Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

1605606608610611964

Comments

  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    Would a big car like one of your NYers, on a platform that could be ordered with a slant 6, be better with that engine than a big GM car with a 6?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    Would a big car like one of your NYers, on a platform that could be ordered with a slant 6, be better with that engine than a big GM car with a 6?

    I think it would depend on the year, as even in that short timeframe, things changed quickly. In 1979, the Newport and St. Regis came standard with a 2-bbl version of the slant six that put out 110 hp. A Caprice or Impala would have had a 250-1bbl inline six with around 105-110 hp, while a Catalina, LeSabre, or Delta 88 would've had the 110 hp 231-2bbl V-6. They would've all been fairly comparable in acceleration, although I don't think I've ever seen any acceleration times for these weaklings.

    In 1980, however, the R-body got the 1-bbl version of the slant six, and it was choked down to 85 hp. The Caprice/Impala moved to the 115 hp Chevy 229 V-6, while the B-O-P cars retained the 231. So the Mopars had to be real dogs with those engines. The 229 had more hp, but less torque than the old inline 6. But, in 1980, GM trimmed a couple hundred pounds off their big cars, which no doubt helped a bit, so they should have all been quicker, and a bit more economical, than the Mopars.

    In 1981, things didn't change much. The slant six was rated at 90 hp, but I don't think that made much difference. Chrysler also played around with gearing in the V-8, non-police cars that year, replacing the 2.41:1 axle with a tall 2.26:1, but putting in a faster 1st and 2nd gear to compensate. The slant six, I believe, used a 2.94:1 axle, and I don't think that changed for 1981, so it may have retained the old transmission ratios.

    Now reliability-wise, I'd say the advantage, for powertrains at least, would have gone to the Mopar. The Chevy 250 was a pretty good engine though, and I believe they tended to put the sturdier THM350 transmission with it. The 229 was decent as well, but was mated with the lightweight THM200, which was more likely to fail...and I would think would be even more likely in a heavier car like an Impala. And the Buick 231 was pretty bad in those days, not really getting improved until 1985, when the regular engines got the turbo block and revised oil passages and such. I think they tended to mix and match transmissions with the 231, as well, with some having the THM200 and some having the THM350.

    The Mopars would have been more likely to rust, leak, have other body issues, and so on though, be crankier in cold weather, wet weather, and so on. So the choice could very well have been between a GM car that would be nice for a few years and then crap out catastrophically, or a Mopar that would nickel and dime you to death and aggravate you, to the point that you just wish it would die!

    Often, with those Mopars of that era, even if the EPA said otherwise, the 318 often got better economy in real world driving, thanks to the taller gearing, not having to rely on the lower gears as much and not having to struggle as hard to move all that weight. The slant six was a good engine in its day, but it like to run cool, which meant emissions controls really hurt its performance. And it didn't like to rev, which it had to do, to move those heavier weights.

    I would imagine that some of the worst of these cars had to take at least 20 seconds to get from 0-60. I'm basing that though, on an old CR test of a 1977 Cutlass Supreme sedan that CR did with a 260 V-8. 0-60 was around 21.6 seconds.

    Also, throwing the Ford LTD into the mix, I imagine that the tiny 255 CID V-8 they started using had to be a dog in these bigger cars. Lemko's Dad had a T-bird with that engine, and he's mentioned how bad it was. I don't think Ford started putting that one in the big cars until 1981 though. In 1979-80, I think a 130 hp 302 was standard.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    There was a performance version of the smaller LTD, at least by mid-80s standards. That small LTD had the exact same instrument panel as my Dad's 1981 Thunderbird.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    Bad doesn't even begin to cover how awful that 255 V-8 was in Dad's T-Bird. I can't imagine how dreadful it would've been in a full-size LTD Crown Victoria or Grand Marquis! I hope Ford didn't put that engine in Lincolns!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    edited October 2013
    I remember Consumer Reports doing a test in 1979 of an LTD with a 129 hp 302, a Caprice with a 130 hp 305, and a St. Regis with a 135 hp 318. 0-60 was something like 13.9 seconds for the Crown Vic, 15.4 for the Chevy, and a sad 15.9 for the St. Regis.

    FWIW, horsepower seemed to go down across the board in 1979; I wonder if a stricter set of emissions standards was enacted? For example, the Chevy 305-2bbl had put out 145 hp in 1977-78, but was cut to 130 for 1979. To somewhat compensate, a 305-4bbl with 160 hp was released, but I think only in the Malibu/Monte Carlo. 1979 was also the year the small 267-2bbl came out, and I think it had 120 hp. Mopar's 318-2bbl was cut from 145 to 135 hp that year. Not sure if the Ford 302 was cut that year or not. For some reason, I remember multiple versions floating around though, with ratings like 129, 134, and 139-140 hp.

    0-60times.com lists a 1980 Caprice at 0-60 in 18.5 seconds and a quarter mile of 21.1. Doesn't say which engine though. They also list a wagon with the Diesel 350 at 0-60 in 19.5 seconds, and the quarter mile in 21.4. So I imagine that other '80 was a sedan, with the 229 V-6? I'd hope a 267 wouldn't be THAT slow, but you never know. MT or C&D did a test of a 1981 Pontiac Grand Prix with the Pontiac 265, and 0-60 came up in 14.9 seconds. And I seem to remember CR testing a 1980 Malibu with a 229 and a LeMans or some other midsize with a 231, and both had 0-60 times of around 15 seconds.

    I've always wondered if there was some extenuating circumstance behind their 1979 big car test, that made the numbers come out worse than they should have? I had a 1979 Newport with the same setup as their test St. Regis, and while it wasn't all that fast, it wasn't THAT slow. It was about as quick as my grandmother's '85 LeSabre 307. Consumer Guide tested a Delta 88 with the same drivetrain and got 0-60 12.0 seconds. It's possible, I guess, that the weather could have been extra hot and muggy, and that threw off their tests. The Michigan state police ran into a similar circumstance when they did their 1985 police car test. I think they did the tests at the same time every year, but that particular year, the weather was extra hot and humid, and as a result, all the cars they tested did worse than their 1984 counterparts.

    Extreme weather probably doesn't affect performance on modern cars all that much, but it could play hell with those older ones, especially if they started bucking, sputtering, trying to stall out, etc.

    **Edit: one other test I remember from that era, was when MT or C&D did a luxury flagship comparison in 1980. They trotted out a Mark VI coupe with a 351, a Seville with a 368, and a New Yorker 5th Ave with a 120 hp 318. The Caddy did 0-60 in a respectable 10.5 seconds. 10.9 for the Lincoln. The poor Chrysler could only muster up 14.1.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    I can't imagine having a 6 in an R-body. Were many built that way, for non-fleet use, anyway? It's an engine I associate with Darts, Dusters, and maybe Volares, not something larger.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    Believe it or not, growing up back in the 60's quite a few full sized sedans in our area had 6 cylinder engines. However, the engines were simple and the cars may have been less weighed down. I seem to recall that all of the Big 3 large car 6 cylinders had a decent reputation at the time. Of course there were still 3 on the tree's too!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    I can't imagine that very many of those things were built with the slant six. A few years back I remember seeing one, a Gran Fury I think, in dark green metallic, at Carlisle. It was for sale, although I forget how much. There was a big sign in the window bragging about 6-cyl fuel economy. I remember the car was pretty worn-out looking.

    The vast majority of R-bodies that I come across (not like they're a common sight) are 318's. The 360-2bbl was standard in the 1979 New Yorker, although a 318-4bbl was substituted in California/high altitude areas. I've also run across an occasional '79 St. Regis or Newport with the 360-2bbl as well, so apparently it wasn't that rare of an option.

    And yeah, a slant six really doesn't belong in anything bigger than a Dart, Valiant, or Duster IMO. Supposedly the 110 hp "Super Six" 2-bbl version offered from 1977-79 wasn't *too* bad. My grandmother's cousin had a '79 Volare wagon with that setup. On the surface, you'd think it would be comparable with something like a V-6 Malibu, or a Fairmont or Granada with the inline-6, but those Aspens and Volares, especially the 4-doors and wagons, were notably heavier. And worse still, was the Diplomat/LeBaron and Cordoba/Mirada...in no way did that engine belong in cars of that size/weight!

    In the Diplomat/LeBaron and Cordoba/Mirada, I'd guess the 318 was by far the most common engine...at least judging from what I see at shows.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    Yeah, I think 60s cars weren't as heavy and strangled as 70s mastodons. I've seen a few big 60s cars with 6s, mostly Chevy and Ford. Must have been the granny special. Through the mid 90s, I remember seeing a 6cyl full sized 61 Ford sedan in the town where I lived. Maybe around the year 2000, I went to look at a 63 Impala 4 door HT with a friend. Opened the hood - it was a 6. The car wasn't very nice either, I told him to pass.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    It's still funny for me to think of Miradas and Diplomats at shows! :)

    Maybe rental fleet cars got the small engines, too.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    I would guess a taxi in a big city wouldn't need a very big engine. I heard that back in the old days, one reason DeSoto Suburbans were so popular as taxis was because the cabbie could just put the semi-automatic in high gear and could get through the whole day without having to shift. Guess if you're stuck in gridlock all day, high performance is pretty useless. So maybe those smaller engines would serve okay.

    I've also heard that sometimes, local police forces would specify a smaller V-8 or even a 6-cyl car, if the car was just going to be used for routine patrol duty, and not have to chase anything.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    Lemko, the 267 V8 was nothing to write home about in the Monte Carlos of that era, either. I had the dealer look for one, when most were V6's, based on the roughness and sound of my parents' V6 Monte. At least the 267 idled smoothly and sounded like a V8!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    I wonder how one of those Monte Carlos would have performed with the later 4.3/262 CID V-6? IIRC it had 130 hp in 1985 and 140 for 1986-88. Hardly a powerhouse, but I imagine it split the difference pretty well between the old 110 hp 229 and the 150 hp 305.

    I can't remember...did the 4.3/262 ever go in any of the B-O-P intermediates, or did they simply stick it out with that 110 hp Buick 231 through the end? For some reason, I'm thinking that the Regal, and possibly the Bonneville G and Grand Prix offered the 262 for a little while, at least.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    edited October 2013
    I'm thinking the B-O-P cars stuck with the 3.8 V6. I think the Chevy was the only one with the 4.3. Didn't Lemko own a Caprice with that engine? I don't know anybody who had one, but I don't remember hearing/reading anything bad about that engine, either.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    Yeah, Lemko's first brand-new car, I believe, was a 1987 Caprice with the 4.3, before he bought his Brougham. My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Caprice with the 130 hp 4.3/4-speed automatic. They didn't list an actual 0-60 time, but gave it a "3" for acceleration. In contrast, the Delta 88 307 that did 0-60 in 12.0 seconds got a "4", and for the most part I think you had to beat around 9.5 seconds to get a "5". There was a Mercury Topaz in that guide that was rated a "2", and the time listed was something like 15.9 seconds, IIRC.

    As for other uses of the 4.3, I just checked the EPA's website, and I don't know how accurate it truly is, but they do list a 4.3 being offered on the Regal for 1985, on the Bonneville/Grand Prix for 1986, and the Grand Prix for 1987. But, I can't say that I've ever seen one in person, or ever remember mention of it anywhere else.

    I just found a Canadian brochure for the 1985 Regal, and it lists the Olds Diesel 4.3 V-6 as an option, but says nothing of the Chevy 4.3. It does list a Chevy 305 V-8 as being optional though. Maybe Canadian options were still a bit different at that time? I thought the Regal stopped offering V-8's after 1980, and didn't start again until 1986-87 when they began putting Olds 307's in them?

    I always thought it was a shame that they kept the 110 hp 231 in these cars up until the end. IMO, they should have upgraded it with fuel injection, like they did with the FWD version. I think the Cutlass Supreme might have gone V-8 only for the abbreviated 1988 model year, but can't remember for sure.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    I recall seeing a black 1973 Chevrolet Bel Air at Carlisle with a 250 inline six in it. I can't imagine how slow that car must've been. I bet a glacier could pass it up in a drag race. I can't imagine what owner could've been masochistic enough to own such a beast. Maybe there was a bunch of BDSM gear in the trunk?
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    I believe that car was on eBay a year or two ago and we discussed it here. It was a stick and sold new at a small-town Chevy dealer in south-central PA. The 250 six was rated at 100 net hp in '73...that was a lot of car! I'm sure it was an old-timer who liked a full-size Chevy but didn't want to spend much $$. That car is interesting to me, though--I like the offbeat stuff.

    I'd like a '71 or '72 Biscayne, full wheelcovers and whitewalls, just because I bet I haven't seen a total of five in my lifetime! ;)
  • jljacjljac Posts: 649
    edited October 2013
    I was not aware that Chevrolet sold Bel Airs with six cylinder motors until I read posts at this site. How common was that? Could you get an Impala with a six too? :-(
  • texasestexases Posts: 8,940
    Early '60s you could get an Impala SS with a 6...
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Even the late 60s, you could get 155 angry horsepower in a full-size Chevy, with the 250 cid engine.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    That's more than my fintail has - of course, it weighs probably 1000+ lbs less, and doesn't mind revving or working hard.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    edited October 2013
    Our '67 Chevelle, bought new, was a 250 with 155 gross hp. I remember once our neighbor borrowed it and said he was surprised how peppy it was, "for a six". At the time, he drove a '63 Mercury Monterey Breezeway.

    Into the '70's, you could get a six on Biscayne and Bel Air sedans, and only on Impala 4-door sedans and Sport Coupes. The six wasn't offered on Impala Custom Coupes, convertibles, or Sport Sedans. This is through '72 I believe and probably '73. I'd have to look at a '73 Chevrolet brochure on the Old Car Manuals Project site. I do know the bodystyles that were excluded from six-cylinder availability in the Impala line though.

    BTW, the 250 in our '67 was a $26 option. The 230 was the standard six. It had 140 gross horsepower.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    edited October 2013
    The '73 full-size brochure says the six was available only on the Bel Air. The '72 shows availability on the Impala Sport Coupe and 4-door sedan also.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    I don't have any breakout numbers, but as a kid I remember it wasn't all that unusual to see Biscaynes and Bel Airs through around 62, but 63 and after Impala's seemed to rule big time. Saw some Impala's (and Galaxie's) with 6 cylinders (and I'm not counting the few younger people who would buy a 409 and replace it's engine badge with a 6 banger emblem - like they were fooling their competition!)
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    BTW, the 250 in our '67 was a $26 option. The 230 was the standard six. It had 140 gross horsepower.

    Damn inflation is a cruel [non-permissible content removed]. I was thinking that $26 didn't sound like a whole lot of money, even back then. But just put it into an inflation calculator, and it's $182 by today's standards! Still, I guess that's not *too* much money, considering the added power.

    Mopar also had two versions of their slant six around that timeframe, but in their case it was the tiny 170 CID, with around 115 hp, and the more common 225, with 145. The 170 was only used in Darts and Valiants, and seriously, should have been dropped by then. Those cars were just too big for an engine that small. But, maybe not, as Chevy was putting 4-cyl engines in the Chevy II, and I think Ford was still pushing 170's in the Falcon, unless they had gone to a 200 as the base by then?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    Saw some Impala's (and Galaxie's) with 6 cylinders (and I'm not counting the few younger people who would buy a 409 and replace it's engine badge with a 6 banger emblem - like they were fooling their competition!)

    My father did that with his '63 Impala SS409. Dunno if he did it to fool people though, or be sarcastic.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    I remember that a 4 was standard on the early Chevy II. I wonder how many were actually so equipped? I never saw or heard of any with that engine. I'm thinking the original Tempest also offered a 4, but I might be wrong.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    I remember going through specs on an old friend's 69 Nova (his car had a 307/powerglide) and being shocked to see that a 4cyl was mentioned then, too. Do any exist?
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    edited October 2013
    The original 1961-63 Tempest used what was referred to as a "slant 4", essentially, half of a 389 V-8. Its displacement was 194.5 CID. I think it put out around 120 hp in base form, but there were higher performance versions available, I believe.

    As for the Chevy II's 4-cyl engine, it was offered from 1962-1970. It was a 153 CID unit and had the same bore and stroke as the 230-6cyl. I don't think I've ever seen a Chevy II with the 4-cyl. I'm sure they were pretty rare.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    I have seen exactly one 4-cylinder Nova, that I was aware of.

    I remember looking at a light green (color Dad liked) Nova 4-door with optional window frame moldings, which dressed it up a bit. It was new and at our local dealer. Even my uber-thrifty Dad wanted nothing to do with it when he saw it was a four.

    I also remember my Dad getting a Chevy flyer in the mail from Detroit, and on the back page it said "Nova 4 Sale". They must have had inventory they couldn't get rid of.

    Chevy, back then, used to say that Nova had a 'standard four, six, and eight'. But the base prices changed...window sticker would say "Nova 4", "Nova L6" or "Nova V8". The six and eight were higher than the four, and the eight was higher than both. Chevy did this with Chevelles and up, also.
  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 11,096
    My older (by 14 years) brother was married in 1966. Just before that, he bought a car for him and his bride, a 1963 Impala convertible. Pretty thing, black with a red vinyl interior. Looked good in the wedding pictures. It had the 230/Powerglide. Not a road burner, but It worked OK.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    I remember back from around maybe 6th grade that there was a bouffant redhead divorcee in our neighborhood who tooled around in a 59 black Impala convertible with a red interior. Quite flashy - the car and the driver! Your brother's 63 sounds pretty nice and a bit more sedate. One I thing I always wondered back in those days was why GM convertible tops seemed to puff up a bit at highway speeds while Ford's seemed to stay more taught? I dunno, maybe it was just my imagination?
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    edited November 2013
    Here's a '72 Impala Sport Coupe, six with stick--light green--click on fifth picture in the horizontal scroll, and the owner's story can be seen by paging down:

    http://www.hemmings.com/hcc/stories/2010/04/01/hmn_feature12.html

    I like the '72's grille and interior, but they decontented the exterior trim so much in '72...you got no rocker trim (even the Biscayne had that) and I'd have just had to pay for the optional wheel-opening trim and bodyside molding with vinyl insert.

    Still, an interesting car for sure.

    The owner said that tinted glass was the only option, but the car has whitewalls and full wheel covers as well. '72 Chevys built with dog dish hubcaps had body-colored wheels; full wheelcovers got you black wheels. This car has black wheels which makes me think it was delivered with the optional wheelcovers.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    That Nova 4 was a '70, BTW.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    So the same style of the one my friend had. Can't imagine that thing with a 4, especially what was probably an unrefined not-revvy no-fun 4.

    On the odd cars front, saw a C43 AMG today, along with an E30 M3 (or clone) and a maybe 74 Chevy pickup in local survivor condition (first traces of minor rust after 40 years).
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 33,706
    I believe that 4 cyl was what lived on as the "iron duke". My friend had a Chevy Monza (or what replaced the Monza?) in the late 70s and that seemed to do fine with that engine. Even though it had a whopping 85 or 90 HP out of 2.5l (jumped five HP for 1979!)

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    edited November 2013
    It might have worked in a little Monza, but in something like a 69 Nova sedan that felt like it was made out of cast lead - I bet the acceleration was glacial and overall performance tortuous.

    I think in the family tree heirarchy, the Monza would have given way to the Cavalier.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 33,706
    actually, the Nova only weighed about 200#s more. 2,900 vs. 2,700.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • omarmanomarman Posts: 1,829
    edited November 2013
    I think the old Chevy Nova 153 engine lived on as the GM Vortec 3000 marine and industrial engine. Here's a link I found to the Vortec 3.0 which was bored and stroked up to 181 cubic inches.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 33,706
    I got curious enough to look up the Iron Duke history. I really thought for some reason it was a resurrection of some engine from the 60s. In a way, I guess it was, since it was created by slicing a Pontiac 301 V8 in half.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 130,741
    You can't really clone an E30 M3... there are so many distinct body panels, that you would have to own a body shop, just to break even vs. buying a real one..

    E36 M3s are a different matter... easy to duplicate the cosmetics...

    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • ab348ab348 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, CanadaPosts: 11,096
    Yes, I recall reading at the time that the Iron Duke had Pontiac ancestry. It reminds one that the original Tempest had a 4-cylinder engine that was sliced from a Pontiac 389.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6, 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass S Holiday Coupe

  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    I can imagine some sketchy fender flares being shipped in from secondworldistan. It was also from a distance, so I didn't catch all the details, mainly saw the front air dam and the box spoiler.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,238
    Surprising, the one I experienced sure felt heavy! That's only about as much as my fintail...which feels heavy at times, too.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    I remember the Chevy II 4-cylinder being called a "153", and I remember the 'Iron Duke' being called a "151", although of course the difference is very minor. I think I do remember the 'Iron Duke' being based on, at least, if not more, the old Chevy II four-cylinder.

    The four that was used in Tempests was indeed half a 389 and billed as a 195-cubic inch engine.

    I like the looks of the '62 Tempest a lot--I'd look for one with the Buick aluminum V8 although have heard that was only 1-2% of Tempest production. They're similar, but I like the Pontiac styling better than the Buick's. A friend who has done mechanical work on cars his whole life in Indiana, has told me I must be a masochist to want a 'rope drive' Tempest! LOL
  • MichaellMichaell ColoradoPosts: 124,482
    I bought a '79 Pontiac Sunbird when I was a senior in HS that had the Iron Duke and a 4-speed manual. IIRC, it had 85 HP. It lasted only a few years before I totaled it in an accident just a few months before I graduated college. Drove it from CA to Phoenix for school. No A/C - ouch.

    I never much liked it .. I had lots of issues with the heater core that took several visits to sort out, and when it got hot (in Phoenix? go figure) it was hit and miss as to whether it would start.

    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!


    MODERATOR

    2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2014 MINI Countryman S ALL4

  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    I was the unfortunate owner of an 80's Olds Ciera with the Iron Duke. What an anemic, unreliable POS that one was! It was the third in a sequence of declining quality Detroit cars I had the displeasure of owning back then. It was so unreliable that I didn't even keep it two years before I switched to a Ford. We were literally afraid it would crap out again somewhere on the Interstate during winter with our baby on board. That's not all, it would take the GM dealer a week or two to get parts each time while I sat without the vehicle. During that time period we bought a Mazda for around town. It only had one problem with the carburetor. The part wasn't in the States, but Mazda air shipped it from Japan and I was up and running in 3 days. Customer service; and you wonder why the Japanese kicked Detroit's [non-permissible content removed] back then! Detroit is definitely building better product this past decade, but it's taken a lot of the past decade before many American's let go of their awful experiences with their product and gave them another chance. So how has Detroit responded? Raised prices, left warranty period essentially unchanged and so they are basically giving the Asians advantages again. I've been pricing crossovers and can get a better equipped Highlander for well over a grand cheaper than a Traverse or Explorer. So why should I switch, particularly given the better depreciation on the Toyota at trade and the higher CR and JD Powers long term quality ratings? Sorry about the rant, but Detroit had a golden opportunity recently and their leadership seems to be once again blowing it.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 11,301
    Is a Highlander a similar size and capacity of an Explorer or Traverse? I honestly can't recall the last time I've seen one.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    edited November 2013
    They are actually pretty close inside, the outside looks are deceiving. Japan is very efficient in space utilization. Explorer is actually kind of tight despite it's exterior. I like the GM Lambda's, but not at a significant price premium. GM can sell them now because the market is heated, but when it returns to normalcy things might get tougher. There is a new Highlander in the wings and then a new Pilot. Both out before '14 is over. They will be roomier yet. Lambda's are getting a bit long in the tooth which may be why their resale seems lower after 3 or 5 years. GM is focused on margin, which is better than the old build 'em and promote 'em, but they risk being perceived as overpriced when the market cools. Kind of what Camry and Accord did to them before I'm afraid.
  • texasestexases Posts: 8,940
    Three old convertibles within 30 minutes: a '65 Buick Wildcat, a TR-6, and a '68 Firebird 400, all in good shape. Great day for driving, sunny, 65F.
Sign In or Register to comment.