Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Dale, Wisconsin

Dale, WI Car Consumer Discussions

Re: Only second-rate countries... [lemko]

by andre1969 on Tue Nov 18 10:57:47 PST 2008

What the heck do you think they've been trying to do? What about the Malibu/Aura? What about the totally awesome new CTS? What about the Enclave, not to mention the beautiful Lucerne. I believe the Silverado is easily the nicest truck on the market. The Malibu and Aura actually have potential, but unfortunately they're late in coming, have yet to prove themselves long-term, and let's face it, people aren't going to come back to GM overnight. It's taken GM decades to lose their customer base, so it's going to take more than just one or two model years for them to get any semblance of it back. Also, while the Malibu and Aura are competitive cars, they do have some shortcomings. One problem is that they're narrow inside. The back seat probably has about 3-4" less shoulder room than the Camry, Accord, and Altima. It's still a comfy 4 seater, but 3 people in the back seat is going to be tight. That might be a concern for some people, although I can't remember the last time I've had three across in the back of any of my cars! When equipped with the 2.4 4-cyl and 6-speed automatic, fuel economy is impressive, and competes very well against the 4-cyl Camry/Accord/Altima. But with the V-6, it seems like they finally got the performance with the 3.6 DOHC, but it's a bit thirsty. The EPA rates it at 17/26, compared to 19/29 for the V-6 Accord and 19/28 for the V-6 Camry. Now the old 3.5 pushrod, which I think is still offered in some trim levels, or may be only for fleets by now, gets 18/29. So it seems with the V-6 in these GM cars, you can either get the power or the economy, but not both, like you can with the imports. So I'd consider the Aura/Malibu to finally be competitive cars, but I'm not sure I could call them class-leading. If I was in the market for a car, I'd consider an Aura. But I'd also consider the Altima, and even the new Accord is starting to grow on me. The CTS and Enclave are great vehicles, but are also niche markets, and won't be enough to save GM. As for the Lucerne, well I like it and so do you Lemko, but not too many other people care about it! You recently bought a new Cadillac, and I'm not planning on buying a brand-new car for the indefinite future, so there it probably lost its only two potential customers. :P The Silverado/Sierra might be the best truck on the market right now, but even they're not without their faults. I hear that the models that still use the 4L60E transmission still tend to eat them fairly regularly. The 4.8 and 5.3 V-8's used to have a problem with piston slap, but perhaps that's no longer an issue? And even if it's the best truck on the market, unfortunately that's also a market that's no longer very lucrative. Although with gas down below $2.00 per gallon in many places (I paid $1.879 during lunch today) it's possible that might change.

Laurel, Maryland...

by andre1969 on Tue Nov 18 10:37:07 PST 2008

$1.879 for 87 octane at a Shell station up the road. Chevron next door was the same price. I was able to fill up my Intrepid for $29.90, and it was close to sucking fumes! It has a 17 gallon tank, and it took 15.9 gallons to fill up. I checked my records, and the last time gasoline went in my Intrepid for less than $2.00 per gallon was May 30, 2005. And that time it was $1.899. The most I ever paid was $4.039, back in June and July of this year. The cheapest was $0.979, back in late December 2001.

Re: [Mr_Shiftright]

by andre1969 on Tue Nov 18 07:59:57 PST 2008

I just spec'ed out a 1982 Cimarron, for kicks. Now it has a $12,181 base price. Air conditioning, power steering, an AM/FM stereo, leather wrapped steering wheel, and twin power mirrors were standard. However, by the time I added in all the power stuff, cruise control, an automatic transmission, tape player, tilt wheel, and a sunroof, I come out with $14,103! I wonder what a comparable BMW 3-series would have cost back in 1982? Now, no self-respecting 3-series should have an automatic, so to take the automatic out of the Cimarron and make it comparable, it's at $13,733. I doubt if a 3-series was much more expensive. I guess a Benz C-class would've been up in the stratosphere, though. Cadillac did a much better job of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse, IMO, with the 1975 Cadillac Seville. While it was based on the Chevy Nova, they did a good job at hiding that fact. Plus, at least it had a bit of exclusivity with the standard fuel-injected Olds 350 V-8, something you couldn't get in any other X-car. It was also longer, had a roomier back seat, and was about 700-800 lb heavier than a Nova, so it was much more substantial. I'll have to admit though, that when I've sat in these first-gen Sevilles, I was a bit disappointed. I thought they'd be roomier and more comfy, but I guess being based on the Nova, they could only do so much with the seating position. I think all the extra room actually went into the back seat. I'd probably be happier with a '75 Dodge Dart Special Edition, although looks-wise, they're kinda dumpy compared to a Seville.

Re: [dpalka]

by andre1969 on Tue Nov 18 07:34:43 PST 2008

The Cimarron seemed like a good idea at the time. It was designed in an era where gas was expensive and relatively rare, and the EPA was breathing down GM's neck to get more fuel efficient cars out there. Plus, small upscale cars like BMW and Mercedes Benz were skyrocketing in popularity. Unfortunately, the end result was essentially a $12,000 Cavalier. Eventually they started putting Chevy V-6es in them, which made them better performers, but it was still just a gussied up Cavalier. Quality-wise, I wouldn't call them the worst car of all time. After all, it was 1982 and a lot of cars were horrible. Both foreign and domestic, truth be told, so it wasn't just the Big Three, although they certainly did take "horrible" to new heights in that era! But I think it was just a symbol of how far Cadillac had fallen. Cadillac had started slipping in 1971, and I'd say 1982 was when they hit rock-bottom. The Cimarron was crap. Anything with the 4.1 V-8 or Olds Diesel was crap, and those two engines covered just about everything else. About the only saving grace was if you bought the factory limo. It still used a Cadillac 368 V-8, and I think it was still using the beefy old THM400 transmission. It's only flaw was the V-8-6-4 cylinder de-activation, but supposedly it wasn't hard to just disconnect that. Overall, 1982 was just a horrible year for Cadillac's reputation (although at the time, they sold well in spite of the recession), and I think the Cimarron was just the "crowning glory" of that. :sick:

Re: Hallelujah! [boomchek]

by andre1969 on Tue Nov 18 07:20:30 PST 2008

thanks. As soon as I get my convertible out of the shop, the DeSoto's going in next, in an attempt to make it road-worthy again. It mainly just needs brake work, a carb rebuild, and some maintenance (belts, hoses, tuneup, coolant flush, tranny flush, etc) but I'm sure the mechanic will find other issues as he gets into it. Oh, and seatbelts. I'm going to have seatbelts put in. I was 20 when I bought this car, and back then, seatbelts didn't seem like that big of a deal. But I'm much more aware of my mortality these days, and don't feel nearly as indestructible as I did when I was 20. :P

Re: Anybody want a Mark V? [tjc78]

by andre1969 on Tue Nov 18 07:12:49 PST 2008

Am I correct that the Thunderbird also had a DJE edition as well? Yeah, I think the '78 T-bird offered a DJE edition, and then it was re-issued for 1979 as the "Heritage". One of my mother's cousins had a '79 Heritage...it was a deep burgundy with a landau top that covered the big side windows in back, leaving just the little opera windows in the "basket handle". The carpeting in the trunk was more upscale than what's in most cars today, and the carpeting in the interior was twice as nice as that! I wanted to buy it when she decided to sell it, but I was a little tight on cash at the time, and I wouldn't have had a place to store it. And it was so nice that it deserved to be garaged! I think she would've let me have it for $3000-3500. I like that icy blue that they offered on the '78 Mark V, but didn't care for that champagne color they had. What colors did they offer for 1979? I've seen that deep midnight blue, which seems really common, but I'm guessing there were a few other choices? Was the midnight blue a metallic? My '79 New Yorker is a midnight blue they called "Nightwatch", but it's a non-metallic. Probably the main reason that it's still fairly shiny after 30 years! Although when it comes to washing it, it's just as bad as black...looks dirty about 15 minutes after it dries. :mad: