Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Newport, Oregon

Newport, OR Car Consumer Discussions

Re: 50 Worst Cars of All Time [Mr_Shiftright]

by andre1969 on Thu Nov 13 09:44:55 PST 2008

Off the top of my head, about the only car on there I'd defend would be the '71 Imperial. The writer was whining about a stupid-huge 440 V-8. But c'mon, when you're moving roughly 5,000 lb of car, would you want anything LESS?! Now Chrysler was starting to cheap out with these cars. For 1969-73, they basically took the Newport/New Yorker body and slapped an extra 3 inches of wheelbase on. All of that was ahead of the firewall, giving the car a longer hood and fenders, but no more interior room. But that's really no different than say, a Cadillac Deville versus a Buick Electra or Olds 98. Longer car, but no bigger inside, all of the extra wheelbase in some useless area. By that time though, big Mopars in general were starting to get sort of a generic look about them. You could get hidden headlights on the New Yorker, and I think they were standard on the 300. They may have been an option on the Windsor as well. You could also get them on the Plymouths, and Dodges some years. So all those clean, hidden-headlight front-ends did start looking alike, and the sides of the cars were sort of featureless. It really was getting hard to tell them apart. Even if they actually shared very little sheetmetal, the differences just weren't enough to notice. Still, it's not a car I'm going to defend to the death or anything. And I'm not gonna lose any sleep over the fact that it made some hack's top 50 worst cars list. I'm actually surprised the 1976 Volare and Aspen didn't make the list. They were a good idea, but the quality was horrible for the first year and a half. They were generally regarded as inferior to the Dart/Valiant that they replaced, but that's pretty much how the 70's worked with domestic cars...the new ones usually sucked worse than the ones they replaced! Ditto the 1980 GM X-cars. They were a good idea at the time, just executed poorly. And by the time the quality was improved, it was too late. I think I might quibble with the Cadillac V-8-6-4 from 1981. It was temperamental, but supposedly all you had to do was pull a wire or two and make it run on all 8 cylinders all the time, and it was a decent engine. If you want to pick on Cadillacs from that era, go for something with the little aluminum 4.1 V-8, or anything with a Diesel! One question about the Chrysler/DeSoto Airflow...weren't those just body-on-frame cars with radical bodies? The article's description of "aerodynamic singlet-style fuselage, steel-spaceframe construction" makes them sound unitized. Did these things really have a habit of, literally, dropping the engine?

Re: 50 billions to UAW workers? [rockylee]

by gagrice on Mon Nov 10 06:57:31 PST 2008

that a entry level job at the car plants is $14 an/hr. and ask what will that get you in Dayton, Ohio ??? A Chevy Aveo and a efficiency apartment ???? Have you followed the news on the mortgage meltdown. Not everyone can afford a home in the burbs. You seem to think a person should start at the top of the food chain. When I started in 1961 with Pacific Telephone it was near minimum wage. It took 6 years to reach the top pay as part of the Union Contract. You think a school teacher today starts at $14 per hour? Most that I know work several years as a substitute here in CA and AK. Here is what is required in CA and the current pay: CBEST (California Basic Educational Skill Test) CBEST is a requirement of the State of California, as well as the Newport-Mesa Unified School District, for someone who has not taught during the 30 months prior to new employment in a California Public School and for all out-of-state applicants. Applicants holding a valid California Credential are eligible to sign a CBEST waiver providing they supply passing results two months from the date that the next available test is given. If passing results are not received, such persons will be terminated. Information bulletins regarding CBEST requirements may be obtained from any California school district, university, college, or the Orange County Department of Education. SALARY RATE The salary rate for substitute teachers for the current school year is: * $100.00 Daily Rate * $115.00 Long Term (after 15th consecutive day-retro to 1st day) * $50.00 Half Day That is $12.50 per hour based on an 8 hour day. They are expected to do extra after school activities plus grading homework at home. If you are a good teacher and the Principle LIKES you, and he has an opening you may get hired permanently starting at about $32k per year. I doubt Michigan pays any better than CA. The Baby Boomers had a good run. It is over and you need to realize that. It is not going to get better before it gets worse.

Re: In retrospect... [imidazol97]

by andre1969 on Sat Nov 08 14:03:59 PST 2008

Actually, for its class, that '76-77 era Cutlass was probably the best car there was! Chrysler was having problems with Lean Burn and haphazard workmanship on its Charger S/E and Cordoba, and the old Torino Elite and '77-79 T-birds and Cougar XR-7's were nothing to write home about. Troublesome carburetors, grossly underpowered engines, etc. 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! :P 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. :blush: 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. :P 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.

Re: . [fintail]

by andre1969 on Fri Nov 07 15:51:33 PST 2008

That '79 Mark V would actually fit in well with my New Yorkers...they were both styled by the same people. A lot of Ford stylists jumped ship to Chrysler, before Iacocca even came over. But my attitude towards the Mark V runs sort of hot and cold. I love the icy blue '78 Diamond Jubilee that my friend has, but unless they're a nice, soothing shade of blue or the right shade of green, I lose interest. To me, the color can make or break these cars. That Bill Blass edition isn't too bad, but the midnight blue and white just seems too sharp of a contrast to me. I'd probably tolerate a Mopar R-body or '76 LeMans in just about any color, but I'm pickier with the Marks. Then there's just the issue of the size of the danged things! I think a Mark V is about 231" long...about 10" longer than my '79 NYers. While I do like big car, I think even I have my limits. If I ever get some big 70's mastodon, I think I want to go for a '71-75 GM convertible, my favorites being the '75 LeSabre, '72 Impala, and '71-72 LeSabre, in that order. Or a big 4-door hardtop, an Electra being my first choice, although I do like them all. And I do have to confess a fondness for the Toronado. I actually prefer the look of the '75-78 models with the rectangular headlights, although I miss the true hardtop styling that was offered in '71-74. And I guess a runner-up would be a big '74-78 C-body New Yorker/Imperial/Newport I really like the Plymouth Fury and Dodge Monaco 4-door hardtops of this generation, but they're almost impossible to find. They weren't popular to begin with, and were culled after 1975.. The style was popular in the Newport and New Yorker lines, but those cars were different enough from the Plymouths and Dodges that they didn't get much of an economy of scale. Even though they were all considered C-bodies, comparing the big Fury/Monaco to the Newport/New Yorker was like comparing an Impala to an Electra. Same basic underlying structure, but not much that was really interchangeable.

Re: '79 Mercedes (Mr_Shiftright) [Mr_Shiftright]

by andre1969 on Thu Nov 06 18:19:51 PST 2008

Back in 1979, it was the rare large sedan that could deliver 25 mpg. Now, even a Corvette can do that, and many good size, fast sedans can get more than that. Back in 1979, nobody would have considered that Benz to be a large sedan. At least, nobody in America. It pretty much fell in range with the cars that were marketed as compacts at the time. The EPA rated it at 96 cubic feet of interior and 15 cubic feet of trunk. That put it ahead of the Granada/Monarch and AMC Concorde. It had the same interior space as a Nova (96) but a larger trunk (Nova only had 13 cubic feet). But the Fairmont/Zephyr, Aspen/Volare, and Diplomat/LeBaron were all larger, at least in 4-door form. My '79 Newport, which had a 318-2bbl with a small throat and a tall 2.45:1 axle, would get around 22 on the highway. I wonder if there was any "true" full-sized car back then that could hit 25? The most efficient full-sized configurations I could find for 1978 (the EPA only listed combined numbers in 1979, but 1978 shows the city/highway cycles) were... 18/25: Olds Delta 88 with the 260 V-8 17/25: Pontiac Catalina/Buick LeSabre with the 231 V-6 17/24: Pontiac Catalina/Bonneville and Buick LeSabre with the 301 V-8 16/23: Olds Delta 88 with the 350 "Rocket" V-8. Oh, and any full-sizer with the 350 Diesel was rated 21/30. Those were the old fashioned, overly generous, raw laboratory numbers, though...the same ones that gave so many small cars in that era EPA ratings of 40+ and even 50 mpg.

Looking back...

by andre1969 on Thu Nov 06 13:49:05 PST 2008

It seems like I've managed to acquire a car every month. April seems to be the most popular, though. January: 1980 Malibu February: 1985 LeSabre March: 1986 Monte Carlo April: 1968 Dart, 1967 Catalina, 1967 Newport, 1976 LeMans May: 1979 New Yorker June: 1969 Bonneville July: 1982 Cutlass Supreme August: 1989 Gran Fury, 1988 LeBaron September: 1957 DeSoto, 1969 Dart October: 1985 Silverado, 1979 NYer 5th Ave November: 2000 Intrepid December: 1979 Newport I feel like I'm missing something though...