By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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!