Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?
7263 messages, Last post on May 27, 2009 at 4:31 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
With parts coming from everywhere, does "Buying American" have much meaning anymore? Is quality and price the bottom line?
|
Replying to: scape2 (Mar 20, 2006 7:28 pm) With regard to my decision about the car I bought last year, my requirements were great fuel economy (and by default lower emissions of greenhouse gases), good quality, good cargo capacity, good convenience features (not some low-end, stripped down car), and smaller in size but not teeny-tiny. Now, before I continue, I want to comment about the EPA mileage numbers because someone no doubt is going to point out that GM has "nine models that get better than 30 mpg." The EPA numbers are a joke. No one gets those numbers in real driving. The numbers are based on lab conditions and do not reflect how people really drive and do not reflect actual streets and highways. The EPA knows the numbers are misrepresentative, Congress knows it, the auto manufacturers know it, and a lot of consumers know it. However, when some members of Congress brought up the topic of requiring the EPA to change its testing procedures, the lobbyists for the auto industry fought it bitterly and prevented Congress from taking action. Before I buy a car, I want to have a reasonable idea of how many mpg I am going to get. Since the EPA numbers are useless, I go by the Consumer Reports numbers. If the CR numbers are not available, then I reduce the EPA numbers by 20%. In other words, if the EPA number is 30 mpg, I figure that the car will actually get around 24 mpg (20% of 30 is 6, 30 minus 6 is 24.) So, back to my choice, I definitely did not want a big boat car or a gas-guzzling SUV. Pretty much everything else in the GM/F/DCX line-up is going to give mid-20s or less (CR numbers or EPA reduced by 20%), and I wasn't interested in the Aveo or other cars its size. The one domestic I would definitely have looked at if it was available in the US with the engine I was interested in was the PT Cruiser with the diesel engine. DCX sells PT Cruisers overseas with a Mercedes 2.2L (I think that's the size) diesel, but they don't sell it here. I contacted DCX to see if they would be offering the car in the US; the answer I got from them was, "We have no current plans...." Based on all this, I narrowed my list down to Prius, Civic Hybrid, and Jetta Diesel. I had my concerns about VW, so I never test-drove the Jetta. The Civic Hybrid and Prius were both great cars when I test-drove them. I bought the Prius. Maybe I am in the minority of American buyers, maybe I am in the sub-minority, but those are the criteria that were important to me. Cars cost a lot of money. I sure wasn't going to settle for way less than what I wanted just to "support" Detroit.
|
|
|
Replying to: fwdbuilder (Mar 19, 2006 5:59 pm) Did you do anything with the smog controls on that engine to get that kind of fuel economy? Or any other major mods? Back in the day, I think most people were happy if they could get 9-10 mpg around town and maybe 14-15 on the highway out of something like a '73 455. I've had a lot of old cars, but ended up avoiding the 70's for the most part, until fairly recently when I bought a '76 LeMans. 350-2bbl, mildly hopped up, and it gets around 10-11 around town, maybe 15-16 on the highway. I also have a '67 Catalina convertible with a 400-4bbl that has actually done 17-18 mpg in mostly highway driving, but in local driving is more like 10. One of the most economical big cars I had was a 1979 Newport with a 318. It would get maybe 20-22 on the highway, but usually only around 13 around town. Now, these were all old cars when I got them. I bought the catalina in 1994, had the Newport from 1996-1998, and just got the LeMans last year. So maybe they did get better economy when they were new? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: clethro (Mar 21, 2006 7:45 am) If I start on level rural highway and travel at 55 I get in the 36-38 range. I've tried it on the way to the dealer and back. The DIC in the car seems to be within 1 mpg when I've matched with gas pump mileage when on trips--before someone says it's just a quirk of the DIC (driver information center) in the car. I did get 45 mpg but there was a 40-50 mph tailwind at about 30 degrees, but it was nice to pretend for that one trip, grin... Maybe the other cars have fudged the numbers with the quirky things. The EPA has been the big problem with the cars and their mileage through the last couple of decades. EPA is always adding to the expected mileage and adding safety equipment required in the cars. EPA is always wanting them to be cleaner; same effect. I don't worry about green. If the EPA really wanted to clean up they would do the trucks and factories. All they've done is bandaid on the automobiles-not trucks and on the power plants-not factories. If I want to have economy I'd buy the littler cars that get great mileage-TDI at 40-50? nice start. Nephew bought one or the little Civics with a manual for high mileage. But I like to be comfortable. |
|
|
Replying to: scape2 (Mar 20, 2006 7:28 pm) CamCords from Ohio/Ky F150's from VA Sonata's from AL Vibes from CA all should be considered first as these benefit us the most.
|
|
|
Replying to: clethro (Mar 21, 2006 7:45 am) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdhspyder (Mar 21, 2006 8:41 am) World trade is good but not if your the largest debtor nation. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Mar 21, 2006 8:20 am) If you look at the engineering journals, you'll find that the ol' Toro was at its "peak" -- everything, engine and tranny, optimized at somehting like 92 mph! I installed one of the early mpg units (within 2% accuracy) and realized while on a cross-country that it'd actually max out (mpg) when the ol' speedo meter was right around 90mph. I thought it was an error in the mpg meter until, but while doing some research, discovered the "92 mph" number. Anyway, back to the road trip, we consistantly used just under 50 gallons for the trip -- 100 gallons round trip -- we'd stop once each way to fillup. . . . and then the cotton-pick'n 55 speed limit was implemented, the greenstamp bears (PA turnpike patrol) used jeeps and all sorts of plain wrappers . . . and ultimately ended up taking us 2 to even 3 hours more!!! to make the same trip that we'd been making in 14 to maybe 15 hours. No, never got a ticket -- always ran a CB, still do (and still carry my CDL) As to modifications, I "played" with the carb from time to time -- rebuilt the Quadrajet with different primary jets and rods as well as different secondary rods, also adjusted the primary pullin piston, ran the timing up to max and have always run a parasynthetic/synthetic oil, kept a clean air filter on it (Toronado 455s had one of the largest stock air filters, and a small front scoop) also drilled all wheel bearings (F & R) for greas fittings, cleaned and then regreased with synthetic; kept Michelin (high end)tires inflated to 35psi. Also had the 2.73 (vs. 3.07) ring gear in the differential, and filled with synthetic gear lube. Ran dual exhaust with flow through mufflers -- and no resonators. Also switched over to the GM HEI distibutor & coil from the 455 that was in the 1975 Custom Cruiser. (No smog equipment/ no EGR on this 455) Used a customized bug deflector setup that covered the headlights as well -- though never did anlysis as to effect on wind resistance. Soooo when it comes to "average" mileage, we actually checked -- gas used, miles driven -- on long trips as well as shorter ones around home . . . and I always figured that at the least -- short trips and cold weather -- I never averaged less then 15 mpg. That said, I'll admit, in-town STOP n go driving might well drop me below those numbers. AND bottom-line I'm still partial to the good ol' cars that had some substance to them -- with decent BUMPERS that stand up to the occasional "Bump" without someone being pissed b/c their "bumper" paint got scuffed or worse yet, several hundereds dollars to repair! Just does NOT make any sense that they can't at least offer a real bumper for those of us who want them. FYI, as I think I mention in the first post, once I rebuilt the Toronado into a station wagon, mileage dropped about 15% -- now about 17mpg -- and still better than many of today's big SUVs! . . . and I can work on it without a ton of high-dollar scanners, etc.! (Though I still have an ol' SnapOn diagnostic scope)
|
|
|
Replying to: fwdbuilder (Mar 21, 2006 8:11 pm)
|
|
|
about the Toronado setup is that the transmission is actually beside the engine, and turned around backwards so it aims back up to the front wheels. There's a chain drive involved somewhere in the equation...I think it connects the engine to the tranny. I believe the tranny was a modified THM400. I think for the Toro/Eldo it was called the 425? While most FWD setups are fragile compared to their RWD counterparts, the Toro supposedly gave up very little in durability. The 1979-85 Toronado, although downsized, was the same basic setup, although I think in '78-80 they used a modified THM350, and from '81-85 went to a modified THM200R4 (the 4-speed automatic overdrive). In 1986 though, when they downsized yet again, they went to the more "normal" transverse engine/transaxle setup.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Buying American Cars What Does It Mean?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
