Never Buy a GM car again!

[top gun]

yea, kinda like these Chargers these day used as cop cars, and I know some use to use the mustang with the 5.0 in it loll. I saw a police chase where he was just outrunning them , and the cop with the 5.0 mustang got behind him and just yelled in horn, I have a 5.0 just pull over...and he did lol was kinda funny.

only buick I had was a 84 LeSaber, was a pile , but was a temp car for a few months after a accident totaled out my Tbird. and yes I think it was the size of a small aircraft carrier , damn huge boat lol

Hey when I rag on Andy for his Buick it isn't because I'm necessarily anti-Buick. It's because he has such an old unsophisticated car with so little modern advancements to be railing against new cars like the Honda's and Toyota's and just about everything else... like they're all pieces of unsafe junk. Hell his doesn't even have a padded steering wheel... LOL!

To me (my own personal opinion) the Buick brand is an old persons car. A lot of elderly people for some reason really like the Buick brand. I'm sure that's why it was saved over Olds and now Pontiac.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

I agree the Unions are a big part of the problem. They have wanted seats on the board and now they have them. Their ownership of GM before the payout to bond holders is illegal and un-Constitutional. Also, keep in mind that GM pads their sales numbers with fleet sales that are basically cash flow (not profit) deals.

My 2 cents

Once again... you keep talking about which cars the companies should focus on... but GM out sold everyone in the US. It was the NUMBER ONE AUTO MAKER IN THE US...........

So dump that crap mobile "they should have" blaw blaw blaw.... GM doesn't have a problem selling cars. They have a problem making money on the cars because their LABOR COSTS ARE TOO HIGH.

We've been over this a million times, and I don't know why I have to repeat it like a broken record. We don't need to talk about "well I think GM should have made the YUGO II revenge mobile, built like a GEO Metro with less power, and more plastic".....

Again.... GM is the NUMBER ONE SELLER IN THE US. They don't need your theory as to what car to make. Their cars are selling, and very well. The problem is they are not making profit, because.... THE LABOR COST IS TOO HIGH.

Now, does anyone else not understand this?

 

[asur]

Never buy a Government Motor car if you desire quality.

I will always advise my friends to buy Ford, Nissan, Honda, and other good cars, because they like to own cars they can be proud of.

If you like to own crap, buy your car from the government or GM.

 

[Jarlaxle]

to be fair if it was a 1982 buick grand national turbo or something, I would be impressed....damn fine cars lol nice car, and would be rare ( very few 82's had the turbo...its first year) though the 84 was better

The turbo 3.8 was around as far back as 1978.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Hey when I rag on Andy for his Buick it isn't because I'm necessarily anti-Buick. It's because he has such an old unsophisticated car with so little modern advancements to be railing against new cars like the Honda's and Toyota's and just about everything else... like they're all pieces of unsafe junk. Hell his doesn't even have a padded steering wheel... LOL!

To me (my own personal opinion) the Buick brand is an old persons car. A lot of elderly people for some reason really like the Buick brand. I'm sure that's why it was saved over Olds and now Pontiac.

Padded wheels were universal by the 1970's. I have a new car (2007 Dodge Magnum) and an old car (1979 Coupe de Ville) I drive regularly...the only crash survival feature the Magnum has that the CDV lacks are airbags. Both have collapsable columns, door beams (the reason the Cad's doors are so heavy), 5MPH bumpers, 3-point belts, etc, etc.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The turbo 3.8 was around as far back as 1978.

on the grand national or just the moter itself? I thought it was a 82 it came out on the GN

 

[Jarlaxle]

Not called the GN until 1982, IIRC, but I have seen a 1978 Buick Regal Turbo Sport, essentially the forerunner of the T-type. I've also seen the MUCH rarer Le Sabre Turbo.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Not called the GN until 1982, IIRC, but I have seen a 1978 Buick Regal Turbo Sport, essentially the forerunner of the T-type. I've also seen the MUCH rarer Le Sabre Turbo.

yea, the Le Sabre turbo just seems like a odd choice for anyone...most likey why you dont see many

 

[asur]

1979 Coupe de Ville will survive a crash pretty well.
Back then they were well made.

And if you hit a GM joke of a green car with it, you will
demolish the GM crap!

But a problem with GM cars now is that the quality isn't there.
Government Motors = Crap!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

1979 Coupe de Ville will survive a crash pretty well.
Back then they were well made.

And if you hit a GM joke of a green car with it, you will
demolish the GM crap!

But a problem with GM cars now is that the quality isn't there.
Government Motors = Crap!

this great post based on no facts...I would gladly take a new modern GM into a wall at 40 vs basicly any 1979 car...they are so much safer today , but you keep clinging to that......I bet you also think its unsafe to use a seatbelt cuz you could get trapped by it...

 

[Andy]

this great post based on no facts...I would gladly take a new modern GM into a wall at 40 vs basicly any 1979 car...they are so much safer today , but you keep clinging to that......I bet you also think its unsafe to use a seatbelt cuz you could get trapped by it...

Well, you do have a point, but there's a reason behind it. You are correct that there is not much, if any hard data. However their are very specific reasons for this. First, the auto industry has invested interest in not releasing information that new cars are less safe than older cars for obvious reasons. The catch phrase "twice as likely to be crushed in an accident" doesn't sell many cars.

Secondly, the testing system has changed over many years, making crash test data from 80s 70s and 60s, nearly useless to compare to other time periods.

Thirdly, the cars change sizes dramatically.

'73 Chevy Nova

'75 Chevy Nova

'85 Chevy Nova

Since all three vehicles vary in size and makeup (metal, both thick and thin, and plastics), it's very difficult to determine an actual comparison.

Fourth, the government also doesn't want to show that it's policies are making cars less safe. For this reason cars in different classes are judged differently in tests. For large cars and SUV, the requirements are more strict, while smaller cars are judged more loosely. Therefore, a car getting an "G" in the sub-compact class, is actually far worse than a car getting an "M" in the large sedan class.

 

[Andy]

Nevertheless, there are some comparisons we can make. For example:

95 Toyota Avalon

Vs.

08 Toyota Avalon

The 08 Toyota Avalon is longer.... wider... taller... has more room obviously... has a larger engine... get's less gas mileage... heavier...

And has a better rating than the smaller, lighter, shorter, better mileage car prior.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=284

In fact, as the car got larger and less mileage, the rating went up in consecutive model changes, from M (marginal) to start with, to A (Average) and finely G (good).

Similarly the Honda Accord has gotten much larger over the years, and has gotten lower gas mileage, while at the same time getting safer.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=276

This situation can be replayed many times with many models from many manufacturers.


So are older cars safer? Not inherently, no. However, there is something to be said about the strength of the material used. My 82 Buick has been hit twice, and both times left no damage to my car. Further, since I worked at a Cadillac dealership, I can tell you that there is a difference in how cars are made, that make them less strong.

For example, in order to comply with CAFE standards (something imports generally ignore), the metal was made so thin that newer model caddies has such thin roofs, that installing a sun roof, would warp the entire top of the car. As such, doing so required much more time, and cost tons more money.

Further, trucks and SUVs with lower CAFE requirements had thinker metal which allowed them to handle more abuse. A hail storm that went through years ago now, showed the difference between my fathers Tahoe, and my mothers PT Crusier. The PT was riddled with dents, while the Tahoe has no evidence at all that it had been pelted.

Routinely though, smaller cars do result in more deaths. Notice, not older cars. This doesn't make the point older is safer, but bigger is safer.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety noted in its April 14 report that "some mini-cars earn higher crash worthiness ratings than others, but as a group these cars generally can't protect people in crashes as well as bigger, heavier models." A 2002 report by the National Academy of Sciences found that, in 1993, federal fuel-economy standards resulted in 1,300 to 2,600 additional deaths per year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/31/small-cars-kill/

It just so happens that older cars are typically bigger. Yes, newer cars have some newer safety features. However, a larger vehicle will offset those safety features greatly. If the playing field was level, and an older larger car was given the same basic safety features as a newer tiny car, you would undoubtedly end up vastly safer in the older car.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Nevertheless, there are some comparisons we can make. For example:

95 Toyota Avalon

Vs.

08 Toyota Avalon

The 08 Toyota Avalon is longer.... wider... taller... has more room obviously... has a larger engine... get's less gas mileage... heavier...

And has a better rating than the smaller, lighter, shorter, better mileage car prior.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=284

In fact, as the car got larger and less mileage, the rating went up in consecutive model changes, from M (marginal) to start with, to A (Average) and finely G (good).

Similarly the Honda Accord has gotten much larger over the years, and has gotten lower gas mileage, while at the same time getting safer.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=276

This situation can be replayed many times with many models from many manufacturers.


So are older cars safer? Not inherently, no. However, there is something to be said about the strength of the material used. My 82 Buick has been hit twice, and both times left no damage to my car. Further, since I worked at a Cadillac dealership, I can tell you that there is a difference in how cars are made, that make them less strong.

For example, in order to comply with CAFE standards (something imports generally ignore), the metal was made so thin that newer model caddies has such thin roofs, that installing a sun roof, would warp the entire top of the car. As such, doing so required much more time, and cost tons more money.

Further, trucks and SUVs with lower CAFE requirements had thinker metal which allowed them to handle more abuse. A hail storm that went through years ago now, showed the difference between my fathers Tahoe, and my mothers PT Crusier. The PT was riddled with dents, while the Tahoe has no evidence at all that it had been pelted.

Routinely though, smaller cars do result in more deaths. Notice, not older cars. This doesn't make the point older is safer, but bigger is safer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/31/small-cars-kill/

It just so happens that older cars are typically bigger. Yes, newer cars have some newer safety features. However, a larger vehicle will offset those safety features greatly. If the playing field was level, and an older larger car was given the same basic safety features as a newer tiny car, you would undoubtedly end up vastly safer in the older car.

yes, but here is the problem...huge metal cars ....are very costly. Suck gas, and people just dont want them. I dive a mid size, v6 get better mpg then those big cars did in the 70's, duel airbags, computer crash sensors abs and just better design...I would take my car , over any of those in a accident, epecialy a bad one, aka car will be totaled out regardless.. fact is you can keep making those 1970s cars, and we can just go invade S. Arabia or something to keep feuling them...or we can get better mpg...also not have to wear gas masks to go to work becuse of the CO2 from the older cars with no polution standards.

and yes, very small cars can get less safe, if you also go cheap on safety fetures and poor design. and yes if you have a geo meto and you hit a Hummer, your not going to fair well....but thats always the case, if your Ford Explore gets hit by a Semi, your screwed....does not mean we should all drive semi's to work

also note that the new one, while now bigger with a 3.5 vs a 3...gets better mpg....

 

[top gun]

this great post based on no facts...I would gladly take a new modern GM into a wall at 40 vs basicly any 1979 car...they are so much safer today , but you keep clinging to that......I bet you also think its unsafe to use a seatbelt cuz you could get trapped by it...

Don't mix facts in... it only confuses them.

Seatbelts, padded dash & steering wheel, collapsible steering columns, impact bumpers, designated crumple zones, front air bags, side curtain airbags plus about 20 other things... these were all designed to make cars less safe don't ya know?

And don't let the fact that there's ALWAYS going to be something out on the road tremendously bigger and heavier than you are be it a Semi or dump truck or work truck or whatever no matter what you drive as your family car, get in the way.

And just wash your memory of the fact that growing up when American cars were almost all big boat anchors that there were super popular cars as small or smaller than today driving around just fine... MG Midget, MGB, Triumph Spitfire, Sunbeam Alpine & Tiger, VW Bug, Opel GT, Datsun 240Z, Mitsubishi Arrow, DeLorean, Chevy Chevette, Honda 1300, Honda Civic, Jaguar E Type, Porsche 356, Porsche 914, Ford Cobra, Chevy Corvette, not to mention all Alfa Romeos, Fiats and probably at least 20 or 30 more I haven't mentioned.

Just join the stuck on stupid and still in the 70's click and believe that cars getting better gas mileage along with the reams of new safety features is a horrible thing... and smaller cars are always bad and ugly.

Let's see... what do you think? I'm thinkin' I'm going with that unsafe tiny one here. How about you?

 

[Andy]

yes, but here is the problem...huge metal cars ....are very costly. Suck gas, and people just dont want them. I dive a mid size, v6 get better mpg then those big cars did in the 70's, duel airbags, computer crash sensors abs and just better design...I would take my car , over any of those in a accident, epecialy a bad one, aka car will be totaled out regardless.. fact is you can keep making those 1970s cars, and we can just go invade S. Arabia or something to keep feuling them...or we can get better mpg...also not have to wear gas masks to go to work becuse of the CO2 from the older cars with no polution standards.

and yes, very small cars can get less safe, if you also go cheap on safety fetures and poor design. and yes if you have a geo meto and you hit a Hummer, your not going to fair well....but thats always the case, if your Ford Explore gets hit by a Semi, your screwed....does not mean we should all drive semi's to work

also note that the new one, while now bigger with a 3.5 vs a 3...gets better mpg....

Plastic or Metal
There is some amount of truth that metal is more expensive, but not because of anything that had to do with metal itself. Comparatively, mining ore, smelting steal, stamping out parts, and bolting a car together, is far cheaper and less expensive than the process of using dozens of chemicals and highly specialized machines to create a plastic door.

The problem is, due to our governments regulations and controls, supposedly to help prevent the non-existant man made global warming, plus the steel workers union and government labor regulations, have caused the cost of metal to skyrocket.

Thus even though plastic is inherently more expensive, and difficult to use, it's now slightly cheaper than metal.

The problem could be eliminated by removing protectionist policies over steel. I don't see that happening. If that were to ever happen, new models would be made out of metal pretty fast, and the cost of automobiles in general, would decline.

Gasoline War Theory
The quasi-logic that keeping fueling big cars, and go invade Saudi Arabia is false. Mathematically speaking, If all vehicles were to increase their fuel mileage by 10% that would be less than 1% of the total world oil usage. In other words, it wouldn't make even the slightest difference.

Old Car MPG
You also have a typical "new cars have better gas mileage than old cars" view. This is not actually true.

This a 64 Dodge Dart, 4-door full size family sedan, with a slant-6 3.7L.

This car from 1964, was rated at 36 MPG on the highway, and around 25 city.

1966 Ford Mustang 3.2L V6.
Rated 27 MPG on the highway, and 20 round town.

And I can list a dozen cars that got better or comparable gas mileage in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, than compared to modern cars. My 82 Buick gets almost the exact same gas mileage as my 90 Lumina before it. The 82 Buick gets about 15/19, and the 90 Lumina got about 16/20.

The reason the theory that "older cars are gas hogs" persists, is because the most people bought the more powerful, faster cars. Much the same as today, people don't like driving slugs. Also, people tend to remember cool cars, that are not frugal with gas. No one remembers the pathetic K-Cars that got 30 MPG. Instead they remember the Road Runner with a monster V8 in it.

CO2
I'm amused by that statement. Do you think that older cars produce any more CO2 than newer cars, that get roughly the same gas mileage?

You do realize that an old car that burns a gallon of gas, produces exactly the same amount of CO2, as a new car the burns a gallon of gas, right? There is no magic box in new cars that reduces the amount of CO2 created when you burn any amount of fuel.

Not sure what you were talking about with that 3.5 vs 3 comment, so I'll move on.