DON'T roll down the rear window! :mad: It's stationary, and as a small consolation, the little quarter window built into the rear of the door would flip out.
Grandmom had a few choice words for that car, Chevrolet, and GM. Probably a good thing we're not Catholic, or else a trip to the confessional would have been in order! :P
Now that's damn funny!
Morale to the story, don't piss off grandma. My mom (being a grandmother too) had a few choice words towards Honda regarding her seat missing 1/2 of the expected heated surface)
Our Forester has a heated seat base and back on both seats. Not only that, but the heated side mirrors are hot enough to evaporate any water and really clear them up, not just melt ice like some (Toyota's for instance).
Kudos to Subaru for a proper all-weather package (also with wiper de-icers). They know how to keep snow belters happy.
I had tat experience with the windows in an 80s vintage Olds my dad had. I'm in the back seat and "Dad, how the hell do you roll these windows down?" "You don't."
Oh.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The mortgage business kept GM afloat for several years.
... and then they sold it and went belly up.
It appears that GM had been a profitable finance company with a big car business on the side that was dragging them down. Normally I'd say that they should have converted to a financing business and sold off the vehicle business, but given the banking collapse, that would have resulted in failure, also. But it appears they actually sold their finance arm with really good timing.
It appears that GM had been a profitable finance company with a big car business on the side that was dragging them down. Normally I'd say that they should have converted to a financing business and sold off the vehicle business
Well, we've all seen Warranty expense figures posted before, and Chrysler is and always was at the top.
I think that Toyota's voluntary buyback of pre-2000 Tacomas along with the complete replacement of their inferior rusting frames on their 2000-2005 Tundras and Tacomas has probably put them very high on the list.
The frame replacement cost per vehicle is in the $11,000 to $13,000 range. They have done a lot of them and continue to do so. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles are involved.
My neighbor has a 1986 Suburban that he uses for snow plowing every winter. The body has rust but the frame is still solid. Any 25 year old Toyota trucks out there?
Just recently we had a 2012 Chevy Equinox LTZ V-6 in our shop. I can see why these are in demand . It is beautiful inside and out. With every option including Nav the sticker was $32k.
A family member has a 2010 Acura RDX that he paid close to $40k. I drove in it and I thought the interior looked cheap, the 4 Cyl. turbo was buzzy and the ride was too stiff. It might be a bit quicker to 60mph than the V-6 Equinox but factoring in the fact the it doesn't require premium gas the Chevy has a lower yearly fuel cost.
family member has a 2010 Acura RDX that he paid close to $40k. I drove in it and I thought the interior looked cheap, the 4 Cyl. turbo was buzzy and the ride was too stiff.
We drove the RDX when it first came out and had exactly the same impressions. Lost interest immediately. And I'm a Honda/Acura fan (or at least was..... they are slipping quite a bit).
I also noticed that the rear camera in the Equinox had lines showing a virtual track where the car would go as the steering changed. I'm not familiar with rear cameras and I don't know if all of them have that but it is a a very useful feature while backing up.
I also noticed that the rear camera in the Equinox had lines showing a virtual track where the car would go as the steering changed. I'm not familiar with rear cameras and I don't know if all of them have that but it is a a very useful feature while backing up.
Every one I've seen is that way. They are handy. My next SUV or pickup will definitely have a back up camera. That will save me a bunch of time hooking up trailers etc.
Chrysler also sold a good looking Mitsubishi coupe from around 1978-83, known here as the Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Sapporo.
That's funny that you should mention the old Challenger and Sapporo Mopar products. I was thinking of them a couple days ago but couldn't remember their names...but they were what Chrysler came up with as gas-savers in the late 70's. I knew they had something smaller than the Dart-Demon-Duster's to offer.
Indeed the Chrysler product made by Mitsubishi in the late 70's - early 80's was a nice looking machine. I was thinking of a guy who was an illustrator at Boeing with me in the early 80's who drove a beige one, IIRC it was beige. I believe it was a 2-dr. and rather square-ish looking with a slight bending downward sloping towards the front. Sort of like mid-to-late 80's Toyota Corolla AE86's only a tad sportier, even. I thought back then that that wasn't a bad-looking design for the time period.
C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec Zero to 100 mph: 16.1 sec Zero to 130 mph: 37.7 sec Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 sec Standing ¼-mile: 14.7 sec @ 96 mph Top speed (governor limited): 132 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 173 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g
More than 407,000 jobs in the U.S. are due to Japanese automakers and their dealers, reports the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association. And nowadays, Japanese makers are producing most of the cars they sell in America in North America -- 68% altogether.
Those are a couple of the statistics out of a new JAMA report being issued this week. Though it is based on 2010 production, it still has its share of surprises. For instance, exported vehicles from Japanese plants in the U.S. last year increased to more than 145,000, up from 94,000 in 2009. With a strong yen today, the trend continues.
The vast majority of Japanese employees are those working at auto dealerships. But Japanese makers now have 29 plants in the U.S. employing more than 50,000. Japanese makers have invested more than $34 billion in the U.S. And one of the benefits has been to become a leader in "green" vehicles, such as Toyota and its Prius and other hybrids.
Comments
I remember Consumer Reports testing one of those 130 hp Caprices, and getting 0-60 in about 15.4 seconds! They also tested a Crown Vic with a 129 hp 502, and I think it was good for 13.9, and a St. Regis with a 135 hp 318 that pulled a miserable 15.9!
And yeah, I'm pretty sure the 350 was pretty rare in the downsized '77-79 Impalas and Caprices, and probably more rarer in the later years. It would be more common in the wagons, but still not exactly plentiful.
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 it's more about the styling, the color choices, variety, etc of those old cars than the actual driving experience. And the nostalgia. And in my case, I just like the extra stretch-out room. Todays' cars just feel claustrophobic to me. Also, a lot of those old cars just seemed to fit my body better than many of the new ones. Even though seats are contoured and more ergonomic these days, they often feel hard and unsupportive to me, and a bit under-sized. And it's not like I'm fat, or have a big butt, or anything like that!
IIRC, the 305-2bbl was also dropped from the Malibu/Monte Carlo that year, but the 267-2bbl came out to replace it as the base V-8, and it had around 125 hp.
For 1980, the 305-2bbl went away completely, and was replaced by the 267.
I guess we have crash standards to thank for that. The A pillar and B pillar on my wife's Taurus dwarf those on my Expedition. Add a super high belt line and you feel like your sitting in a tub. Just resting my arm on the door means having my elbow nearly at shoulder height.
Granted, I'm used to driving full-size SUVs so just about everything feels claustrophobic.
Pickups are probably the closest we have to how cars used be made. Outside of color choices, the option/configuration list on an F150 is unbelievable. When was the last time you could have 4 engine choices and 4 axle ratios on the same vehicle (though they're not all optional on any individual trim or configuration)?
I recently test drove an F150 Supercrew Lariat with a split bench front seat. It was impressively comfortable and roomy. The leg room in the back seat was very impressive with 41.5"front/43.5 rear. The Expedition is 39.5" of leg room in the middle row, though I will say my eyes told me the F150 had more 4 more inches of extra leg room, but I don't know how they measure it.
What's sad is the F150 Supercrew dwarfs the leg room available in a Taurus. Who ever thought you'd be more comfortable in a back seat of a pick vs Ford's largest sedan. The Taurus only has 38.1" of rear seat legroom. Looking at very measurable dimension regarding passenger room the F150 just dwarfs a Taurus.
At least torque was good, for towing.
Per andre:
For 1981, the Olds 307 settled down to 140 hp
Sounds about right, 140 gross hp, on a good day, downhill with the wind in your back.
0-60?
Yes. Eventually.
At least torque was good, for towing.
My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had that 140 hp 307. It didn't seem too bad at the time, but it was also a 4-door sedan, and probably weighed a good 500 lb more more less than the wagon. It had a 2.73:1 axle...dunno if the wagon used a quicker ratio or not, to offset that extra weight?
One major annoyance I remembered was that the transmission liked to upshift too early, almost as if to keep the car away from its peak power band! I discovered that if you shifted it manually, it performed a LOT better! But the shifter was fairly clunky, so you had to be careful so as to not accidentally park it at highway speeds!
Once it went into 4th gear, which was something like 0.667:1, that gave you an effective ratio of around 1.82:1, and the car really had no guts because it was revving TOO slow. But, once you got it to around 85 mph, where the speedometer pegged, it seemed to catch its second wind, I'm guessing because the engine finally got going fast enough again in that top gear to get back into its sweet spot, power wise.
Per Consumer Guide's 1985 test of a similar Delta 88, 0-60 was only good for around 12 seconds. Didn't seem bad at the time, but it sounds horrible today. However, it would sometimes feel more powerful off the line, because you barely had to step on it and it would lunge ahead, whereas today's cars, you have to stomp 'em and wind 'em up more (not trying to re-hash the old OHC versus pushrod wars, though! :P )
Another thing that was good about that car, is that extra weight didn't seem to slow it down much. Whether it just the driver, or six people and a trunk full of luggage, it seemed to take off about the same. In contrast, I remember my 2000 Intrepid, with 200 hp, started to bog down with more than two people on board. And even with my 240 hp supercharged Park Ave, I notice it a little.
My grandpa had an '83 Old 88 with the 307. Like you said, it definitely was geared tall. He'd let me drive quite often when I had my learner's permit in '86. I remember a tall hill by his house and I could get the secondaries to kick in going up it and he wouldn't notice.
For the time, 12 seconds 0-60 was probably above average. Plus those v8's had enough torque which during normal driving you really didn't notice any power deficit until you really got on it.
hereas today's cars, you have to stomp 'em and wind 'em up more (not trying to re-hash the old OHC versus pushrod wars, though! :P )
I really don't think that's case much anymore with 6 speed+ transmissions, variable valve timing, and electronic throttle control etc. The latest powertrains have really improved torque output across a wide rpm range.
Ex. Comparing theTaurus to the '07 GP, the Taurus despite it's extra 500+ pounds it feels peppier off the line and quicker at all speeds than the 3800 powered GP ever did. The 3800 likely has more torque off idle, but by 2k rpm that advantage is gone (no car does much acceleration below 2k rpm unless you try to) and gearing makes up any difference anyway.
To copy Mitt Romney, I'll bet you $10,000 you'll get burned by Chrysler simply by buying any vehicle they make today and trying to get it up over 100,000 miles, without paying extra to get the extended warranty.
Funny, $10,000 is the amount bet by the National Motorists Association (NMA) that cities will find that red light cameras are useless if they implement smarter more logical traffic engineering solutions rather than tax/revenue solutions.
http://www.insideline.com/car-news/traffic-group-bets-against-red-light-cameras.- html#comments_sort_form1
I don't think there's anything wrong with betting $10,000. It shows your more serious and more certainly correct than betting $10.00.
I seriously doubt that is good advice. I think the saying "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" is much more applicable and truer here! :lemon: :sick:
Yes, a good point, until you look further and deeper.
First, domestic cars sold because they were "cheap" and a lot of money was placed on the hood in the form of rebates and 5 or 6 year 0% loans. :sick:
People don't want to read about cheap cars. They want to read about good cars. They want to see pictures of well built automobiles. They want to hear about the 0-60 MPH times, and the slalom times of more capable cars than what the US produces. Outside the Vette, V cars and 2010 and newer Mustangs, there really was no reason to discuss anything about American sports cars.
Second, If Japanese, German, and American cars were given equal coverage, the ratio would be 2:1 in favor of foreign. Add in Korea, Sweden, UK, and there are simply far more Foreign choices and only ONE domestic country.
Magazines don't want to talk about the everyday high sellers (they are boring). They want to talk about cars people aspire to and wish that they owned.
Well, my BIL has almost 180k on his '06 Ram 2500 diesel without anything major failing and my SIL has an '08 Caravan with 90k and no issues. Still I wouldn't bet $10k on any domestic car going 100k w/o a major repair;)
That said, if Chrysler's or any car were that bad, they'd have to charge a lot more for the warranty than they already do. Also they wouldn't be offering those extended warranties if they weren't making plenty of money on them, which they do, so most people don't win. But when you do, it is a good feeling. I just don't like paying for something I hope I never have to use.
...because otherwise they would go bankrupt. :surprise: :shades:
You sound like Ron Paul. I like Ron Paul, he's the only real true Republican running in 2012.
I'm not a Republican, but he strikes me as truly different in a good logical way. I have a feeling he'd get rid of Gov't Motors within the first month of his Presidency.
LOL, touche'
Hahaha, you beat me to it!!!! Yes, they'd have to charge a lot more, or get bailed out again and again and again as the years go by.
Bush and Obama chose the bailout method.
Your probably right about most companies making money on extended warranties. I imagine Honda's profit margin on those is near 100%. But with Chrysler.... I don't know that they made any money on them, if they did, those profits must have been "misplaced and lost" similar to other financial schemes cause from recent memory Chrysler's been bailed out of bankruptcy twice!
Cerebus gonna say "I don't know where the billions are?"
I remember when my Parents got the '95 Camry (4-cyl) brand new and I was a teenager, my first reaction was "What's the point of getting a Lexus, when you can have this for less?!?"
That was a very COMFY ride.
A company going bankrupt can certainly have profits on certain products and services. It's when you add them all up and they equal less than 0 is when the problems develop.
The mortgage business kept GM afloat for several years.
In fact, in every measurable way imagineable, Chrysler always comes out at the bottom of the list when you rank them in preferable order for anything remotely having to do with reliability and dependability.
Consumer Reports hits bullseyes with Chrysler and their scores in the 30's. LOL.
If anything, GM stayed afloat because Chrysler performed more pathetically than them and steered some former Mopar customers GM's way!
I don't dispute that at all. I've seen the same. What I haven't see though is a break out of warranty expenses between what falls under the mfg provided warranty and the customer purchased extended warranty. I'm sure there are instances where certain warranties are unprofitable.
Like Ford's 6.0 diesel fiasco that cost them billions in warranty claims.
What about the V50?
They still have a ways to go, but even Consumer Reports put the Durango at the top of its class for reliability.
I'm still not sure MB has fully recovered.
At the auto show I checked out a Compass - the front door panel is nicer, upgrade with soft materials, but not the rear one. So now they don't even match. It's comical.
Any how, nice to see that their complete efforts (like Durango) are doing well.
I didn't notice that when I saw a Compass at the Mopar show in Carlisle this past summer. But to be fair, I didn't pay that much attention to it. It's sad that they'll still cut corners like that, though. It makes me think a bit of how when the Neon was still around, if you wanted power windows, you got power for the front only! The back door windows were always crank-only.
I wonder how many people don't check the back seat and don't realize it until later, then feel suckered in.
At the same auto show, I sat in a $49k Durango. Spendy, sure, but why not build a competent product and then charge more for it. I guarantee you the profit margins are better.
It happens. Honda did some skimping on the Accord too. My mom still complains she got cheated as the passenger seat in my dad's 09 Accord Ex-L only has a heated seat, not the lumbar seat back. The driver's seat is a properly heated seat. My dad thought something was wrong with it until he confirmed in the owners manual that only the base of the passenger seat is heated.
I'm sure there are plenty. I know I've told this story before, but back in February of 1982, my grandparents bought a brand-new Malibu Classic Estate wagon.
Well, come one unseasonably hot Sunday in April, I went to church with them. Grandmom sat in the back seat, and almost immediately started fumbling around. Finally, she's like "how the hell do you roll down the window?!" We looked, and couldn't figure it out. Until we realized that in those cars, you DON'T roll down the rear window! :mad: It's stationary, and as a small consolation, the little quarter window built into the rear of the door would flip out.
Grandmom had a few choice words for that car, Chevrolet, and GM. Probably a good thing we're not Catholic, or else a trip to the confessional would have been in order! :P
In the fall of '84, when they traded that car on their LeSabre, the first thing they checked was to make sure the back windows rolled down! They only went down about half way, but that was good enough.
I also remember, when Grandmom and Granddad bought their '85 Silverado, Grandmom took a tape measure with her, because she wanted to make sure they didn't shrink it down, compared to the '76 GMC they had! I guess she still felt screwed over by that '82 Malibu, that she wanted to make sure GM wasn't pulling any tricks with their trucks. The main thing she was concerned about was the width of the seat. She wanted to make sure it would still hold three people across.
And, somehow, I remember her coming up with a smaller measurement for the front seat cushion width of the '85, compared to the '76! I'm wondering if the tape measure just happened to slip, or she measured wrong somehow, because I can't see there being a difference in the seats. That generation of truck was the same from 1973-87 (and a bit longer in the 3/4+ ton models). The '76 had a crew cab though, while the '85 is just a regular cab. So maybe there was some kind of design difference in the seats?
Grandmom had a few choice words for that car, Chevrolet, and GM. Probably a good thing we're not Catholic, or else a trip to the confessional would have been in order! :P
Now that's damn funny!
Morale to the story, don't piss off grandma. My mom (being a grandmother too) had a few choice words towards Honda regarding her seat missing 1/2 of the expected heated surface)
Same with the Infiniti G37S my friend owns. Lame!
Our Forester has a heated seat base and back on both seats. Not only that, but the heated side mirrors are hot enough to evaporate any water and really clear them up, not just melt ice like some (Toyota's for instance).
Kudos to Subaru for a proper all-weather package (also with wiper de-icers). They know how to keep snow belters happy.
Oh.
... and then they sold it and went belly up.
It appears that GM had been a profitable finance company with a big car business on the side that was dragging them down. Normally I'd say that they should have converted to a financing business and sold off the vehicle business, but given the banking collapse, that would have resulted in failure, also. But it appears they actually sold their finance arm with really good timing.
That was a running joke for a while.
I think that Toyota's voluntary buyback of pre-2000 Tacomas along with the complete replacement of their inferior rusting frames on their 2000-2005 Tundras and Tacomas has probably put them very high on the list.
The frame replacement cost per vehicle is in the $11,000 to $13,000 range.
They have done a lot of them and continue to do so. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles are involved.
My neighbor has a 1986 Suburban that he uses for snow plowing every winter. The body has rust but the frame is still solid. Any 25 year old Toyota trucks out there?
A family member has a 2010 Acura RDX that he paid close to $40k. I drove in it and I thought the interior looked cheap, the 4 Cyl. turbo was buzzy and the ride was too stiff. It might be a bit quicker to 60mph than the V-6 Equinox but factoring in the fact the it doesn't require premium gas the
Chevy has a lower yearly fuel cost.
Kia Sportage
Statistics as tested. Loaded, every option = $32,200
0-60: 6.1 Seconds
1/4 Mile: 14.6 Seconds @ 96 MPH
Fuel Economy: over 629 miles, 23.0MPG
GM follows as usual.
Regards,
OW
We drove the RDX when it first came out and had exactly the same impressions. Lost interest immediately. And I'm a Honda/Acura fan (or at least was..... they are slipping quite a bit).
Statistics as tested. Loaded, every option = $32,200
0-60: 6.1 Seconds
Motor Trend had the 0-60 at 7.3 secs.
Every one I've seen is that way. They are handy. My next SUV or pickup will definitely have a back up camera. That will save me a bunch of time hooking up trailers etc.
That's funny that you should mention the old Challenger and Sapporo Mopar products. I was thinking of them a couple days ago but couldn't remember their names...but they were what Chrysler came up with as gas-savers in the late 70's. I knew they had something smaller than the Dart-Demon-Duster's to offer.
Indeed the Chrysler product made by Mitsubishi in the late 70's - early 80's was a nice looking machine. I was thinking of a guy who was an illustrator at Boeing with me in the early 80's who drove a beige one, IIRC it was beige. I believe it was a 2-dr. and rather square-ish looking with a slight bending downward sloping towards the front. Sort of like mid-to-late 80's Toyota Corolla AE86's only a tad sportier, even. I thought back then that that wasn't a bad-looking design for the time period.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Regards,
OW
No guessing there will be no stock sale by the U.S. Government any time soon.
Regards,
OW
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.1 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 16.1 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 37.7 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 14.7 sec @ 96 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 132 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 173 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.80 g
Equinox V-6 is 8.3.
Regards,
OW
More than 407,000 jobs in the U.S. are due to Japanese automakers and their dealers, reports the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association. And nowadays, Japanese makers are producing most of the cars they sell in America in North America -- 68% altogether.
Those are a couple of the statistics out of a new JAMA report being issued this week. Though it is based on 2010 production, it still has its share of surprises. For instance, exported vehicles from Japanese plants in the U.S. last year increased to more than 145,000, up from 94,000 in 2009. With a strong yen today, the trend continues.
The vast majority of Japanese employees are those working at auto dealerships. But Japanese makers now have 29 plants in the U.S. employing more than 50,000. Japanese makers have invested more than $34 billion in the U.S. And one of the benefits has been to become a leader in "green" vehicles, such as Toyota and its Prius and other hybrids.
Happy Holidays! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Seriously, this is obviously way better than the way it used to be when imports were sold here.
This is also the reason GM, Ford and Chrysler improve. Competition is good.
Regards,
OW