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

General Motors discussions

1472473475477478558

Comments

  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    Looks like your Park Ave has been getting 5 mpg more in both city and highway than EPA's numbers. With your "light foot" you can achieve 35/45 with a Honda civic. I'll say 12 mpg makes a HUGE difference...

    Honda Civic and Buick Park Avenue
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    BTW, a Corolla can easily get 40 MPG on a freeway, even using the gas pedal. The 33 MPG in a Park Ave, is hard to believe unless going downhill, both ways . :D
    L
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    it sounds as if you are lobbing a bomb on our Buick buying decisions. BTW I'm 38, and all I've ever owned is BUICKS.

    Uhh...I think you need to read lemko's original post.

    In "his standard" I meant his standard of Buick as a "small car" not Buick as a "low quality car". We can argue about Buick is either low or high quality all day long and no one will come out as the winner because it is hard to define low to high quality. However, it is clear to anybody that no Buicks can be considered as small cars.

    For some constructive criticism: Next time try to figure out the whole situation before making comments like that.
  • louisweilouiswei Member Posts: 3,715
    Has Honda dropped the Civic Si for '08?

    No, Sir.

    Instead Honda has added a Civic Si Sedan.

    :P
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Depends how you run the numbers. Sure, if found at a good enough discount price, it may be an equal to the Civic price wise. In most cases, it costs more as a total price in and out of the deal. Check out the Intellichoice site for true cost of ownership. If they cost the same, won't you really rather have the real deal? If you are talking value overall, is that not a Hyundai, with the worlds best warranty?
    H
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    BTW, a Corolla can easily get 40 MPG on a freeway, even using the gas pedal. The 33 MPG in a Park Ave, is hard to believe unless going downhill, both ways

    I've driven my uncle's '03 Corolla a few times, and I think I got about 37.5 mpg, on a trip up to PA and back. Probably averaging about 65-70 mph with occasional jaunts on up to 80. Mainly just going with the flow of traffic. I think it's EPA-rated at 30/38. And there were some hills and valleys on that trip, too. A bigger car with taller gearing will sometimes do better in that kind of driving because it'll pick up speed going downhill and that helps it coast up the next hill a bit better. I'd have to keep my foot on the gas with the Corolla though, or it would actually lose speed going downhill!

    Last time I checked the fuel economy on my Intrepid, I got almost 29 mpg. Fairly level terrain, from Harrisburg PA, out near Allentown, and back. A/C running full blast the whole time. It's rated at 20/29. The Park Ave was rated 20/29 for the regular 3.8, and I think 19/28 for the supercharged model. I think the supercharged model is geared more aggressively than the regular model, but I'm sure they're both taller than my Intrepid, so as long as you keep your foot out of it, they can get pretty good economy.

    I think Imidazol97 has mentioned getting low 30's out of his LeSabres.
  • chuckhoychuckhoy Member Posts: 420
    I find 35 mpg in true city driving without hypermiling to be a tad bit high. You are encroaching on hybrid territory there. I consider true city driving spending half your time at a stop light/sign, the speed limit is 25-30 mph and you are surrounded by other cars. It is very difficult for any vehicle to get decent mileage in those conditions. You can't really coast that much.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    If the Corolla is loaded with passengers, or facing a good wind, the MPG slides into the 34 to 37 MPG quickly. And yes, the V6 GM's I have owned got upwards of higher 20's to as much as 30 MPG - can't complain about OHV V6 with tall gearing actually gettin EPA ++ MPG with ease.

    Is the Ecotec i4 GM engine the answer for gas mileage and performance overall? Is it the transmission and car weight which is killing the MPG comparisons? If so, diet and new tranny, and it is a done deal. I understand the engine won awards by Wards which is some authority in automotive. Does this translate to engines capable of doing 200k to 300k miles? How about smoothness? I have no idea of what the latest USA four bangers are like, other than one I tested in a Fusion, which was sort of peppy, sort of buzzy, and little noisy -- not too bad. If the four banger by GM is now world class, why not lower the car weight on the Cobalt and give it a new transmission, if that is what is holding down the gas mileage. If you got a couple more MPG than a Civic, that would be a good advertising point.
    L
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    My 2002 Seville with the 4.6 liter northstar would average about 29 MPG on a long trip if I limited my cruising speed to 70 MPH. My 98 Aurora would do that well too. My 95 supercharged Riviera would do about the same as the Aurora, but I never limited my cruising speed so it usually averaged around 27-28 MPG.

    My SRX averaged about 21 MPG cruising about 70 MPH (or less). It was hot on that trip in July. Plus, with only 3000 miles on the odometer when I started, it was not broken in that well.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Rivieras, now those were a lot of interesting twists and turns of a product over the years. The 60's pretty cool and wild, and '93 I thought had a decent style to it, compared to so many other boring looks in cars. Wonder how good the Corvette single leaf spring worked out in those Buicks? Will the '95 be a collector car some day? I looked up HP and it stated 205HP with an impressive boost to torque with the blower. Didn't the Delta88 once have 225HP version of the 3800 II engine? Anyway, someone here told me that the turbo version has a different intake manifold which is not prone to failure at the 70K mark. So I am thinking this Buick may be a interesting car to own for its uniqueness. So very few on the road. How about handling? Did it feel easy to steer, if not too nimble. It was a bit wide in the middle, as memory serves me.

    They sure had some cars at Buick which got into the venturesome league, like the Reatta. I like the looks. Did a brief test drive in a used one, but was not overly impressed with the feel. That said, perhaps some new shocks, and tires, or just a longer test run would have yielded a different impression. One problem in keeping one of the Rivs or Reattas as a collection car may be in parts. What about '93 or '95 Riv or the Reatta parts. Guess the parts yards or specialty companies have it covered? But it is not like a Mustang or Camaro with many collectors.
    Loren
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    It was Phillips, but not an SRX -> it was an equinox.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    My 95 Riviera was the 225 hp version, replaced by 240 hp in the 1996 model: series II 3800. The 91 Reatta was significantly improved (I owned one). The Riviera is probably much easier to keep maintained in that parts should be easier to get. I have to say this though, the Riviera, Aurora and Seville are all very similar FWD cars. The Reatta, with a much shorter wheelbase, was somewhat different, but no Corvette (I had an 86). My SRX, with a longer wheelbase, is really more nimble (with a shorter turning circle) than any of the big FWD cars.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "Compared to the corolla, last gen civic, Sentra, etc. I dont see how you find the Cobalt to be so dull looking."

    Yeah but this current generation of Civic(06+) competes with the 05 Cobalt not the last generation Civic(01-05) currently. You keep on comparing the last generation Civic to the Cobalt but Honda is selling the current generation Civic on new car dealer lots not the last gen Civic on new dealer car lots.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    I would consider a previous generation Civic over the current Cobalt. Actually, could go back more years to when they had the double wishbone suspension. The base models were better handling. Now current Si vs. the previous is no contest, as it looked very strange indeed.
    With a little freshen design, instead of the push up effect, the Cavalier would be the best bet looks wise compared to the current rendition as a Cobalt. I am still waiting for the BB or Bling-Bling model to come out.

    GM seems to have promoted the smaller car more with youth than in the past, which is a good thing. And they have the drag strip racer and well, just are doing more, which is great.
    L
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Thanks, I thought the HP was boosted to 225. That article I found said 205. Ya know, a 240HP, which followed, boosted 3800V6 should be faster than my Accord 244HP with 211 torque, when mated to the right tranny.
    I see 280# torque listed = not bad! So why did they not go that route with the Lucerne and LaCrosse autos? Car emission changes??? Those numbers were great, the 240HP with 280# torque. Hey, was that not more HP than your '86 Vette? Certainly more power than the current Buick V6 gen III. With that much HP + Torque, it may have been a fit for a New Camaro, but alas, it is nearly gone. Had no idea the old work horse OHV 3.8 ever got up to that level. And with good gas mileage. But what went wrong? No Camaro with the turbo 3.8? I think it maxed out around 200HP.
    L
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    The reason was that it was all the transmission. Stripped of its mile-high gearing and a torque converter that would engage at 35mph if you let it, it got 18-22mpg.

    They needed a real redesign that competed with the imports, and that's what the 3.6 is. It's a vastly superior engine in every way. Better power, better torque - and at lower RPMs, plus less displacement and weight as well.
  • chetjchetj Member Posts: 324
    like my ecotec (05 sunfire) but it gets 30 mpg on a auotomatic tranny...it is ballsy but i rather they sacrifice hp (145) and increase the mileage...i am a stickler for oil changes and i feel this engne would have no problem going 200k
  • chetjchetj Member Posts: 324
    i know except for regular maintenance nothing ever went wrong on my cavalier...35 mpg too...paid $9800 new back in feb 99...i imagine any civic back then wouldve been at least 3k more...i would rather buy american and keep the money here...original struts and muffler, not bad for 8 new england winters
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Thanks, I thought the HP was boosted to 225. That article I found said 205. Ya know, a 240HP, which followed, boosted 3800V6 should be faster than my Accord 244HP with 211 torque, when mated to the right tranny.

    From what I recall, the 3800 V-6 went to 205 hp around 1997 in the big FWD cars, and 200 in the W-bodies. I think there were actually three versions of the supercharged 3800. Originally, it put out 225 hp, but then was massaged to 240 and then to 260.

    And yes, there was a version of the Olds 88 that had a supercharged 3800. It was a trim level called the LSS I think. I don't think it was all that popular, but by the time it came out, interest in the 88 in general was fading.

    Edmund's did a road test of a supercharged Olds 88. As I recall, they didn't really care for it. They said it handled and rode like a Caprice copcar.

    The 3800 in the Lucerne is down to something like 195-198 hp, but I heard that it's mainly because of the new way of rating engines. A couple years ago they changed the procedure slightly, and some engines "lost" a little hp along the way. For some reason though, I think it's still rated at 200 hp in the W-body?
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    The 86 Corvette had 230 hp, but about 330 lb-ft of torque. The torque is of greater importance than the horsepower. DOHC engines are all well and good, but with enough torque you can beat them. The Corvette only weighed a bit over 3000 lbs too, while the Riviera was about 4000 lbs.

    The 225 hp supercharged engine had 275 lb-ft of torque. While the supercharger certainly boosted performance, on icy roads it did not work well, but with the traction control it was not impossible. But my Seville, with 300 lb-ft of torque, did not need the traction control to get started on a slippery icy road.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    The supercharged 3800 was introduced on the Park Avenue for the 1992 model year with 205 hp. An improved supercharger boosted the horsepower to 225 later on, not quite sure when. However, the series two 3800 was introduced for the 1995 model year with 205 hp (not supercharged), with the series two supercharged 3800 coming out for the 1996 model year with 240 hp. The series three supercharged 3800 was introduced on the Pontiacs sometime after 2000 (I think) with 260 hp.

    the wicki site says that the 225 hp version was 1994-1995, and the 260 came out in 2003....
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Isn't there a saying that goes "Horsepower sells cars, but torque is what really moves them?" I probably screwed it up.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    You got it right. That is the reason I will not be buying any new GM cars until they offer a decent SUV with a diesel engine. A 6 cylinder diesel in a Denali would be nice. I could even live with a Trailblazer size if it gets 30+ MPG on the highway.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Don't know much about diesels, but don't school buses use 6-cylinder diesels? I've seen Chevrolet and GMC school buses. Couldn't they just modify one of their engines? I wouldn't want to use a school bus engine as it is as they are slow. I've heard those engines use some kind of governor so the engine won't go over a certain speed.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "Yeah but this current generation of Civic(06+) competes with the 05 Cobalt not the last generation Civic(01-05) currently. You keep on comparing the last generation Civic to the Cobalt but Honda is selling the current generation Civic on new car dealer lots not the last gen Civic on new dealer car lots."

    no need to review model history with me- I am well aware of when the new civic came out. Sentra, Elantra and corolla are still dull. My point stands either way. The civic is BY FAR the most adventurous sedan design in the class. The 3 isnt even as avant garde, in fact the 3 sedan is pretty plain looking.

    You seem to be missing the point that the small car segment is pretty conservative overall. ITS NOT JUST THE COBALT. Dont see why this is hard to process.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    first of all you should know ratings have changed for 2008. With those new ratings the cobalt and civic are about 2mpg closer in mileage because the civic dropped by about 4mpg. I believe its 26/36 under the new ratings and the cobalt stick is like 22/32 or something like that. 4mpg is significant but the two cars do NOT perform equally due to the Cobalts significant torque advantage.

    The cobalt got 3 stars with side curtain airbags? They are standard for 2008.
  • 14871487 Member Posts: 2,407
    "No '08 Cobalt SS you say? Must have been very successful. "

    it was dropped for emissions reasons. GM will be putting the 260hp engine in the cobalt next year. Should be able to give the civic a run for its money. The 173hp Cobalt is only a few tenths slower than the Si because it has so much torque. 0-60 is about 7secs compared to 6.6-6.7 for the Si.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Don't know much about diesels, but don't school buses use 6-cylinder diesels? I've seen Chevrolet and GMC school buses. Couldn't they just modify one of their engines? I wouldn't want to use a school bus engine as it is as they are slow. I've heard those engines use some kind of governor so the engine won't go over a certain speed.

    I'm not sure what kind of engine a school bus uses. Probably depends on the brand, chassis, etc. I think with most school buses, the company that makes them buys a chassis from one manufacturer, puts in and engine from some other source, and then puts their own body on it.

    And yeah, school buses are slow, but they also weigh about 8 or 9 tons. Just imagine what that Diesel engine would be like in something that only weighed around two tons!

    I'd imagine though that your typical bus/truck Diesel is some mammoth thing with a long stroke, and probably wouldn't fit under the hood of anything smaller than a 3/4 ton truck.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I agree. You will not catch me in a little car for more than an errand buggy. I would not go on the freeway with any of the little cars being sold today. There are TOO many big heavy vehicles to contend with. I felt small in our Passat wagon on the highway. It would be a minimum size. The LS400 is barely big enough. Prefer PU or SUV for safety. IIHS statistics agree with you and I.

    Little cars especially the Yaris, Metro & Fit size should not be allowed access to high speed highways.


    Yeah, I will admit that when I drove my uncle's Corolla, I did feel kinda vulnerable. With something like my New Yorker or pickup I tend to not worry, because usually other vehicles will sort of just bounce off! :P And I never felt vulnerable in my Intrepid. But when I'd drive my uncle's Corolla, there were times when I'd feel a lot like this! :surprise:

    And all too often, when vehicle sizes are mis-matched, it's the smaller car that loses out. And no matter how fast or nimble your car is, and no matter how good of a driver you think you might be, there's always that chance you'll still end up in a situation where you get whacked! :P
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    Of course with someone your size you don't so much drive a Yaris as wear it....
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Of course with someone your size you don't so much drive a Yaris as wear it....

    Yeah, but I think a lot of it depends on your comfort level too, and preferences. For instance, there's this guy at work who's about my size. About 6'3", 190-200 pounds. For awhile he was driving a 2000 Focus sedan. I've been in the Focus, and while I find headroom to be great, it always felt cramped to me, legroom wise. This dude just could not accept that fact that I wasn't comfortable in that car, simply because he could fit. Well yeah, didn't say I couldn't FIT! What I said was that I wasn't COMFORTABLE! Two totally different things!

    Anyway, he has an Acura RSX now. I've been in those, and actually find them to be pretty comfortable, mainly because legroom's better. Not necessarily that published dimension they give you, but how much stretch-out room there is between where my butt sits and the cowl.

    I'll admit too, that I felt pretty comfy in the front seat of the Cobalt, Civic, and Neon. So there are small cars I can get comfy in. But I guess when you're used to bigger vehicles, it's hard to get adjusted to those smaller ones.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    You would have no problems with GM moving to all RWD for Cadillac?
    Some people were voicing concerns about foul weather driving with the RWD. With the modern RWD electronic controls, it must have pretty much tamed the bad tendencies. I would think 50/50 weight distribution would always be preferred in the long run. FWD in snow seems like a good choice with all that weight over the drive wheels, but going up a steeper incline has a shift of weight back to no drive at all. Seems as though the RWD and FWD have a loyal following. Perhaps GM may have to consider a couple of higher end cars to remain FWD. When the DTS (alias DeVille) goes RWD, the STS goes bye-bye, what happens to the Lucerne? Won't both the Lucy and Lacie (LaCrosse) gals be RWD by then. For what little snow we get in most of California and other parts in the West, electronic traction control and stability control, anti-lock and all that good stuff, is more than enough. Are people in the midst of the snow, as in piled several feel deep on the sides of roads, confident in RWD with electronics -- what is your opinion on the frozen roads of middle state to the right coast ???

    L
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Well yes and no. If moving out like a dragster off the line, it is torque. Once up to speed, like on a track, you need horsepower. A Corvette has both, which is great. Something like an Si Civic won't jump off the line, but will have the horsepower once at speed to keep on going. Some high torque engines just get winded at a certain point. I believe an old rule was that torque higher than HP is good for powering off the line, but more stress on engine and drive train occurs than having equal HP to torque or actually less torque to HP. But I could be wrong.

    As for engine revs, I guess that is personal choice. Some like lower RPMs, while some prefer higher. I would think the main thing is smoothness. High revving of a thrashy engine sounds bad - is bad.
    Recall the old days before the balanced V6. The 1976 V6 in my Starfire was such an engine. You swear little GM parts were about to fly everywhere once up to higher RPM. In 1977 they went with the balance. I believe it was Mitsubishi which pioneered that????? While I am not overly impressed with the new 3.5 compared to the 3.6 V6 in the Aura, I found it to be a lot tamer, as in sounding better and vibrating less than the OHV engines of the older days. They have come a long way.
    L
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Did you thank the EPA for helping you out there :D

    Torque is a wonderful thing in the beginning, but it is HP which counts once under way. I doubt most will be raced side by side, unless altered. And if speed is your thing, please note the Si is the class leader. As for the Civic in base form not performing as well as the Cobalt, I would say baloney. And in a stick shift, I would always go with the Japan brand. In USA they always consider the stick version as an after thought.

    As for side impact bags, it is nice to see after all these years, safety matters with GM, well when they have to do so, they will -- not quite the same thing, is it? I was looking a row of Monte Carlos, one day, and there was not a single one with side air bags. Now, if you do not desire the bags, then it is a good thing. But if people are considering safety in a buying decision, isn't it a bit behind the times?
    L
  • aldwaldw Member Posts: 82
    AWD as option should eliminate foul weather issues for Cadillac, so going RWD as standard won't seem problematic at all.
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    My SRX is AWD, and Cadillac is offering AWD on the next CTS, so I think where winter traction is an issue, AWD is more sensible than FWD.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    it was dropped for emissions reasons

    Is it a dirtier engine, or did GM not have the engineering time/resources to develop the emissions controls? Lots of powerful cars are PZEV, etc. Did something change (laws or the engine itself) that caused this not to be problem in the previous SS?
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Well they could put a rocket engine in the Balt and it still is gonna be a cheaper car. Just another boring, Cavalier like car. As for speed, once under way, what is the 40-60 MPH and the 60- 80 MPH times. Then there is the why does it exist, as in if there are already so many alternative cars to buy within this class, how would this one stand out? If the Hyundai has the longest warranty and a low net price, the Civic the best resale and overall quality, the Corolla a solid build, good gas mileage and resale, a Rabbit the German car appeal, the Mazda3 a quality interior and great handling, with a new looks (in a couple flavors), the Nissan Versa neat little hatchback, and the Scion for the younger buyer, what then is left that the Cobalt is to be, or aspires to fit into a slot within this class of inexpensive cars? It is just there. One of those also ran cars. No one is saying the car is not in the game. Just trying to point out the obvious, they need a relief pitcher, or batter in soon, or the game is lost. The hardest road to take is to build the better Japan / Korean / German small car, so perhaps it is to build something which is American and better. If that can not be done, pull out of the head to head slamming contest before someone gets hurt.
    imho, L
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Torque gets you started, and horsepower keep you going.

    Horsepower is when you think, "This car is slow," then look down and realize you're going 90. :surprise:

    Torque is when you think, "This car is quick," then look down and realize you're going 30. :surprise:
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    "Horsepower is when you think, "This car is slow," then look down and realize you're going 90."

    Tell me about it. That's how I got my first speeding ticket when I was 24. My own car was a 69 Volvo. You almost couldn't speed in it. It got noisy above 60.

    My brother needed his Vega towed because his father-in-law was a Chevy service manager and could get him a free head gasket job on his Vega (ugh!). I'm driving down the Garden State Parkway in my dad's 72 Impala with the 350 V8 - a much more appropriate tow vehicle. Quiet as can be. At 85. Didn't notice that until the unmarked cop car made his presence known...
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "Sentra, Elantra and corolla are still dull. My point stands either way."

    I'll agree with you the Corolla and Elantra are dull. The Sentra just looks weird to me.

    "You seem to be missing the point that the small car segment is pretty conservative overall. ITS NOT JUST THE COBALT. Dont see why this is hard to process."

    I was just trying to clarifying to you that the Cobalt competes against the 06+ Civic currently and not the 01-05 model Civic thats all(Iwas trying to point out)because you brought up before that the 05 Cobalt has more features than the 01-05 Civic and that the 01-05 Civic has dull styling as well as the Cobalt.

    "The civic is BY FAR the most adventurous sedan design in the class."

    I'll agree with you its an adventrous design but the Civic Sedan is not a looker to me.

    "The 3 isnt even as avant garde, in fact the 3 sedan is pretty plain looking."

    I think the 3 is probably the best looking car in its class but thats just me but/w the clear on tail lenses.

    BTW, I think the Mitsubishi Lancer kinda looks adventorous and sporty on the exterior wise at the same time but its not my style.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "Civic has a better design and a few more features and better mileage but its newer and that is to be expected."

    Yeah but the Civic is 1 model year older than the Cobalt so to me thats not a lot of difference. In my opinion your making it sound like the Cobalt was on its 5th year of the same bodystyle when a new gen Civic came out.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    No. On a trip from Bristol, Ri to Hershey Pa., 350 miles, going between 55-70 mph (the wife hates going fast), 2 adults, 2 children, and luggage I got 33.5 going down, and 31.5 going back. On the trip back, I was following my father-in-law's motor home, going at his pace, not mine.

    The last few months going back and forth to work (50% hiway, 30% rural, 20% stop-n-go, 70-75 mph on the hiway, 45-50 rural) I've been averaging 23.5-24 mpg (36 mi round trip). Now, if I drive it local only, I'll get 16-18 mpg.
  • carguy58carguy58 Member Posts: 2,303
    "I think style-wise, cars quit advancing about 20 years ago. It used to be that if you put a brand-new car up against a 20 year old car, you'd see a world of difference. For instance, think of a '77 Chevy against a '57 Chevy. But nowadays, I'll see a 20+ year old Taurus, Audi, or even a LeBaron coupe, and they just don't look that outdated compared to modern cars."

    I think an 87 Tarus looks pretty dated next to a 2007 Car.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    Lou: First of all, lets compare apples to apples, as in 2 1999 models, which mine is:

    1999 Ultra: 1999 Civic EX M/T:

    Curb weight: 3885 CW: 2562
    Wheelbase: 113.8 WB: 103.2
    Length: 206.8 Lth: 175.1
    Seats: 6 Seats: 5
    MPG: 18/27 MPG: 29/35

    Considering the differences, I'd consider that [non-permissible content removed] impressive.
    Could I pull 45 mpg on a new Civic?? I'll take that wager. On a '99 Civic?? Considering the EPA differences, maybe 41-42, considering I got 40 mpg on a trip with my wifes old '96 Saturn SL-2 back in '97.

    To be honest, had I known that my wife wanted a family SUV when I was looking for a car, I would've bought a smaller car for myself to commute in, and got HER a family car instead of me. Now that she has her Rainier, I will wait about 5 more yrs to upgrade my ride to a newer one.
    As things stand now, I'll trade in that 8-10 mpg more I COULD get for the comfort and convenience, and ECONOMY (relatively speaking, of course) I DO get in my Buick.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Well here is the '87 Taurus link
    and here is the New Malibu link2
    Just a refinement of the Euro look. Both are actually good. The Taurus knock-off of the Audi 4000/5000 cars is actually good & ahead of its time, for an American car. Look at the European designs of the 70's and 80's -- were they not more modern, or stately looking? Well the early BMW smallest cars were perhaps a bit weird, but for the most part, lots of really modern cars compared to USA. Look at Mercedes say in 1977 compared to Chrysler, Ford and Chevy. This is not to say that the USA did not have some interesting shapes in cars. There are some very interesting designs. Just talking in general. Seems like Ford spent a good lot of time trying to copy the looks, like the BMW 3.0 CSI (if i got it right from memory) side profile used to make the Thunderbird of the 1989 - 90's.

    If the '87 Taraus looks dated, I know at least one or two others which will then be so as well. ;) in 2008 model year.
    L
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Well the all time great for gasoline cars was the Civic HX lean burn engine. The car had a stick only, and it got an EPA 44 (old figures) and actually got up to 50 MPG which was pretty good. I think Honda got rid of it when Hybrids got hyped, if ya know what I mean. The Civic Hybrid is just a little better.

    L
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    I dunno. I seem to remember a commercial for a Corolla or Tercel in the very early '80's that claimed 50 mpg EPA hwy. Could be wrong.

    Anyhow, I suppose my point is that, no matter what you drive, it's HOW you drive that gets you good mileage from ANY car.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Tell me about it. That's how I got my first speeding ticket when I was 24. My own car was a 69 Volvo. You almost couldn't speed in it. It got noisy above 60.

    I think a lot of it also depends on how fast the engine revs and how noisy it is. One of my friends used to have a 1998 Tracker. It just had a 3-speed automatic, no overdrive, so it was pretty loud on the highway. I think at 55 mph, it was pulling about 3500 rpm. I don't know what its top speed was, but I had been in it when he was doing 80 plus. FWIW, I guess 85 would come around 5400 rpm and I'm sure redline was still in the 6000+ rpm range.

    But even at 55 mph, that thing just felt like it was going fast. Until you looked around and noticed everybody was passing you! It would also jerk you around alot when you punched it from a standstill, which may have given the illusion of speed.

    I've noticed that a lot of older cars tend to do that, too. They may not have a lot of hp, but when you stomp on them from a standstill, they tend to jump off the line real quick initially, but then once that's out of the way, really aren't accelerating all that fast. I remember my '86 Monte Carlo and '89 Gran Fury copcar could pin you back in your seat for a moment on takeoff. Neither was any faster off the line than my 2000 Intrepid, but the Trep won't pin you back in the seat. What it does, I guess, is just start off slower, but then after that it takes off faster.

    I'm driving down the Garden State Parkway in my dad's 72 Impala with the 350 V8 - a much more appropriate tow vehicle. Quiet as can be. At 85.

    My grandparents had a 1972 Impala with the 350. 4-door hardtop. I thought it was a good looking car. I was 12 when they got rid of it, so it was long gone by the time I reached driving age. I remember as a little kid, telling them that I wanted them to save it for me so I could have it when I started driving. But even back in the 70's, I remember them telling me that car would be long gone and junked by then! Once it was about 5 years old, Granddad's yearly spring ritual was bondoing the lower back part of the front fenders, and when they sold it for $600 in 1982, it was pretty rusty overall, plus the vinyl top was shredding. Still ran fine, with about 100,000 miles on it, but Granddad had done a valve job to it around 70K.

    I remember reading an old Consumer Reports test of a '72 Impala 350. 0-60 in 12 seconds. Probably sounds slow today, but back in those days there were still plenty of cars running around that would take 20 seconds or more. And as the 70's dragged on, those types of cars sadly, became MORE common! :sick:
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I dunno. I seem to remember a commercial for a Corolla or Tercel in the very early '80's that claimed 50 mpg EPA hwy. Could be wrong.

    Yeah, there were lots of cars back in 1984 and before that had EPA highway figures in the 40's or even 50 range. That's mainly because the EPA testing procedure was different back then. Starting in 1985 they adjusted their raw numbers downward, to try and give a more realistic "real world" representation of fuel economy. I don't know if they just knocked a consistent percentage off of the raw numbers, or used a more complicated formula.

    Anyway, just as an example, the 1985 Cutlass Supreme with the 231-2bbl V-6 (110 hp) has unadjusted numbers of 21 city/31 highway. But adjusted downward, it comes out to 19/24. And using the most recent revisions, where they've adjusted downward again, it would probably come out to around 17/22.

    If anyone's interested, here's the EPA's fuel economy data, over the years: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
This discussion has been closed.