Random Thoughts Thread

[surreal1272]

55 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

the late 00s were a low point for Chrysler interiors...they were dreadful across the board...cheap, hard gray plastic.  It's like Daimler did everything to the lowest possible cost as far as interiors. 

They sure did and it almost turned me away from buying my Magnum. One test drive changed my mind though. You take the really good with the horrible Daimler cheapness bad. 

[Robert Hall]

9 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

They sure did and it almost turned me away from buying my Magnum. One test drive changed my mind though. You take the really good with the horrible Daimler cheapness bad. 

I liked the Magnum, wish they had done a 2nd Gen with ‘11+ Charger front and interior.   
I remember looking at the WK ‘05 Grand Cherokee and thinking they had cheapened the interior compared to my ‘00 WJ.   I didn’t like the design or the interior materials of the WK. 

[surreal1272]

25 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

I liked the Magnum, wish they had done a 2nd Gen with ‘11+ Charger front and interior.   
I remember looking at the WK ‘05 Grand Cherokee and thinking they had cheapened the interior compared to my ‘00 WJ.   I didn’t like the design or the interior materials of the WK. 

I won’t lie. I would have been all over a 2nd gen Magnum but sadly, we live in America where the word “wagon” is apparently a naughty word. 

[balthazar]

3 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

There is substance to it and there is truth to it whether you want to acknowledge that or not. 

Wait.... is it truths, or 'opinions, nothing less, nothing more'???

[surreal1272]

24 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Wait.... is it truths, or 'opinions, nothing less, nothing more'???

It can be both and for different reasons. It is the truth that GM has lagged in the interior department for decades. It’s opinion to say a dash feels greasy. This is not a one or the other situation here. 

[G. David Felt]

5 hours ago, balthazar said:

It's a photo of a print photo laying on a table.

Did not think about that, so used to digital photo's posted now that I actually zoned on being a picture of a picture. LOL

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

It can be both and for different reasons. It is the truth that GM has lagged in the interior department for decades. It’s opinion to say a dash feels greasy. This is not a one or the other situation here. 

Will agree that GM lagged behind the others but for me, it was a greasy fast food approach I feel to how they did their interiors.

Rat Fuzz Interior roof liners comes to mind of how I remember reading plenty of reviews.

[daves87rs]

Looks like I am in for a fight…might have to battle to keep my lease. I keep getting letters to get my Nox pre inspected before the lease turn in. This particular letter takes out the idea of “choice” I get the feeling GM financial is going to try to avoid folks purchasing since they will have very few new cars to sell for the holidays. Making sure my salesperson knows that is is being bought…think he will have better luck than I……

[oldshurst442]

11 minutes ago, daves87rs said:

Looks like I am in for a fight…might have to battle to keep my lease. I keep getting letters to get my Nox pre inspected before the lease turn in. This particular letter takes out the idea of “choice” I get the feeling GM financial is going to try to avoid folks purchasing since they will have very few new cars to sell for the holidays. Making sure my salesperson knows that is is being bought…think he will have better luck than I……

Ive never leased...so, Im asking.

GM could refuse to sell you your leased car?    Force you to lease/buy a new one?

 

 

[balthazar]

Going thru stacks of paper, here's a prime bit of why I rail against auto journalism as a reflex reaction. And of course you know I always take into consideration the context (or here; the era context):

Road & Track, 1963 Karman Ghia 4-spd manual road test ~
"Few changes have been made other than the usual and expected refinements... Most important was the change in 1960 from 36(!!!!!!!) to 40(!!!!!!!) bhp, a seemingly(!!!!!!!) insignificant amount when viewed as only a 4 horsepower gain, but it represents an 11% increase, which made the difference between barely adequate performance and that which is very satisfactory."

You've already read the HP numbers, and there's no way you can agree with 'seemingly'... but let's see what this "very satisfactory" performance actually is.

0-60 : 30.0 secs
1/4-mile: 22.7 @ 55 MPH
top speed : 75.8 MPH

[Robert Hall]

Consider the context, though..that was Road & Track...Road & Track writers favored sports cars, which then were small European cars that were underpowered compared to the massive US cars of the era.  Triumphs, MGs, Porsche 356s, Austin Healeys, etc were the kinds of cars their writers favored, and sports cars of that era weren't known for being fast, but were known for handling.   While at the time American cars were massive and known for V8s and acceleration but not for handling. 

[surreal1272]

25 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

Consider the context, though..that was Road & Track...Road & Track writers favored sports cars, which then were small European cars that were underpowered compared to the massive US cars of the era.  Triumphs, MGs, Porsche 356s, Austin Healeys, etc were the kinds of cars their writers favored, and sports cars of that era weren't known for being fast, but were known for handling.   While at the time American cars were massive and known for V8s and acceleration but not for handling. 

He also needs to consider that I am not just basing my argument from the opinions of journalists. He is also getting hung up on the one and only negative thing I've said about GM and that is their proven cheap looking interiors. I said what I said and I stand by it, end of story. At least GM finally had the good sense to recognize what damn near everyone else already knew.

 

And it's not a "reflex reaction" @balthazar if they make pretty much the same basic criticism for the last thirty plus years. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by surreal1272

[oldshurst442]

But...I too have a problem with creative language automotive journalism.

ALWAYS looking at context. 

1. While its true that European (sports) cars were "underpowered" but handled and American cars were "too heavy",  "large" but fast. 

2. The thing is, American automotive journalism ALWAYS knocked American cars with this creative nonsensical creative journalism and propped up in the same manner and language the Japanese and European counterparts.  

I wanna know why American automotive journalism did this?

To KNOCK your own industry while prop up the foreign. 

 

We ALL know why European cars were underpowered while American cars were V8 rocket ships.

We ALL know why European cars handled and why American cars, well,  favored a more relaxed, cushy highway ride.

But I will state the reasons why:

1. In Europe, after WW2, infrastructure had to be rebuilt. Gasoline and materials had to be rationed for the rebuilding of the destroyed cities. Roads. Buildings. Bridges. etc.

2. Although there was plenty of jobs in construction, Europe's economy stank more or less, give or take, from 1945-1985.  Some countries LONGER than that. 

3. European countries are old. The roads, even if they were destroyed and had to be built up again, with the buildings being raised up again, the blueprints were already there for thousands of years. The countries, cities, towns and villages were grown with bi-pedal humans and donkeys and horse and buggy.  Plus, many European cities and towns and villages are on MOUNTAIN SIDES.  Tight little twisting roads where a small miscalculation in driving perception equals death.  

4. In this same time frame, the US experienced a MASSIVE economic boost.  

5. Although some cities were also built on the same premise of bi-pedal humans and horse and buggy, that would be the founding and settled parts of these cities. The cities GREW in this time frame but grew with the AUTOMOBILE in mind.   The cities and towns for the MOST part are built on nice, huge, LONG and STRAIGHT roadways. 

6. The US now experienced a new age. A continuation of the industrial age, but with the automobile as the prime source of transportation.

7.   Why American cars were big and European cars were small. Why American cars were V8 powered and European cars were and STILL are displacement challenged and why American cars were cushy while European cars HAD to handle seem like a no-brainer to me.

8. Its THOSE reasons why a certain car culture arose in the US.

9. We all like to believe there was a car culture in Europe after WW2, but there really wasnt.

10. European car manufacturing FOR Europe was geared towards small, economical shyteboxes.

11. European car manufacturing for America were those "great" handling sporty cars... 

10. So why did American automotive journalism NOT knock them for being UNDERpowered since American car tastes were, well, street light to street light racing...

11. Why didnt American automotive journalism NOT knock European cars for being so freaking small, uncomfortable and useless for LONG road trips?

12. Lets NOT forget we still hold THAT  as a top priority as there is a quite a large subset of  American citizens TODAY bitching about electric car range anxiety for the aforementioned and famous American road trip.

13. Although American cars DID become shytty with their cars. Crap interiors. Less reliable.  In that SAME time frame, European cars were NO BETTER. Actually, they were WORSE.

 

So why the creative language?  Especially the knocking of American cars but prepping up European ones? 

I am with Balthy on this one. 

 

[Robert Hall]

It's a good idea that GM is going with a more upscale interior for the higher priced trucks, I know if I were shopping a $50-75k pickup I wouldn't want the same Rubbermaid interior as a $25k work truck..something costing 2-3 times as much needs an appropriate interior for it's price point.   

[oldshurst442]

19 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

He also needs to consider that I am not just basing my argument from the opinions of journalists. He is also getting hung up on the one and only negative thing I've said about GM and that is their proven cheap looking interiors. I said what I said and I stand by it, end of story. At least GM finally had the good sense to recognize what damn near everyone else already knew.

 

And it's not a "reflex reaction" @balthazar if they make pretty much the same basic criticism for the last thirty plus years. 

 

Ad nauseam. 

And sometimes, for NO reason at all.

But yet, the SAME scrutiny and criticism was and is not reciprocated against the European and Japanese cars.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a37444029/2021-maserati-ghibli-trofeo-is-not-german-in-every-way-it-should-be/

 

This particular Ghibli – the M157 – has been around since 2013 and the only reason it’s not more familiar is that so few are sold. Remember, the low-spec E-Class is used as a taxi in Germany. BMW 5-Series are cop cars. The Ghibli is not a cab.

 

It took 20-30 years for Road&Track to criticize this way.  But then again, two Euro cars are being talked about... When a 2021 Cadillac Blackwing  CT5-V is gonna be written about, a Mercedes E class is NOT gonna be criticized in that way...

I wonder if greasy and sweaty will be used describing an American product? 

All is fair in love and war, I guess... 

 

[Robert Hall]

15 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

But...I too have a problem with creative language automotive journalism.

ALWAYS looking at context. 

<lots and lots of blathering>

 

One thing to keep in mind, is enthusiast magazines target a specific demographic.  There was a group of Americans that loved tiny European sports cars in the 50s-60s.   They often were into road racing and raced their cars on weekends.. They read Road & Track.  There were the 0-60 drag racing and wrenching crowd that favored big engined Detroit cars..maybe they read Hot Rod.  There were the customizers and hot rod crowd that was a big subculture in the 50s-60s.  And Motor Trend and other magazines tried to cover a vast range of mainstream consumers.   Lots of different sub niches.   The American car scene wasn't monolithic then nor is it today. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

7 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

It's a good idea that GM is going with a more upscale interior for the higher priced trucks, I know if I were shopping a $50-75k pickup I wouldn't want the same Rubbermaid interior as a $25k work truck..something costing 2-3 times as much needs an appropriate interior for it's price point.   

It’s not ‘Rubbermaid’ tho- it’s not all hard plastics- door panels, dash top, console top are all nicely-grained soft padded material. It’s not the ‘80s inside, and it’s not the early ‘00s either. Your impression is outdated.

[Robert Hall]

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

It’s not ‘Rubbermaid’ tho- it’s not all hard plastics- door panels, dash top, console top are all nicely-grained soft padded material. It’s not the ‘80s inside, and it’s not the early ‘00s either. Your impression is outdated.

Good.  My frame of context for late model trucks I’ve driven were hard despair gray plastic inside (2010-ish F150 and 2015ish Chevy Express UHaul van).   

[oldshurst442]

20 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

One thing to keep in mind, is enthusiast magazines target a specific demographic

LOL  (sarcastically) 

So...Road&Track were smitten by underpowered European econoboxes while the rest of America prefered these

from the early 1950s

 

to the mid 1950s

 

and eventually to these

20 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

There was a group of Americans that loved tiny European sports cars in the 50s-60s.

Like I said....the OVERWHELMINGLY demographic of what cars were enthused by Americans was these:

 

It was a VERY tiny subset of Americans that preferred British roadsters.

Yes...Hot Rods and the Chevrolet Corvette arose from that subset. But QUICKLY became what I posted above...

Why?

Quote

<lots and lots of blathering>

 

But read it ANYWAY

1. In Europe, after WW2, infrastructure had to be rebuilt. Gasoline and materials had to be rationed for the rebuilding of the destroyed cities. Roads. Buildings. Bridges. etc.

2. Although there was plenty of jobs in construction, Europe's economy stank more or less, give or take, from 1945-1985.  Some countries LONGER than that. 

3. European countries are old. The roads, even if they were destroyed and had to be built up again, with the buildings being raised up again, the blueprints were already there for thousands of years. The countries, cities, towns and villages were grown with bi-pedal humans and donkeys and horse and buggy.  Plus, many European cities and towns and villages are on MOUNTAIN SIDES.  Tight little twisting roads where a small miscalculation in driving perception equals death.  

4. In this same time frame, the US experienced a MASSIVE economic boost.  

5. Although some cities were also built on the same premise of bi-pedal humans and horse and buggy, that would be the founding and settled parts of these cities. The cities GREW in this time frame but grew with the AUTOMOBILE in mind.   The cities and towns for the MOST part are built on nice, huge, LONG and STRAIGHT roadways. 

6. The US now experienced a new age. A continuation of the industrial age, but with the automobile as the prime source of transportation.

7.   Why American cars were big and European cars were small. Why American cars were V8 powered and European cars were and STILL are displacement challenged and why American cars were cushy while European cars HAD to handle seem like a no-brainer to me.

8. Its THOSE reasons why a certain car culture arose in the US.

9. We all like to believe there was a car culture in Europe after WW2, but there really wasnt.

10. European car manufacturing FOR Europe was geared towards small, economical shyteboxes.

11. European car manufacturing for America were those "great" handling sporty cars... 

10. So why did American automotive journalism NOT knock them for being UNDERpowered since American car tastes were, well, street light to street light racing...

11. Why didnt American automotive journalism NOT knock European cars for being so freaking small, uncomfortable and useless for LONG road trips?

12. Lets NOT forget we still hold THAT  as a top priority as there is a quite a large subset of  American citizens TODAY bitching about electric car range anxiety for the aforementioned and famous American road trip.

13. Although American cars DID become shytty with their cars. Crap interiors. Less reliable.  In that SAME time frame, European cars were NO BETTER. Actually, they were WORSE.

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

Consider the context, though..that was Road & Track...Road & Track writers favored sports cars, which then were small European cars that were underpowered compared to the massive US cars of the era.  Triumphs, MGs, Porsche 356s, Austin Healeys, etc were the kinds of cars their writers favored, and sports cars of that era weren't known for being fast, but were known for handling.   While at the time American cars were massive and known for V8s and acceleration but not for handling. 

I stated right up front I was considering the context / the era this was in. I stated it, and I always do. 
That rides right on the back of folks commenting "A V-6 Camry is quicker to 60 than a lot of muscle cars from the '60s". That's blatantly out-of-context.

And in that same vein of context, this is not comparing a -say- Triumph to a -say- Olds Vista Cruiser. The issue was the '1963 Road & Track Sports & GT" issue; there aren't any "massive" US cars in it.

My issue is that nearly unilaterally, cars that aren't even CLOSE to 'not known for being fast' are in fact dismally & unbelievably slow- you're not going to enjoy the handling of anything that takes 30 seconds to reach 60- you can't even power thru a sweeping turn when you can't even gain 5 MPH doing so. 

Robert- I'm sure you've read a comment or two that the first gen Corvette 'wasn't really a sports car performance-wise', yet despite a full decade disadvantage, it's three times quicker than the Karman Ghia. 

A Chevette diesel ran 0-60 in 22 seconds!

I guess what bothers me most is the unilateral acceptance. These cars were (mostly) sold in the U.S., but it's really hard to find any objective criticism in this issue of them, when they're not fitting for ANY on-road sporting activity. There's a reason almost all of the brands in the book are long dead.

[Robert Hall]

3 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I stated right up front I was considering the context / the era this was in. I stated it, and I always do. 
That rides right on the back of folks commenting "A V-6 Camry is quicker to 60 than a lot of muscle cars from the '60s". That's blatantly out-of-context.



A Chevette diesel ran 0-60 in 22 seconds!

I wonder how fast my diesel Escort was.  It did get 55mpg Highway, though. 

[surreal1272]

45 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

But yet, the SAME scrutiny and criticism was and is not reciprocated against the European and Japanese cars

Which does not change my statement about GM interiors over that same period. I know European cars were s*** in that regard but this whole discussion started with the new interior of the upcoming Chevy Silverado. Not BMW. Not Mercedes. Not Audi. Not anything else. Just Chevy (and by extension, GM). Everything else mentioned afterwards was deflection and cherry picking like I was talking to SMK and I'm not taking that bait. Folks need to just settle down and pay attention what was actually said from the start instead of assuming intent halfway through said discussion.

16 minutes ago, balthazar said:

"A V-6 Camry is quicker to 60 than a lot of muscle cars from the '60s". That's blatantly out-of-context.

But it was still a fact to point out how far power has come over the last five decades. It's really that simple. If you're going to assume that everything is just negative thinking, then that's all you're going to get.

Edited September 13, 2021 by surreal1272

[oldshurst442]

17 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I guess what bothers me most is the unilateral acceptance. These cars were (mostly) sold in the U.S., but it's really hard to find any objective criticism in this issue of them, when they're not fitting for ANY on-road sporting activity.

 

After reading this sentence, I came to realize this is my exact issue as well.  From the automotive magazines comparing and contrasting and describing these cars to my idiot Greek friends that praise European cars blindly,  to the accepting universally that American cars equal junk anywhere we go whether we are in Europe or in North America and we FAIL to put ANYTHING in context and we ABSOLUTELY fail to remember how really shytty European cars were and STILL are... 

 

[surreal1272]

@oldshurst442--Read this quote and tell me that wasn't criticism of European cars back then.

 

Given how beloved the E30 is now, it's hard to believe that when the second-gen BMW 3-series launched, it was received with critical apathy.

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a28938639/what-to-buy-1987-1993-bmw-325i/

 

 

Sometimes we see only what we want to see because our bias won't let us see anything else. We also seem to forget the absolute &#036;h&#33; that was the 1980s domestic car market. The reason why the Europeans were getting praise at the time was because companies like Cadillac and Lincoln were producing utter garbage without any focus on things like performance (which was a focus for the Germans then, whether you want to admit it or not) during that time. Name one Cadillac or Lincoln that was being mentioned in the same breath as say, the first M3 or Benz AMG? Don't get me wrong. You could not give me ANYTHING from that era that didn't say "Buick GNX". The Germans, for all the praise heaped upon them at the time, were unreliable and notoriously temperamental. That again, does not change the fact that the domestics were even were in some regards. That is just a simple fact and we should be thankful that is no longer the case.

 

End rant.

 

 

[balthazar]

7 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Sometimes we see only what we want to see because our bias won't let us see anything else.

Automotive Journalism 101.

[oldshurst442]

@surreal1272

To clarify then:

@Robert Hall  said that Road&Track catered to a demographic that preferred small, road hugging European cars over large, American cars.

 

I get that.

I really do.

There is a quality of ride and sportiness to being small and nimble to which American GIs got experience over in Europe during the war and craved that coming back home after the war. 

This is where my pic of a Hot Rod Ford comes in as this is what these GIs did to replicate what they saw in Europe. 

And then the muscle car era came upon us when these Hot Rods evolved into what the Detroit 3 noticed what was happening on the strip and street etc...

And you cant deny that fact...

The list is a very accurate way of explaining to why cars after the war were.  Small European cars were always a thing. Big large American cars were always a thing too.  Large European cars also existed before the war. After the war, well...read the list...

But...in CONTEXT:

32 minutes ago, balthazar said:

My issue is that nearly unilaterally, cars that aren't even CLOSE to 'not known for being fast' are in fact dismally & unbelievably slow- you're not going to enjoy the handling of anything that takes 30 seconds to reach 60- you can't even power thru a sweeping turn when you can't even gain 5 MPH doing so. 

Balthy ALSO described this "sporty phenomenon" in another point of view that some of us FAIL to recognize or even ACKNOWLEDGE...

So there is that...

But...Im not the one to diss different car cultures.

THIS is about automotive journalism.  

22 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Which does not change my statement about GM interiors over that same period. I know European cars were s*** in that regard but this whole discussion started with the new interior of the upcoming Chevy Silverado. Not BMW. Not Mercedes. Not Audi. Not anything else. Just Chevy (and by extension, GM). Everything else mentioned afterwards was deflection and cherry picking like I was talking to SMK and I'm not taking that bait. Folks need to just settle down and pay attention what was actually said from the start instead of assuming intent halfway through said discussion.

And I realize that!  Ill agree with you with your statement here!

I have issues with the hypocritical automotive journalism along with the hypocritical opinions of certain anti-American car sentiment car folk that I know personally in my real life.  

 

 

[surreal1272]

8 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Automotive Journalism 101.

That issue is not unique to just journalists. That has been proven in spades here. 

[oldshurst442]

19 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

@oldshurst442--Read this quote and tell me that wasn't criticism of European cars back then.

 

Given how beloved the E30 is now, it's hard to believe that when the second-gen BMW 3-series launched, it was received with critical apathy.

 

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a28938639/what-to-buy-1987-1993-bmw-325i/

 

 

Sometimes we see only what we want to see because our bias won't let us see anything else. We also seem to forget the absolute &#036;h&#33; that was the 1980s domestic car market. The reason why the Europeans were getting praise at the time was because companies like Cadillac and Lincoln were producing utter garbage without any focus on things like performance (which was a focus for the Germans then, whether you want to admit it or not) during that time. Name one Cadillac or Lincoln that was being mentioned in the same breath as say, the first M3 or Benz AMG? Don't get me wrong. You could not give me ANYTHING from that era that didn't say "Buick GNX". The Germans, for all the praise heaped upon them at the time, were unreliable and notoriously temperamental. That again, does not change the fact that the domestics were even were in some regards. That is just a simple fact and we should be thankful that is no longer the case.

 

End rant.

 

 

From the September 2019 issue of Car and Driver.

 

Problem is...in the 1980s, Car and Driver and everyone else ONLY crapped on American cars. NOT on the E30...  

Because it wasnt crapped on.  The E30 in the US was ALWAYS revered.   

Just pick up any mag that compares a Cimarron to an E30.

The Cimarron was NOT the ideal car for Cadillac. But taken one on one forgetting that the Cimarron was also a Chevrolet, which wasnt that bad of a car in realty, the Cimarron comoared to the E30 was on PAR with the E30.

What?  

RWD versus FWD?

With an E30 that had aprox the same HP? 

They also forgetting to mention that the E30 was SHYTTIER than the Cavalier in Europe?

 

My dad owned a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity. I learned to drive in that car...

@balthazar showed me where the Celebrity was quicker and faster than a 1986 Audi 5000.

I too, was under the impression that the Celebrity was a dog as compared to the German competition. 

Yeah...a Celebrity being competition, if you could call it that to an Audi 5000.  

And that is thanx to  American automotive journalism where my perceptions were corrupted by that drivel...

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by oldshurst442

[Robert Hall]

There are many things. 

[surreal1272]

1 minute ago, oldshurst442 said:

Problem is...in the 1980s, Car and Driver and everyone else ONLY crapped on American cars. NOT on the E30...

The above quote I pulled suggests otherwise. You also, again, have to consider context. For all of their flaws, they were built with a purpose, which was mostly performance, while companies like Cadillac and Lincoln seemed to have no purpose at that time. It was a sad time for both companies. 

[oldshurst442]

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

The above quote I pulled suggests otherwise. You also, again, have to consider context. For all of their flaws, they were built with a purpose, which was mostly performance, while companies like Cadillac and Lincoln seemed to have no purpose at that time. It was a sad time for both companies. 

I had editted and added a few things to that:

Edited part:

Problem is...in the 1980s, Car and Driver and everyone else ONLY crapped on American cars. NOT on the E30...  

Because it wasnt crapped on.  The E30 in the US was ALWAYS revered.   

Just pick up any mag that compares a Cimarron to an E30.

The Cimarron was NOT the ideal car for Cadillac. But taken one on one forgetting that the Cimarron was also a Chevrolet, which wasnt that bad of a car in realty, the Cimarron comoared to the E30 was on PAR with the E30.

What?  

RWD versus FWD?

With an E30 that had aprox the same HP? 

They also forgetting to mention that the E30 was SHYTTIER than the Cavalier in Europe?

But you did counter with this:

4 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

For all of their flaws, they were built with a purpose, which was mostly performance, while companies like Cadillac and Lincoln seemed to have no purpose at that time. It was a sad time for both companies

 Only partly true for the E30. Only the "M" E30 was truly performance oriented. But I will relinquish the debate as there is merit to RWD versus FWD whether FWD drivers want to admit to it or not. Including myself.

 

And yeah, Lincoln and Cadillac did NOT have the right engineering done to their cars to counter the new definition of luxury.

But, in context, what they did give us in the 1980s was not bad.  It wasnt the European definition of what yuppie money, cocaine fueled Wallstreet types demanded from luxury. 

Lets not forget though. The dinosaur big American RWD land yacht luxury was still selling more than the European sport sedan luxury car well into the mid-1990s. 

So much so that Mercedes Benz was lost in that they didnt know what direction THEY wanted to go. Rival BMW or rival Lincoln/Cadillac and the new comer Lexus.

Ditto for Audi... 

 

[oldshurst442]

@Robert Hall

I know you hold the E30 Bimmer on a very high pedestal.  Sure...  In guess.  Whatever.  

But you also hold an Audi 5000 to that same high pedestal?  While probable dissing on the FWD GM A platform?

Sure, you could do that too.  

But the Chevrolet Celebrity, even in the laughable Eurosport trim, the Pontiac 6000, Oldsmobile Cutlass Cierra and Buick Century were really good cars. Held there own...

The Audi 5000 was really not that special. The only special thing about it was because it was made in Germany?

THAT is the laughable part. 

It was the same type of  FWD appliance car that you like to diss as the GM A platform cars.

What Quattro?

Yeah yeah yeah

It was "winning" rallye races...

I guess THAT was the marketing angle that Audi was peddling and the automotive journalism world was spewing...

Oh...

GM had an answer to that, but I guess it wasnt German and it wasnt winning rallye races to count as something good...

 

But at least the GM cars were not accelerating by themselves...

But I guess we will say that that story was not true though. We will just continue to bash GM cars from this era just because its a better storyline to cling on to. 

[oldshurst442]

Exactly...

[Robert Hall]

80s GM transverse engine FWD models are best forgotten.  A bunch of boring look alike appliances.  Same with the Chrysler K cars and Ford FWD of that era. (The Taurus SHO was interesting, though).  I would always take RWD over FWD, that’s just my preference.   
 

As far as Audi using race wins to advertise their Quattro models, that’s nothing new. All automakers have used motorsports victories in advertising.  Ford has done it.  GM has done it.  

Edited September 13, 2021 by Robert Hall

[balthazar]

^ Or you could go with Pontiac & get AWD.

[Robert Hall]

Just now, balthazar said:

^ Or you could go with Pontiac & get AWD.

They sold maybe 1000 of those?  It was interesting, but a flop.  

[oldshurst442]

Quote

RWD over FWD, that’s just my preference.   

Mine too.   

But I wouldnt necessarily choose RWD over FWD. 

But comparing FWD to FWD...

The Audi 5000 was nothing special as compared to the GM A platform cars. 

Not the interior. Not the fit and finish.  

Reliabilty?

The GM cars were actually rock solid. Even when powered by the Iron Duke.  Not so much for the Audi 5000. 

The 2.8V6 models were even faster than the Audi... 

But when we are talking about appliance vehicles...whether FWD or RWD. There is no much difference other than RWD versus FWD.

EVEN in the US, an American spec E30 325 is still an econobox  because in EUROPE its an econobox no different than what we see here in the US...

This 4 door Pontiac Lemans meant for average American hauling their families

Appliance...

 

is not this version of it

 

let alone this one

 

9 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

but a flop.  

 

So was the Audi 5000 tho...

Edited September 13, 2021 by oldshurst442

[G. David Felt]

Interesting read on Toyota and Honda response to the new EV Tax Credit that is being considered.

Toyota, Honda strenuously oppose U.S. House Dems' EV tax-credit plan (autoblog.com)

[G. David Felt]

WOW, Crazy money being spent on 1987 IROC Z/28 with only 2,000 miles.

Don't Panic, but Someone Just Paid $56,000 for a 1987 Chevy Camaro (thedrive.com)

 

This one is for @balthazar

[G. David Felt]

Another interesting read on how BMW and Mercedes wants to keep prices high even when costs drop to increase profits for executives and especially the stock holders.

BMW, Daimler Pledge To Keep Prices High As Costs Drop (jalopnik.com)

[Robert Hall]

Re: the IROC-Z— Gen Xers with money now able to get the car they wanted in high school.  I get it.  
 

Or it could be a Baby Boomer wanting a car like they had in their 20s or 30s.  
 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Robert Hall

[G. David Felt]

Gotta say I have been enjoying this read and why I think Rivian is the Truck Maker to beat.

Exclusive: We Drive the 2022 Rivian R1T Off-Road Across the Trans-America Trail, Part 1 (motortrend.com)

Exclusive: We Drive the 2022 Rivian R1T Off-Road Across the Trans-America Trail, Part 2 (motortrend.com)

I doubt any Tesla has done a trip like this.

Clearly a proper electric truck can get to just about any place you want to go.

Seems Rivian can check off many of the same trails that Jeep has covered and sells auto's tagged with specific names such as Rubicon!

[balthazar]

Needs more variants/configurations and cheaper pricing to be a major player.

[G. David Felt]

20 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Needs more variants/configurations and cheaper pricing to be a major player.

I agree and think they will have more, but for a startup, I think they are building an outstanding truck to start.

Most people do not need more than a 4 1/2 foot to 5 ft bed and for residential users this truck allows hauling people as well as stuff from Home Depot / Lowes. Yes this is not a commercial use truck or for those that want a 6 or 8 ft bed for work. Yet for most people I think this truck hits all the right boxs.

[balthazar]

3 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

That issue is not unique to just journalists. That has been proven in spades here. 

So we agree- any plethora of journalistic opinion amounts to basically nothing. 

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, David said:

Most people do not need more than a 4 1/2 foot to 5 ft bed and for residential users this truck allows hauling people as well as stuff from Home Depot / Lowes. Yes this is not a commercial use truck or for those that want a 6 or 8 ft bed for work. Yet for most people I think this truck hits all the right boxs.

Rivian doesn't offer a 5' bed. I thought you knew that.

And people practice consumerism in FAR more outlets than just Home Depot/Lowes.

You don't need an 8-ft bed for commercial work, but you do need 6.5'. That's pretty much neither here nor there; Rivian isn't suited or intended for commercial work, just stating that fact.

[Robert Hall]

5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

You don't need an 8-ft bed for commercial work, but you do need 6.5'. That's pretty much neither here nor there; Rivian isn't suited or intended for commercial work, just stating that fact.

The Rivian is a luxury off-roader, nothing about the product or marketing says it's a work truck.  It hasn't been advertised as a work truck.   That's your imagination running wild if you think it is.

One trim of the Ford Lightning seems to be marketed as such, though.

[surreal1272]

20 minutes ago, balthazar said:

So we agree- any plethora of journalistic opinion amounts to basically nothing. 

There's nothing to agree with here as you were trying to conflate my argument about GM interiors from the start because of one particular quote while ignoring the entire context of what I was saying to begin with.

Edited September 13, 2021 by surreal1272

[balthazar]

2 hours ago, David said:

Another interesting read on how BMW and Mercedes wants to keep prices high even when costs drop to increase profits for executives and especially the stock holders.

BMW, Daimler Pledge To Keep Prices High As Costs Drop (jalopnik.com)

I TOLD EVERYBODY THIS EXACT THING.

Many, many times.

[balthazar]

3 minutes ago, Robert Hall said:

The Rivian is a luxury off-roader, nothing about the product or marketing says it's a work truck.  It hasn't been advertised as a work truck.   That's your imagination running wild if you think it is.

Re-read my post.

[surreal1272]

12 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Rivian doesn't offer a 5' bed. I thought you knew that.

Where did he mention anywhere in his post about Rivian having a 5 ft bed? Again, you're trying to create a debate where there isn't one. I'm pretty sure he is aware of their bed length.

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Re-read my post.

Maybe it's you that should re-read his post.

15 minutes ago, balthazar said:

And people practice consumerism in FAR more outlets than just Home Depot/Lowes.

Yet that always seems to be your point of emphasis when touting the ability to "properly" haul a 4x8 ft sheet of plywood.