Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
I love this style. White is good. And it's a convertible. All it needs is Dinah Shore.
GM is good.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Generally people show off the condition of the trunk and engine compartment on show cars to show that it's been well cared for in the hidden areas as well, underside of the hood, trunk hinges, no grease buildup on the engine, etc.
White is good.
Which just proves your insanity. :shades: White cars should be illegal.
Lucky you!
Plus we have a lot of Rexes up here, it being the Northeast and all. But I generally see more Mustangs than Vics also.
The Camaro is selling 'higher than expected'? Wow, and a regular or two on this board just was saying how the Mustang 'trounces' the Camaro.
I always looked at white as sort of a "test color", for lack of a better word. If I see a car that happens to be white and I still like it, then that shows me that I like the car based on its own design merits, and I'm not being wooed in by some color that just happens to catch my eye.
I think that '58 Chevy, which looks sorta antique white. Or, from when I used to work in a department store selling mens shirts, "ecru". Which, my manager had to correct me was pronounced "Ecker" and not "Ee-crew". Wouldn't be my first color choice on a '58 Chevy, but I think it wears it great!
Still , I guess if someone likes a car despite the color it would say something. But why not lime green or something?
If a car looks good in white, then it will look good in most colors with reference to styling. The white shows all the styling effects with slight shadowing while other colors wash out some details of styling. In some cases washing out the styling makes the car look better.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
IMHO, that white Impala would look so much nicer sans the skirts and fake exhaust outlets on the rear quarters. About the only car I think skirts look 'natural' on is the '70-72 Monte Carlo. By the looks of cars at car shows, one would think every car back then had every accessory in the catalog thrown on it!
I thought the Five Hundred was pleasantly styled, a teensy bit in the Audi mold (which IMHO is better than Asian styling). Cavernous interior, nice instrument panel IMO--but it seemed to have never taken off. At introduction time I thought the current Taurus was the best-looking Taurus ever, but by now I think it just looks chunky.
Whenever I think of a '58 Impala, the color I tend to associate with it is sort of a medium metallic blue, like this:
Probably because I had an old 1/25 scale Revelle model of one like that when I was a kid. I think my favorite color on one of those would be something in more of a turquoise/pastel blue/green. I do like that medium metallic blue, although it is a bit conservative. You could use it on a car today, and it would look fine. My '80 Malibu was shade of blue fairly close to that.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Funny you'd mention that, because I looked at the previous 500 as sort of an "old man's Passat"! So, VW, Audi, not too much of a stretch. Despite the "old man" adjective though, I kinda liked them. In fact, earlier in the year, when I went with a friend of mine to drop off his Xterra for servicing at the dealer, they had a used 500 on the lot. It had leather and a sunroof, so it was pretty nicely equipped. I can't remember the year, mileage or price, but it seemed reasonable enough to get my attention. Unfortunately, I think there was something wrong with it, because there was another sticker in the side window that said "Do not Sell".
From sitting in them at the auto shows, I remember the front seat being a bit short on legroom for me. It sat up high, sort of pickup truck-like, but just didn't go back that far. But, I wanted to revisit it at least, and see if the power seat could get into a decent position for me.
Where those 500's really stood out was in the back seat and trunk. It didn't quite have the shoulder room of a Crown Vic...more like my old Intrepid, or Park Ave. But legroom was downright limousine-like! And the trunks were cavernous.
As for the new Taurus, I liked it when it first came out, but the style just wore on me pretty quickly. And, once I actually sat in one, was disappointed. One thing I noticed, when I saw one from behind the other day, is how narrow the passenger cabin is, above the beltline. It's tucked in, giving the car sort of a "shouldered" look, like how cars were back before GM's coke-bottle and Mopars fuselage started curving the sides more, and pushing the windows and roof pillars further out.
Actually, I was looking at a white 2013 Elantra GT and the white they used pretty much washed out and obscured all the styling details they put into that car. I hated it, it was horrible.
I'm sorry about the car. Some try to peddle them as best thing since sliced bread. Oh well.
I suggest you look at other colors since white doesn't work for you.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Lifetime, the Mustang DESTROYS the Camaro in sales...because the Camaro died for awhile!
The Mustang lives since inception. A true dynasty. Also, the mother company didn't go bankrupt!!!!
Which legacy reflects true American know-how? Mustang, of course!
Regards,
OW
Since magazine reviews are mentioned so frequently here, I'd just add that the "experts" don't seem to agree with you on the ZL-1 versus new Cobra...and Ford even had longer to introduce theirs.
That's partially because the Camaro is actually Australian, and was simply issued a work visa. :shades:
I wonder if the ZL-1 was engineered in Australia.
Not really, I know the answer to that one.
1- Many state and local governments can't buy a product they would like to get because it's an American brand made outside NA, which they are prohibited by law from buying. Yet, the are allowed by law to purchase vehicles like a BMW X5.
2- It's a car made by a taxpayer-assisted company made in a county other than where the taxpayer-generated money originated.
3- GM actually UNDERSTATED its own estimate of how well it's Camaro would sell.
4- One desired model (police car) got bumped from domestic production by another popular model (Camaro).
Amtrak USPS Motors will be the new name!
Oshawa isn't the 'States, but OTOH, I've been looking a new Chevys since the early '70's and saw them coming from Oshawa into our little hometown dealer in PA even then. To me, it's not quite the same as assembling them in places where they are taking advantage of people who will work for an absolute fraction of what Americans will work for (not talking about Australia, hopefully obviously).
Both of my daily cars are Chevrolet (American company), American-assembled, and have a high NA parts-content percentage, which is what I like. On top of that, I like the cars better than other cars in their size class (and definitely better than other cars in their price class), but I fear that going forward, I'll see less and less of that triumvirate of things I value, among other things, in a new car.
Personally, I don't take issue with products from other countries that have reasonably fair-trade practices.
Seems a bit short sighted to me to expect others, whether those "others" be individuals or countries, to buy my products and services when, at the very same time, I refuse to use theirs. Of course, that's assuming they have something I want. I can't see buying buggy whips made anywhere, regardless if they are the finest, best priced buggy whips, so if that's all they have to sell, it's not going to happen.
I most certainly don't like protectionism, or anything else that skews the "fair playing field". Like everywhere, you have to have something someone wants, if you want to sell it.
I also understand the world isn't simply an "either/or, black or white" choice. Sometime, actually most of the time, it can (and does) get quite complicated.
If what you're doing works for you, then that is what you should continue on doing. I just see the big picture from a different perspective...
I'm all for a 'fair playing field', but I think what we have now is far from that.
Incidentally, a friend just sent me a link to a video from 'Automotive News' which shows that (in small contrast to an earlier post today here) Mazda built their last vehicle at Flat Rock, MI and is building their next mid-sized sedan in Japan. Last year they announced building a plant in Mexico. Good news, IMHO, is that Ford will begin building the new Fusion at Flat Rock. Similarly, the Chevy Sonic is built in Michigan, although its predecessor, the not-missed Aveo, was built in Korea.
I can appreciate that you have certain criteria for your cars - some of those criteria are more related to the economics behind the car than the car itself. Unfortunately a lot of people (probably most) don't weight those same things as highly as you do. Therefore you are probably correct that it's going to get harder to find. You might get a few of those qualities, but getting all will narrow the field considerably.
Total 1965-2001:
Mustang Sales= 7,899,556
Camaro Sales = 4,821,768
The rest is history. Camaro might catch up if Ford goes bankrupt!
Regards,
OW
I'll bet that is largely because of Ford disengaging from the joint venture and partial ownership of Mazda. IMHO Ford got a good deal with that, including the excellent chassis which formed the Fusion. I know Mazda is struggling financially against the bigger players. IMHO it would be a big loss if we lost Mazda, as they are keeping the lower cost sporty segment alive as Honda has gotten soft.
Total 1965-2001:
Mustang Sales= 7,899,556
Camaro Sales = 4,821,768
The rest is history. Camaro might catch up if Ford goes bankrupt!
As usual, no links or even mention of where your data came from. Plus, of course, there were no Camaros in 1965-66, or 2003-2008 model years.
There's an anchor job waiting for you at MSNBC
As much as GM dominated in the 1960, I always considered them more of a follower than a leader. Usually Chrysler or Ford would do something first and then GM would react to it, but they ad the budget, marketing, and bank account to do it bigger and more successfully.
For instance, Ford beat GM to the personal luxury coupe market with the 4-seat T-bird in 1958. GM wouldn't fully react to that until the 1963 Riviera, although the 1962 Grand Prix was certainly inspired by it. Actually, I'd say Studebaker first discovered this market, with their Loewy coupes from 1953 onward, but they tend to be underrated, IMO. However, GM ultimately went on to have the Riviera, Toronao, and Eldorado.
Ford and Chrysler beat GM by two years in bringing midsized cars to the market. And Chrysler was the first to put a big-block in an intermediate, which was the formula that GM popularized with the 1964 GTO. Plus, to be fair, one reason Chrysler came out with those intermediates for '62 was that there were rumors of a midsized Chevy. That could turn out to be the Chevy II, a compact actually, but Chrysler reacted, and downsized all their big Dodges and Plymouths for '62.
Ford was also first to offer an upscale version of their mainstream cars, with the 1965 LTD. Chevy and Plymouth countered with the Caprice and Fury VIP.
And, with pony cars, Ford was first with the Mustang. Plymouth actually got the Barracuda out a few weeks before the Stang, but it was obviously a hastily conceived rush job. It took Chevy two years to counter, with the Camaro.
The Camaro was a good seller, but the Mustang consistently swamped it in sales, so Ford was definitely winning this battle. I think GM really started gaining ground in the 1970's, though. First, the fat '71-73 Mustangs weren't all that popular, while the Italian-inspired Camaros were, once they got past the strike that hit around 1970-71. The Mustang II peaked in 1974 and then tapered off quickly, while Mopar left this market entirely after the '74 challenger/Barracuda were retired.
The Mustang started getting popular again with the 1979 redesign, but then the '82 Camaro was hot, as well. In the late 80's/early 90's, the Mustang tended to swamp the Camaro again, although with the '93 redesign, the Camaro got a couple good years in. But, through most of the '90's, the Mustang won out.
IMO, the "race", if there even is one, really only counts during comparable production years.
After all, who would consider the Mustang II as any sort of sports car?
Farrah Fawcett and Jaclyn Smith, maybe? IIRC, Kate Jackson always got stuck with the Pinto.
A certain host, when he hears me mention the word "Studebaker" will probably make me take it elsewhere (!), but in '62 Lark four-door wheelbases were 113", which to me put it in the intermediate category. Still smaller than Plymouths of that year, I know.
I would just say that it's important to view history in the context of the time.
While some, not many overall, still wanted the performance cars of the late 60's/early 70's in the 1980's timeframe, manufacturers pretty much made what they thought would sell in decent numbers.
No one has identified it. I know this isn't the right forum for that. I thought it was a jewel. I don't think it was getting the attention from the lookers that it deserved.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'm certainly no vintage car expert.... you would think somebody would know. It just looks so.....classy.
Give that man a cigar!
That's not really *that* much smaller. IIRC, the Plymouths and Dodges were on a 116" wb, and the Fairlane/Meteor were a touch shorter at 115.5". In contrast, the Falcon was on a 109.5" wb, the Corvair on a 108", and the Valiant/Lancer were on a downright petite 106.5".
So, it looks like the Lark would have split the difference with regard to wheelbase. I wonder how it stacked up in terms of interior room...if it would've been closer to compact or midsized?
I've heard that the shrunken '62 Dodges and Plymouths actually gave up very little interior room compared to their Ford/Chevy competition. And they handled better and performed better, thanks to the lighter bodies and smaller dimensions. But, they just looked diminutive compared to a Ford or Chevy, and their styling was just too funky and "out there". They were also designed to accept any engine that Mopar built at the time, from the slant six on up to the 413, and offered a full range of body styles...sedans, hardtops, convertible, and wagon. In contrast, the '62 Fairlane/Meteor seemed designed more with frugality in mind. That first year, there was only a 2-door sedan, 4-door sedan, and wagons, and only straight-6 or small V-8's. They did add hardtop coupes and convertibles for '63 though, and then for '64 there was the famous Thunderbolt 427 dragracer.
Dana settled and paid Toyota.
I think Taurus led from 86 to around 89, then Accord took over in 90. Camry took over a few years after that and has held the crown since.
For cars that is. Ford F series has outsold all those all along.