I kinda like the first few years of Mark VIII, when they had the thin, narrow headlights and more integrated grille. had kind of a futuristic look about it. I think they messed it up in later years though, with the bigger headlights and taller grille.
When it comes to that generation of Eldorado, I actually prefer the Seville. There's just something about the way styling around the rear quarter window and C-pillar area clashes that I don't like.
The SC really doesn't appeal to me, but I think it's aged fairly well. Probably because it was clean and nondescript from the get-go, it wasn't really sporting any blatant, flash-in-the-pan trends that would make it look obsolete in later years.
Andre, I agree, I don't like the Eldos at all those years. It's the bolt-upright quarter window against a slanted rear window I think. For looks, I think a '92 Seville is hard-to-beat.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Same thing with television. Back inthe day we only had ABC, NBC, CBS, and a smattering of independent stations. Like TV, there are a lot more choices than GM, Ford, Chrysler, and AMC. I'd prefer the alternate choices be Packard, Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, Kaiser-Frazer, etc. instead of a bunch of bland or weird Asian marques.
Really? I had a 1994 Cadillac DeVille with the 4.9 V-8 and currently my 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance and I never noticed any torque steer at all! I often forgot they were FWD cars.
Boy, same here, Lemko. I'm old enough to remember our town's Studebaker dealer, but only after it was closed. The big, blue vertical neon "Studebaker" sign hung out front for a few years after the last Stude was sold there. I was solidly mainsteam at the time as far as cars went--loved Chevys--but the many Studes in town always caught my eye. My Dad wouldn't have been caught dead in one. They're my main old-car love these days.
My hometown Stude dealer also had sold Packard and M-B in his little two-car showroom. Must have been even more fun to shop for cars back then than it was in the late '60's and '70's, and I remember new car introduction night at that time being one of my most exciting childhood memories. Now, who gives a...well, you know.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Really? I had a 1994 Cadillac DeVille with the 4.9 V-8 and currently my 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance and I never noticed any torque steer at all! I often forgot they were FWD cars.
I've yet to drive a FWD car that wasn't obvious it was FWD under certain conditions. That's not a knock on GM, that's just a side effect of sending power to the front wheels. Granted overall GM has probably done a better job than most at controlling it.
I've owned and driven lots of FWD vehicles over the years and all of them have had torque steer to some extent, some worse than others. Even my wife's new Taurus will tug the wheel a bit under certain conditions. No it's not noticeable in most normal sedate driving situations, but pull out into traffic quickly, hit a pot hole or a slick spot and wheel will pull. You don't have that with RWD. Plus I notice it more since my daily driver is rwd. Honestly, I started noticing the difference more after I began driving rwd vehicles again.
With the Deville I rented for a weekend, torque steer wasn't bad, actually considering the power it had, I thought torque steer was well controlled, but it was still there under certain conditions. If I were to pay $40k+ for a car, it will be RWD or AWD. That's just what i prefer.
Torque steer is an area that is constantly improving. 20+ years ago, 200hp was sort of the limit, now they are up to around 300. Cars like the Mazda speed 3 and a few others actually limit torque output up to a certain speed to limit the effects of torque steer. That's why Ford only offers the ecoboost v6 in the Taurus SHO, Lincoln MKS, Flex, and MKT only with AWD. It would likely be scary in FWD only form.
GM is continuing to improve designs to limit TS and it's why are using the new hyperstrut design their higher powered fwd cars. I've not sampled it, but from what I've read, it works well.
Packard, Hudson, Nash, Studebaker, Kaiser-Frazer, etc. instead of a bunch of bland or weird Asian marques.
One thing that is concerning, kids growing up today don't seem be interested in cars. Several parents I know of kids in the 15-18 age group have kids that don't seem to care when they get a drivers license. They are into other things other than automobiles. God only knows if that lack of passion for cars is a generational thing or not, but if it is, it won't bode well for many of us as they reach buying age. It likely could mean more appliance type vehicles that many of us won't be interested in.
A buddy of mine has a 19 year old nephew that drives a late 90's MonteCarlo. I asked him what year it was and he couldn't answer me, he said he'd have to go out and check. Can any of you imagine not being aware of what year your car is?
Granted that has happened to some already with the current crop of vehicles vs. what the industry used to be. I'm not in that camp, because I don't long for vehicles of yore. There's plenty available today that I like. Some are domestic and but most are not. They're not Asian either. I appreciate some aspects of some Asian makes, but for the most part, I agree most of them aren't particularly exciting or something I aspire to own.
I would prefer RWD or AWD too, but I like the DTS and the FWD was something of a compromise. My everyday Grand Marquis is a RWD car.
I remember you mentioning that, back in 1994, the reason you bought the DeVille instead of the big RWD Fleetwood was only because the Fleetwood wouldn't fit in your garage!
As for FWD and torque steer? Well, I remember on Thanksgiving day, driving over to my Granddad's, and old geezer in a Cavalier pulled out in front me and decided to putter along at around 35 mph in a 45 mph zone. When there was a break in the oncoming traffic I went to pass him, and when I stomped on it I swear that steering wheel almost ripped out of my hand as the car tried to jerk back over to the right.
But, to be fair, a powerful enough RWD car, if it didn't have limited slip, would have the rear-end jerk off to one side as the rear of the car kicked out and tried to pass the front. With FWD though, I guess the effect is usually exaggerated because of the transaxle being offset, closer to one wheel than the other. Even my Intrepid though, with its North-South engine orientation, showed some noticable torque steer.
I never noticed any significant steering issues with any of my dad's DeVilles. They drove right where you pointed them.
I did have quite a revelation with my old Saab 99. Made q quicker hit on the brake and turn of the wheel in a bit of snow. I was used to more forgiving cars and theis was my first FWD car. It did a 180. Fortunately no one about other than my rather startled passengers...
uplander - I can remember the local Studebaker dealer! Also sold Packards and MB. Actually was originally a Packard dealer. Sadly that all passed with teh Studebaker. It became a transmission shop and still is under the same family ownership today.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I rented an Impala and drive from IN to IL and back Friday. The Impala got 33.9 mpg on the 60% interstate trip of just over 200 miles. Don't know what size V6 but it was direct injected and had 2700 miles on it. I'm not sure if my smaller, lighter 4 cyl Malibu with 2 more gears would have matched that. The Malibu just gave me 31.9 on a trip to Purdue and back that was maybe 20% interstate. The Impala turns 1250 rpm at 55 mph and 1500 at 65 mph. By contrast, my Riv turns 2200 rpms at 55 and 2800 at 65. How the Riv can give me even 20-21 mpgs is suprising since it is turning over 75% faster. Temps were between 31 and 38 Friday.
I feel like I could trade my 4 cyl for a V6 and maybe not lose a single mpg.
If the Impala you rented had DI, then it was a brand new one with the DI 3.6 and a 6speed trans. It's rated for 18/30 so you did pretty well. With that combo, it should be plenty quick. Definitely would be a nice sleeper sedan to buy used in a year or two for an attractive price.
Sounds like it's geared similar to my wife's '11 Taurus. It too turns around 1500rpm at 65 and roughly 1900 at 80mph. Over the 17k my wife has put on it according to the computer it's averaging about 25mpg. I'd guess her driving is probably 60/40 hwy. IIRC it's rated at 18/28.
I've never gotten more than 30mpg on an extended trip, but I've never driven 65 either. But it doesn't have DI and it weighs quite a bit more than an Impala. Usually 75-80 where it will get 25 or so. You survived I65 at only 65 mph?
I'm sure in city driving something like a 4cyl Malibu would get quite a bit better mileage.
How the Riv can give me even 20-21 mpgs is suprising since it is turning over 75% faster. Temps were between 31 and 38 Friday.
Well, it's not a direct, 1 for 1 correlation. The car is wasting gas by revving needlessly. However, even though it might be revving 75% faster, it's not using 75% more fuel every time the engine fires. At the higher rpm, each engine rev is doing less work, so each rev uses less fuel. However, due to friction and other efficiencies, you'll still use more fuel overall. Just not 75% more.
Plus, with only having three functioning forward gears, once you get on the highway, chances are you're going to stay in third. With more gears, there are probably going to be times when the transmission needs to downshift, so you're not always going to be in 4th gear, or whatever top gear is.
The following are the best and worst car brands for pothole landings. Check it out. My favorite manufacturers came in 5th and 6th place in this. The worst car brands for taking potholes the wrong way are listed lastly. This is from the UK, FWIW.
Most resilient brands 1. Honda 2. Toyota 3. Hyundai 4. Nissan 5. Kia 6. Mitsubishi 7. Mini 8. Suzuki 9. Ford 10. Mazda
Least resilient brands 1. Chrysler 2. Smart 3. Mercedes-Benz 4. Land Rover 5. Jaguar 6. Saab 7. Fiat 8. BMW 9. Seat 10. Vauxhall
Funny. There's a repair shop near my workplace that was once a rather elaborate Studebaker dealership, (nice 1920s art deco architecture and such) that later became an AMC dealer when Studebaker ceased operation. I sometimes take my Grand Marquis there for oil changes and such and it ets done while I'm at work and I pick it up later.
Same thing with television. Back inthe day we only had ABC, NBC, CBS, and a smattering of independent stations
So true, and the funny thing is the broadcast stations often go to infomercials, which was unheard of back then.
Also, I agree about kids not caring as much about cars as we (at least I) did. They're more interested in whether the car has a wi-fi hotspot vs. what's under the hood.
Interest list. Be interesting to see the type claims. I know BMW m3s used to have rims that couldn't handle potholes very well.
I had a friend who owned a Z3 and had to replace not one, not two, but THREE rims on it. To add insult to injury he often had to wait to get the replacement.
And it wasn't just him, another guy at work had a Z3 rim get damaged. Poor guy gave up and drives a Corolla now.
Also, I agree about kids not caring as much about cars as we (at least I) did. They're more interested in whether the car has a wi-fi hotspot vs. what's under the hood.
Of course many, many reasons. One could be that some kids never grow up around "cars". Many parents do have two vehicles, but not cars. Could be a mini van and a pickup. Or a big suv and a smaller suv.
Years ago when there were neat American cars, aspiration was to own a fast or sporty car with a V8. Pickups were absolutely despised by the guys and the younger generation. You only drove one, rented or borrowed from someone in the trades, to haul something. Today, people drive pickups and they don't even need them for the utility purpose.
You didn't even need a pickup. Not that it would look cool, but you could've thrown a hitch on that '69 Impala SS 427 and hauled a trailer. And for a trailer, pick the brand you hated most, find a junked p/u, and have them cut the frame in between the cab and bed, weld an A frame and hitch on, and piss off your buddy cuz you're towing a Ford w/ your Chebby!!!!!!
Yeah, I think it's all about the wheels rather than the cars themselves.
I know a guy in the local MB club who got a $2200 settlement from the city for damage caused to an early 00s CL by a pothole. I actually had to get my car aligned after I hit a hole after dodging a car that swerved into my lane. Infrastructure, we had it once :sick:
Years ago when there were neat American cars, aspiration was to own a fast or sporty car with a V8. Pickups were absolutely despised by the guys and the younger generation. You only drove one, rented or borrowed from someone in the trades, to haul something. Today, people drive pickups and they don't even need them for the utility purpose.
My grandparents always had a car and a truck, but Granddad also worked on a government farm and did a lot of farming/construction/trade work himself. His first truck was actually an old 1939 or so Plymouth he bought, cut the body off aft of the B-pillar, and built in a home-made bed. Not exactly something my mother would want to borrow to take to the prom, but it served its purpose.
But, for the most part, the trucks were just workhorses, whereas it seems the cars were more memorable. Granddad had a 1940 Chrysler Royal when they got married in 1946. Then they got a new 1949 Pontiac, a used 1952 Buick, used 1955 Pontiac, new 1960 or 1961 Chevy Impala (or whatever they called the Impala level wagon...Nomad maybe?). Then a 1964 or 65 Impala wagon. Then a '68 Impala 4-door hardtop, 72 Impala 4-door hardtop, '82 Malibu wagon, and the last car was an '85 LeSabre 4-door.
With trucks though, it seems like their memory faded over the years. Grandmom really doesn't remember them like she does the cars, and neither do my uncle or Mom. At some point I think he had a '57 GMC, an early/mid 60's Chevy or GMC, a '73 Chevy, '76 GMC crew cab, and finally an '85 Silverado that I still have. They also had a '72 LUV and and '81 Ram D-50.
I think pickups became popular in the 1970's, when the public started getting a fascination with cowboys and trucker movies and such. And, the fact that cars were getting fat, heavy, and emasculated, and then petite and flimsy once downsizing set in, pickups sort of turned into the new wave of musclecar, when equipped with the right engine.
The GM investment issue could put Obama in a bind. He either gets criticized for having the government still with a stake in GM, or he is criticized for selling the government's stake at a loss. When Republicans nominate a candidate in August, the government will probably either still own a substantial portion of GM or will have sold the stock at a loss that could be more than $10 billion.
Besides worldwide problems, GM's stock price is being held down by the prospect that the government will dilute the market by selling its shares. After that, however, the price of GM stock could rally, said Adam Jonas, a New York-based analyst at Morgan Stanley.
The government reportedly wants a minimum of $30 a share.
This act of kindness is very surprising, because GM doesn’t even like covering warranties on local-made products it considers was built by “old GM.”
Complete crock. Again. Never been questioned in the slightest on warranty work done on my pre-bankruptcy cars...even out-of-warranty items done as warranty.
Other than the Impala police car versus non-police car issue, where no one seems to be able to determine if the spindle is the identical part number in both, has there been a single, solitary report of GM not honoring a warranty because the car was built pre-bankruptcy? Pretty basic question.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
YTD, the Cruze has done great. But for whatever reason sales have dropped off since the summer months. In November the Civic and Corolla sold several thousand more and the Jetta was only a few hundred behind. The Focus wasn't even in the top 20.
I can't say anything bad about the Cruze. It looks like a very good compact car. If I were to buy a car in that class, I'd certainly drive a Cruze and consider it. I don't know if I'd buy it or not.
Going by what I've read, I'd likely prefer the driving dynamics of a Focus or maybe the new Jetta GLI (which would be the quickest by far in the segment, but it likely will have the least FE). Gas mileage just isn't my biggest priority. I'd prefer which ever I'd enjoyed driving the most. That's not to take anything away from the Cruze, but simply a personal preference.
Cruze has better styling than Civic, Focus, IMO. It will still look good after a number of years. Focus too gimmicky. Will look outdated in a few years. Too bad Cruze does not come with an engine/trans as good as the Honda 4 cyl and Honda's great manual transmission.
Too bad Cruze does not come with an engine/trans as good as the Honda 4 cyl and Honda's great manual transmission.
This will be the car to beat if you want more than basic transportation in the compact segment:
The new Focus is at last debuting in the U.S., with a 2.0-liter, direct-injected, 160-hp motor and variable valve timing, as well as a five-speed manual. But, the car to wait for is the 2013 Focus ST, which debuts in early 2012. It gets a six-speed manual with the same EcoBoost (turbocharged) 2.0-liter as the much larger Edge and Explorer and will be good for somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 hp, which puts it in league with hot hatches like the MazdaSpeed3 and beyond the output of the VW GTI. Ford is also promising a tauter suspension and meatier tires as well as bigger brakes to go with all that horsepower. Expect to pay at least $25,000.
Cruze has better styling than Civic, Focus, IMO. It will still look good after a number of years. Focus too gimmicky. Will look outdated in a few years. Too bad Cruze does not come with an engine/trans as good as the Honda 4 cyl and Honda's great manual transmission.
Agreed to all of that. Which is why I lament that GM has so many good things, but can't ever seem to close the deal to be a class leader. If they could find a better engine/tranny combo (and of course have excellent reliability), Cruze would be a class leader. And since Honda is slipping and the Corolla is a blandmobile, there is a real opportunity there.
Don't see it on the Sonic--the big, open-mouth look.
I can actually find a little fault with both of them. That big bass-mouth/catfish look of the Focus ST just has an unfinished, home-made look to it, like some high-school kid bought a base model Focus and tried to customize it with chicken wire and black paint. The regular Focus models look better, IMO, although a bit busy, and it looks like it has fangs.
With the Sonic, it looks like they tried to take all the features of the front-end of a 1972 Impala, and force-fit them on a tiny car, and it just doesn't quite work. The headlight cluster is just too big. Probably the reason that, back in the day when quad headlights were the in thing, most small cars stuck it out with singles.
I don't love the looks of the Sonic...'clown car' comes to mind...but in the context of the original statement about 'SpongeBob'--the Focus wins that bet I think (IMHO)--even has little 'fins' coming off the bottom of the mouth, er..., grill.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
You won't see the front end of the Focus ST if you're in the Sonic so it won't offend you. The Sonic will be so far behind it you would be lucky to see the rear end of the ST!
Toyota Motor Corp. (TM) launched the world’s best fuel-efficient gasoline-electric hybrid car in Japan, known as Aqua. The car, which will be marketed in the U.S. as Prius C, delivers 35.4 km per liter (83.3 miles per gallon), beating the mileage of current Prius model that gives 32 km per liter.
What is the Volt mileage? We already know it's got the most unaffordable price. Looks like GM will loose even more on the Volt project unless I'm missing something. :confuse:
Toyota will also launch the plug-in version of Prius hybrid car next year that comes with an excellent mileage and affordable price. The plug-in-hybrid (PHV) vehicle boasts a mileage of 61.0 km per liter (143 miles per gallon) in combined EV and hybrid driving modes under Japanese test conditions. Meanwhile, the U.S. version of the Prius PHV will provide a mileage of 87 mpg.
Including subsidies for green vehicles, Prius PHV is priced at ¥3.2 million ($41,000) in Japan, $32,000 in the U.S. and €37,000 in Europe. This is ¥3.76 million lower than Nissan Motors’ (NSANY">NSANY) Leaf electric car and cheaper than General Motor’s (GM) Volt PHV, priced at $41,000 (before subsidies).
As a result, Prius PHV will pose a significant threat to both GM and Nissan, who are trying very hard to lead in the hybrid vehicles (HV) market. Toyota plans to sell 35,000 to 40,000 units of Prius PHV per year in Japan and 60,000 units globally.
Comments
When it comes to that generation of Eldorado, I actually prefer the Seville. There's just something about the way styling around the rear quarter window and C-pillar area clashes that I don't like.
The SC really doesn't appeal to me, but I think it's aged fairly well. Probably because it was clean and nondescript from the get-go, it wasn't really sporting any blatant, flash-in-the-pan trends that would make it look obsolete in later years.
Amen brother! Americans forgot how to make AMERICAN cars and instead tried to make poor copies of Japanese and European cars.
My hometown Stude dealer also had sold Packard and M-B in his little two-car showroom. Must have been even more fun to shop for cars back then than it was in the late '60's and '70's, and I remember new car introduction night at that time being one of my most exciting childhood memories. Now, who gives a...well, you know.
I've yet to drive a FWD car that wasn't obvious it was FWD under certain conditions. That's not a knock on GM, that's just a side effect of sending power to the front wheels. Granted overall GM has probably done a better job than most at controlling it.
I've owned and driven lots of FWD vehicles over the years and all of them have had torque steer to some extent, some worse than others. Even my wife's new Taurus will tug the wheel a bit under certain conditions. No it's not noticeable in most normal sedate driving situations, but pull out into traffic quickly, hit a pot hole or a slick spot and wheel will pull. You don't have that with RWD. Plus I notice it more since my daily driver is rwd. Honestly, I started noticing the difference more after I began driving rwd vehicles again.
With the Deville I rented for a weekend, torque steer wasn't bad, actually considering the power it had, I thought torque steer was well controlled, but it was still there under certain conditions. If I were to pay $40k+ for a car, it will be RWD or AWD. That's just what i prefer.
Torque steer is an area that is constantly improving. 20+ years ago, 200hp was sort of the limit, now they are up to around 300. Cars like the Mazda speed 3 and a few others actually limit torque output up to a certain speed to limit the effects of torque steer. That's why Ford only offers the ecoboost v6 in the Taurus SHO, Lincoln MKS, Flex, and MKT only with AWD. It would likely be scary in FWD only form.
GM is continuing to improve designs to limit TS and it's why are using the new hyperstrut design their higher powered fwd cars. I've not sampled it, but from what I've read, it works well.
One thing that is concerning, kids growing up today don't seem be interested in cars. Several parents I know of kids in the 15-18 age group have kids that don't seem to care when they get a drivers license. They are into other things other than automobiles. God only knows if that lack of passion for cars is a generational thing or not, but if it is, it won't bode well for many of us as they reach buying age. It likely could mean more appliance type vehicles that many of us won't be interested in.
A buddy of mine has a 19 year old nephew that drives a late 90's MonteCarlo. I asked him what year it was and he couldn't answer me, he said he'd have to go out and check. Can any of you imagine not being aware of what year your car is?
Granted that has happened to some already with the current crop of vehicles vs. what the industry used to be. I'm not in that camp, because I don't long for vehicles of yore. There's plenty available today that I like. Some are domestic and but most are not. They're not Asian either. I appreciate some aspects of some Asian makes, but for the most part, I agree most of them aren't particularly exciting or something I aspire to own.
I remember you mentioning that, back in 1994, the reason you bought the DeVille instead of the big RWD Fleetwood was only because the Fleetwood wouldn't fit in your garage!
As for FWD and torque steer? Well, I remember on Thanksgiving day, driving over to my Granddad's, and old geezer in a Cavalier pulled out in front me and decided to putter along at around 35 mph in a 45 mph zone. When there was a break in the oncoming traffic I went to pass him, and when I stomped on it I swear that steering wheel almost ripped out of my hand as the car tried to jerk back over to the right.
But, to be fair, a powerful enough RWD car, if it didn't have limited slip, would have the rear-end jerk off to one side as the rear of the car kicked out and tried to pass the front. With FWD though, I guess the effect is usually exaggerated because of the transaxle being offset, closer to one wheel than the other. Even my Intrepid though, with its North-South engine orientation, showed some noticable torque steer.
I did have quite a revelation with my old Saab 99. Made q quicker hit on the brake and turn of the wheel in a bit of snow. I was used to more forgiving cars and theis was my first FWD car. It did a 180. Fortunately no one about other than my rather startled passengers...
uplander - I can remember the local Studebaker dealer! Also sold Packards and MB. Actually was originally a Packard dealer. Sadly that all passed with teh Studebaker. It became a transmission shop and still is under the same family ownership today.
I feel like I could trade my 4 cyl for a V6 and maybe not lose a single mpg.
Sounds like it's geared similar to my wife's '11 Taurus. It too turns around 1500rpm at 65 and roughly 1900 at 80mph. Over the 17k my wife has put on it according to the computer it's averaging about 25mpg. I'd guess her driving is probably 60/40 hwy. IIRC it's rated at 18/28.
I've never gotten more than 30mpg on an extended trip, but I've never driven 65 either. But it doesn't have DI and it weighs quite a bit more than an Impala. Usually 75-80 where it will get 25 or so. You survived I65 at only 65 mph?
I'm sure in city driving something like a 4cyl Malibu would get quite a bit better mileage.
Well, it's not a direct, 1 for 1 correlation. The car is wasting gas by revving needlessly. However, even though it might be revving 75% faster, it's not using 75% more fuel every time the engine fires. At the higher rpm, each engine rev is doing less work, so each rev uses less fuel. However, due to friction and other efficiencies, you'll still use more fuel overall. Just not 75% more.
Plus, with only having three functioning forward gears, once you get on the highway, chances are you're going to stay in third. With more gears, there are probably going to be times when the transmission needs to downshift, so you're not always going to be in 4th gear, or whatever top gear is.
Most resilient brands
1. Honda
2. Toyota
3. Hyundai
4. Nissan
5. Kia
6. Mitsubishi
7. Mini
8. Suzuki
9. Ford
10. Mazda
Least resilient brands
1. Chrysler
2. Smart
3. Mercedes-Benz
4. Land Rover
5. Jaguar
6. Saab
7. Fiat
8. BMW
9. Seat
10. Vauxhall
http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/honda-named-most-pothole-proof-brand/260541
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Kudos to GM, though.
My brother in law still has one from that generation. It has a slow oil leak but it still gets him around. It still rides nicely.
So true, and the funny thing is the broadcast stations often go to infomercials, which was unheard of back then.
Also, I agree about kids not caring as much about cars as we (at least I) did. They're more interested in whether the car has a wi-fi hotspot vs. what's under the hood.
I had a friend who owned a Z3 and had to replace not one, not two, but THREE rims on it. To add insult to injury he often had to wait to get the replacement.
And it wasn't just him, another guy at work had a Z3 rim get damaged. Poor guy gave up and drives a Corolla now.
Blame the trend towards oversized rims.
Of course many, many reasons. One could be that some kids never grow up around "cars". Many parents do have two vehicles, but not cars. Could be a mini van and a pickup. Or a big suv and a smaller suv.
Years ago when there were neat American cars, aspiration was to own a fast or sporty car with a V8. Pickups were absolutely despised by the guys and the younger generation. You only drove one, rented or borrowed from someone in the trades, to haul something. Today, people drive pickups and they don't even need them for the utility purpose.
I know a guy in the local MB club who got a $2200 settlement from the city for damage caused to an early 00s CL by a pothole. I actually had to get my car aligned after I hit a hole after dodging a car that swerved into my lane. Infrastructure, we had it once :sick:
My grandparents always had a car and a truck, but Granddad also worked on a government farm and did a lot of farming/construction/trade work himself. His first truck was actually an old 1939 or so Plymouth he bought, cut the body off aft of the B-pillar, and built in a home-made bed. Not exactly something my mother would want to borrow to take to the prom, but it served its purpose.
But, for the most part, the trucks were just workhorses, whereas it seems the cars were more memorable. Granddad had a 1940 Chrysler Royal when they got married in 1946. Then they got a new 1949 Pontiac, a used 1952 Buick, used 1955 Pontiac, new 1960 or 1961 Chevy Impala (or whatever they called the Impala level wagon...Nomad maybe?). Then a 1964 or 65 Impala wagon. Then a '68 Impala 4-door hardtop, 72 Impala 4-door hardtop, '82 Malibu wagon, and the last car was an '85 LeSabre 4-door.
With trucks though, it seems like their memory faded over the years. Grandmom really doesn't remember them like she does the cars, and neither do my uncle or Mom. At some point I think he had a '57 GMC, an early/mid 60's Chevy or GMC, a '73 Chevy, '76 GMC crew cab, and finally an '85 Silverado that I still have. They also had a '72 LUV and and '81 Ram D-50.
I think pickups became popular in the 1970's, when the public started getting a fascination with cowboys and trucker movies and such. And, the fact that cars were getting fat, heavy, and emasculated, and then petite and flimsy once downsizing set in, pickups sort of turned into the new wave of musclecar, when equipped with the right engine.
Taxpayer loss on GM stock threatens Obama's re-election
Besides worldwide problems, GM's stock price is being held down by the prospect that the government will dilute the market by selling its shares. After that, however, the price of GM stock could rally, said Adam Jonas, a New York-based analyst at Morgan Stanley.
The government reportedly wants a minimum of $30 a share.
Regards,
OW
Complete crock. Again. Never been questioned in the slightest on warranty work done on my pre-bankruptcy cars...even out-of-warranty items done as warranty.
Other than the Impala police car versus non-police car issue, where no one seems to be able to determine if the spindle is the identical part number in both, has there been a single, solitary report of GM not honoring a warranty because the car was built pre-bankruptcy? Pretty basic question.
I can't say anything bad about the Cruze. It looks like a very good compact car. If I were to buy a car in that class, I'd certainly drive a Cruze and consider it. I don't know if I'd buy it or not.
Going by what I've read, I'd likely prefer the driving dynamics of a Focus or maybe the new Jetta GLI (which would be the quickest by far in the segment, but it likely will have the least FE). Gas mileage just isn't my biggest priority. I'd prefer which ever I'd enjoyed driving the most. That's not to take anything away from the Cruze, but simply a personal preference.
HackettHatchet Group to help identify areas to cut an undetermined number of white-collar jobs, said two people familiar with the matter.Also noted:
GM is working to cut vehicle architectures to 14 from 30 by 2018.
Cruze = 215,057
Focus = 161,436
Cruze is #2 after Civic.
Regards,
OW
Cruze has better styling than Civic, Focus, IMO. It will still look good after a number of years. Focus too gimmicky. Will look outdated in a few years. Too bad Cruze does not come with an engine/trans as good as the Honda 4 cyl and Honda's great manual transmission.
This will be the car to beat if you want more than basic transportation in the compact segment:
The new Focus is at last debuting in the U.S., with a 2.0-liter, direct-injected, 160-hp motor and variable valve timing, as well as a five-speed manual. But, the car to wait for is the 2013 Focus ST, which debuts in early 2012. It gets a six-speed manual with the same EcoBoost (turbocharged) 2.0-liter as the much larger Edge and Explorer and will be good for somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 hp, which puts it in league with hot hatches like the MazdaSpeed3 and beyond the output of the VW GTI. Ford is also promising a tauter suspension and meatier tires as well as bigger brakes to go with all that horsepower. Expect to pay at least $25,000.
Regards,
OW
Agreed to all of that. Which is why I lament that GM has so many good things, but can't ever seem to close the deal to be a class leader. If they could find a better engine/tranny combo (and of course have excellent reliability), Cruze would be a class leader. And since Honda is slipping and the Corolla is a blandmobile, there is a real opportunity there.
Regards,
OW
I can actually find a little fault with both of them. That big bass-mouth/catfish look of the Focus ST just has an unfinished, home-made look to it, like some high-school kid bought a base model Focus and tried to customize it with chicken wire and black paint. The regular Focus models look better, IMO, although a bit busy, and it looks like it has fangs.
With the Sonic, it looks like they tried to take all the features of the front-end of a 1972 Impala, and force-fit them on a tiny car, and it just doesn't quite work. The headlight cluster is just too big. Probably the reason that, back in the day when quad headlights were the in thing, most small cars stuck it out with singles.
Regards,
OW
What is the Volt mileage? We already know it's got the most unaffordable price. Looks like GM will loose even more on the Volt project unless I'm missing something. :confuse:
Toyota will also launch the plug-in version of Prius hybrid car next year that comes with an excellent mileage and affordable price. The plug-in-hybrid (PHV) vehicle boasts a mileage of 61.0 km per liter (143 miles per gallon) in combined EV and hybrid driving modes under Japanese test conditions. Meanwhile, the U.S. version of the Prius PHV will provide a mileage of 87 mpg.
Including subsidies for green vehicles, Prius PHV is priced at ¥3.2 million ($41,000) in Japan, $32,000 in the U.S. and €37,000 in Europe. This is ¥3.76 million lower than Nissan Motors’ (NSANY">NSANY) Leaf electric car and cheaper than General Motor’s (GM) Volt PHV, priced at $41,000 (before subsidies).
As a result, Prius PHV will pose a significant threat to both GM and Nissan, who are trying very hard to lead in the hybrid vehicles (HV) market. Toyota plans to sell 35,000 to 40,000 units of Prius PHV per year in Japan and 60,000 units globally.
Toyota Launches Best Fuel Eco Car
Not leading as usual.
Regards,
OW
you beat me to it!