Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

General Motors discussions

1…2324262829…558

Comments

  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,140
    Wasn't the 289 available in 65? I know the earlies had the 260. Before I could drive I found an untouched 63.5 Falcon Sprint with a 260 in it...I was quite smitten with the car but couldn't convince the owner to part with it. It was very cool, red on red, very straight but in need of serious detailing. I could have brought it back to life.

    302 replaced the 289 in 68 I believe...my dad's 68 Fairlane had a 289, but there was a local old lady original owner of a 68 Torino (the year Torino was the top Fairlane trim level) with a 302. 351 came out around 69 too IIRC, I am pretty sure those made it into Mustangs. The Bullitt car was a 390 IIRC.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...that Caroll Shelby isn't in some way involved with the new Mustang. I'm sure a Shelby version of the new Mustang would really be desirable.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,147
    I was just listing the big motors in response to the earlier post. I used the list from Musclecars.com

    http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-timeline.shtml

    I had a 302 or whatever in a 70 Mustang. Real dog because of attempts at pollution control with retarded time at low motor speed/idle.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    The Corvette engine belongs on Corvettes. A good Holden selling with a V8 at under $30K, as an import may be a good thing.

    Wait, so getting a 400hp Corvette engine on the current GTO/Holden for just over 30k is a bad thing

    reply:

    Yes. I guess they could lower the price on the Corvette to say $34,999. If you are paying best, it should be exclusive the car it was designed for. You should not expect Neiman Marcus quality at Wal Mart prices.

    Loren
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Yes, I owned a 289 V8 Stang of the 1965 model year.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    http://www.allfordmustangs.com/artman/publish/Carroll_Shelby_s_New_Shelby_CS_6_M- - ustang.shtml
    the Shelby Stang
    http://www.shelbyautos.com/

    Loren
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    Is this a 1960's Muscle Car forum or a 2006 GM Styling forum?

    Come on people, discussing the merits of muscle cars is fine, if you debate whether it will be good for GM or not.

    :mad:
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,681
    I'm not sure, but I think the "1964.5" Mustang only had a 170 CID inline 6 standard, with a 260 CID V-8 optional. The 260 put out around 164 hp, and I think the 170 had around 120. When the "proper" 1965 models came out, I think the 200-inline six was standard, and a 289 optional, with both a 2- and 4-bbl. I'd have to dig out my auto encyclopedia to be sure, and I'm not in the mood right now! :P
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,681
    but I went car shopping with one of my buddies today, and he narrowed it down to an Xterra and an Equinox. Now, here's the real shocker...the Equinox actually impressed him well enough that he doesn't know which one to go with!

    We went to the Nissan dealer first, because he's really smitten with the Xterra. He and the salesguy went out together, while I just hung around the lot. My friend came back from the drive, really in love with it.

    Well, just to give it a fair chance, we went to a Chevy dealer next and checked out an Equinox. My buddy has always liked them, ever since they came out, but just kind of forgot about it once he started noticing the Xterra. I had a feeling that the Xterra was going to make the Equinox look like a total piece of crap, but surprisingly, that didn't happen!

    I rode along on the test drive with the Equinox, and afterwards really wished I had with the Xterra as well, so I could have compared them better. Anyway, when it comes to stuff like interior quality, fit and finish, etc, Nissan really has nothing over Chevy. Orange peel is just as bad, the fit of the body panels is no better, there's just as much hard plastic inside, etc. Actually, I think I liked the Equinox a bit better, because the fabric on the seats was nicer, and it also had matching fabric on the door panels, where the Xterra was just a mix of soft and hard plastics.

    When we went for the drive, the 3.4 V-6 didn't sound nearly as noisy or unsophisticated as I expected it to, and the 5-speed automatic tranny seemed to shift just fine. It had adequate power, and even merging onto a highway with 3 of us on board seemed fine. I'm sure the Xterra was better in this regard, but the Equinox was still nothing to be embarrassed about.

    Now, the Equinox wasn't without its faults. For one thing, I wasn't overly impressed with the fact that it had drum brakes on the back. Even on the LT model, which was supposedly upscale. And I see what other posters have commented about, with the poor layout of the cargo area. It seems like the suspension/strut area robs a lot of cargo space. Just eyeballing it, the Xterra seemed like it had a better cargo area.

    As for interior comfort, the Xterra seemed wider, but the Equinox had better legroom, both front and rear. The Xterra was adequate for me, but the Equinox seemed downright generous, and there aren't many vehicles I say that about! Also, while the Xterra was better in the back seat than its published dimensions might suggest, the wheel cutouts and door openings made it hard to get into and out of.

    Oh, and the Equinox had a nicer color selection! :surprise: And slightly better EPA estimates. (18/24 versus 16/21 IIRC) But then the Xterra had a better warranty, something like 5yr/60K miles on the powertrain and 3yr/36K on everything else, while the Equinox was just 3/36 for EVERYTHING.

    As for price, both stickered in the $26K range. Without even trying, the Chevy guy said we could get the Equinox for around $23K. We really didn't talk price much on the Xterra, although they had a $500 rebate and $500 markdown, which brought it into the $25K range. I'm sure both could be had for less, but I doubt they'd come down a whole lot more on the Xterra since they're a hotter item.

    In the end, my buddy just doesn't know which one he wants. For him, the Xterra still has the coolness factor going for it. But his practical side is leaning toward the Equinox, and in his opinion, it's still "cool" enough!

    I'll keep you guys posted!
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    A new Camaro retro style, if done in high production levels, and sold in a price range of the Stang, could help GM more, IMHO, than an overpriced specialty car selling for $35K or more. It would say Chevy is back as the Heartbeat of America, instead of a car for the elite classes. That said, yes, GM could style and price cars for very high price, making new models like a New Camaro in very high HP and all the goodies, selling them to the richer amongst us. But, this also means a much smaller GM. If they want to lower production levels, and sell fewer cars at higher prices, that is fine by me. It may count me out, but if they think it represents a new GM, and a profitable one, then that is fine. Personally, I don't see it working. The GTO and overpriced convertible truck, did not work out too swiftly for GM. I DO think GM could sell Camaro for a slightly higher price than the Stang if they put a really good engine, like the CTS engine in V6 3.6 liter form. Decent HP, and more upscale than the Mustang. Sell this car for $21K, on up, with only the basics in the car, like disc brakes and air conditioning and leave the other stuff as an upgrade pkg. for $3K additional cost. Add a V8 as well for somewhere around $5K which includes the upgrade package. Make this car relatively small, and light weight. And for heavens sake, drop the door window sills down a few inches so I can hang an elbow out. Offer a third package with a V8 of 350HP, and leave the 400HP one for the Corvette. Personally, I would like a Vette with the V6.

    :shades: Loren
  • sensaisensai Member Posts: 129
    Yes. I guess they could lower the price on the Corvette to say $34,999. If you are paying best, it should be exclusive the car it was designed for. You should not expect Neiman Marcus quality at Wal Mart prices.

    Well you need to do a little research then. The LSx engines were never designed "exclusively" for the Corvette. In fact, the previous generation LS1 Corvette engine could be had in Camaro's/Firebird's for less than 25k (stripped of course). I am quite happy with getting a high quality 400hp car for 30k, as most people would be if they actually drove the car.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    Ooh, here's an idea. Make a Firebird but not a Camaro. Keep Pontiac relevant.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Yes, the Camaro SS, in 2000, I believe was the last year. If GM wants to do this I say fine. Lower the price on the Corvette. If part is parts, why pay premium for what should be an exclusive engine. Is it a good thing for the Camaro owner - sure it is, but for the Corvette owner??? I assume a 450 or 500HP Vette is coming as a base model, though I doublt most people will be able to handle that much power. Only need that power for the track anyway.

    Loren
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    I don't really think an Equinox and Xterra are similar vehicles. They are really quite different in terms of ability. If you want to offroad or have a fair amount of tow capacity the Xterra wins hands down. The Equinox is more for onroad use with light off road capablity and not really capable of much towing.

    If you don't tow or go off road, the Eqinox probably is the better choice.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    An article in the latest issue discussed the Jerome York speech. It indicated that the GM board and Waggoner didn't appear to want to be as aggressive as York had suggested. York suggested that GM should set some financial targets, but they've not done that. The implication in the article was that there could be a board fight or Kirkorian might try to get York onto the board of directors. Kirkorian is the largest shareholder and has lost a pile of money with GM's downslide.

    It should be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd lean toward York's point of view - cut the dividend, cut pay for EVERYBODY, (including management), and sell off Hummer, Saab.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    York suggested that GM should set some financial targets, but they've not done that.

    The public does not know the targets but that is because GM has not made them public.

    I'd lean toward York's point of view - cut the dividend, cut pay for EVERYBODY, (including management), and sell off Hummer, Saab.

    Cutting the dividend sounds reasonable. Worst it could do is drop the stock price which would make it another buying oportunity. Dropping Saab? No one answered my earlier question on whether Saab adds anything in Europe? Perhaps diesel capability? If not try and sell it but to who? Who wants it?

    Hummer? Hummer is all profit right now. GM needs all the profit they can get. There is no need to refresh any of the models (H2/H3)in tne next 2 years so they might as well ride on the profits. Of course they are probably developing a small version to compete with small jeeps?
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    If GM decides to put a Camaro into production, and that is still undecided, I think that a convertible would be a good plan too. They need to make the Camaro different from the GTO, which would be on the same platform. The Camaro needs to be different than the Solstice/Sky sports cars too. A low priced base Camaro with a six cylinder engine is a good plan. I think that more than one optional engine is needed. The DOHC V6's are expensive engines and maybe should be on the options list. The 5.3 DOD V8 might be a good V8 for the options list. I would actually like to see a smaller V8 (like one of the northstars) as an option. The Camaro should be designed as a coupe with a rear seat that is more useful than the Camaro's used to have at the end of the previous production model, and perhaps better than the first Camaro's had. Still, the rear seat probably will not be good for older adults to sit in very long.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,282
    Camaros have never had good back seats. Most GMs don't.

    I used to have an 89 and have been in plenty of all 4 generations and have never seen one with a backseat that adults could reasonable deal with.

    The GTO on the other hand has quite a nice backseat. It may be the best in a GM since they stopped making coupe de villes. The Goat looks much better inside than it does outside.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    The Camaro was a smaller car than the GTO, and so the rear seat area was small. As Camaro/Firebird styling went increasing sports car like (in 1982), the rear seat probably got worse. The current GTO is a midsize car. I think that if the Camaro is put into production, it would have to be on the GTO's platform and therefore should have a better rear seat than the old Camaro's did. The difference between the Pontiac's GTO and the Chevy Camaro would be the engine line up. The GTO is only the big V8 beast, while the Camaro offers a lineup of engines.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,681
    I'd say the only ponycar that ever had a semi-decent backseat was the '64-66 and '67-69 Barracuda. And that's probably because they had much more in common with their Dart/Valiant counterparts than the Mustang/Camaro/Javelin did to their compact family car counterparts.

    I didn't try out the new GTO's back seat, but I've sat in the front. Very roomy up there, almost 70's car big!
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    The current GTO is a Holden product and as such was not designed in Detroit. I have not looked at one, but the pictures look very good. I was looking forward to a Holden built Buick sedan.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    Ok my Pontiac question does anybody think the next generation Pontiac Grand Prix will it switch to a rear wheel drive format or will the Grand Prix be gone all together?

    My Camaro comment: the car was in the same position as the Mazda RX-7 and Nissan 300Z in the 90's: the prices got to high on these cars. You really can't get on GM too much for killing the Camro and Firebird since Nissan(300Z), Mazda(Rx-7), amd Toyota(supra) all got axed through out the 90's. Mazda did come back with a sports car with the RX-8 and Nissan did come back with the 350Z a few years ago. Mitsubhi slso killed the 3000GT and never came back with a replacement for the 3000GT and Toyota never followed through on a Supra replacement.
  • chuck1959chuck1959 Member Posts: 654
    Yes GM CAN BE BLAMED for killing the Camaro/Firebird. I mean the last few years they completly ignored them! Meanwhile Ford was improving the Mustang. They couldn't even keep the attention of the die hard Camaro/Firebird fans. All they had to do (like Ford did with the Mustang) a tweak here and there, a minor freshening every so often.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,282
    "I mean the last few years they completly ignored them!"

    The sales went down every year even though the later models were much better than the late 80s early 90s. I had an 89 that I loved at the time (despite it's poor reliability) but I outgrew it. There were hardly any die hards left to appease. The next gen of enthusiasts had moved on to the Fast & Furious cars. Changing tastes and killer insurance rates killed the Camaro & Firebird. Maybe they could have tried harder, but it would not have made much of a difference.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    The last of Camaro's and Firebird's offered only two engine choices, the 3800 or the 5.7 liter V8. Not much choice. While the 5.7 might have been a small engine in the 60's, now it is a monster engine. An inline performance six would have been a better choice. However, an engine like that would need some other use to make building it worthwhile. What was really needed was a smaller V8 for decent performance but not too scary for the insurance.

    One has to wonder if bringing back a Camaro will work. The current GTO is selling quite slowly.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,681
    did get a slight reprieve with the introduction of the '93 restyle. I recall them being a pretty hot item for a few years. However, it wasn't long before the Mustang overtook it again, and I think the 'Stang really benefitted from that restyle in 1999 which made it seem much more aggressive and substantial.

    One advantage a Mustang had, too, is that the base models made a good chick car. Adequate performance in a small, sporty package that still had a semi-useable backseat and cargo area. Now it hardly had the versatility of a minivan, but it was still a bit more practical than the Camaro. Now the Camaro/Firebird made for great performance cars, but as a chick car/college kid car, the Mustang would've been better IMO. For one thing, a Camaro/Firebird is pretty intimidating even in base form, with that long hood and low seating position that just make it feel like more of a handful than it really is.

    IIRC, weren't Mustangs usually a lot cheaper than equivalent Camaros and Firebirds, too?
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,282
    Even with the refreshing, the 93 Camaro/Firebird:
    - We're about as long as a 73 Grand Safari
    - Made you sit in a hole
    - Lost all body integrity when converted to a convertible or T-Tops
    - Had a live rear axle
    - Weighed 3500 pounds
    - Had reliability issues.

    They were very limited appeal cars. Comparable year Mustangs were better cars for alot of reasons.
  • chuck1959chuck1959 Member Posts: 654
    One has to wonder if bringing back a Camaro will work. The current GTO is selling quite slowly.

    Bringing back the Camaro will work if they don't OVERPRICE it.....like they did the GTO. Price is one reason the GTO are slow sellers.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    They couldn't even keep the attention of the die hard Camaro/Firebird fans. All they had to do (like Ford did with the Mustang) a tweak here and there, a minor freshening every so often.

    Don't think tweaking would have helped. They just got too big and fat. Young guys moved on to pickups and other.

    Wonder what would be so difficult for GM to build a "balanced" performance 2-door coupe benchmarked to BMW, but with a base in mid 20's. Make it about the size of BMW 3. Could be in Pontiac division, but name would have to be other than Firebird.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Hummer? Hummer is all profit right now. GM needs all the profit they can get.

    York's point was that Hummer is not part of the core business. It's a standalone operation. Effort spent in running Hummer diverts company attention from where it really needs to be. GMAC is profitable, too, but they're selling that.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Hummer? Hummer is all profit right now. GM needs all the profit they can get.

    York's point was that Hummer is not part of the core business. It's a standalone operation. Effort spent in running Hummer diverts company attention from where it really needs to be. GMAC is profitable, too, but they're selling that.

    My earlier point is that Hummer is not really standalone any longer. Yes the low volume H1 was pretty much done my American General and is still built by them but they have revised the design and the H1 will soon be by itself and may no longer be economically viable. The H2 was also primarily developed by them BUT it uses large truck components from GM. This one could possibly be built and sold by a separate company and when the time comes to replace it this new company could do it. The H3 however was completely developed and designed by GM and uses Colorado architecture parts. Again a new one could be developed by a new company. The H1/H2 are built by American General but the H3 runs down the line with GM trucks.

    Now would someone buy Hummer? What would they get? The rights to continue to build and sell what has already been developed and is already selling. They would somehow have to buy the H3's from GM. So this new company would get the profit. But GM would not sell for nothing since they are already reaping the profit of what they sowed.

    So far there is really no advantage to sell the Hummer brand to another company. GM will not sell it unless they can make the future profit of the Hummers now from the sale.

    The new company could start development of replacement vehicles and that would be the possible reason to buy the Hummer brand from GM. BUT, is the Hummer a one time great shot? Will a replacement line be possible or will it fail like the latest T bird and lose sales? Awful risky investment.

    And what attention is diverted? The 3 trucks are cooked and selling without much advertising. Public loves them (well enough that they are a huge status symbol to most everyone except those concerned with energy). There are probably only about 20 people in all GM actually working full time on Hummer.

    Question is whether GM is developing new Hummer products.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    GMAC is profitable, too, but they're selling that.

    Yes but that is a huge cash cow and GM will be getting big bucks today to help run the day to day business. I could be wrong but selling the Hummer brand would not be for much since there is not much to sell except for the brand name and the tools.

    Also GMAC is very separate from GM. They mostly deal in the retail side with dealers and the home mortgage side. Very easy to split off.
  • sensaisensai Member Posts: 129
    Bringing back the Camaro will work if they don't OVERPRICE it.....like they did the GTO. Price is one reason the GTO are slow sellers.

    Explain how a 400hp car for 32k is overpriced?
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...if you compare it to the 1964 original. Adjusted for inflation, the 1964 GTO would be priced as thus:

    Convertible = $3,092 in 1964 / $18,662 in 2005.
    Hardtop = $2,852 in 1964 / $17,213 in 2005.
    Pillared Sport Coupe = $2,787 in 1964 / $16,821 in 2005.

    If the current GTO was priced as above, they'd be flying off lots.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,282
    It's obvious: You should be able to be a GTO for the same price as a Corolla. I'd buy one for 17 grand.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,681
    keep in mind though, how stripper those base prices were back then. For example, the base price of a 1958 Impala convertible was something like $2841, but I remember reading somewhere that the average Impala left the showroom with a sticker in excess of $4,000 (around $26,000 today). And $400-500 more than that if you wanted air conditioning!

    The base price of my '57 DeSoto was something like $3085, but I spec'd it out once with one of those American Standard catalogs, and it probably ran around $3800 (again, around $26K today).

    My '69 Dart GT had a sticker price of around $3600 when it was new, which is around $19,000 today. That's with an automatic transmission, air conditioning, bucket seats, all the GT trim, power steering, 3 speed wipers with electric washers, etc...but just a 225 CID slant six.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    ...if you compare it to the 1964 original. Adjusted for inflation, the 1964 GTO would be priced as thus:

    Convertible = $3,092 in 1964 / $18,662 in 2005.
    Hardtop = $2,852 in 1964 / $17,213 in 2005.
    Pillared Sport Coupe = $2,787 in 1964 / $16,821 in 2005.

    If the current GTO was priced as above, they'd be flying off lots

    No they would not. YOu would have to go to China to buy it. Need to add multiple air bags. Need to add emission equipment and computers. Need to add structural metal. Need to add double the life improvements on all parts. etc etc. :( Then there is air conditioning, power windows, locks, trunk, RKE and on and on.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,681
    nowadays if they were to take a GTO and offer it stripped down, it really wouldn't save much money. One reason that cars haven't really gone up, factoring in for inflation, is because equipment, colors, engine choices, etc are much more standardized these days. For instance, it's cheaper for the auto makers to just build all of their cars with power windows, than to go through the extra effort of building both power and crank windows. Same with air conditioning.

    Now, hypothetically, we could take a GTO and strip a few things off.

    Let's start with an MSRP of $32,000. And then take off...
    Air conditioning: $1000
    Leather seats: $800
    Replace the alloys with a steel wheel and plastic covers: $500?
    Power windows: $300
    Power seat: $300
    Power locks: $200
    Put in a cheaper sound system: $500.

    So now you end up with a stripper GTO that still stickers for around $28K. And nobody's going to buy the damned thing because it doesn't have a/c, leather, power stuff, etc!
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,282
    Also, who says that you need those 16 or 17 inch 50s? The original goat probably had 14 inch 70s and so should this. Deduct another grand!!!!!
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    I know... have GM build a GTO for $27k, and then sell it to us at $17k.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    Those tire were bias ply too, not radials.

    The imported GTO is what Holden is selling in Australia as the Monaro. The Manaro is a performance car very much like the orginal GTO, but with a much better suspension.

    While lemko has the consumer price index right, it does apply to a mixed bag of stuff, not any one thing in particular. The Solstice is fairly close to the indexed price.
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    and original poster chuck1959 does have a point; the current version of the GTO was/is overpriced. If it's not, explain why they weren't selling at the original asking prices, but were selling like hot-cakes when the fire-sale was going on. And disregard the, shall I say over-zealous, dealers marking the darn things up. There were many that were not, AND they were STILL sitting on the lots. Yes there were styling issues, non-split dual exhaust issues, whatever, whatever. But at the end of the day when the pricing was dropping in the mid- to upper $20K range due to discounts and incentives, the cars started selling. Don't believe?, check the other boards/forums on Edmunds and other sites. Many were waiting, saying the asking price was too high for what it was, 350 & 400hp versions, though the LS2 did help justify the $30K+ asking price. And even when the '05 came out many waited to see if the price would drop or what incentives would be offered. If the car was so great, it should have sold at the MSRP.

    Sorry for that host, and I know that was off-topic, but...
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,681
    the typical transaction price for a GTO these days? Maybe around $26-27K? I'd say at that price they'd be a good deal.

    I dunno if the car itself is overpriced, but maybe overpriced for a Pontiac? It's actually a high-quality car, and seems to be better built and more nicely trimmed than just about all of GM's current offerings. It's just that it's not in-your-face enough, style wise, to carry on the GTO name, and probably ends up getting compared to smaller cars like the BMW 3-series coupe, where it's not going to handle as well due to its increased size and weight.

    Perhaps if they could've found a way to market it as something more upscale, it would have done better? But then, the market for large-ish coupes (and the GTO probably passes for large-ish these days) just isn't that big.

    Probably being a large, expensive coupe is what kept sales down more than anything else. If it were a 4-door sedan, and named something else, it would've sold much better. Also, the lack of a factory sunroof in the early models (I think you can get one now though) probably didn't help sales.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    The GTO is imported, so the price depends on what it costs to import. The quality of materials on the interior is superior to what GM generally uses on domesically made cars like this or perhaps any of their cars. The price tag was probably set on the basis of what GM thought it should sell for. They have a limited capacity to build them in Australia. I think that the upper sales rate was 18,000 annually. The size of the GTO is mid-size, unless you think of the FWD Impala as a large sedan, making the Lucerne a limo.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,282
    Yes it could be cheaper and naturally, a cheaper sales price translates to more sales. However, to do a comparison to the increase in the CPI compared to a 1960whatever GTO is just not valid. Chuck is wrong to act like GM and only GM is so out of line with the price increases in real dollars from 4 decades ago. If you did the same comparison with a 65 Beetle and a new Beetle, what do you think you'd find.

    I actually think that cars are a better value now than in the 80s. I bet that cars are cheaper in constant dollars now.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,147
    Cars have had so many more government requirements about what has to be in the car. Everything except bumpers...there may have been better bumper requirements then. The pollution controls required are much greater (and work much better).

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    Constant dollars and the CPI are basically the same thing. The VW in the 60's was about $1800 as I recall. Now it is well over $20,000, more than a factor of 10x.

    The number of GTO's that Holden can build is around 18,000 annually. With price where it is now, they are selling 12,000. With a lower price tag demand might double, but only 18,000 would be available.

    The "family car" in the early 60's was a full size Ford or Chevy or Plymouth. I think the price tags were about $2500 depending on bottom or top of the line. The full size car now is much smaller than the early 60's full size. The current "family car" is a range of vehicles. I do not think that one can point to anything in particular. But I think that the average family spends about 6 months income on a family vehicle. In the 50's and 60's that was also the case.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,282
    The failures of the GTO is all about style. The engine is worth it, the interior is worth it... the exterior is bland as a Grand Am. A lower price would help it, but if it looked like a $32,000 car, the rest of the package is there.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    That may be Pontiac's big problem in general. I really don't like the Pontiac look period. Perhaps they should replace Pontiac with Holden. The Monaro is better looking. I like the Saturn Solstice better too.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,681
    here's a rundown on some of the cars I remember my family buying in the 80's...

    1980 Malibu coupe, $7000 (~$17.8K today)
    1982 Malibu Classic wagon, $11,000 (~22.3K today)
    1985 LeSabre Limited, $16,200 (~$28K today)
    1985 LTD (the small Fox-based one), $11,000 (~$19.5K today)
    1985 Silverado, $13,500 (~24K today)
    1986 Monte Carlo, $14,500 (~24.8K today)
    1989 Taurus LX, $18,000 (~28K today)

    Now these are just very rough figures, off the top of my head. For instance, I think the $7K for that Malibu was out the door, with tax and everything, minus $1K trade for her '75 LeMans, for a balance of $6K. I think the $16.2K was out the door for the LeSabre, same for the pickup. But with the Taurus, I think the sticker price was $18K, and Granddad just said "I'll give you $10K + the LTD" and it was a done deal.

    I think the Monte's price was out the door too, with tax and everything. Same with the Malibu wagon.

    You can definitely get a lot more car for your money these days, especially once you factor in the safety and emissions features. Back over the summer, I spec'd out a new Silverado, and it came to around $16-17K (depending on whether I wanted a V-6 or V-8), so out the door probably around $17-18K. Now it wouldn't have had cruise control, power windows/locks, two-tone paint, dual tanks, or the nice sport rims that the '85 has, but it would have more power, a cd player, higher GVWR (although I wonder how much of that would get eaten up by a higher curb weight). And if I wanted all that extra stuff, I'm sure it would still come in at less than the $24K that '85 would extrapolate to nowadays.

    I'd say the biggest ripoff of those cars I mentioned was the '82 Malibu wagon. Looking back, I don't know why it was so expensive. I don't remember it really being much better-equipped than my '80 coupe. It had cruise, a tilt wheel, and a nicer stereo. It also had lots of fake woodgrain and I think used the Monte Carlo gauge cluster instead of the regular Malibu. And it had wire hubcaps and a roof rack. But it was still just a V-6, and had crank windows (the ones that rolled down, at least :blush: ), manual locks, manual seat adjust, solid bench (no 60/40 or anything nice like that) and I think it just had vinyl seats, although it was a nicer grade than what my Malibu had. And while the '82 was a Classic, they called them ALL Classics that year. There was no more Malibu/Malibu Classic model separation.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles