By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
There was a Taurus wagon-gone.
There was a Camry wagon-gone.
neither sold
Volvo, Audi, BMW, VW, all have at least 2 wagons, then there is Mitsibushi, Ford, Chrysler with at least one wagon.
Someone is making marketable wagons, but it ain't GM.
There is a market for good sensible wagons, car companies have to bring something marketable to the table.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Correct. Is that the official definition of a "crossover"?
It is probably a good one. Or is it an oversized station wagon?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Lemko, I think most of the teething problems with that transmission were worked out by 1988. And if the car has been well-maintained and not abused, I'm sure it'll be fine. I think one reason so many transmissions started failing in the 70's and 80's was that, in addition to making them lightweight, they started telling us that we could increase the service intervals!
I have a sales brochure for a 1979 Malibu. "A Fresh New Slice of Apple Pie", the catchy slogan reads. One of the advantages they tout for the Malibu is this wonderful transmission that can go 100,000 miles between servicings! Is it really a big surprise that these THM200C's were so notorious for failing? :surprise:
FWIW, I also have a brochure for a 1979 Nova, which still used the THM350 tranny, and it called for 60,000 mile intervals. I have a '76 LeMans owner's manual, and it calls for the same.
My Intrepid, another car known for having a fragile transmission, calls for servicings every 100,000 miles on the "regular" schedule and 50,000 on "severe duty". My mechanic told me to do it every 30,000 miles to be safe. And I figure a $70-80 service, even if I really am doing it too often, is still better than a $2000+ transmission!
Anyway, my Grandma's cousin has a 1989 Coupe DeVille, which I think has about 80,000 miles on it now, and it's still on its original transmission. And I know she's not good about maintenance. A couple years back it was driving funny and she asked me to look at it. I drove it around some, and when I came back I asked her when's the last time she had the transmission serviced. She just looked at me confused and asked "What's that?" D'OH!!
What did you do for the tranny? Flush or drain/replace filter?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I wouldn't believe it in 1979 and I won't believe it now! I still have my trannies serviced every 30K miles. My 1989 Brougham's tranny is still original. I'd probably repent my sins if the tranny in the Seville failed.
I don't know what my grandmother's cousin ended up doing. I know she had it serviced, but probably just a drain/replace filter. Aren't flushes usually pretty expensive?
I'm guessing that's all they've ever done to my Intrepid, as the bill to service the tranny was always under $100.
Toyota/Honda allowed Harbour in more plants this year.
Labor Hours per Vehicle
... ... 1998 ... 2004 % change 2003 to 2004
DCX.....46.81 .... 35.85 4.2
Ford.....36.76 .... 36.98 4.2
GM ....46.52 .... 34.33 2.5
H.....31.90 .... 32.02 0.2
N.....30.70 .... 29.43 (-4.8)
T.....30.25 ..... 27.90 5.5
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
When we first started though we were recomending 30,000 mile service for most vehicles on the tranny flush. We would normally tell people to have the screen replaced every other flush or after every two flushes.
For trucks that did a lot of towing we recomended 15,000 miles intervals for the flush and changing the screen every second flush.
What's the concensus?
Rocky
For coolant though, I think flushing is a good idea, if done with water only. This you can do yourself by draining and refilling with water, running then engine, and doing this repeatedly until the drained fluid is clear (or nearly so).
I think how well automatic transmission last depends mostly on how they are treated by their owners.
The HydraMatic was a 4 speed, but not an overdrive 4 speed. The four speeds came from using both planetary gear sets (2.5:1 and 1.5:1 approximately) to get a 3.75:1 first gear. The fluid coupling was not a torque converter.
Considering the extra displacement, that's really not much more than a 350-4bbl in a '77 Caprice, which would've had 170 hp. Or a Pontiac 400-4bbl in a Catalina, which I think had 180. Or an Olds 403, which had 185.
I'm sure the 425 had more torque, especially compared to a 350, but the cars it went in were also heavier, which offset the power advantage.
I dated a girl ages ago who had a '79 Olds 98 with the 403, and it seemed really gutsy. It was enough to almost make you proud of the 70's. Almost. :P
Someone is making marketable wagons, but it ain't GM.
There is a market for good sensible wagons, car companies have to bring something marketable to the table.
Got to give Chrysler credit for trying to bring back station wagon with its Dodge. While Dodge has good styling, maybe it looks too good and is thus not as practical as it could be.
Think there could be a decent market for a RWD V8 (with DOD) full size station wagon by Chevy. The template that could be looked at is the 77-82 Chevy Caprice station wagon. I bought one used and had it for about 10 years and it was a very useful and comfortable vehicle. It had bench seats in front and middle that were chair height and could comfortably seat 6 adults. With middle seat folded, you could haul 4x8 sheets plywood. This Caprice also had the 2-way tailgate (which Honda Ridgeline copied).
My Caprice station wagon handled reasonably well. Think that an updated 2010(?) model could be more fuel efficient than a Suburban or Tahoe and would weigh less. Think they could make one at about 4000 lbs vs well over 5000 for Suburban and Tahoe. There are better opportunities to have styling flair with station wagons in comparison to SUVs like Suburban and Tahoe.
Perhaps biggest problem would be that if GM made a 2010 Caprice wagon, they would price it too high in Suburban/Tahoe range. They would need to be able to make a Chevy wagon affordable for the average working Joe - say no more than mid/high twenties.
GM goofed up in mid 90's with way oversized and weird looking Impala and Buick Roadmaster RWD station wagons.
There's a guy at work who has a lovingly maintained '79 Impala wagon with a 305-4bbl. It's a nice looking car. However, I have a feeling that if GM tried to do something like that these days, it would weigh well over 4000 lb. Heck, even those downsized late 70's models still easily topped 4,000 pounds, and with all the safety and convenience equipment people want these days, not to mention structural stiffening here and there, I just don't see 4,000 lb being a hittable target for something like this.
I think a V-8 Magnum weighs about 4000 lb, and it's about as big inside as a 1982 Malibu wagon.
Those bathtub style '91-96 models were very fuel efficient, especially once the LT-1 350 went under the hood for 1994. 17/26 if I recall correctly. Not bad for a 260 hp 4300 or so lb beast that could do 0-60 in about 8 seconds or less.
Also, believe it or not, those '91-96 models weren't that much bigger overall than the '77-90. However, they were much more rounded off and harder to see out of, which made them feel more ponderous. They curved and hollowed out the door panels a bit to give you more shoulder room, and I think they made the seats a bit bigger, but the steering wheel was in the same location as the older models, so it ended up making you sit just a bit to the left of it.
And I think the way the rear ends were curved on them may have cut into cargo volume, compared to the more squared-off '77-90 style.
I agree though, it would be cool if something like that made a comeback!
Pontiac did a similar thing when it came out with its 301 V-8 for 1977. It looks just like a 350/400 block (at least to me it does), but they managed to trim off weight here and there, and I think there was something they did with the main bearings that ended up biting them on the butt. Anyway, I think the 265/300 block only weighed about 450 lb, compared to about 600 for the older 350/400/455 style block.
Also in the 70's, I believe a lot of manufacturers went from using a forged crankshaft to a cast one. I don't understand what that means, but I do know it was cheaper. And more prone to breaking. Dunno if it was lighter though. I've heard people on the Mopar board I belong to mention it in the past.
I'm pretty sure this new marketing ploy will end up the same way, hurting everybody, including the consumer who's struck with a gas guzzler after a year. It's not a good marketing play because it's too easy for the rivals to match it. Ford already has!
-Loren
Ford seemed to have a better handle on weight, as the '91 Crown Vic wagon weighed 4028 lb, versus 3822 for the sedan.
I dunno about the Ford versions, but GM wagons were also beefed up enough that the GVWRs were usually about 500 pounds heavier than their sedan counterparts. At least with the '77-90 styles. Sedans were usually around 5000-5200 lb, while wagons were more like 5500-5700 lb IIRC.
Now with something like a Charger versus a Magnum, in this case the sedan is 4031, versus 4125 for the wagon, both with the Hemi. I'm guessing here though that the rear of the Charger is so high up, and with the way the roof of the Magnum slopes down in back, that in this case you're really not adding much. Plus, this thing really isn't made for trips to Home Depot, so I'm guessing that they don't beef up the GVWR on the Magnum over the Charger or 300.
Porsche and Audi lag behind, and VW, somewhere in the world, is still making it. You can buy a Rabbit, if not a beetle, in South Africa (CitiSport Polo or something like that).
The other advantage to skipping sealed beams is they were designed as an $8 disposable part. They didn't engineer the reflector or reflector material, or put a lot of thought into the lens and shape. I remember driving the Nova in the mountains at night and being frightened because I couldn't see as well as in my mom's minivan.
Sealed beams - I don't think so; they don't light up the road as well. Obviously, some cars have really bad plastic on the headlights -- the first-gen. Neon comes to mind. Ever notice how opaque/yellowed/scratched they become?
I think that's just something that happens to the plastic light covers as they age. Don't some cars use glass? My Intrepid's headlights have hazed up a bit. Not quite yellowed, but somewhat cataract-ic. A buddy of mine had a '95 Grand Marquis, and its right headlight assembly had deteriorated so badly that the bottom edge had actually disintegrated!
Agreed!. Besides the CTX would make a better wagon than sedan. There is no headroom in the back seat for semi-tall people (like me (6'1.5"). It would look a lot better as a sleek wagon than the SRX does as a blown up box.
Negative thinking is part of the problem GM has. Wagon sales are down because of mini vans and SUV's. However, as boomers get older they won't want to drive mini vans, and they might not want the expenses associated with SUV's. Wagons are a potentially growing market. I don't think Volvo, Saab, BMW, VW, Mazda, Ford, Chrysler would be building them if there wasn't a market. Most vehicles are aimed at niche markets, as the market is getting more fragmented. The sales from a decent wagon would be 10X what it will be for the Solstice.
Could be another mistake in GM marketing "strategy" that marketing courses will study in the future.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
This is a brilliant idea. CTS lends itself beautifully to be made into a wagon. And, this seems to be a growing market for wagons - the luxowagon market. Boomers don't want vans, they don't need SUV's, they travel and buy stuff so they need the room a wagon offers. The CTS would look much better than the SRX and would make a much more practical vehicle.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Last year i considered purchasing a Toyota Tundra and was impressed with the vehicle. During negotiations we came to within $500 and they brought in "the closer" who immediately bashed GM. When I asked him to match the maintenance history of my Chevrolet Silverado the deal fell through. My Chevy went 6 years and 125,000 miles with only oil and tires...period!
Beating the odds in life is a good thing.
As for the Tundra, I would choose the nearly as large Tacoma instead. Great gas mileage. Well, that is if not using it as a true work horse. Then a Tundra, Chevy, Dodge or the ever popular Ford may be on the list.
-Loren
Really ? I must have missed that memo.
We were seriously considering a 99 Maxima(at the time, on sale, 21K,down from 23K msrp), until the salesman started to ask what else we looked at, and then attacked them(Hyundai).
I went back there (this year) to the Honda dealership(same "mega" lot of various dealerships, under one owner name)and checked out the new Civic.
The test drive was ok. We were only gone maybe 10 minutes, and when we got back to the lot, some other sales staff were outside.
One guy said"why such a short drive?". I told them I was not ready to buy, but if I were, I might consider another Toyota( a Corolla, next gen, perhaps)... and the "let's talk badly of Toyota" started.
One guy claimed something about a Toyota(some truck) was in there 3 times for repairs, they had for trade in, after they sold it used.
Said they were junk, and only lasted 50,000 miles, not worth the money, or wasting your time looking at Toyota.
Also, I asked them at Honda if they could beat another dealer's cost(he advertises "to beat all other deals by at least 300-800 dollars.... in other words, if this one dealership said 800 off civic, the other place would knock off at least 1,100).
All they did was say" I heard they are crooked at the service dept", about the other Honda dealership.
I have maybe met 2 or 3 decent sales persons in 19 years of buying new cars.
The rest tend to go the attack route.
Take care/ not offense.
Your experience is pathetic....sad state of the world of salesmanship. Perhaps the sales people aren't trained properly. Negative comments about a competitor doesn't make your product look better. And, he doesn't know, you might have had great cars from that competing car company in the past (besides, there isn't that many really bad makes out there). They would be further ahead to say the competition has great cars, but you will like ours more because..........
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
That's what the Freestyle was for - nobody bought it.
lol, ya think? I bet these guys get almost no training.
In my experience, car sales people assume all customers are dumb. I didn't get this treatment at Volvo, but I got it at Honda, Toyota, Chrysler and Ford (the only dealerships I've visited in the last ten years, I think)
Let's not get off on that tangent, however. Too many bad experiences along those lines, I am sure. There is a reason most people hate the car-buying experience. A nd it AIN'T driving the cars!!!
2- Ford: --------- 278,546 down 2%
3- Toyota: ------- 235,708 up 12%
4- DCX: ---------- 212,882 down 8%
5- Honda: -------- 141,810 up 11%
6- Nissan: ------- 76,881 down 11%
7- Hyundai: ------ 42,514 up 5%
OTOH, I always have said one month, in and of itself, doesn't say much; it's the longer term that counts.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,