Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
That's a pretty tall order, imidazo! LOL
Yeah, but take those measurements with a grain of salt. To throw some ancient relics into the mix, I believe the rear seat legroom meaurement on my '76 LeMans is 32.9", and my '68 Dart was only about 32". Yet I fit in both better than I would this Malibu...although they're both cramped for me. And, I fit in the Dart a bit better than the LeMans, although the LeMans has a much more comfortable, thicker seat.
I just looked up the specs for my '67 Catalina (here's the page, courtesy of TOCMP) and they list the front seat legroom for the convertible at 42.7", and 33.9 in the back. Yet, I fit just fine in the back seat. :confuse:
And, I think that 42.7" front legroom measurement is suspect. My 2000 Intrepid (42.2"), '79 New Yorkers (42.3"), '76 LeMans (42.4"...I just checked the '76 Buick Century brochure...the LeMans brochure doesn't list interior dimensions), 2000 Park Ave (42.4") and my old '89 Gran Fury (42.5"), all felt roomier up front. The LeMans may not be a fair comparison though, because it has a power seat that goes into some seriously contorted positions. I can actually get it back so far that I can't reach the pedals!
It really makes me wonder how, exactly, they measure legroom? Because my own personal experiences often don't line up with the published specs.
It's not consistent. I'll bet most manufacturers provide the maximum possible legroom for each seating position though. Which means that while you COULD get that 42 in the front, and you COULD get 32 in the back, you won't get both at the same time.
It'd be nice to see both minimum and maximum legroom for front and back. Still wouldn't tell the whole store but it would be more helpful.
I always remember Chevelle coupes of the '70's (same wheelbase as your LeMans, 112"), having 32.9 inches of rear-seat legroom. The Nova coupe, on a 111" wheelbase, actually had 33.4 inches of rear-seat legroom. I remember full-size Chevy coupes having 35.3" and the downsized '77 full-size coupes having 37-and some odd inches of rear seat legroom. Chevy even had an ad titled "The Long-Legged Coupe". Of course, those cars didn't have Ford's "road-hugging weight"!
http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/kjygqsjso7oacd.jpg
(Truth in posting statement: I'm shorter that uplanderguy but I'm still not sitting behind Andre in a Malibu.....)
That's a real problem EVERYWHERE!
To interate, If this story were about a GM product, we'd be hearing nothing but ridicule about how GM this and GM didn't that and.... Let's just be honest...
>My dad had to have the rear brake pads replaced on his accord at 30k miles.
My God!. My brakes on my leSabres go 70-80K, front AND rears.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Turning has been questionable in my mind. It depends on the quality of the original rotor. Once turned you've got a bandaide on, and you're just waiting for them to warp again and need replacement.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That happens.
Last early March, when taking off my 4 snow tires mounted on extra rims, had a difficult time on one side of the car to take off lug nuts. With a 19MM socket on a long bar, could not break the nuts. Had to put a pipe extension on the bar to apply more torque. That was only on one side of the car. The wheels on the other side were OK. Car had been to dealer for oil change in winter. They always do a "free" check of brake lining depth. I always tell service writer to NOT rotate my tires. I do that myself.
Stopped by the car dealer and talked to service manager. First question was how and where they check for brake lining depth. He said they usually pull off the front and rear wheels on one side of the car only. Then, told him what I found. He apologized and did not know how that happened in that they only use hand torque wrenches.
I then politely said the next time I come in, I will ask after car is serviced for one of their petite ladies in the office to use the standard lug wrench from the car trunk to break the lug nuts in front of me.
I remember the front rotors on my 2000 Intrepid were pretty bad by around 90,000 miles, which, IIRC, came up around October 2003. Anyway, I bought two new front rotors and front brake pads from Autozone for something like $85, and was able to put them on myself. The rotors were really easy...just pop three little clips, and they came right off, just like taking off a rim.
Of course, lots depends on driving style and where you drive. My wife went a little over 100K miles on her Acura TL before needing brake pads front and back. All pads still had material and rotors were not scored. She drives most miles on interstates and rural roads.
That used to be in GM service manuals. I didn't read for that in my 03 manual.
But I noticed in my box of AC Delco ceramic pads it said clearly to turn the rotors. Period. I assume that's to assure that the glaze on the rotor is the same matrix as the resin in the pad. They're assuming the old pads were semimetalic, is my thinking. I put the new ceramic pads on my rotors which had ceramic AC Delco before and have had no trouble.
I am a firm believer that the original rotors have a one pad life in them. So I got new rotors when the fronts needed the replacement pads. Replacement rotors are high quality Raybestos.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Suspect that rotors are being made thinner so that a cut cannot be made and still be within thickness specs as shown in shop manual. Years ago, rotors were thicker and could take a cut in a machine shop and still be within specs when new pads installed.
There are far better people here that can do that
I remember reading the article in our club magazine at least 15 years ago. Here's an online story about a Lark wagon being driven from Central America to the 'States, in 2008:
http://www.advmo.com/blog/labels/Studebaker.html
Way back in 1997, I had to put a '79 Chrysler Newport through inspection, and it needed new rotors, the old 1-piece style. They were about $100 a pop, even back then.
I wouldn't know, as I don't visit third-world countries, but sadly I know I see many a Big Three product on the news in the Middle East. Matter-of-fact, I sold my '93 Caprice Classic in '99 to an outfit who solely exported them to Saudi.
That is exactly what my mechanic says.
The middle east is a great place to dispose of all those old b-bodies.
Having said that, the brake pads in my '03 Accord Coupe required replacement at 30K miles. I was not happy with that. The car didn't beg to be driven hard, so it hadn't been taken on very spirited drives nor any track time. Also, the brakes weren't particularly powerful or strong; to warrant a short life-span.
However, if the choice is between skimping on a wear and tear item/part, I'd rather a company follow Honda's method than Chrysler's choice to skimp out on non-temporary parts.
It's rare...
From what I've seen, pneumatic tools have become the curse in many situations.
The majority of shops have a central air-system, and pressure is regulated at the source, nowhere else.
Usually, the shop has only the basic pnumatic tools which have no torque settings...tightness depends solely on the supplied air pressure. Commercial quality air wrenches have the capability of torque settings, but of course, costs more. Short of that, a manual torque wrench works, but that takes additional effort and time...
And it's not just in the automotive world where pnumatic tools, used improperly, cause problems. Lots of roofers use ir hammers with cheap air compressors with no regulator, so when applying shingles, the air-driven staple is either driven completely through the single or not "snugged up" to the shingle surface, which allows for much more wind-removed shingles.
They ring way too eerily similar to my experiences with a Chrysler product.
I have no interest in repeating history and repeating my purchasing mistakes of the past.
Honda and Audi have been way too good to me for that to happen.
I hear the '13 Accord might be an Altima killer.
Yes, but the difference between how I drove my Accord and how I drive my A3 is probably about the same large margin as the difference between how an Accord gets driven and a LeSabre!
They had an orange Sonic hatch in the showroom. Sticker was $15-odd. As I said, I have great disdain for the shape of the hatch, but I don't think they were designing the Sonic for me. The salesman volunteered, "We don't move many of the sedans. We move a lot more of the hatch". So for its target market, apparently having a hatch was a good thing.
Fifteen minutes ago, a maroon Sonic sedan passed me going the other direction. I still like the looks much better. Being maroon, it was probably an extra-cost color. I hate that concept!
No, that's a car for 20 somethings. I'd think you'd prefer a Cruze. I like hatches for for the functionality over styling.
I got $1,400 more than a dealer offered me in trade, and they came and paid me cash in my driveway and drove it away, doing the title work right in the driveway!
I used to constantly get post cards from two or three companies..."We buy Caprices! Call us first, call us last, just call us, top dollar paid!" So I did.
I think I've mentioned it before, but my grandpa's 87 Caprice Classic Brougham LS was my favorite of the large GM sedans he had back then spanning from an '83 Old 88 to the '92 Roadmaster he had after the Caprice.
Should be interesting to see the next compro between the Fusion, Camry, Accord, Mazda6, and Malibu. But I have a funny feeling that the rear legroom in that Malibu is going to drag it way down.
But GM keeps telling us Americans don't buy hatchbacks? You're not saying GM is wrong are you? :shades:
To its credit though, the Caprice improved a lot for 1993 when they opened up the rear wheel openings, and even more for '95-96, when they gave the beltline a little up-kick at the rear quarter windows.
I think the main problem is that the cars just seemed too fat, like they hung too far over the frame rails. And, while I like big windows and open, airy passenger cabins, on the Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood, the beltline just seemed TOO low.
Overall, I think the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car made the transition to aerodynamics better than the big GM cars did. I think I'd still prefer a GM car, mainly because the Fords are so much more common. That, and the later GM's with the LT-1 V-8 could be pretty sweet!
The fusion hybrid looks impressive, as does the new Ford c-max hybrid.
But for big SUVs, if I was stuck in some hellhole, I'd probably take a Landcruiser over anything from Detroit.
I'm guessing an American made vehicle burns just as well as a European, Japanese or Korean made vehicle...
No doubt about that. A landcruiser while boring and expensive, is a far better engineered and built vehicle over anything from Detroit.
I've read several times over the years that cops generally preferred the Chevys to the Crown Vics; but maybe them not catching fire so quickly when slammed from behind had something to do with it. I've also read a comment by a taxi owner in NYC who said when the Chevys had the 350 engine, he preferred them, durability-wise, to the Fords as well.
So, to answer that question earlier, a similar vehicle is indeed made by the Japanese.