Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
Interesting that the 4-bbl carb is a Carter. I always associated Carter with Mopar, Rochester with GM, and Holley with Ford. But, I guess they mixed and matched from time to time. I think my '68 Dart's 318 had a Holley 2-bbl.
I wonder why they don't show the gear ratios for the automatic transmissions? I think the THM400 that the Catalina used had ratios of 2.48:1, 1.48:1, and 1.00:1. That 2-speed that's showing for the GTO probably had a first gear of around 1.75:1, I"m guessing.
How many unique platforms, though?
Today we'll soon have the Spark, Sonic, Cruze, Malibu, and Impala. Seems like plenty to me.
- Ray
Wow....
That report was grossly inaccurate, link to where we discussed this previously:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f16697b/21758#MSG21758
Sudbury, Canada is in much better shape today than it was when they started supplying nickel for use in hybrid batteries.
My '67 Catalina has the 2.56:1 axle, but its engine was built-up at some point in its life, before I bought it, so it doesn't take full advantage of that power. Still, with that tall axle, it's kinda fun how when you stomp it, it'll hold first up to around 50 or so and then chirp the tires when it shifts into second. I used to have 215/75/R14 tires on it, and with those, sometimes it would even chirp on the 2-3 shift. But now I have 225/75/R15's, on heavier 7" wide rims, so I think that extra weight, as well as friction from the bigger tire, keeps it from spinning out so easily.
Plus, I tend to go easier on it nowadays, because I don't want to wear out the new tires too quickly. It's not all that easy anymore, to find a whitewall, especially in a 70-series.
also had a 2.56 final drive ratio.
And about 1550 RPM at 70 MPH.
- Ray
Just about twice idle RPM...
And, I live in SC, not CA, and if you really like working in a cotton mill or in fabric weaving, then things pretty much suck for you now in SC. Of course, when SC was the leader in textiles, say... 30 years ago, all you ever heard around here was the complaints about the bad pay, the poor working conditions, the health issues related to dust, etc.
But, like the coal miners in WV, the auto workers in Detroit, the steel workers in PA, the textile workers saw their employment as a birth rite. It wasn't then, and it surely isn't now.
Welcome to reality.
When an above market price, or wage, is being paid, it's stealing from someplace else... Usually, the future. That's what happened to the big 3. They continually pushed the real cost of labor (and benefits promised) into the future.
And, the taxpayer got a huge chunk of the bill.
No one can actually say they are free market capitalists and at the same time, support tariffs, bailouts, etc. and be consistent.
I'm an old car fan, and I love the cars from the 30-50's the most, but I wouldn't want to be in one in an accident!
Lessee...
H-body (Vega/Monza)
T-body (Chevette, which came out as a mid-year '75)
X-body (Nova)
F-body (Camaro, and it uses some of the X-body architecture, mainly suspension, the isolated front sub-frame, etc)
A-body (Malibu/Monte Carlo)
B-body (Bel Air/Impala/Caprice)
Y-body (Corvette)
So, seven basic platforms. Or, I guess you could say 6 1/2, if you want to sorta group the Camaro and Nova.
Today, if you add in the Camaro and Corvette to the five you mentioned, you still have seven basic platforms.
There's more variety in small cars these days than there was in '75. Back in '75, you couldn't even get a small domestic car with 4-doors...they were all 2-door hatchbacks, or sedans that looked like hatchbacks, or wagons. In compacts, with the Nova, you could get a 2-door coupe, 4-door sedan, or 2-door hatchback. In intermediates, you could get coupe, sedan, or wagon, and the coupe offered several different roof treatments. In full-sized cars, you could get coupes or sedans, both hardtop and pillared, convertible, and wagon.
In SC, pensions were only standard in the textile industry, and even then, were impossible to live on without the aid of SS. My neighbor's mother worked for 40 years in a sewing plant, and her monthly pension was an unbelievable $90.00/month in 2000.
The highly-industrialized mid-west was far different from most of the rest of the country, primarily due to its high unionization and the power it wielded at the time.
I don't think most 70's cars, the bigger ones at least, would be *too* bad in a head on collision with a modern car. A lot of improvements went into cars in the 60's, such as collapsible steering columns, seat belts, padded dashboards, rudimentary crumple zones, etc.
My '76 LeMans would probably behave more or less like a '77-90 Caprice in an accident. It's about the same size and weight, and while the '77 B-body was supposedly all-new, I'm convinced that they still used the same frame, just with a new body dropped on.
My '79 New Yorker is unitized, rather than body-on-frame, so it would probably do fairly well in a crash, too. Sure, a brand-new car is still going to do much better in a crash, but your typical 70's car would still do better than a 50's or earlier car, or many 60's cars.
So, if we were going to give cars grades for crash worthiness, if a good modern car would get an "A", while that famous '59 Bel Air from the crash test a couple years back would fail miserably, I'd say a decent mid or full-sized 70's car would still get a solid C rating.
Yep.
Plus they probably sell crossovers instead of the old wagons.
I don't think the menu is any shorter. :shades:
Personally speaking, having been in 2 head-on collisions where the opposing car turned in front of the one I was in at an intersection, and one with airbags, the other without, I can testify about the exponential "walk away factor" that airbags provide.
I guess it all depends on the accident one plans to be Involved in... If I was given the choice of being in the 1970 Bonneville or the 2011 Smart in a head on collision, I might just pick the Bonneville.... But then, we usually aren't given a choice.
Are you ignoring financial news on Europe? Besides Germany, Norway (oil), and maybe a couple others, Europe is in mild to moderate Recession. The PIGS have been sustaining their perks on borrowed $, and things are not looking so rosy in France ... I belive it was Marchione who said last week that Europe needs to cut, cut, cut its auto production capacity. GM is losing $ on Opel.
If you want another perspective, and a lot of times I don't think much of it, read Bernanke's comments today, that Europe's troubles are just in the beginning phases. Europe needs structural reforms; whether it's personal finances or government, you can't spend more than you make in the long run.
Your opinion is your opinion, and that's fine of course, but I don't know how you could say that if you looked at a full-line brochure from Chevy back then, and compare it to what's offered today. Even back then, there were full-size Blazers, pickups, crew-cab pickups (like today's Avalanche), Suburbans, full-size vans (cargo and passenger), but we weren't even to that point of the discussion yet.
Personally, I long for a red or maroon interior, but I know that's a pipe dream these days.
Well I can think of several policies the U.S. had which were maybe "charitable", which many said we would regret:
1) allowing millions of foreign students to come to U.S. universities and be trained as engineers, scientists, and IT people, picking up the latest skills, and then returning to their foreign lands.
2) economic aid to foreign countries like Korea to modernize.
3) not asking countries like Korea to pay for the stationing of U.S. forces in and around Korea, rather than putting their $ into industry
4) allowing U.S. companies to put factories in foreign countries, thus transferring knowledge, and then allowing the products from those countries back in this country.
5) making U.S. factories comply with rules and regulations that foreign based factories don't have to.
I'm sure we could add more. But I think you get the point, that we have done about everything we can think of from a policy-standpoint to undermine U.S. industry, and to make our good jobs compete with 3rd world jobs.
GM and the UAW failed to adapt, or improve quickly enough, while maintaining the status quo of their insular work-rules and norm of "good wages".
The world changes for good or bad, and what you expect can change. I remember a line (movie fiction or a history book I read?) about the Battle of Bastogne in 1944. With Bastogne surrounded and under constant attack some Army cook was being handed a rifle, by an officer. The Cook yells "I don't want that, I'm a Cook"; to which he gets the reply "You're a rifleman now".
Now that the DTS and Lucerne are gone, GM is out of the big car game as far as I'm concerned. The new LaCrosse is nice, but it's more of a comfy midsizer with good legroom and a compact-car trunk. The Impala has a big front seat, good-sized trunk, but I swear the back seat of my '76 LeMans coupe is more comfortable than the Impala's!
Cadillac is supposed to be coming out with that XTS or whatever, but it's going to be based on the LaCrosse, which means it's not going to be any roomier inside unless they make some huge modifications to the structure. It's not hard to add legroom...just stretch the floorpan and roof a bit, and make either the front, rear, or both doors a bit longer, but adding shoulder room is harder since you basically have to add width everywhere on the car, from bumper to bumper.
Chrysler hasn't made what I'd consider a full-sized car since halfway through the 1981 model year. Something like a Charger or 300 is certainly big enough for my tastes, but despite that lanky 120" wheelbase, they just feel like midsized cars to me. Similarly, Ford's Taurus and MKS feel like midsized cars to me, as well, although they do have big trunks (Taurus especially).
At best, I'd call this current crop "Tweeners", at best...a class that, IMO started with the 1985 Electra/98/DeVille...cars that had more interior room than any midsized car at the time, but still fell a bit short of a true full-sized car.
And, they're all just 4-door sedans, as the 2-door, hardtop, convertible, and wagon variants are long since gone.
I don't really think of my 2000 Park Ave as a very big car. Yet today, I don't think there are any cars left that are as big inside as it is. Unless you go WAY upscale, to something like a long-wheelbase 7-Series, S-class, or A8, maybe?
Hasn't the market determined what gets built by what gets bought?
No, the aren't any more "deuce and a quarter's (Buick Electra 225)" around now, but cars like that (it seems to me, anyway) would have practically a zero market potential in today's market.
Folks moved from huge sedans to minivans and SUV/SAV's.
I mean no disrespect here, but other than a few octogenarians and New York pimps, where is the market potential for land yachts these days?
My 2010 3-series has a red leather interior with a black sapphire exterior.
It's a great color combination.
I also once owned a Buick Century in the 1980's with burgundy interior and exterior. It was pretty, but from a color perspective, it got old after a while...too much of the same color.
You mean I need to take care of myself? How can this be?
I thought the 1% were supposed to pay me all of their spare cash to ensure my life is taken care of.
Or a union to help me earn a lot while reducing my individual accountability.
-Rocky
There are plenty of greed arguments to go around about both labor and management, that thing is for certain. Sometimes we forget to look at the big picture. Like it or not, we live in a society. And I've never been on unemployment once in my nearly-54 years (knock wood).
It's not about being consistent, it's about being rational and moderate, not extreme. Extremism is the reason nothing ever gets done in D.C. anymore. Sometimes, we have to take something for the team.
Wow, that's definitely different than my definition of "small and sporty". My wife insisted we get a 2nd generation Honda CRX in'88, and I have to admit that was one of the best decisions we made. It was a great car on many of the 2-lane cowpaths which are roads here in New England. But anyway that is my idea of "small and sporty". The current CRZ is too bulky.
I guess I'd have to build my dream car from a kit. It'll be low tech - maybe something like the DeTomaso Pantera ... or I've always dreamt of living somewhere warm and having a metallic lime-green dune buggy. I'm certainly not dreaming of anything (maybe the next Corvette) that GM has on the drawing boards.
Extremism on both sides of the political spectrum has become the new "norm"... Unfortunately...
If I want to see a reduction in accountability, I just look up the managerial chain.
Let's see on Edmunds....Chevy offers 41 models. That includes body style variations like Aveo sedan + hatch (count as 2).
How many were there in 1975?
I'll take a rough stab at it...
Chevette: 1
Vega: 3
Monza: 1
Nova: 3
Camaro: 1
Malibu: 3
Monte Carlo: 1
Full-size Chevy: 6 (I'm just counting body styles...pillared coupe, pillared sedan, hardtop coupe, hardtop sedan, wagon, convertible...not doubling it up for Impala, Caprice, 2-seat/3-seat wagon, etc)
Corvette: 2
So, for cars that's 21.
For trucks (just an estimation here, I could be leaving some off)
LUV: 2 (probably a short bed and a long bed)
El Camino: 1
Blazer: 1 (I think it only came in 1/2 ton, and not heavier-duty versions, but could be wrong)
Suburban: 3 (I'm guessing it came in 1/2, 3/4, and 1-ton versions)
C/K truck 1/2-ton 2 (short bed, long bed)
C/K truck 3/4 -ton 3 (short bed, long bed, crew cab, which only came with a long bed)
C/K truck 1-ton 3 (same as 3/4 ton)
Van: no idea. There were short models, long models, passenger models, cargo models, and I think in those days they only came in 3/4 or 1-ton, as they were smart enough to not build a 1/2 ton van, knowing it would be way too easy to overload it. And I think they came in three different lengths, but I could be wrong there.
So, say around 20-25, depending on how many van configurations there were?
There's definitely a lot more variety in trucks these days. GM was a latecomer to the concept of a cab and a half. Ford and Dodge offered them back in the 1970's, but GM wouldn't come out with one until the 1988 redesign. Crew cab trucks are more widely offered these days, as well. Back in the 70's, they were mainly intended for construction crews and such, or if you wanted to tow a trailer or have a slide-in truck camper.
However, if you want what was once the staple of the domestic truck, a regular cab, 8-foot bed, those are pretty rare these days. Toyota and Nissan don't even offer that configuration, and while GM, Ford, and Mopar still do, not too many people buy them, so they don't get ordered that much, and don't hit the used market all that often.
You're a young guy if you don't remember the Blazer selling well! They were everywhere.
Those may not look the part, but they are cars (unibody designs).
And today the cars all tend to look more or less alike because of aerodynamics. There are only so many shapes they can come up with that are aerodynamic in the interests of fuel economy, yet still yield some decent space efficiency. So styling a car today is often akin to simply drawing a face on a balloon.
Oh, and the manufacturers and buyers tend to be much more conservative when it comes to colors these days. So even if there's a blue, red, green, or whatever offered, most buyers are going for the generic silver, white, or gray. Or they might get a wild streak for a moment and go beige.
I'm really not looking forward to the next time I need to buy a car, because more and more, it just seems like it'll be about as exciting as going out and shopping for a refrigerator.
There were trucks back then that there aren't now, too.
I'm not a truck customer.
You had to be there. I was old enough to be shopping Chevys then and still am now. No comparison in choices.
Then you get those "not for off road use" warning stickers all over the place, and limited tow ratings, too.
To be fair the Traverse actually does fairly well in that regard.
Still, I bet my dad's '84 Olds Custom Cruiser station wagon could tow more than both those crossovers combined.
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/21/new-york-auto-show-confirms-2014-chevy-impala- -debut-via-facebook/
I actually think the current Impala, if equipped with the aluminum wheels that were only used on the LTZ back in the prehistoric days (!), with no spoiler, still is handsome. The rear-seat legroom is inexcusable for a car that size, though...and I'm a Chevy guy.
I still see a bunch of 'em though.
I agree, it's a handsome looking car. IMO car styling has been stagnating for decades, and nothing's really new, just regurgitated. So, while the car itself may be out of date, to me at least, it doesn't LOOK out of date! :P
I'll give them credit though, for giving it an improved engine/transmission for 2012.
It was good enough for Honda to emulate the styling for 2 or 3 years.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I wonder if it will get the giant 12.3" LCD from Cadillac? Probably not.
When are you going to need a car? 2112? You have enough to make it through then just on attrition! :P
Figures. They'll unveil the Impala in NY. Here I am in NYC and will be here for months but can't hit a public place....