Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I have issues with how they measure their IQ scores.
It's all about the methodology. In their IQ study, the Mini scored poorly due to a cup holder design.
What does a cup holder have to do with quality? I mean, who cares? How much weight should that carry?
Another one - the Hummer H2 scored poor in quality for getting low gas mileage. Gas mileage had NOTHING to do with quality! In fact the H2 drinks gas quite well, extremely high quality fuel consumption, a little too well in fact.
I define quality as things not breaking, i.e. everything works and doesn't need to be fixed. Neither the cup holder nor the fuel consumption are defects.
This inconsistency also explains why VW does extremely well in their IQ studies and then absolutely LOUSY on their Dependability Study (which IMO has much more value).
And by the way, the argument that JDP is the standard of all OEMs only means they're not independent and unbiased. They can't be by that very fact.
-juice
Even at 55 mph, driving a Chevette - or even riding in one - could charitably be described as "punishment."
Driving at 80 mph was literally taking your life in your hands.
The new small cars feel like a Lexus compared to that Chevette - at 55 mph or 80 mph.
The big difference between the Chevette and the Fit/Yaris/Versa/Aveo isn't so much the mileage, as it is the level of refinement, safety and driving pleasure one experiences when driving the two cars, while achieving similar mileage.
Yeah, but the Fit has 40 extra HP compare to your Chevette (109 vs 65) and can get close to 40 MPG on highways.
This inconsistency also explains why VW does extremely well in their IQ studies and then absolutely LOUSY on their Dependability Study (which IMO has much more value).
And where is this data coming from? VW scored 3rd from last on their IQS for 2006. Are you sure you are not looking at APEAL data which measures stuff like inconveniences and layout?
And by the way, the argument that JDP is the standard of all OEMs only means they're not independent and unbiased. They can't be by that very fact.
OK, not sure how you came up with this. They get their data from individual owners throughout the country. They then compile the data and sell it to the OEM's. No advertising. No reason to "bias" the data. If you want to buy the data you can to. They only give out the top three winners in each category for free to the public. You want the actual quantitative data you gotta put out some cash.
Oh yeah, I remember that one! I remember at one time, I thought a Gremlin might have been a better car than a Pinto or Vega, because it was actually derived from a compact car, instead of built from the get-go to be a subcompact. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Now I don't remember the last time I've been in a Pinto or Vega, but I can't imagine them being much more wretched than that Gremlin was that we saw!
On the subject of the Chevette, remember that '76 or so model that we saw at Hershey? I thought that actually looked like a nice, fairly well-trimmed little car for the era! IIRC though, it had some kind of uplevel trim option on it that dressed it up considerably. And I'd imagine it was still a horrible car to drive at highway speeds.
I think the Mini did well on the APEAL study.
-juice
The Gremlin had lots of components sourced from other car companies that should have been sturdy - especially the Chrysler-built Torqueflite automatic - but with that AMC magic touch, just didn't work all that well. I remember that the transmission in our 1973 Gremlin wouldn't always hold on "park." AMC probably didn't have enough money to make everything work together as a whole.
As for the Chevette - I once car-pooled with a woman who had a 1978 Chevette sedan. It was fairly well optioned for a Chevette, but at highway speeds, the noise levels were unbelievable. The ride was even worse.
Lemko, I learned to drive on a 1973 AMC Gremlin. We knew it was a crappy car even then...
Consumers sort of didn't know what to expect, and of course mileage stinks on those.
-juice
A buddy had a Pacer. They had worked the suspension and chassis to make the car have a softer ride. The car makers had trouble making a small car because their methods seemed to start with a large car and adapting the parts to a smaller car. IIRC the Pacer had some kind of rubber isolation between the frame for the motor and the rest of the car. Interesting concept for the time to get away from small car ride, noise and vibration. But not real popular for long. Anybody wanna buy a Pacer brochure? I think I have one tucked away in a box somewhere. Wonder how much I can get for...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Chevrolet and Ford dashboards looked well assembled even for that time, and Chevrolet had some pretty nice interiors for the price in the 1950s and 1960s. Ford interiors improved greatly after 1963 or so, and really got better with the debut of the LTD in 1965.
I have a skinny butt, but still prefer a wider seat. For me, the Accord and Fusion still felt fine, but who knows?
You're right, and the new Accord feels cramped to me. But I have a big [non-permissible content removed], and am 220lbs. I fit great in the Camry, but was too tight in the Honda.
I'm skinny and narrow for the most part though, so I fit fine in the seats. I miss that car.
My C43 had smaller seats, with larger but more pliant bolsters. I felt like the car was 'hugging' me in when I first got it, and I didn't really like that. But it seemed natural after awhile.
The new car has bigger seats, more room to move. My old S-class had fairly wide (for buckets) seats, and I could actually move around in the seat. Not sporty supporting though.
Yes, they did, didn't they? They were like sitting on a small mattress, and tipped too and fro as you drove....
I'm on my 4th MB now, and I have liked the seats in all of them.
Regards:
Oldengineer
-Loren
-Loren
-Loren
-Loren
However, I'm sure that just about any small RWD car of the time would have yielded the same results, since back then they simply hung the gas tank out behind the axle, as there was no place else to put it. I've also heard that, for all the hoopla over the Pinto, overall its death rate was no worse than your typical small car of the time.
And interestingly, the cars still sold well even once they got their nickname of "The Barbeque that seats four". In the final year, 1980, I think they still sold around 165,000 of them. A pretty strong showing for an outmoded car with a firestarter reputation offered by a faltering company on the eve of a recession and fuel crisis.
Now one Ford car I've always thought was really dangerous was the original Falcon and the Mustangs that were based on it. They used a "drop in" gas tank that also served as the floor of the trunk. Ford did many of their cars like this back in the 60's, and it's a bad design, as it doesn't take much of an impact to buckle the trunk floor, which ruptures the tank and spills fuel into the inside of the car. But it's worse on a smaller, lighter car, which is going to crumple more easily. If you look under those old Falcons and Mustangs, there's like 2 inches between the back of the gas tank and the dainty little ribbon of a bumper. It really doesn't look like there's much protection back there.
These cars were very prone to fuel leaks when rear-ended, but for some reason, they dodged the notoriety that the Pinto got. I do remember the original Mustang taking some flak back in the late 80's or early 90's, though, because a high school kid who bought an old one got rear-ended at low speed, and burned to death. But nowadays, so few of them are probably daily drivers anymore, that it's most likely a moot point.
Later I won a 79 Mustang Pace Car and thought it was different from the Pinto with its fire problem. I was stunned when I crawled under it and found the same rubber mat of 1/4 to 3/8 inch thickness on the front side of the gas tank. Apparently the fire problem was caused by gas coming out of punctured tanks from the axle hitting the tank (actually tank hitting the axle) and then on secondard impacts the sparks from metal hitting ignited the gasoline; hence the rubber mat to stop sparks in the immediate puncture area.
I was happy to flip that car after using for a few months.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Pinto was sold from 1971-1980, although I heard there were some leftover 1980 models that were re-serial numbered and sold as 1981's. The fire issue didn't involve the wagons, only the hatchback and sedan models (the sedan looked like a hatchback, but only had a small, metal trunk that opened, instead of a big hatch. They issued a running change on the Pinto that was supposed to correct the fire issue, for 1976 I believe. I'm not sure what all it entailed, but I believe part of it was the rubber mat.
The 1974-78 Mustang II was based on the Pinto, but I don't think it ever had any issues. And the 1979+ Mustang was actually based on the Fairmont "Fox" platform. I was under the impression that these were actually pretty well thought out with regards to safety at the time.
A few years ago, once the controversey came out over the full-sized Crown Vics exploding when they get rear-ended at high speed, I remember looking up under some of my cars at the time to see just how they were laid out. My '89 Gran Fury had a little rubber mat in front of the gas tank, but my '79 New Yorker and my grandma's '85 LeSabre didn't. On all of these cars, though, the gas tank was mounted a fairly good distance from the rear axle.
On the Ford cars, the gas tank sits vertical, right behind the axle. In the trunk, this results in a deep well between the gas tank and the rear of the car for luggage, and then a narrow shelf above the tank and axle that the spare tire squeezes into. Unfortunately, since the tank is wedged in so tightly, it's easy for a rear-end collision to pinch the tank between the axle and the well of the trunk, causing it to rupture. And it seems like in a rear-end collision, body-on-frame cars tend to buckle right about at the rear axle, where the frame rails curve up and over.
At least in the case of the Crown Vic, though, I hear you have to rear end them at something like 70 mph to make them blow. With the Pinto, I've heard that it could be done at speeds as low as 19 mph!
Well, the tank hangs on the outside of the frame rails, so I can see how it would be more vulnerable than a tank that was mounted inside the frame rails. But IIRC, the 1967-72 models actually had the tank inside the cab, which has got to be more dangerous!
The tank is roughly half under the cab and half under the bed, and and it has a big plastic shield that wraps from the outside edge and underneath, back to the frame.
I'd imagine that in a side impact, by the time the tank was really getting breached, the cab of the truck would most likely be pretty well trashed. It would take a pretty hard side impact, or a very lucky one I'd guess, to rupture the tank.
I don't feel particularly vulnerable driving the truck. I never give the tanks a second thought. But I don't want to find out first hand how well they hold up, either! :surprise:
I've been having the worst luck with that truck lately, too. It's been rear-ended twice in about two months (minor damage both times...to my truck at least. The Hyundai Elantra, and especially the I30 from the first time fared much worse). Oh, and yesterday I had a buffoon in a Metro run a stop sign and pull out right in front of me. He came very close to getting t-boned. Guy must've been suicidal or soemthing! And the annoying thing is, as I laid into the horn and swerved around him, all he did was shoot me a nasty look, like it was MY fault!
This might not make me a loyal Mitsubishi buyer but it's something from a foreign car manufactor that has me interested enough to consider realistically buying which is rare. :surprise:
I guess we will see just how good it is next year.
Rocky
You do know that the Evo X will be Hyundai-powered. :surprise:
The EVO-X is being powered by a Hyundai powerplant ????? I knew the 08' Lancer was going to be but are you sure the EVO-X is getting the same treatment ????
I read the 08' Lancer was going to be powered by the new "world engine" co-developed by Hyundai, Mitsubishi, and some other company I can't remember ?
If it does have "hyundai power" that means it will at least have Delphi fuel injectors in it !
Rocky
DCX. GEMA power all around, though the Evo gets better heads, internals, and such.
thanx.... I can't wait to see it in person. This is the first product from mitsubishi that I'm willing to give a closer look.
Rocky
Rocky
:shades: Loren
-Loren
Were you talking about a Lumina APV or the new Civic?
Looks like a DustBuster.
Rocky
Rocky
P.S. Ford, appears to have taken design cues from the Gator and added them to the new Ford SD's :surprise: YUCK !!!
This is good if you are a GM, fan.....
Rocky
Rocky
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This is good if you are a GM, fan.....
The secret weapon Ford has used for years now, is that they actually build a heavy duty truck that's bigger, not just heavier, and more industrial looking. GM builds two trucks - that are identical but for the grille work, in different weights. I'm thinking this new Ford truck will sell just fine.....