I guess I'm a little different. I'd rather have a nice car in the base model than a lesser car loaded to the gunwales. If I were looking for a family car, I'd take a base Grand Marquis before I'd got for a loaded Taurus. Then again, a full size car probably has some standard features in the base model (Power steering, legroom, seats, carpet, steering wheel, gas & brake pedal, tires, engine, windshield...) that a Metro may not have. I'n not gonna throw myself to one end of the spectrum (all junk is bad) or the other (I want the drivers seat of my car to look like the bridge of the starship Voyager). I like ot take each gizmo on its own merits, and find out if it's another gee whiz gadget, or something actually useful.
there's lots of stuff almost nobody would argue against (try as we might): tilt/telescope wheels, air, stereos, power steering & brakes. These are things that do their job, don't distract too much (well maybe the stereo) and don't often fail. I just find nothing more aggravating than having to help my power windows up when they don't feel like working, or being stuck in an uncomfortable/dangerous place when the power seats go bust. They're unnecessary.
The idea (or at least the hope) is that the next car up the chain gets some basic engineering refinements the cheaper car doesn't get. You're getting more basic goodness, without even considering the higher level of features. All the bells and whistles in the world won't make a Grand Am that was obsolete ten years ago comparable to a Grand Prix or a Bonneville.
On the other hand, a few option packages can make a low-level car a lot more liveable. The Altima they gave me was a special package with CD and lots of power options that turned a really basic car into something pleasant to drive.
Of course any car would feel like unrestrained luxury after the Metro.
Interesting comparison...I turned down a new Bonneville/Grand Prix for a used Grand Am :P One of the first two would have been from my parents, this one was with my own money. Obsolete ten years ago it was not, but I do get your point. I was thinking more along the lines of a a loaded Civic/stripper Accord than the greater differences you can see in some places. A loaded Cavalier over anything? No.
I promise this is the last time I post about the Metro. It turns out I got only about 25 mpg out of it, and over half my miles were freeway miles. Makes me wonder what the upside is.
Hey, those Grand Ams can be kind of spiffy. One of the first new cars I tested was a '90 Grand Am with the HO Quad 4/5-speed and I wish I'd bought it instead of the Cutlass I got rid of almost immediately.
I can easlily get 27 MPG out of my Thunderbird on the highway, and even got over 28 once on a cross-country interstate run! And this is a fairly big car with a V-8 and automatic! I just lost what little respect I did have for that gutless wonder. Give me an old 1958 Fairlane and the gas bills to go with it any day of the week.
...that kinda substantiates my theory that sometimes, small, underpowered cars don't always get better gas mileage, simply because they have to strain harder. For instance, the first small car that I really had any long-term experience with was a 1991 Honda Civic 4-door rental car. It had a 100 hp 1.6 engine. I want to say it said "V-tech" on the valve cover, but not positive. Well, anyway, my daily transportation at the time was a 1969 Dodge Dart GT with a TF-904 and a 225 slant six, which put out about 110 hp net.
Well, I did mainly highway driving with that Civic, and never used the A/C, because it was springtime in California, and pretty cool. I averaged about 28-29 mpg with that Civic. In contrast, I could easily get 22-23 mpg out of my Dart on the highway, even with the A/C on, despite the fact that it probably weighed about 700-800 lb more, and its automatic transmission had one less gear. And to add insult to injury, the Dart was faster, both in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. I know, I tried out the Civic ;-) Hey, it was my younger, more ignorant days... About the only thing the Civic did better was that, at say 100-110 mph, it felt a bit more stable. Also, it was quiter at those speeds, mainly because of less wind noise (but a harder-straining engine)
But anyway, I figure if a tiny car like that is only going to get about 5-7 mpg better than my Dart, but not be as comfortable or as good of a performer, what good is it? That slight mileage improvement just didn't seem worth it to me. Then again, gas was cheaper back then, and my biggest financial obligation was probably my car insurance. I might think a bit differently about it today, though!
...you know how when you're like in your late teens and early 20's, you think you're invincible? Actually, that Civic would only go that fast if you had a long enough downhill stretch, and the Dart, at least, did have modern 205/70/R-14 radials, so it's not like i was doing that on those old FR78-14 or whatever bias ply tires!
I'm not 20 either (I'm 21, hehehe), and I can attest the 120 on my speedometer is just for show, (dang electronic speed limiter! ;-). Although my old 1978 Mercury, with it's lethargic 400M engine, would hit 120. (No, I haven't driven the old girl up that fast myself,[105 is my personal top speed, at elast for an automobile] but I've ridden in her when she was doing it.)
For years so many people in the BMW world asked for "a small simple car that you can toss around, something light and nimble, something that is like the old 2002 model, a simpler enthusiast car without all those heavy luxury items."
Well, they listened, they made it, and all those people that had been whining for years, did NOT run out and buy one. It was the 318Ti. It met all of the criteria that was asked of it. And nobody bought it!!!
It was looked at by the very people that "demanded" it as "a cheap, stripped down, entry level car." EXACTLY what they asked for.
The bottom line is people as a whole want all of the options. I wouldn't buy a car unless it is loaded myself. The 60s / 70s are over...........for most of us.
Ask and you shall receive, and then realize you didn't really want it in the first place.
In response to avalanche325, I suspect that the 318Ti didn't sell because people didn't like the looks. If BMW had offered it in the standard sedan formation (318i, say) it might have done better. I think that the Mazda Miata and the PT Cruiser are examples of the potential popularity of a back-to-basics car (of course, back to basics is relative). These cars can be loaded up with a fair number of amenities, no by no means all purchasers do so.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I know that every time I see a mid-'90s 318i I wish they still made it. The idea of an entry-level bimmer with "leatherette" and four doors has a lot of appeal to me. Lower price, better economy and weight distribution but still with all the essential goodness of a BMW.
I could handle not having lots of torque. The Lincoln LS V6 I'm leasing now needs lots of revs but that's okay, I had plenty of torque in the GTP but the LS is better. And it gave over 20 mpg on my vacation, not bad.
I had a ride in a 318 Ti and was impressed with the overall performance and refinement but the looks turned me off--too stubby, too obviously entry-level and (for me) too young.
...is that, unless their designers pay ALOT of attention to the styling, they just end up looking ungainly and clumsy in my opinion. I always thought the best looking hatchbacks were the ones designed to hide the fact they were hatchbacks, like the old Novas in the '70's, or the LeBaron GTS/Lancer of the 80's, or, more recently, the Plymouth Sundance/Dodge Shadow. There was a Mazda 626 4-door hatchback that I thought was really attractive, too. I forget the exact year span, but I'd guess late 80's/early 90's, around the same time that their notchback sedan looked a lot like the '87-91 Camry.
Yes, the ZX3 is a very sharp car. Maybe the first car since the Civic Si that could make hatchs cool again.
Once on a vacation to Yosemite I slept in the back of my '73 Ventura (Nova) hatchback. They were practical cars. Of course, that's how I hurt my back so maybe sleeping in one wasn't its best use.
I think the new Hyundai Elantra GT is a pretty nice looking car; considering it's both a Hyundai and a hatchback, that's quite a feat.
I do remember those 73-74 Nova hatchbacks, one of my neighbors had one. The cool thing about those was that you really couldn't tell a hatchback from a coupe, except for the badge on the C-pillar.
One thing I would like to see in American cars that German and Japanese seem to have is that the cars have quality regardless of the size.
It seems that if you buy a small American car, it is generally suffering from build quality problems. The medium size cars tend to have so-so build quality. The big cars have much better quality. German and Japanese cars seem to carry their quality pretty much equally throughout the size range.
For example - the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series are different sizes and different levels of luxury, but all quality cars.
Smaller American cars seem to be of inferior build quality compaired to their larger models.
I think the Big 2.5 are still stuck in the past when they viewed small cars as just a temporary stopgap for times of economic downturn. In the past, that has been the only time small cars really were popular in the U.S. But as soon as the economy turned around, people ditched their small cars and went back to their big 'uns. Even today it's not so different. It's just that trucks and SUV's have replaced the full-size car, and minivans have done a number on the traditional wagon.
Apparently Detroit has a hard time making money on small cars so I imagine that takes away whatever incentive they might have to sweat the details.
One of the first modern small cars I drove was a '91 Corolla and man was I impressed with how good the car felt, how well engineered it was. It was just a low line stripper with manual steering but it felt "of a piece". You didn't get the feeling that someone in accounting said "they'll never notice if we cheapen that".
I felt that again when I drove a '93 Civic EX. Neither car was exciting, but the smoothness and evident attention to detail were truly impressive. You'd suspect that if a car maker gave that much attention to its entry-level cars that the more expensive models would be real jewels, and in fact the 2002 Camry V6 is a work of art in its own way.
remember, the small European imports (BMW 3 series, Audi A4) might be small, but they are not cheap. I imagine that even GM could make a decent Cavalier sized car if they could price it at 25K (then again, maybe not).
Absolutely, the A4 and 3 series are pricey luxury sedans but I'm talking about entry-level Japanese cars costing $10k less. They're what used to be called "secretary's cars" (I guess they'd be "administrative assistant's cars" these days).
The GM car that's more in the Civic/Corolla price range is the Grand Am. I owned one and the Grand Am doesn't have that same quality feel, although it makes more of a visual statement than the Japanese sedans. Just depends on what you're looking for, refinement or styling excitement.
The closest GM came to making a small luxury sedan is/was the Olds Alero, and like the Intrigue it's apparently one of GM's better efforts. The uplevel Alero GLX probably sells for around $21k now while both the A4 and 325 start at around $27k MSRP (and at least in my area that's just the starting point).
The Alero got good reviews for its driving characteristics when it first came out. The GLX comes standard with leather, automatic and V6 so it offers more stuff for less than the Germans.
However, both the A4 and 325 have great engines and that's one of the things GM would need to have a competitive small luxury car--using a V6 that harks back to the Citation wouldn't make it. Also Alero is FWD and while the base A4 supposedly comes that way too, the local Audi dealer told me they don't sell anything but AWD.
Another example of what it takes to (not) compete with the A4 and 3 series is the Infiniti G20, a small luxury car with Euro driving characteristics and great quality but its FWD and relatively weak engine keep its transaction price in the low $20k range.
I think in the $25-30k sports sedan market GM wants to compete with the Bonneville, at least based on its brochure.
Your absolutely right, GM needs to build engines that don't sound and feel like tractor motors. Some of the bigger V8s are pretty smooth, at least early in life, but the smaller American engines seem cruder and rougher to me than most of the import counterparts. Exceptions of course, but in general...........
I hate beating up on GM (yeah right) but the only exception I can think of is the Shortstar, the V6 version of the Northstar. Both are great engines based on my limited experience with them.
Whatever happened to the DOHC 3.4 based on the Citation engine? That was an exceptional engine with a 5-speed behind it--powerful, linear, smooth and making great noises--and very unhappy with an automatic. That would doom any GM engine of course. Maybe the gearing was too tall or it needed a looser torque converter.
In '93 I saw a new, never titled '91 Grand Prix GTP in a dealer's showroom, a very attractive car with DOHC, 5-speed, loaded. What a great driving car and yet it had sat for two years. You couldn't even finance it as a new car.
That wasn't too uncommon with GM cars in those days. I also ran across a '91 Firebird 350 that had been untitled for two years. Plenty of power but rattled like a tin can, much like the '95 I eventually bought.
who had a '95 Monte Carlo that had the DOHC 3.4. I can't remember if they still called 'em Z-34 at that time, or if they started calling 'em SS again.
I've heard that the 3.4 DOHC wasn't too reliable, compared to the pushrod version, and particularly the Buick 3.8. Once GM finally massaged the 3.8 up to around 200 hp, I think that's when they figured the DOHC 3.4 was redundant in their lineup. From 0-60, I think they performed about the same although, predictably, the 3.4 was more responsive at higher speeds.
I remember driving a Lumina Z-34 around 1993 or '94. That thing felt fast as heck!
I drove a new Impala for a week as a rental. I have NEVER been in such a poor handling car or truck or even skateboard. My wife, sitting in the passenger seat even commented on how poorly balanced the car felt, and that was in the first ten minutes. It was the most driver offensive thing I could imagine. What is the F/R weight ratio, 99/1 ????
No quality engineering here, let's just make it cheap!!!! Way to go GM, just a little further in the toilet.
Another case of soiling a famous name. Like the mighty Barretta, HAHA! Is it true that they paid big $$$ to use that name?
The thing I miss most about the old days and wish they'd bring back is the ability to build the exact car you wanted from the option sheet. Of course it will never happen these days because it's much more cost effective to have option "packages" and only certain ways a vehicle can be ordered. In the old days you could pick and choose at will like a stripper 427 Impala with a 4spd. An example of today's option packages is a Silverado 1500. Lets say I want the basic truck with a vinyl bench seat and rubber floor mats but I do want power windows. No can do, I must by the LS option package which contains a bunch of other stuff I don't want. It's more efficiant for the automakers, cuts costs and makes people buy options they may not want.
I loved the old way where you could factory order some pretty uniqie vehicles.
What was wild was something like a 427 Biscayne, a high-performance taxi cab. Or the '63 Pontiac Star Chief I ran across, a four door sedan with Tri-Power 421, full gauges and tach and every luxury option--and a three on the tree. You just can't get that creative these days.
But I wonder if any of those oddball cars really have a market these days, 427 Biscaynes excepted. If a special-interest car doesn't fit a certain pattern no one really wants it.
and a chrome package option at the very least. You can get those godawful GOLD packages,you can get all sorts of shiny slop to hang from SUVs and pick up trucks, but you can't even get UNPAINTED charcoal bumpers [or even silver painted ones] on cars.It's no wonder pick ups are so popular. Have you ever seen how many combinations are offered? you can get EXACTLY what you want.Plus you can get them with absolutely nothing or everything and for a lower price. More elegant seat upholstery with more colors offered than grey or beige. Would make some of these dreary exterior colors easier to deal with.Base Corolla has seats that belong in a Dentist's office, the "upscale edition" you get one pathetic seam down the middle of each seat.Might as well be stitched up out of burlap or flour sacks!!!! How about vinyl upholstery for those who don't want to pay the price of leather, but want the easy cleanablility and longevity of something like Naugahyde???? I wish for that build to order type vehicle as well.There is so much crap on these cars today [oh good grief do I sound like a geezer or WHAT?]driving up the price, someone please strip off some of that junk so we can start over!
I was looking at the dealer brochure for the Buick LeSabre last year before my Dad bought one, and I couldn't believe how few color choices there were for interior/exterior. Basically one body style, etc. No wonder they all look the same! Compare that to Buicks in the 60's, where you really had some choices, though not as much as in Chevies and Pontiacs. Why couldn't they offer a few more color choices-not even a red or yellow-and no red interiors-no convertibles, or even 2door coupes! Booorring!
Well, the LeSabre (at least the 2001) is actually kind of a throwback to the days when you did have choices. I don't have the brochure anymore but I think it had four or five interior colors including red, a color no one else offers. It probably has to do with the median age of its buyers and what they're used to--that '55 Buick they bought new had plenty of color choices. My parents bought a LeSabre too (and a '55 Roadmaster, come to think of it).
But you're right, with most cars you've got a choice of Emotionally Repressed Gray or Silent Majority Taupe, usually in a fine grade of mouse fur. Audi is the one big exception to this.
Not only did cars have a batch of colors to choose from, but there was a whole world of special order paint. Every once in a while (for example) you run into an early Camaro with a goofy paint code which was ordered with a non-Chevy color. I expect the main thing to blame is the increased automation. If your whole factory consists of people, it isn't too much trouble for the worker bees to slam on various options.
No doubt, the other major factory is the increasing hamstringing of design via regulation. Between safety, smog, gas mileages rules, etc. we are slowly limiting choices and perhaps narrowing down to a few 'spec' cars. I expect the history of general aviation has some lessons which could be applied here.
...that my grandparents got when they bought their '85 LeSabre. Just looking at the brochures (it was actually a big folder with 3 brochures), with it's myriad of color choices, seating choices, etc, sometimes I wonder how they could make a profit with all those choices. For instance, in the LeSabre that year you could get several different types of fabric, in either a solid or split bench. Then you could get a 2-way power driver's seat, or a 6-way power driver's seat, 6-way power passenger seat, power recline for the driver, passenger, or both. Then, not to mention that the seat design had to be different for the sedan and the coupe. I forget how many different color choices there were, but there were plenty of 'em! I think green was out by that year, though!
In the U.S. (one year only, I think), they built Golfs with every major panel a different color.
Any clue how that was done? My guess is that they dip the main shell one color, and paint all the other pieces off the car, mixing them up in the case of this model.
Alternately, the whole car was painted, and then a few were pulled off the line, the fenders and doors pulled, and then mixed.
Out in the weird world of VW stuff in South America, I think that both Harlequin Jettas and Harlequin Beetles (!) exist.
I expect that there's several coffee table books' worth of goofiness about VW submodels if you look into Mexico/Brazil/South America generally and South Africa. Make me think of those treasure hunts that Hot VWs magazine used to go on for NOS parts in South America. Very cool idea.
1. Pushbutton transmissions 2. Swing-away steering columns 3. Seats that pivot for easy in-out 4. Power hard tops 5. Gullwing doors 6. Engines that common folk can repair
The Rover 2000 was an interesting car in many respects..one thing they did that I thought made sense was the body! The fenders bolted on to the frame, ususllt with one bolt! This made repairs a snap-considering the high cost of body work today, this idea ought to be revived. Despite the poor quality controls, the 2000s were built like tanks, and were even quite well rust-proofed (for the 1960's).
Well of the 6 items you mentioned, 4 of them are available today:
1. Pushbutton transmissions
(Witness the trend to steering wheel shift buttons -- same basic concept but infinitely cooler)
2. Swing-away steering columns
(Several luxury makes' steering wheels swing up when you exit the car; they also have several memory settings for seat height, steering wheel position, etc.)
3. Seats that pivot for easy in-out
(Nice feature on the mid-70s Monte Carlos, but I'm not aware of any today)
4. Power hard tops
(Several models already have these, with more on the way)
5. Gullwing doors
(Lamborghini has used these for over 30 years -- actually scissor doors, which are more useful)
6. Engines that common folk can repair
(While it helps to have an engine analyzer nowadays, frequent tune-ups are no longer necessary, and if you maintain your car properly, repairs should be few and far between)
Gull wing doors and retracting hardtops seem to be two items that keep coming and keep going. It's like someone builds a car with those features and then remembers "Oh, wait, maybe this wasn't such a good idea".
Swiveling entry seats go way back to the 1930s and Hudson.
are a great idea, living as I do with an 84-year-old who finds it increasingly difficult to get in and out of a car. She had a stoke 8 years ago, and simply hasn't the strength to lift her right leg into the car anymore -- she has to use her right hand to do it.
Gullwing doors look cool but are insanely impractical. Scissor doors are a nice concept, because you don't have to worry about hitting the car next to you. Anyone who's ever owned an American coupe knows about this.......
My wife has a similar problem and basically just falls into the seat. As the population ages we may see swivel seats make a comeback.
Bring back the sport articulated seats that used to be available in the '80s Thunderbird and Mustang. I'd like to see good seats in a car that costs less than $40k. Maybe I've just looked at the wrong cars.
I hate to be categorized, but Toyota seats -- in their sportier models, at least -- tend to be very good indeed. Even the seats in my daughter's old Paseo are quite excellent. Of course, Toyota hired Recaro to design many of their seats, from what I understand, which explains a lot.
You're right, the 2002 Camry seats tied for best of all we tested but the car had just come out and had one helacious markup. That's legitimate but I wasn't anxious to pay a premium for a car that'll soon be selling below list due to the competitive market it's in. An exceptionally refined car but the timing wasn't right.
The Infiniti G20 had good seats too and since we got it for well below list (everyone does) it was a good $5k cheaper than a marked-up Camry. Of course, the Camry probably holds its value better but my wife sells her car every 15 years or so. And the G20 is fun.
Comments
I just find nothing more aggravating than having to help my power windows up when they don't feel like working, or being stuck in an uncomfortable/dangerous place when the power seats go bust. They're unnecessary.
On the other hand, a few option packages can make a low-level car a lot more liveable. The Altima they gave me was a special package with CD and lots of power options that turned a really basic car into something pleasant to drive.
Of course any car would feel like unrestrained luxury after the Metro.
Hey, those Grand Ams can be kind of spiffy. One of the first new cars I tested was a '90 Grand Am with the HO Quad 4/5-speed and I wish I'd bought it instead of the Cutlass I got rid of almost immediately.
Well, I did mainly highway driving with that Civic, and never used the A/C, because it was springtime in California, and pretty cool. I averaged about 28-29 mpg with that Civic. In contrast, I could easily get 22-23 mpg out of my Dart on the highway, even with the A/C on, despite the fact that it probably weighed about 700-800 lb more, and its automatic transmission had one less gear. And to add insult to injury, the Dart was faster, both in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. I know, I tried out the Civic ;-) Hey, it was my younger, more ignorant days... About the only thing the Civic did better was that, at say 100-110 mph, it felt a bit more stable. Also, it was quiter at those speeds, mainly because of less wind noise (but a harder-straining engine)
But anyway, I figure if a tiny car like that is only going to get about 5-7 mpg better than my Dart, but not be as comfortable or as good of a performer, what good is it? That slight mileage improvement just didn't seem worth it to me. Then again, gas was cheaper back then, and my biggest financial obligation was probably my car insurance. I might think a bit differently about it today, though!
Well, they listened, they made it, and all those people that had been whining for years, did NOT run out and buy one. It was the 318Ti. It met all of the criteria that was asked of it. And nobody bought it!!!
It was looked at by the very people that "demanded" it as "a cheap, stripped down, entry level car." EXACTLY what they asked for.
The bottom line is people as a whole want all of the options. I wouldn't buy a car unless it is loaded myself. The 60s / 70s are over...........for most of us.
Ask and you shall receive, and then realize you didn't really want it in the first place.
There's my rant. Thank you for your concern ;-)
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I could handle not having lots of torque. The Lincoln LS V6 I'm leasing now needs lots of revs but that's okay, I had plenty of torque in the GTP but the LS is better. And it gave over 20 mpg on my vacation, not bad.
I had a ride in a 318 Ti and was impressed with the overall performance and refinement but the looks turned me off--too stubby, too obviously entry-level and (for me) too young.
Once on a vacation to Yosemite I slept in the back of my '73 Ventura (Nova) hatchback. They were practical cars. Of course, that's how I hurt my back so maybe sleeping in one wasn't its best use.
I do remember those 73-74 Nova hatchbacks, one of my neighbors had one. The cool thing about those was that you really couldn't tell a hatchback from a coupe, except for the badge on the C-pillar.
It seems that if you buy a small American car, it is generally suffering from build quality problems. The medium size cars tend to have so-so build quality. The big cars have much better quality. German and Japanese cars seem to carry their quality pretty much equally throughout the size range.
For example - the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series are different sizes and different levels of luxury, but all quality cars.
Smaller American cars seem to be of inferior build quality compaired to their larger models.
One of the first modern small cars I drove was a '91 Corolla and man was I impressed with how good the car felt, how well engineered it was. It was just a low line stripper with manual steering but it felt "of a piece". You didn't get the feeling that someone in accounting said "they'll never notice if we cheapen that".
I felt that again when I drove a '93 Civic EX. Neither car was exciting, but the smoothness and evident attention to detail were truly impressive. You'd suspect that if a car maker gave that much attention to its entry-level cars that the more expensive models would be real jewels, and in fact the 2002 Camry V6 is a work of art in its own way.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
The GM car that's more in the Civic/Corolla price range is the Grand Am. I owned one and the Grand Am doesn't have that same quality feel, although it makes more of a visual statement than the Japanese sedans. Just depends on what you're looking for, refinement or styling excitement.
The closest GM came to making a small luxury sedan is/was the Olds Alero, and like the Intrigue it's apparently one of GM's better efforts. The uplevel Alero GLX probably sells for around $21k now while both the A4 and 325 start at around $27k MSRP (and at least in my area that's just the starting point).
The Alero got good reviews for its driving characteristics when it first came out. The GLX comes standard with leather, automatic and V6 so it offers more stuff for less than the Germans.
However, both the A4 and 325 have great engines and that's one of the things GM would need to have a competitive small luxury car--using a V6 that harks back to the Citation wouldn't make it. Also Alero is FWD and while the base A4 supposedly comes that way too, the local Audi dealer told me they don't sell anything but AWD.
Another example of what it takes to (not) compete with the A4 and 3 series is the Infiniti G20, a small luxury car with Euro driving characteristics and great quality but its FWD and relatively weak engine keep its transaction price in the low $20k range.
I think in the $25-30k sports sedan market GM wants to compete with the Bonneville, at least based on its brochure.
Whatever happened to the DOHC 3.4 based on the Citation engine? That was an exceptional engine with a 5-speed behind it--powerful, linear, smooth and making great noises--and very unhappy with an automatic. That would doom any GM engine of course. Maybe the gearing was too tall or it needed a looser torque converter.
In '93 I saw a new, never titled '91 Grand Prix GTP in a dealer's showroom, a very attractive car with DOHC, 5-speed, loaded. What a great driving car and yet it had sat for two years. You couldn't even finance it as a new car.
That wasn't too uncommon with GM cars in those days. I also ran across a '91 Firebird 350 that had been untitled for two years. Plenty of power but rattled like a tin can, much like the '95 I eventually bought.
I've heard that the 3.4 DOHC wasn't too reliable, compared to the pushrod version, and particularly the Buick 3.8. Once GM finally massaged the 3.8 up to around 200 hp, I think that's when they figured the DOHC 3.4 was redundant in their lineup. From 0-60, I think they performed about the same although, predictably, the 3.4 was more responsive at higher speeds.
I remember driving a Lumina Z-34 around 1993 or '94. That thing felt fast as heck!
No quality engineering here, let's just make it cheap!!!! Way to go GM, just a little further in the toilet.
Another case of soiling a famous name. Like the mighty Barretta, HAHA! Is it true that they paid big $$$ to use that name?
I loved the old way where you could factory order some pretty uniqie vehicles.
But I wonder if any of those oddball cars really have a market these days, 427 Biscaynes excepted. If a special-interest car doesn't fit a certain pattern no one really wants it.
More elegant seat upholstery with more colors offered than grey or beige. Would make some of these dreary exterior colors easier to deal with.Base Corolla has seats that belong in a Dentist's office, the "upscale edition" you get one pathetic seam down the middle of each seat.Might as well be stitched up out of burlap or flour sacks!!!!
How about vinyl upholstery for those who don't want to pay the price of leather, but want the easy cleanablility and longevity of something like Naugahyde????
I wish for that build to order type vehicle as well.There is so much crap on these cars today [oh good grief do I sound like a geezer or WHAT?]driving up the price, someone please strip off some of that junk so we can start over!
But you're right, with most cars you've got a choice of Emotionally Repressed Gray or Silent Majority Taupe, usually in a fine grade of mouse fur. Audi is the one big exception to this.
No doubt, the other major factory is the increasing hamstringing of design via regulation. Between safety, smog, gas mileages rules, etc. we are slowly limiting choices and perhaps narrowing down to a few 'spec' cars. I expect the history of general aviation has some lessons which could be applied here.
In the U.S. (one year only, I think), they built Golfs with every major panel a different color.
Any clue how that was done? My guess is that they dip the main shell one color, and paint all the other pieces off the car, mixing them up in the case of this model.
Alternately, the whole car was painted, and then a few were pulled off the line, the fenders and doors pulled, and then mixed.
Out in the weird world of VW stuff in South America, I think that both Harlequin Jettas and Harlequin Beetles (!) exist.
I expect that there's several coffee table books' worth of goofiness about VW submodels if you look into Mexico/Brazil/South America generally and South Africa. Make me think of those treasure hunts that Hot VWs magazine used to go on for NOS parts in South America. Very cool idea.
2. Swing-away steering columns
3. Seats that pivot for easy in-out
4. Power hard tops
5. Gullwing doors
6. Engines that common folk can repair
1. Pushbutton transmissions
(Witness the trend to steering wheel shift buttons -- same basic concept but infinitely cooler)
2. Swing-away steering columns
(Several luxury makes' steering wheels swing up when you exit the car; they also have several memory settings for seat height, steering wheel position, etc.)
3. Seats that pivot for easy in-out
(Nice feature on the mid-70s Monte Carlos, but I'm not aware of any today)
4. Power hard tops
(Several models already have these, with more on the way)
5. Gullwing doors
(Lamborghini has used these for over 30 years -- actually scissor doors, which are more useful)
6. Engines that common folk can repair
(While it helps to have an engine analyzer nowadays, frequent tune-ups are no longer necessary, and if you maintain your car properly, repairs should be few and far between)
Swiveling entry seats go way back to the 1930s and Hudson.
Gullwing doors look cool but are insanely impractical. Scissor doors are a nice concept, because you don't have to worry about hitting the car next to you. Anyone who's ever owned an American coupe knows about this.......
Bring back the sport articulated seats that used to be available in the '80s Thunderbird and Mustang. I'd like to see good seats in a car that costs less than $40k. Maybe I've just looked at the wrong cars.
The Infiniti G20 had good seats too and since we got it for well below list (everyone does) it was a good $5k cheaper than a marked-up Camry. Of course, the Camry probably holds its value better but my wife sells her car every 15 years or so. And the G20 is fun.