Ask the Car People.SM


DMC Delorean - READ ONLY

31 messages,  Last post on Dec 22, 2001 at 10:35 AM

You are in the Classic Cars - Archived Discussions Forum.

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost In The Town Hall... discussion.

What is this discussion about? Coupe

Messages Page 4 of 4

#22 of 31 cool design, needed a bigger engine by thetrojanman03

Dec 16, 2001 (1:15 am)

I think that the DeLoreans look pretty cool, the problem was just thay they were underpowered. They only had a v6 that puts out 130 hp if I remember right. I read somewhere that DeLorean was going to make a DMC-12 with a twin turbo engine and a few concepts were made and the track results were a great improvement over the original DMC-12, but the company went out of business before they were able to sell them. I've heard some people griping about their build quality, from what I've heard they're pretty well-built cars, just have little flaws as do all cars. I don't think you can get a worse built car than any new car out on the road today. The fact is, even the newest DMC-12 is almost 17 years old, they're bound to have some problems. I think if DeLorean had gotten to produce the twin turbo DMC-12, his company would have been saved and people would be driving brand new 2002 DMC-12s.

#23 of 31 Coke? Is that the stuff you are on? by 2001diver

Dec 21, 2001 (11:48 am)

This message is for "blarg1" and other DMCphobes:
 
The majority of people who hate the car don't know the facts. The stainless steel body costs the same OR LESS to fix as any exotic cars. How much do you think it costs to fix a dent in a Countach? (It costs more than it should)
 
The DMC engine is a V6. But don't let that fool you: Lotus had a 4 cylinder for the longest time that would smoke V8s. Besides, the DMC was marketed as a touring car that would last forever... not a high performance gas guzzler. Do not put the car down. Many of its pioneering features are incorporated into every new car you see on the road.
 
Before making such outlandish statements, I would like to know if you who "put down" the DMC actually OWN a De Lorean? How do you know anything about the car... by reading low-IQ posts on the Web? Experience is the best teacher. Do I own one? Yes, I actually owned 2 at one time. They worked quite well considering they are 20 years old. How is your '81 Camaro holding up?
 
You may find more detailed info at www.delorean.org, www.delorean.com, and www.deloreanone.com.

#24 of 31 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Dec 21, 2001 (1:22 pm)

Oh, I've driven lots of them, and I feel I have a pretty good idea of what the car's "problem" is.
 
I think what killed the Delorean is that it fact that it delivered so much less than it promised.
In fact, it is not an "exotic car", it only looks like one, and that's too bad. Also, all the scandal, etc. didn't help one bit.
 
Basically the car is okay, but it's more of a minor footnote in automotive history to most people. It's not a car that's easy to get excited about. True, a Countach costs more to fix, but it will also rip your head off when you mash the gas pedal and go 200 mph. A Delorean is not in that league by about half.
 
You can see this lack of excitement at auctions particularly, where it is very difficult to sell a Delorean. There are few bidders.
 
But every old car has enthusiasts who like them, so hopefully the Delorean folks will continue to enjoy their cars.

#25 of 31 You are correct, Mr_Shiftright by 2001diver

Dec 21, 2001 (2:26 pm)

It did deliver less than it promised.
 
This car is unusual in the fact that poeple who are old enought to remember what the car promised... these are the people who usually HATE the car. The people who are too young to have experienced those promises really like the car. My sister has friends (ages 14 through 19) that go crazy when they see the car. They love it. However, the typical 30-something person on the street also goes crazy. Only they HATE the car with a passion & aren't ashamed to tell you - much like the post from "blarg1".
 
I fall into the "younger person category", missing the promises by just a few years. My first impression of the car was as an anonymous futuristic vehicle. It looks exotic, but I guess it does not fit into the "Exotic" mold (big engine).
 
Now that I think about it, there are many cars I am disappointed with today that made promises before production. For example, the New Beetle had a cool profile, a transparent roof and was to cost $13K. When it was released, they tacked on these huge bumpers, got rid of the roof idea, and bumped the price up by $9K. Ugh. History repeats itself...

#26 of 31 Some Delorean comments, Part 2 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Dec 21, 2001 (2:38 pm)

By the way, some folks may not know that the Delorean didn't have "a stainless steel body". It is a thin metal veneer over plastic panels. Think of it more like a metal-coated Pontiac Fiero in its construction.
 
One of the Delorean's biggest obstacles to success was that Lotus Engineering didn't have a clue about what was needed to mass produce a quality product. Coupling that with the inexperience of Ireland's labor force, you ended up with cars coming off the assembly line with all kinds of problems. So these issues needed to be sorted out on each and every car once it got to the US, and that ended up costing thousands per car in extra costs to make them ready for sale and of acceptable quality. Then, of course, the car did not meet the highly touted performance, price or fuel economy projections. This caused early media enthusiasm to die off pretty quickly. It wasn't the car John D had promised, not by a long shot. Publicity turned ugly.
 
The car had an enormous challenge in front of it even before the first one was built. Someone should have (and in fact did) tell John D. that his projections were way too ambitious and unrealistic, and that his car was 95% gimmicks (stainless overlay, gull wing doors) and 5% real technical breakthroughs. And with a Renault V-6 hung out past the rear wheels, the car's handling and performance simply did not justify the then considerable $25,000 price tag.
 
Only about 8,500 cars were built before the whole venture collapsed. It was a rather mad and egotistical dream for John D., since no American has successfully put his own name on a mass-produced car since 1924, when Walter Chrysler succeeded. That still holds true today.
 
Still, that he managed to get as far as he did with the project does say something for his determination.
 
Had John D. set less ambitious goals, perhaps built the car with an experienced workforce, done some further R&D before production, and installed a more powerful engine, the company may have very well survived.

#27 of 31 by ndance

Dec 21, 2001 (3:07 pm)

By the way, some folks may not know that the Delorean didn't have "a stainless steel body". It is a thin metal veneer over plastic panels. Think of it more like a metal-coated Pontiac Fiero in its construction.
______
 
I didn't know that...oof, how on earth do you fix body damage on a strange composite like that (short of either outright replacement of body panels or ...painting the car)?
 
All in all I'd rather have an Alpine.

#28 of 31 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Dec 21, 2001 (3:15 pm)

I think you can replace some of those panels outright and re-skin. I'd have to check around for the actual procedure.
 
Some people do paint their Deloreans, but if you buff them out in the recommended fashion they aren't too bad to keep up. I don't think they look all that good painted.

#29 of 31 by 2001diver

Dec 21, 2001 (3:45 pm)

The Saturn is a more accurate comparison. If you unbolt all the plastic panels from a Saturn, you can still drive it around because the panels are like an "outer skin" of the car's frame/safety cage structure and mechanics.
 
This is the same concept as the DMC. It has a sub-structure made of GRP (the predecessor to carbon fibre), that is kind of like a roll cage & frame all in one. The fenders are bolted on to that. If a fender is damaged, unbolt it pound it out and bolt it back on. The fenders use no composites... they are 100% Steel. You could actually take the panels off the car and drive it (though not legal and highly ugly)!

#30 of 31 by ndance

Dec 21, 2001 (9:39 pm)

Well,if nothing else, a bodypanel-less DMC would be quicker. Reminds me of the odd "project" car you see in Hot Rod or whatever where an old frame car (maybe a Delta 88) is lightened by removing everything (I mean everything) possible and you end up with a $300, 12-second car.

#31 of 31 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Dec 22, 2001 (10:35 am)

I think the Delorean could have handled more power just the way it was. The basic Lotus chassis was competent enough, although the engine overhang was annoying. But that could have been sorted out I think, in time, with lots of money, of which Delorean had neither.

Messages Page 4 of 4

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement