Ask the Car People.SM


Cars That Have Disappointed

57 messages,  Last post on Feb 09, 2011 at 9:34 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Chevrolet, Ford, Chrysler, Coupe, Convertible, Truck, Sedan, Wagon

Messages Page 2 of 6

#8 of 57 Re: Cars That Have Disappointed [hpmctorque] by andre1969

Oct 25, 2010 (12:59 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 25, 2010 12:54 pm)
I never drove a Cadillac with the 4.1, but I did drive an Eldorado with the 4.5 and a DeVille with the 4.9. I thought the DeVille was quite quick for a '90s car.
 
I test drove an early 80's Coupe DeVille with the 4.1 years ago, when I was looking at used cars. I never took it out on the highway though, or got into a situation where I had to floor it, so I didn't get to experience the full disappointment in all its glory. In stop and go traffic, it was fine.

#9 of 57 Re: 1980 Chevy Citation and its siblings... [andre1969] by hpmctorque

Oct 25, 2010 (1:11 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 25, 2010 12:57 pm)
Well put. Excellent designs, poor execution. The Citation and its siblings were terrible missteps for GM.
 
Similar comments could be applied to the VW Dasher and Renault Medallion. Remember those?

#10 of 57 Re: Cars That Have Disappointed [andre1969] by hpmctorque

Oct 25, 2010 (1:18 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 25, 2010 12:59 pm)
I think with the 4.1 the poor durability was the biggest disappointment. Sure, it was somewhat weak on power, but, then, it was designed for downsized FWD applications, where power expectations were relatively modest in the mid '80s. The goal was much improved fuel economy, with adequate power.

#11 of 57 Re: 1980 Chevy Citation and its siblings... [hpmctorque] by berri

Oct 25, 2010 (5:30 pm)

Replying to: hpmctorque (Oct 25, 2010 1:11 pm)
"Well put. Excellent designs, poor execution. The Citation and its siblings were terrible missteps for GM."
 
I dunno, it was better than a K car I suppose, but when I got a Toyota or Datsun/Nissan rental back then I think the only real advantage the Chevy had was interior space. Maybe it road a bit smoother, but I didn't think it drove as well overall. Frankly, I thought the J cars (Cavalier) were even worse. If they had more consistent quality I think I would go with the A Cars like Celebrity or Ciera for GM back then despite the pig iron duke.

#12 of 57 Re: Cars That Have Disappointed [andre1969] by sda

Oct 25, 2010 (6:05 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 25, 2010 12:59 pm)
I had a 1982 Buick Skylark with 2.8V6. Very pleasant car, comfortable, quiet, decent power, great a/c. Didn't rattle or squeak. It was a 100K car. At 99K the trans no longer was 'locking up', the a/c leaked freon, the rack and pinion had horrible morning sickness---it was really stiff until you forced the steering wheel back and forth and then the power steering would resume, struts/shocks were gone, etc. Still the paint, interior looked great.
 
However, my vote goes to my 98 Cadillac Catera. Again beautiful car, drove, rode great, beautiful interior, neat features, solid germanic feel. But it ate tires, brakes, went thru multiple heater valves, stuttering engine, check engine light triggered at least monthly. Dealer was very sympathetic. Seemed like I had a loaner atleast every other month. After 1 year and 13 unscheduled dealer visits I sold it. Then I bought a new VW VR6. What was I thinking??

#13 of 57 Re: Cars That Have Disappointed [sda] by lemko

Oct 26, 2010 (9:49 am)

Replying to: sda (Oct 25, 2010 6:05 pm)
My local mechanic was just talking about a lady who brings a Catera in all the time. He says it's a nightmare to work on account of all the Opel pieces. My wife wanted a Catera in Wedgewood Blue, but I nixed that because the Catera would sour her on Cadillac and probably make her think I was nuts for having two myself. Cadillac had a long, hard road to bring a decent small car to market. This is my baseball analogy:
 
Cimmaron: STRIKE ONE!
Catera: STRIKE TWO!
1st Gen CTS: Double
2nd Gen CTS: HOME RUN!!!

#14 of 57 Re: Cars That Have Disappointed [lemko] by fintail

Oct 26, 2010 (10:41 am)

Replying to: lemko (Oct 26, 2010 9:49 am)
Speaking of Caddy, I saw an oddity for sale. 07 STS-V, claims to have every option and an original sticker over 100K. Ad reads "low miles", but doesn't give a number. Dealer wants 31K for it, which is depreciation much worse than even a German car. Probably a fairly cool machine.

#15 of 57 Re: Cars That Have Disappointed [fintail] by lemko

Oct 27, 2010 (10:58 am)

Replying to: fintail (Oct 26, 2010 10:41 am)
Trouble with the new STS is that it looks too similar to the CTS and costs at least half again as much. I would've purchased a new STS instead of a DTS if they had kept the car similar in size to my 2002 Seville STS. I imagine that STS-V is a brutally fast car! I believe both the DTS and STS will be replaced by the XTS in a few years.

#16 of 57 Re: Cars That Have Disappointed [lemko] by fintail

Oct 27, 2010 (12:10 pm)

Replying to: lemko (Oct 27, 2010 10:58 am)
Yeah, it's a bland looking thing, and even like the car I saw in black with chrome wheels, doesn't really excite. Maybe not bad to drive though, one could probably even get the price down a little more...lots of bang for Camcord money.

#17 of 57 Alliance......Car of the Year! by toomanyfumes

Oct 27, 2010 (3:26 pm)

My dad bought a new Renault Alliance in around 1984. Car of the year and it was built in Kenosha near where we lived and where my uncle's worked.
 
After about a year the tranny was slipping, the rear brakes were shot and it was traded on a Plymouth Turismo.
 
On a side note, the Kenosha AMC plant became a Chrysler engine plant when they bought AMC, it shut down this week ending a long period of Auto manufacturing in Wisconsin. (Two GM plants, one in Janesville and one in Oak Creek closed in the last few years.

Messages Page 2 of 6

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement