Actually, eight! For some reason, in that brochure they print the 383-4bbl and 440-6pack really close together.
IMO, they could have done without some of those engines, even back then. The 198 slant six was really too weak in a car like this, and even the 225 slant six was probably inadequate. The 318 was quick enough for most day-to-day driving, and probably didn't get much worse mileage than the slant six. As the 70's wore on, often the 318 got BETTER economy than the 225 slant six, because it adapted to emission controls better, and didn't have to strain as much.
The 340 was a great smallblock performance engine, and capable of embarrassing many much bigger engines. And the simple fact that it only went from 275 gross to 235 net shows how they used to under-rate it, to make the big blocks look better!
A 383 2bbl is essentially a station wagon engine. It's meant to be able to lug a lot of weight around, but not necessarily get it up to speed very quickly. In a bigger intermediate or full-sized car, which is beefed up anyway, it's fine, but in something like a Barracuda, it adds so much weight that you might as well get a high-performance big block.
They probably could have eliminated the 383 2-bbl, 383 4-bbl, and the 440 6-pack, and just replaced them all with a 440-4bbl. And, of course, kept the 426 Hemi around as their halo/racecar engine.
So, right off the bat, I think they could have gone to a lineup like 318-2bbl, 340-4bbl, 440-4bbl, and Hemi, and made it a lot simpler. But, I'm sure they needed those slant six cars around to lure people in with a low base price and good fuel economy. And I'm sure there were people who wanted big-block bragging rights, even if it was a weak big block.
I couldn't care about sales...I own a 1966 Studebaker!
I have to think some of that is that a year ago, probably GM's best-selling sedan, the Malibu was going great guns, and I'm not sure when they were done building the '12's but the '13's have just begun to trickle in . May not be all the answer, but a sane person would have to agree it's got to be some of it.
To andres3, I won't pay for a CR and I won't go back to look at one on the shelf--last time I did that I said a magazine said a car had four recalls and was essentially called a liar and guess what--the magazine said the car had four recalls.
But...it won't take very long to see the kind of thing I'm talking about...even in the imported brands. And historically, you, I, and everybody knows they've had things like "Cars to avoid---2005, 2008 (fill in the blank)" when the car was the same from 2005-2010. I'll buy that the earliest years may be worst, but come on.
All I specifically remember from looking at the latest CR on the shelf, was that they made no differentiation between six and V8 Camaros, the 2011 Honda Odyssey was rated worse than average for reliability, and the Cruze had all red marks and a full black dot at the bottom, without a single black dot in any specific areas.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
and the Cruze had all red marks and a full black dot at the bottom, without a single black dot in any specific areas.
Actually, there's a rational reason for that, although it can be confusing to look at those charts. All of the individual components that they rate, such as body integrity, paint, air conditioning, electrical, and so on, are straight percentages. If something like 0-3% of survey respondents have a problem, it gets a red circle, if 3-5% have a problem, it gets a half red, 5-9 is a clear circle, 9-15 is half-black, and >15% is all black. Or, something like that.
But, the circle at the bottom for overall reliability has nothing to do with percentages. It shows how the car fared compared to other cars. So, if most of the other cars were scoring in the 1-3% range, but the Cruze was getting a few components in the 3-5% range, it still might be enough to get a black circle.
It could very well still be a reliable car, but it's just not as reliable as the others. It's kinda like if your kid scored a 92% on a test, but the class average was 95%. Doesn't mean your kid is dumb. Just that on average, the others did a little better.
Call me crazy, but one might expect the overall score at the bottom to be a summary of all the ones above it...it's like 'your kid got all A-'s, but overall we give him an F'.
Also, I asked this earlier but no one responded...do they rate a 'problem' in any area, the same as a 'problem' in any other area?
And yes, andres3, sample error can obviously work both ways. I'm not saying everything in CR is sample error, but logically there will be some there, but they never address that. They say to buy a Traverse but stay away from the Acadia, and I can tell you that logically, if I were looking at two of the same year vehicles and I liked one better than the other, their silly comment wouldn't steer me away from it...they're the same platform, same manufacturer, same mechanically, and probably assembled on the same line by the same people.
In the old days, I can remember seeing audio equipment reliability differences between six and V8 versions of the same car. And try as you might, there is simply no logical reason for that.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
> I'm not saying everything in CR is sample error, but logically there will be some there, but they never address that.
Calling errors in CR's opinion a "sample error" is being really generous: their collection of eclectic information is not a sample from a random poll in any way, shape, or means. :sick:
Getting your car information from CR is like watching Bill Maher comedy show for your political information. :confuse:
I couldn't care about sales...I own a 1966 Studebaker!
But sales of imports bother you? You can't have it both ways. The imports, particularly those built in the US are selling better than your favorite company.
This means that the trend is against GM. We'll post those reasons when they are evident.
I doubt the loss in GM's market share currently has anything to do with CR.
Probably more to do with the excellent choices of non-GM vehicles...and the fact that leases are being scaled back at Government Motors.
CR is one of thousands that rate cars for the consumer. The comedy is that it seems that when they have it right regarding GM, some folks continue to whine away...ROTF.
Call me crazy, but one might expect the overall score at the bottom to be a summary of all the ones above it...it's like 'your kid got all A-'s, but overall we give him an F'.
Yeah, most people would expect that. It got to the point that, a few years ago, Consumer Reports actually explained that overall rating because it was confusing people.
Somewhere, stashed around here, is an April auto issue from 1984. Haven't seen it in ages, but I do remember that the 1983 Datsun Sentra scored completely average in all of those individual categories. Nothing red, nothing black, all clear. Yet, the overall rating at the bottom was "better than average". Meanwhile, a 1983 Malibu with the V-8. It scored average in everything but brakes, where it scored worse than average (half-black circle). Overall, they gave it a worse than average rating.
One thing I'd love to know is how they were able to rate V-8 cars back in the day when you used to have a wide range of options? For instance, if you bought a 1978 Pontiac LeMans, it might have had an Olds 260 (this is new to me; my old car book doesn't list it, but the EPA website does), Pontiac 301 in 2- or 4-bbl form, or a Chevy 305-2bbl.
Well, reliability probably would have ranged to better or much better than average for the Olds 260 (a slow, but incredibly rugged), to average or worse for the Chevy 305 (they tended to have weak camshafts and the blocks weren't as durable), to worse or much-worse for the 301 (tended to spin bearings, and was simply TOO flimsy and lightweight).
So, with a V-8 you could have reliability ratings that were all over the map, and it really depended on which engine you got. But, Consumer Reports simply had an entry for "V-8", and the car was probably rated worse than average, overall.
They say to buy a Traverse but stay away from the Acadia, and I can tell you that logically, if I were looking at two of the same year vehicles and I liked one better than the other, their silly comment wouldn't steer me away from it...they're the same platform, same manufacturer, same mechanically, and probably assembled on the same line by the same people.
Oh, that's an easy one. The Acadias are always built on Fridays and Mondays, while the Traverse is built on Tues/Wed/Thurs. :P Seriously though, I can think of a few possibilities, but they might be long shots. First off, ARE the Acadia and Traverse built at the same plant? If not, that can make a difference. For example, I remember with the W-bodies in the 90's and early 00's, the Lumina/Impala and Century/Regal were built in Canada in a more modern plant, while the Intrigue and Grand Prix (maybe the Cutlass Supreme, too?) were built in Kansas City, in an older plant, and were more troublesome.
Another possibility...the Acadia is lower volume than the Traverse, so even if they're built in the same plant, maybe GM doesn't allocate enough space for the Acadia? I'm thinking along the lines of what Ford did with the Edsel. The smaller ones were built in a Ford plant, on a sped-up assembly line, so they were rushed out the door quicker than the Fords were. And the same thing happened with the larger, Mercury-based models.
Otherwise, do Acadias tend to be equipped better than Traverses? Is there anything high-tech in them that the Chevies don't have, that makes them more troublesome?
I care now only because more Americans were gainfully employed when the Big Three owned most of the market. Also, it is widely reported that even today, Detroit automakers employ more people, including at suppliers, than the foreign manufacturers. Somehow, that will be turned into a negative, 'inefficiency' thing.
Does anyone really think the state of our country is better now than thirty or more years ago? I was working in both, and I sure don't. And much of that is due to the reduction in manufacturing here now compared to then, I'm afraid.
A similar discussion on the non-Studebaker portion of the Studebaker Drivers' Club forum resulted in someone mentioning that my '66 Studebaker is Canadian. True, but as a used car, the damage was already done by the original owner! Actually, my feeling on that is that Studebaker was so small, even though I admire their 114-year manufacturing history, they weren't hurting the domestic industry by those last two and a half Canadian production years.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Andre, I believe you are one of the most rational, pleasant people on these boards, but I never thought that Edsels would be any worse than any other Ford product of the period (and they weren't known to be too great, either, by the time the Edsel came out...and I like '58 Edsels and '58 Fords, too.). The Edsel failed because of its unusual styling and arrival at the time of a recession. Packard's James Nance ran the Edsel division, and it was similar to Packard in that there were junior and senior models. It, too, failed, of course, only two models years before the Edsel's introduction.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Back to the choices we had then...Andre owns a '67 Pontiac Catalina. I think that year full-size Pontiac is the pinnacle of available choices for customers to make. I would've loved to have ordered one then, as you'd probably never (and I mean never!) see an exact duplicate of your car.
Just in the full-size line, there were two wheelbases.
Models (called 'trim levels' today):
Catalina Ventura Executive 2+2 Bonneville Bonneville Brougham Grand Prix
Catalina could be had in two-door sedan, four-door sedan, four-door hardtop, convertible, and wagon. Ventura was really a trim option on the Catalina, although there were no "Catalina" nameplates on the car.
Executive could be had in four-door sedan, two-door hardtop, four-door hardtop, and station wagon with wood paneling.
Bonneville and Bonneville Brougham could be had in two and four door hardtops and convertibles. Bonneville (not Brougham) could be had in a station wagon.
2+2 and Grand Prix models could be had in two-door hardtop and convertible models.
And we haven't even discussed that year's Tempest/LeMans/GTO models, or Firebird models!
Ah, I miss that part of those days big-time.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Does anyone really think the state of our country is better now than thirty or more years ago? I was working in both, and I sure don't. And much of that is due to the reduction in manufacturing here now compared to then, I'm afraid.
I've worked in engineering for 25 years in factories, in both union and nonunion environments. And I can tell you that the union environments are simply not a competitive model. Sure unions are better for the workers getting more, but that is not necessarily good, as that same good, contributed to the high legacy costs, the overall dissatisfaction of the customer causing loss of market-share, and for relatively high wages.
There is no free lunch. When the Board, the execs, and the union are all in competition with each other over the booty, and not minding the store, than the business collapses. Thus decades of everyone "grabbing" and not making the customer #1, led to GM being weak, and failing when the next financial crisis came along.
Good local jobs are something EARNED. Earned by making more or better product than others. Good local jobs in your neighborhood isn't a birth-right that people from other areas should have to subsidize thru their federal taxes. To your neighbors I say - work harder or smarter, and stop destroying the employers you work for.
I think some other problems with Edsel were they oversold and overhyped the vehicle beforehand, so when it was released it wasn't all that customers were prepared for. The initial Edsel's had a lot of glitches making it even harder to sell the public on this rather uniquely styled vehicle. Also, Ford wanted an Olds and Pontiac competitor, but Ford and Merc had kind of wide model lineups and pricing so that there really wasn't a distinctive market position for the new offering at Ford.
"Cars to avoid---2005, 2008 (fill in the blank)" when the car was the same from 2005-2010. I'll buy that the earliest years may be worst, but come on.
You know that if you buy CR, you are supporting U.S. jobs. :P
While I'll agree that the CR findings are not perfect, no data or statistics are perfect. But it is certainly true that even in products that appear to not be changing, manufacturers change things *all the time* - whether it be which crew built it, what supplier is used, suppliers of parts inside, redesign of minor parts, etc. So it's certainly not out of the realm of reason that failure or problem rates could vary year to year, even within the "identical" model. Don't we see recalls all the time from makers where only a certain VIN range applies as a subset of a model year, even though the entire model year is supposed to be "identical" cars?
Going back to my earlier post, I just thought of something that was unique to the Edsel and troublesome: the "Teletouch" pushbutton trans selector.
I'm a Republican, and a white-collar working guy since age 22. But I think it's obvious to me that people who used to be able to work in a factory and buy a new car every several years and own a house, now can't do that. It's like Wal-Mart is out there for jobs, then office workers up the rung next, and I think that is very sad. And this didn't happen in 100 years; it happened in 30 where I've lived.
Sad to see. And that's the reality.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The few times my cars have had recalls, they've started at the beginning of the run to the point of the recall. Example: electronic steering in my Cobalt (even though I experienced no problems with the original). It wasn't like the 2005 and 2006 were fine, and the recall happened on only the 2007 or 2008, etc.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The world isn't static, and it's constantly changing. For example, is the world better today than it was in 1942?
Nice loaded question. Of all the dates, pick one in the middle of World War II.
That wasn't my statement, as you know.
You surely know what I mean. But then...and I say this seriously...maybe in California where you live, the differences between then and now weren't so stark.
Last year, I earned more than ten times what my first post-college desk job paid in 1980. So, things are fine for me personally, but I think in the big picture, things are way worse.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
In 1950, Chevrolet came up with a revolutionary style that would set a pattern for decades. The Bel Air Hardtop (on the DeLuxe line) was styled as a convertible with a non-detachable solid roof. Models like this had been around since the 1920s, including early Chevrolets, with no degree of success. But the newly revised idea, sweeping the GM line from Chevrolet to Cadillac, had finally found its era. First year production reached only 76,662 as buyers cautiously tested the revised concept. The car cost $1,741 and weighed 3,225 lb (1,463 kg). Front suspension was independent, named "knee-action".
(note: An IIHS sollision sends the dummy 6 feet under in the Bel-Air but walks away unscathed from the Cruze.)
That $1,741 inflated to today's dollars = $13,390. Not too far off a new Cruze price. Things are far better today, as the world has passed GM in many areas in the car arena.
The future is bright, though many can't see it. I agree the greed helped delay the improvements to a degree but reality is we are far better off.
The UAW's sins are many, but should we expect American auto workers to make what those in Mexico or China or Korea do? That's as ridiculous the other direction as anything the UAW asked for, I think.
Was it that all these American companies weren't making money for decades before the '90's, so they HAD to go to third-world countries to make money? I think we all know the answer to that.
When I started work, that company had a pension. Pensions had been given employees for decades up to that time. How many companies give a pension now? I'm afraid we all know that answer. My first company went through a rocky patch due to an insane investment in another company and decided to stop matching employee 401-K contributions. HR said 'we'll resume then when things get better'. Things got better, but guess what? The match never returned. I see greed at the labor and executive side as a big part of most of today's problems.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Pro-"today's cars" people like to say if it weren't for foreign competition, we'd still be driving 1970's automobiles sold as 2012 models. But I call a respectful "bull..." on that. Look at how cars changed from the '40's to the '70's...better braking, more horsepower, engineering advances like those in the Oldsmobile Toronado, more choices, longer warranties, longer maintenance intervals...and that was just from inter-domestic competition, for the most part.
Steve, back to the Vega....calling that representative of the industry back then is like me saying, "I don't like foreign cars...remember the Renault Dauphine?" Certainly not everything foreign was as bad as a Dauphine!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Being an old-car guy (Fall Hershey meet is nirvana!), I think a '50 Bel Air is soooooo more interesting than a Cruze...and I'd consider a Cruze if I needed a car in that size/price class now. The crashworthiness I think was forced onto the manufacturers by government regulations.
I will say, I washed the wife's black granite Malibu last night and blacked the tires, and I don't believe I could've bought a more elegant-looking car for $19K. I actually like the darker, polished wheels of the 1LT better than the mirror-bright wheels of the higher-end models.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
That $1,741 inflated to today's dollars = $13,390. Not too far off a new Cruze price. Things are far better today, as the world has passed GM in many areas in the car arena.
That sounded a bit low to me, so I tried it out myself on an inflation calculator, and came up with $16,446. Which is about on par with a Cruze price.
One thing to keep in mind though, is that for $1,741, that Bel Air would have had a manual transmission, no power steering, no power brakes, no radio. Definitely no air conditioning, which in those days was a luxury item at $500+. One reason convertibles were so popular back in those days is because it was cheaper to get a convertible than it was a closed car with air conditioning!
And even little things we take for granted today, such as backup lights and a windshield washer, would have been optional.
Steve, GM built many other cars besides the Vega back then.
There are few thirty year old cars, from any manufacturer, that I'd want as a daily driver or as a road trip rig. And I'd take pretty much any new GM model over most any 30 year old GM model.
As a new car? (as opposed to driving a new car to a 30-year old car?) No way would I. You could get a Caprice Classic and a Monte Carlo still back then. As late as 1983, Car and Driver had the Caprice Classic on their "Ten Best Cars in the World" list.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I dunno. Those 1977 era B and C body GM cars are about my sweet spot for what I want and need in a car. I don't think GM, or anybody else, has come up with anything as perfect for me as a daily driver as the 1977-90 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice since.
When I started work, that company had a pension. Pensions had been given employees for decades up to that time. How many companies give a pension now? I'm afraid we all know that answer.
There was a time, after reform of working conditions, overtime, 40 hour week, that companies DID NOT provide pensions nor health care insurance. Didn't these latter two perks come about because of a labor shortage? Companies trying to get workers to work for them?
People have mindset that pensions, paid vacations, paid holidays, health insurance are items that companies must or are obligated to provide.
The 1977-90 Chevrolet Caprice Classic is on my "Ten Best Cars Ever" list!
Had a 77 Chevrolet Caprice Classic for many years and liked it a lot. It did have some warts, problems, but overall would say it was a very good car for what was available in 1977 and state of technology and manufacturing for that era.
Pro-"today's cars" people like to say if it weren't for foreign competition, we'd still be driving 1970's automobiles sold as 2012 models.
Maybe 1980's models sold as 2012. We can thank the Japanese for their adoption of superior management and technology techniques in consumer product design and manufacturing that they adopted after WWII. Superior to that of lethargic American companies.
Ironically, it was Americans such as W Edwards Demming, who went to Japan after WWII and taught them superior management methods to achieve the highest levels of quality. American car companies mostly resisted the teachings of quality experts such as Deming and Joseph Juran.
In 1951, Japan established the annual Deming Prize given to the Japanese company that had achieved the highest level of quality improvement in the previous year. It remains to this day, expanded to include companies worldwide.
From juse.or.jp: "The Deming Prize is one of the highest awards on TQM (Total Quality Management) in the world. It was established in 1951 in commemoration of the late Dr. William Edwards Deming who contributed greatly to Japan’s proliferation of statistical quality control after the World War II. His teachings helped Japan build its foundation by which the level of Japan’s product quality has been recognized as the highest in the world."
As a new car? (as opposed to driving a new car to a 30-year old car?) No way would I. You could get a Caprice Classic and a Monte Carlo still back then. As late as 1983, Car and Driver had the Caprice Classic on their "Ten Best Cars in the World" list.
My only issue with using a 30 year old car as a daily driver is that, sooner or later, it's going to break down and leave you stranded. True, a newer car will do that too, and even a brand-new car can strand you. But, the older the car gets, the higher the likelihood.
1983 was sort of a turnaround year for GM's RWD cars, too. I think they finally got rid of all those under-sized V-8's like the 260 and 267 after 1982 (Pontiac's 265 was dropped after '81 I think). And the kinks were getting worked out of the emissions systems and computer controls, so even though rated horsepower wasn't going up, the cars were beginning to accelerate better, and real-world fuel economy was starting to improve. And, while they still had a ways to go, they improved the 4-speed THM200-R4 transmission, so it wasn't as troublesome as the 1981-82 versions.
I really liked my Mom's '86 Monte Carlo, which unfortunately I only had for about three months before I got t-boned while delivering pizzas. It was a base coupe (not the LS with the composite headlights or an SS) with the 150 hp 305 and 4-speed automatic. It was a really good blend of size, interior room, handling, performance, and fuel economy. 0-60 came up in about 10 seconds, and I think it was EPA rated around 17/24, although I usually got around 15/22. Never did take it on a good, long dedicated highway run, and a lot of that mileage was a result of delivering pizzas. Plus, it had about 179,000 miles when Mom gave it to me, so it was hardly a spring chicken!
I remember when I was a kid, someone a couple houses down had one of the Impala/Caprice sport coupes with the big rear window, and another person in the neighborhood had one of the seemingly seldom seen Caprice notchback coupes.
Everything else being equal, I want all the safety gizmos, and fuel economy I can afford. Not to mention all the improved engineering into the ride quality, noise level, yada yada.
I don't want that stuff enough to trade in my '99 just yet, but it seems a bit marginal now compared to the latest and greatest.
Pro-"today's cars" people like to say if it weren't for foreign competition, we'd still be driving 1970's automobiles sold as 2012 models.
Well, there was the Crown Vic, which dated back to 1979! :P And I have a feeling that, if SUV's hadn't become such cash-cows in the 1990's, that the Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood/Impala SS would have held on awhile longer. But, perhaps not. IIRC, stricter side impact standards came out for 1997, and I don't think the B-bodies would have passed, without some major revising. Something about the belt line being too low, and the way the car hung out over the frame rails, I think.
But, even without Japanese competition, I think the auto manufacturers would have improved, eventually. Stricter emissions and fuel economy standards, and safety regulations would have forced it. And, eventually, I'm sure the public would have demanded it.
One reason that classic cars started becoming so popular was because of the direction new cars were going in the 70's and 80's. If they had kept going down that route, I think people would have held onto their older cars with even more passion, rather than buy a new one, and new car sales would drop off unless drastic changes were made.
Oh, here's one possible future that never materialized. Supposedly, before the first oil embargo, GM was working on a series of 500-600 cubic inch V-8's! It would have been interesting to see what kind of monsters those would have gone into!
I wonder how much bigger the cars would have realistically gotten in the 70's, if the oil embargo had never happened? When it came to big luxury cars, they actually didn't grow *that* much over the years. In 1957, I think the longest domestic car was the Lincoln at 227", followed by Imperial at 225". Cadillacs were actually pretty tidy in comparison...around 216" for the sedans, 221" for the coupes and convertibles. The longer 60 Special was around 224" though, and the Fleetwood 75 Limo was 236".
In the 1970's, I think Lincoln topped out at around 233" for the Continental sedans and coupes, 231" for the Mark IV and V. Caddy DeVilles hit 230.7", while the Fleetwood Brougham (replacement for the 60 Special) was 233.7" and the 75 Limo went to 252". I think Chrysler managed to stretch the Imperial to about 233", and the '76-78 New Yorkers weren't that much shorter.
So, at the upper end, cars didn't get THAT much bigger, but at the low end they certainly did. I think a '57 Chevy is about 200", a Ford is around 202", and a Plymouth is 205". But the '76 versions of those cars, I'm sure, were around 220-222".
This may be a bit difficult to read, but here is a portion of a page from my 1965 Car and Driver yearbook. This shows the Model, Cylinders, Bore x Stroke, Compression Ratio, Carburetion, BHP, TQ, Transmission w/Ratios [ sometimes ? ] and Final Drive ratios - STD. and (optional).
Looking at the Catalina - There are 5 different HP ratings for versions of the 389, and 11 possible engine \ trans. combinations w/the 389. Plus another 10 for the 421. - Ray Did not want to spread flat a 40+ year old magazine to scan it.
There was a time, after reform of working conditions, overtime, 40 hour week, that companies DID NOT provide pensions nor health care insurance. Didn't these latter two perks come about because of a labor shortage? Companies trying to get workers to work for them?
I'm not sure how old you are, but I wasn't aware of a company that did NOT offer a pension or health care, if you were a full-time employee, until probably into the early '90's. They had provided things like that for decades.
I don't think it's a demand, like 'buy me birth control', but one does wonder why it was taken away after so many years, and years of the company making much moolah.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
We (well, parents) bought a new '77 Impala coupe in Oct. '76 and I loved it. It was new enough that people would stop me and ask me about it.
I loved the packaging. To this day, I could very much enjoy a '77-79 Caprice coupe, F41, 350 engine, those plastic scooped-out spoked wheel covers. To me, the car is almost timeless.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I remember those coupes with the big rear windows too! There was a jade green 1978 Cparice Classic Landau that was parked in front of a neighborhood candy store all the time.
Funny, I don't remember being a designer back then! When I was in 10th grade, I drew a big dark blue GM-esque two-door hardtop combining the front of a 1969 Cadillac with the rear of a 1970 Impala/Caprice with FOUR taillamps per side, the wheelcovers of a 1961 Chevrolet featuring mid-60s Buick spinners and powered by a 650 cid V-8! :P I wanted to see what a car with all my favorite features would look like. I actually came across looking pretty awesome - sort of a smaller Cadillac with huge, powerful, big-block V-8: A Cadillac muscle car!
I loved the packaging. To this day, I could very much enjoy a '77-79 Caprice coupe, F41, 350 engine, those plastic scooped-out spoked wheel covers. To me, the car is almost timeless.
I had a Caprice Classic Station Waagon. Looking at pictures of the Caprice Sedan, 2 or 4 door, today, I find them very attractive of a design. My preference would be a 4-door. I would agree that from 77 on through the 80's that the styling, design is timeless. I like the large windows, full doors front and back.
Looking at some specs, the sedan with V8 weighed 3700 pounds. The same design, style with updated mechanicals, safety would be a very nice car.
Comments
Actually, eight! For some reason, in that brochure they print the 383-4bbl and 440-6pack really close together.
IMO, they could have done without some of those engines, even back then. The 198 slant six was really too weak in a car like this, and even the 225 slant six was probably inadequate. The 318 was quick enough for most day-to-day driving, and probably didn't get much worse mileage than the slant six. As the 70's wore on, often the 318 got BETTER economy than the 225 slant six, because it adapted to emission controls better, and didn't have to strain as much.
The 340 was a great smallblock performance engine, and capable of embarrassing many much bigger engines. And the simple fact that it only went from 275 gross to 235 net shows how they used to under-rate it, to make the big blocks look better!
A 383 2bbl is essentially a station wagon engine. It's meant to be able to lug a lot of weight around, but not necessarily get it up to speed very quickly. In a bigger intermediate or full-sized car, which is beefed up anyway, it's fine, but in something like a Barracuda, it adds so much weight that you might as well get a high-performance big block.
They probably could have eliminated the 383 2-bbl, 383 4-bbl, and the 440 6-pack, and just replaced them all with a 440-4bbl. And, of course, kept the 426 Hemi around as their halo/racecar engine.
So, right off the bat, I think they could have gone to a lineup like 318-2bbl, 340-4bbl, 440-4bbl, and Hemi, and made it a lot simpler. But, I'm sure they needed those slant six cars around to lure people in with a low base price and good fuel economy. And I'm sure there were people who wanted big-block bragging rights, even if it was a weak big block.
Sorry.
- Ray
That 440 was a really heavy block....
I have to think some of that is that a year ago, probably GM's best-selling sedan, the Malibu was going great guns, and I'm not sure when they were done building the '12's but the '13's have just begun to trickle in . May not be all the answer, but a sane person would have to agree it's got to be some of it.
To andres3, I won't pay for a CR and I won't go back to look at one on the shelf--last time I did that I said a magazine said a car had four recalls and was essentially called a liar and guess what--the magazine said the car had four recalls.
But...it won't take very long to see the kind of thing I'm talking about...even in the imported brands. And historically, you, I, and everybody knows they've had things like "Cars to avoid---2005, 2008 (fill in the blank)" when the car was the same from 2005-2010. I'll buy that the earliest years may be worst, but come on.
All I specifically remember from looking at the latest CR on the shelf, was that they made no differentiation between six and V8 Camaros, the 2011 Honda Odyssey was rated worse than average for reliability, and the Cruze had all red marks and a full black dot at the bottom, without a single black dot in any specific areas.
Actually, there's a rational reason for that, although it can be confusing to look at those charts. All of the individual components that they rate, such as body integrity, paint, air conditioning, electrical, and so on, are straight percentages. If something like 0-3% of survey respondents have a problem, it gets a red circle, if 3-5% have a problem, it gets a half red, 5-9 is a clear circle, 9-15 is half-black, and >15% is all black. Or, something like that.
But, the circle at the bottom for overall reliability has nothing to do with percentages. It shows how the car fared compared to other cars. So, if most of the other cars were scoring in the 1-3% range, but the Cruze was getting a few components in the 3-5% range, it still might be enough to get a black circle.
It could very well still be a reliable car, but it's just not as reliable as the others. It's kinda like if your kid scored a 92% on a test, but the class average was 95%. Doesn't mean your kid is dumb. Just that on average, the others did a little better.
Also, I asked this earlier but no one responded...do they rate a 'problem' in any area, the same as a 'problem' in any other area?
And yes, andres3, sample error can obviously work both ways. I'm not saying everything in CR is sample error, but logically there will be some there, but they never address that. They say to buy a Traverse but stay away from the Acadia, and I can tell you that logically, if I were looking at two of the same year vehicles and I liked one better than the other, their silly comment wouldn't steer me away from it...they're the same platform, same manufacturer, same mechanically, and probably assembled on the same line by the same people.
In the old days, I can remember seeing audio equipment reliability differences between six and V8 versions of the same car. And try as you might, there is simply no logical reason for that.
Calling errors in CR's opinion a "sample error" is being really generous: their collection of eclectic information is not a sample from a random poll in any way, shape, or means. :sick:
Getting your car information from CR is like watching Bill Maher comedy show for your political information. :confuse:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But sales of imports bother you? You can't have it both ways. The imports, particularly those built in the US are selling better than your favorite company.
This means that the trend is against GM. We'll post those reasons when they are evident.
For now, GM is loosing market share.
Regards,
OW
Probably more to do with the excellent choices of non-GM vehicles...and the fact that leases are being scaled back at Government Motors.
CR is one of thousands that rate cars for the consumer. The comedy is that it seems that when they have it right regarding GM, some folks continue to whine away...ROTF.
Regards,
OW
Yeah, most people would expect that. It got to the point that, a few years ago, Consumer Reports actually explained that overall rating because it was confusing people.
Somewhere, stashed around here, is an April auto issue from 1984. Haven't seen it in ages, but I do remember that the 1983 Datsun Sentra scored completely average in all of those individual categories. Nothing red, nothing black, all clear. Yet, the overall rating at the bottom was "better than average". Meanwhile, a 1983 Malibu with the V-8. It scored average in everything but brakes, where it scored worse than average (half-black circle). Overall, they gave it a worse than average rating.
One thing I'd love to know is how they were able to rate V-8 cars back in the day when you used to have a wide range of options? For instance, if you bought a 1978 Pontiac LeMans, it might have had an Olds 260 (this is new to me; my old car book doesn't list it, but the EPA website does), Pontiac 301 in 2- or 4-bbl form, or a Chevy 305-2bbl.
Well, reliability probably would have ranged to better or much better than average for the Olds 260 (a slow, but incredibly rugged), to average or worse for the Chevy 305 (they tended to have weak camshafts and the blocks weren't as durable), to worse or much-worse for the 301 (tended to spin bearings, and was simply TOO flimsy and lightweight).
So, with a V-8 you could have reliability ratings that were all over the map, and it really depended on which engine you got. But, Consumer Reports simply had an entry for "V-8", and the car was probably rated worse than average, overall.
They say to buy a Traverse but stay away from the Acadia, and I can tell you that logically, if I were looking at two of the same year vehicles and I liked one better than the other, their silly comment wouldn't steer me away from it...they're the same platform, same manufacturer, same mechanically, and probably assembled on the same line by the same people.
Oh, that's an easy one. The Acadias are always built on Fridays and Mondays, while the Traverse is built on Tues/Wed/Thurs. :P Seriously though, I can think of a few possibilities, but they might be long shots. First off, ARE the Acadia and Traverse built at the same plant? If not, that can make a difference. For example, I remember with the W-bodies in the 90's and early 00's, the Lumina/Impala and Century/Regal were built in Canada in a more modern plant, while the Intrigue and Grand Prix (maybe the Cutlass Supreme, too?) were built in Kansas City, in an older plant, and were more troublesome.
Another possibility...the Acadia is lower volume than the Traverse, so even if they're built in the same plant, maybe GM doesn't allocate enough space for the Acadia? I'm thinking along the lines of what Ford did with the Edsel. The smaller ones were built in a Ford plant, on a sped-up assembly line, so they were rushed out the door quicker than the Fords were. And the same thing happened with the larger, Mercury-based models.
Otherwise, do Acadias tend to be equipped better than Traverses? Is there anything high-tech in them that the Chevies don't have, that makes them more troublesome?
Does anyone really think the state of our country is better now than thirty or more years ago? I was working in both, and I sure don't. And much of that is due to the reduction in manufacturing here now compared to then, I'm afraid.
A similar discussion on the non-Studebaker portion of the Studebaker Drivers' Club forum resulted in someone mentioning that my '66 Studebaker is Canadian. True, but as a used car, the damage was already done by the original owner! Actually, my feeling on that is that Studebaker was so small, even though I admire their 114-year manufacturing history, they weren't hurting the domestic industry by those last two and a half Canadian production years.
Just in the full-size line, there were two wheelbases.
Models (called 'trim levels' today):
Catalina
Ventura
Executive
2+2
Bonneville
Bonneville Brougham
Grand Prix
Catalina could be had in two-door sedan, four-door sedan, four-door hardtop, convertible, and wagon. Ventura was really a trim option on the Catalina, although there were no "Catalina" nameplates on the car.
Executive could be had in four-door sedan, two-door hardtop, four-door hardtop, and station wagon with wood paneling.
Bonneville and Bonneville Brougham could be had in two and four door hardtops and convertibles. Bonneville (not Brougham) could be had in a station wagon.
2+2 and Grand Prix models could be had in two-door hardtop and convertible models.
And we haven't even discussed that year's Tempest/LeMans/GTO models, or Firebird models!
Ah, I miss that part of those days big-time.
I've worked in engineering for 25 years in factories, in both union and nonunion environments. And I can tell you that the union environments are simply not a competitive model. Sure unions are better for the workers getting more, but that is not necessarily good, as that same good, contributed to the high legacy costs, the overall dissatisfaction of the customer causing loss of market-share, and for relatively high wages.
There is no free lunch. When the Board, the execs, and the union are all in competition with each other over the booty, and not minding the store, than the business collapses. Thus decades of everyone "grabbing" and not making the customer #1, led to GM being weak, and failing when the next financial crisis came along.
Good local jobs are something EARNED. Earned by making more or better product than others. Good local jobs in your neighborhood isn't a birth-right that people from other areas should have to subsidize thru their federal taxes. To your neighbors I say - work harder or smarter, and stop destroying the employers you work for.
I'm on "vacation" yet working thanks to wifi and the net.
So yeah, even though I'm not union, stuff is much better. Not to mention my cars last twice as long as they used to.
The world isn't static, and it's constantly changing. For example, is the world better today than it was in 1942?
So, if you get to pick your "base point", you can always be assured you were better off then than now.
More to the point, while some definitely had it better during the big 3's heyday, those relative few were living off of someone else's future welfare.
It really is just that simple.
Exactly. Those that spurn today's reality really forget how technology has improved our lives over the past.
Regards,
OW
You know that if you buy CR, you are supporting U.S. jobs. :P
While I'll agree that the CR findings are not perfect, no data or statistics are perfect. But it is certainly true that even in products that appear to not be changing, manufacturers change things *all the time* - whether it be which crew built it, what supplier is used, suppliers of parts inside, redesign of minor parts, etc. So it's certainly not out of the realm of reason that failure or problem rates could vary year to year, even within the "identical" model. Don't we see recalls all the time from makers where only a certain VIN range applies as a subset of a model year, even though the entire model year is supposed to be "identical" cars?
I'm a Republican, and a white-collar working guy since age 22. But I think it's obvious to me that people who used to be able to work in a factory and buy a new car every several years and own a house, now can't do that. It's like Wal-Mart is out there for jobs, then office workers up the rung next, and I think that is very sad. And this didn't happen in 100 years; it happened in 30 where I've lived.
Sad to see. And that's the reality.
Nice loaded question. Of all the dates, pick one in the middle of World War II.
That wasn't my statement, as you know.
You surely know what I mean. But then...and I say this seriously...maybe in California where you live, the differences between then and now weren't so stark.
Last year, I earned more than ten times what my first post-college desk job paid in 1980. So, things are fine for me personally, but I think in the big picture, things are way worse.
In 1950, Chevrolet came up with a revolutionary style that would set a pattern for decades. The Bel Air Hardtop (on the DeLuxe line) was styled as a convertible with a non-detachable solid roof. Models like this had been around since the 1920s, including early Chevrolets, with no degree of success. But the newly revised idea, sweeping the GM line from Chevrolet to Cadillac, had finally found its era. First year production reached only 76,662 as buyers cautiously tested the revised concept. The car cost $1,741 and weighed 3,225 lb (1,463 kg). Front suspension was independent, named "knee-action".
(note: An IIHS sollision sends the dummy 6 feet under in the Bel-Air but walks away unscathed from the Cruze.)
That $1,741 inflated to today's dollars = $13,390. Not too far off a new Cruze price. Things are far better today, as the world has passed GM in many areas in the car arena.
The future is bright, though many can't see it. I agree the greed helped delay the improvements to a degree but reality is we are far better off.
Just keeping it real.....Go Mustang! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Was it that all these American companies weren't making money for decades before the '90's, so they HAD to go to third-world countries to make money? I think we all know the answer to that.
When I started work, that company had a pension. Pensions had been given employees for decades up to that time. How many companies give a pension now? I'm afraid we all know that answer. My first company went through a rocky patch due to an insane investment in another company and decided to stop matching employee 401-K contributions. HR said 'we'll resume then when things get better'. Things got better, but guess what? The match never returned. I see greed at the labor and executive side as a big part of most of today's problems.
Steve, back to the Vega....calling that representative of the industry back then is like me saying, "I don't like foreign cars...remember the Renault Dauphine?" Certainly not everything foreign was as bad as a Dauphine!
Here is the reality. Things are looking up, wouldn't you say?
The Midwest is our engine. :shades:
Regards,
OW
How 'bout the northeast?
They say Ohio is the 'midwest', but I'm only about 55 miles from the PA border, so where I live is still mostly 'northeast' I'd say.
I will say, I washed the wife's black granite Malibu last night and blacked the tires, and I don't believe I could've bought a more elegant-looking car for $19K. I actually like the darker, polished wheels of the 1LT better than the mirror-bright wheels of the higher-end models.
That sounded a bit low to me, so I tried it out myself on an inflation calculator, and came up with $16,446. Which is about on par with a Cruze price.
One thing to keep in mind though, is that for $1,741, that Bel Air would have had a manual transmission, no power steering, no power brakes, no radio. Definitely no air conditioning, which in those days was a luxury item at $500+. One reason convertibles were so popular back in those days is because it was cheaper to get a convertible than it was a closed car with air conditioning!
And even little things we take for granted today, such as backup lights and a windshield washer, would have been optional.
There are few thirty year old cars, from any manufacturer, that I'd want as a daily driver or as a road trip rig. And I'd take pretty much any new GM model over most any 30 year old GM model.
There was a time, after reform of working conditions, overtime, 40 hour week, that companies DID NOT provide pensions nor health care insurance. Didn't these latter two perks come about because of a labor shortage? Companies trying to get workers to work for them?
People have mindset that pensions, paid vacations, paid holidays, health insurance are items that companies must or are obligated to provide.
Had a 77 Chevrolet Caprice Classic for many years and liked it a lot. It did have some warts, problems, but overall would say it was a very good car for what was available in 1977 and state of technology and manufacturing for that era.
My Grandpop had both a 1980 Impala and a 1989 Caprice Classic Brougham.
My best friend had a 1978 Impala and his neighbor a 1977 Impala.
Another friend had a beautiful two-tone turquoise and green 1982 Caprice Classic.
Some people who went to my church had a 1979 Caprice Classic.
My first new car was a black 1987 Caprice Classic.
Heck the Philadelphia Police Department had a whole fleet of 1978 Impalas back in the day.
Maybe 1980's models sold as 2012. We can thank the Japanese for their adoption of superior management and technology techniques in consumer product design and manufacturing that they adopted after WWII. Superior to that of lethargic American companies.
Ironically, it was Americans such as W Edwards Demming, who went to Japan after WWII and taught them superior management methods to achieve the highest levels of quality. American car companies mostly resisted the teachings of quality experts such as Deming and Joseph Juran.
In 1951, Japan established the annual Deming Prize given to the Japanese company that had achieved the highest level of quality improvement in the previous year. It remains to this day, expanded to include companies worldwide.
From juse.or.jp: "The Deming Prize is one of the highest awards on TQM (Total Quality Management) in the world. It was established in 1951 in commemoration of the late Dr. William Edwards Deming who contributed greatly to Japan’s proliferation of statistical quality control after the World War II. His teachings helped Japan build its foundation by which the level of Japan’s product quality has been recognized as the highest in the world."
My only issue with using a 30 year old car as a daily driver is that, sooner or later, it's going to break down and leave you stranded. True, a newer car will do that too, and even a brand-new car can strand you. But, the older the car gets, the higher the likelihood.
1983 was sort of a turnaround year for GM's RWD cars, too. I think they finally got rid of all those under-sized V-8's like the 260 and 267 after 1982 (Pontiac's 265 was dropped after '81 I think). And the kinks were getting worked out of the emissions systems and computer controls, so even though rated horsepower wasn't going up, the cars were beginning to accelerate better, and real-world fuel economy was starting to improve. And, while they still had a ways to go, they improved the 4-speed THM200-R4 transmission, so it wasn't as troublesome as the 1981-82 versions.
I really liked my Mom's '86 Monte Carlo, which unfortunately I only had for about three months before I got t-boned while delivering pizzas. It was a base coupe (not the LS with the composite headlights or an SS) with the 150 hp 305 and 4-speed automatic. It was a really good blend of size, interior room, handling, performance, and fuel economy. 0-60 came up in about 10 seconds, and I think it was EPA rated around 17/24, although I usually got around 15/22. Never did take it on a good, long dedicated highway run, and a lot of that mileage was a result of delivering pizzas. Plus, it had about 179,000 miles when Mom gave it to me, so it was hardly a spring chicken!
I don't want that stuff enough to trade in my '99 just yet, but it seems a bit marginal now compared to the latest and greatest.
Well, there was the Crown Vic, which dated back to 1979! :P And I have a feeling that, if SUV's hadn't become such cash-cows in the 1990's, that the Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood/Impala SS would have held on awhile longer. But, perhaps not. IIRC, stricter side impact standards came out for 1997, and I don't think the B-bodies would have passed, without some major revising. Something about the belt line being too low, and the way the car hung out over the frame rails, I think.
But, even without Japanese competition, I think the auto manufacturers would have improved, eventually. Stricter emissions and fuel economy standards, and safety regulations would have forced it. And, eventually, I'm sure the public would have demanded it.
One reason that classic cars started becoming so popular was because of the direction new cars were going in the 70's and 80's. If they had kept going down that route, I think people would have held onto their older cars with even more passion, rather than buy a new one, and new car sales would drop off unless drastic changes were made.
Oh, here's one possible future that never materialized. Supposedly, before the first oil embargo, GM was working on a series of 500-600 cubic inch V-8's! It would have been interesting to see what kind of monsters those would have gone into!
I wonder how much bigger the cars would have realistically gotten in the 70's, if the oil embargo had never happened? When it came to big luxury cars, they actually didn't grow *that* much over the years. In 1957, I think the longest domestic car was the Lincoln at 227", followed by Imperial at 225". Cadillacs were actually pretty tidy in comparison...around 216" for the sedans, 221" for the coupes and convertibles. The longer 60 Special was around 224" though, and the Fleetwood 75 Limo was 236".
In the 1970's, I think Lincoln topped out at around 233" for the Continental sedans and coupes, 231" for the Mark IV and V. Caddy DeVilles hit 230.7", while the Fleetwood Brougham (replacement for the 60 Special) was 233.7" and the 75 Limo went to 252". I think Chrysler managed to stretch the Imperial to about 233", and the '76-78 New Yorkers weren't that much shorter.
So, at the upper end, cars didn't get THAT much bigger, but at the low end they certainly did. I think a '57 Chevy is about 200", a Ford is around 202", and a Plymouth is 205". But the '76 versions of those cars, I'm sure, were around 220-222".
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/rayainsw/P1050059crop.jpg
Looking at the Catalina - There are 5 different HP ratings for versions of the 389, and 11 possible engine \ trans. combinations w/the 389. Plus another 10 for the 421.
- Ray
Did not want to spread flat a 40+ year old magazine to scan it.
I'm not sure how old you are, but I wasn't aware of a company that did NOT offer a pension or health care, if you were a full-time employee, until probably into the early '90's. They had provided things like that for decades.
I don't think it's a demand, like 'buy me birth control', but one does wonder why it was taken away after so many years, and years of the company making much moolah.
I loved the packaging. To this day, I could very much enjoy a '77-79 Caprice coupe, F41, 350 engine, those plastic scooped-out spoked wheel covers. To me, the car is almost timeless.
I had a Caprice Classic Station Waagon. Looking at pictures of the Caprice Sedan, 2 or 4 door, today, I find them very attractive of a design. My preference would be a 4-door. I would agree that from 77 on through the 80's that the styling, design is timeless. I like the large windows, full doors front and back.
Looking at some specs, the sedan with V8 weighed 3700 pounds. The same design, style with updated mechanicals, safety would be a very nice car.