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 GM News, New Models and Market Share
8561 messages, Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 6:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 08, 2008 10:11 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 08, 2008 10:55 am) Regards, OW |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 08, 2008 8:15 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 08, 2008 10:11 am) What's with the Venza interior trim jog around the gearshift? Who designs these things? The Chevy is pretty hideous, the outside far worse than the inside.
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Nov 08, 2008 11:51 am) |
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Nov 08, 2008 11:51 am) In fact, hideous is exactly the perception after all value judgments are made in any practical buying decision considering the US products. Whether in aesthetics or fear of costly repairs or gas guzzling hell. The Venza isn't perfect but at least it won't fall apart. That's what has kept sales relatively higher for T, H, H,S and S. THe bottom line is after reading the pretty good review, they will sell a lot of these "whatever" category wagons. Actually, to think about it, GM and Toyota should talk... Regards, OW |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Nov 07, 2008 7:20 pm) Even among its GM peers, the Cutlass Supreme was probably the best. The Monte Carlo's 305, 350, and 400 smallblock were kinda junky compared to the Olds 350/403. The Grand Prix 350/400 were okay, but didn't take well to emissions controls, which could make them cranky, and let's not bring up the Pontiac 301! I think the Regal from that era was decent, but I just prefer the Cutlass, and judging from sales, most buyers back then did, too. That '91-96 era Park Ave was one of GM's better efforts from that timeframe. I remember C&D or MT giving it good press when it first came out. The tagline was "America fights back...with a BUICK?!" They liked the car overall, and said its styling was faintly Jaguaresque. The 70's is a decade that was generally reviled, but I think GM actually made some of the better cars of that timeframe. Now sure, a Vega or Chevette was crap, but so was a Rabbit, Accord, or Corolla back then. They weren't crap compared to a Chevette or Vega, but in the overall scheme ofthings, they were still crap!  I'll admit that I do have a preference for some Mopars of that era. For instance, I'd tend to prefer the Dart/Valiant to the Nova, and I'd prefer something like a '79 Newport to a '79 LeSabre. I think Chrysler did compacts a bit better than GM back then, although when the Aspen/Volare came out it leveled the playing field somewhat.  And with a LeSabre versus Newport, it's not that I think the Newport is a superior car, but just feels more comfortable and fits me better. With smaller engines, the Newport would probably be better. Slant six versus the Buick 231, or a 318 versus a Pontiac 301, I'd give the nod to Mopar. But with bigger engines, the field got leveled. The Mopar 360 was a good engine, but so was the Buick 350. The Olds 403 was still around in 1979, but I don't know if you could still get it in a LeSabre. It might have been Electra-only by then. The Newport also gave you some nice little details like extra gauges standard (temp, amps, oil pressure). I don't think extra gauges were even offered on the LeSabre, although they were on the Delta, Catalina/Bonneville, and Chevies. Oh, and windows that rolled down about 3/4 of the way in back, versus about half-way for the LeSabre. The LeSabre had better fit and finish, and was less likely to have trim parts fall off, but the Newport was more solid underneath, being based on the '71-79 intermediates rather than a whole new lightweight design, so the Newport would probably win in a demolition derby, if that's a priority for you.
|
|
|
Replying to: obyone (Nov 08, 2008 10:51 am) 350 was the dog. The 455 had just been discontinued in 1977 and the 403 took its place. Actually, the Olds 350 was pretty good in these cars. With a 4-bbl, I think it had 170 hp in most years, but the Olds 350 adapted very well to the emissions controls of the time, so it tended to perform better than, say, a Pontiac, Buick, or Chevy 350, even if they were rated at the same 170 hp. I knew a girl who had a '78 or '79 Olds 98 with a 403, and that sucker felt pretty strong. It was rated at 185 hp, but I'll say it made the most of what it had! I'm sure it would do a bit better in a '77 Cutlass, which was a bit lighter. I have a '76 LeMans with a Pontiac 350-4bbl, and it'll do 0-60 in around 11 seconds. I imagine that Olds 350 was a bit quicker in the sister Cutlass. The 403 might have gotten it down to just under 10 seconds, and the 455, which only had around 200 hp by 1976, maybe around 9? They tended to put really tall gearing in these cars, so that held them back. Even when the engines wanted to rev, the rear ends just wouldn't let them. The small engines in these cars were horrible, though! The Olds 260 V-8, which had 100-110 hp, was good for 0-60 in about 21 seconds in a '77 Cutlass! The Buick 231 V-6 would have been at least as bad. When they downsized for 1978, these small engines worked better with the cars, but were still nothing to write home about. I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme with a 231 V-6, and 0-60 came up in around 14 seconds. Better than 21+ for sure, but still a dog by today's standards! |
|
|
Replying to: jregen7243 (Nov 08, 2008 11:48 am) That's what they said about the Lexus RX, and you can see how well it has done. Reputation counts for a lot. 
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Nov 08, 2008 3:05 pm) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
