rearden82

That's a really good list! It brought back a lot of memories. They forgot Hypercolor t-shirts, though, which is a pretty major omission!

I have a Popular Mechanics magazine from 1958 that included a Chrysler review (New Yorker, I think). The reviewer said that it drove well and looked great, but he was concerned about its long-term dependabilty. I guess some things never change!

The BLS was on Top Gear recently, and the hosts did a good job of summing up what I'd consider to be a typical European car buyer's perspective. They said something like (and I'm heavily paraphrasing here!) "If you wanted to buy this car, you'd have to say 'I don't want the BMW 3-series, I don't want the Audi A4, I don't want the Mercedes C-class, I want... the Cadillac.' " Basically, Cadillac has an even worse image over there than it does here in America, plus the BLS is competing with several very well-established cars. It seems to be a good car, and it's cool to see that GM is trying to establish the Cadillac nameplate on a global scale. It shouldn't be too surprising that the BLS isn't selling too well at this point. I think the idea is that offering it will make buyers aware of Cadillac, and that over the next few years they'll start to consider the brand as something they'll actually want to buy. The Escalade and CTS both got off to a bad start over here, but ended up selling quite well while tremendously improving Cadillac's image. Hopefully, the same kind of strategy will work out in Europe.

If I was from the 1950s and got to see how things were today, aside from the Internet I'd be pretty disappointed. No vacations to the moon, no flying cars, supersonic passenger transport was created and then abandoned, no engines that make 600 hp and run for 500 miles on a gallon of tap water, and we're still using the same standard for color TV. Cars still use the same exact basic controls (steering wheel, pedals, etc.). Power seats, power roofs, automatic headlights, etc. are still generally considered up-market options. There are a lot more similarities between cars of today and cars of the 50s, than those cars vs. 1920's models. I do think they'd be impressed by CD players, how far acceleration/handling/braking has come, and how much power we can get out of comparatively tiny engines these days. Otherwise, not a whole lot has changed.

PA roads are legendary for being bad. Last time I was there (about a year ago), there were billboards all over the Turnpike touting the virtues of this amazing new substance they're starting to use called.....asphalt. I'm dead serious. Until recently the roads were primarily giant slabs of concrete. The seams made them annoying as hell even in good sections, which were rare--most are a cracked, frost-heaved, broken up mess. My mom has a '98 Kia Sephia. It has ABS in the sense that they just aren't strong enough to lock the wheels in the first place. I'll never forget tromping on them to avoid a deer. I had both feet on the pedal pressing with all my might, and its little 14" tires weren't even chirping! What a death trap.

Although I agree that it's far healthier and more productive to get to the root of depression rather than taking drugs, it doesn't work for everybody. Some people have low or inconsistent levels of mood-regulating chemicals in their brains. In this case, it's like an engine running with only 1 or 2 quarts of oil. The only thing that will make it run better is to put the proper amount of oil in it. But definitely stay away from recreational drugs and alcohol. They will make you feel better temporarily, but you feel worse than before after they wear off, and they create a lot more problems than they solve. If you think you have problems now, imagine getting a DUI--you could lose your license, pay thousands in fines, and everyone in your home town would get to read about it in the newspaper. Try talking about your problems with a close friend or family member. It's amazing how sometimes just getting things off your chest can help. And think about all the positive aspects of your life--you're getting an education, you have a roof over your head, you can afford to eat, you have a nice car... A lot of people have none of these things. If that doesn't do the trick, see a counselor. They can assess your situation and give you options to pursue such as talk therapy and antidepressants. Good luck!

I always hear rumors like that where dealers attempt to prevent anyone from doing oil changes and such, but I've never seen one actually come to light. VW would have to be dumbfoundingly stupid to do something like that, because customers would hate them plus copies of the "special key" would be available at any car parts store within a month or two anyway.

A few months ago, I had a brake line blow out on my Contour. I very nearly rear-ended someone as a result. It turned out the brake hose was not clipped into its retainer, so the lip of the wheel had gradually rubbed a hole in it. The previous owner had left an invoice in the glovebox from 8000 miles before, mentioning that same brake had been repaired beause the caliper was sticking. So I narrowly missed being in an accident where I would've been at fault, because some idiot mechanic couldn't take 5 seconds to route the hose properly.

If this is any indication, then I wouldn't say the marketing was much better. Yecch.

I'll gladly take a cheesy, cheap interior loaded with cool technology over a cheesy, cheap interior completely devoid of anything new or innovative whatsoever, which is where GM is currently. They've gone downhill since the late 80s/early 90s in my opinion. And Croc, that interior of that '91 Passat is photogenic from that angle, but in person they really suck. The materials are of decent quality and definitely durable, but in the same way as a Rubbermaid trash can. The instrument cluster is downright ridiculous--none of the idiot indicators are backlit. Instead you have the little picture, and next to it there's an exposed LED sticking out. I've never seen anything quite like that before.

YUCK!! I have a feeling the company responsible for that car is the same outfit that hacks F-Bodies into cheesy 1930s car replicas.

My god, GM obviously didn't put much effort into the structure of those vans. At least they make a good crumple zone for other vehicles..

A friend of mine had an '89 Reatta. He bought an earlier model because it had the touchscreen. They're actually very reliable, and replacement parts are fairly easy to find in junkyard Rivieras. Pretty much all the touchscreen stuff interchanges between the Riv and Reatta; the option codes tell it to display different things depending on the model. You can even program a Riviera to show a Reatta logo and vice versa. The big thing to worry about on those cars is the electric ABS booster. Fortunately they don't go bad too often, and when it does act up, it's typically a sticking $5 relay. But if the pump module dies, a reman is about $700 and a new unit is $1500, if they're even still available. The Reatta may be small, but it's apparently made out of lead. The hardtop is around 3600 pounds, the convertible is over 3800! Don't buy one if you're expecting great handling and the acceleration you'd expect from the 3.8 V6 in such a small car--it's pretty slow. But it is a VERY nice-looking, unique car, and people were always complimenting it and asking him what it was.

I've never heard of a center-mount gauge cluster in any BMW..which model has it? I've heard some complaints about the Echo's dash, but not as consistently as I have for the Saturn. Personally, I hate the Saturn's dash layout. The kitchen timer stuck on top of the steering column is cheesy even by GM standards.

I found an old automotive engineering book that showed some crash test pics of 1950s cars.. They were scary. One showed a 50s car (A Ford or Chevy, I forget which) that hit a barrier at 30 mph. Every panel on the entire car was buckled. Even the rear panels had buckled enough to cause the trunk to pop open. :blink: Another showed a head-on collision between two cars. From the outside it didn't look too horrible. Then it showed the inside of one of the cars--the steering wheel was touching the headliner! Crash safety has come a very, very long way.

Regarding platform reusage--yes, every manufacturer does it to some extent. The current Crown Vic dates back to the 70's, and so did the Mustang until 2004. But no company is still using a 1980s-era platform in the highly competitive midsize family sedan segment, aside from GM. I'm not saying it's a bad platform and I know it's been continually updated over the years, but consumers notice these thngs regardless and it makes GM look less competitive. Ford is able to brag that their Fusion is based on an enlarged Mazda6 platform, which is universally praised, and that the 500 shares its chassis with the Volvo S80. Toyota/Honda are able to say their current models were rebuilt from the ground up. What's GM able to say? "Well, we tweaked the old platform and threw in a bunch more sound insulation." My opinion of the Malibu is just that--an opinion. However it's one that happens to be shared by a lot of car buyers, and it's not exactly baseless. Yes I know it offers more features for the money than the imports. However the Malibu I drove was very much lacking in things like interior quality and drivetrain refinement compared to the Accords/Camrys I drove. I didn't like them either by the way, and I'd never own one, but I'll give credit where it's due. BTW, I'm pretty sure a base 4-banger Camry is under $25k. I don't care for Japanese cars, I've never owned one, and I have no immediate plans to do so. But I can see why people prefer them, and most of it is because GM's offerings aren't up to par. The brand new and upcoming models are looking much better, but GM has said "We're using quality materials now! Yeah the last generation sucked, but we're up to par with the imports this time! We mean it this time, really! We swear!" that I'll have to see for myself.

The really insane part is, it's like they're intentionally trying to create that image! I'll never forget the Mercedes commercial from a few years ago.. A guy walks up to a vending machine, gets a set of keys out of it, and drives off in a Mercedes. Then the voiceover says something like "Some day, we hope it will be this easy to get you into a Mercedes." I couldn't believe my eyes. I don't even think Hyundai would want to run a commercial saying they want to be so so cheap and volume-oriented that their cars will come in vending machines.

Ahh yes, the days when cars had drum brakes all around, 0-60 in 12-14 seconds was considered fast, the concept of handling was unknown, and "crash safety" meant if you were lucky, the steering wheel prevented you from flying through the windshield. Those cars definitely looked cool, but as someone who actually drives them, I'd have to pass on that era.

I agree 100%. I see too many people blindly defend GM and make excuses or try to deny their shortcomings. In most cases, GM's failures have nothing to do with consumer ignorance or media bias. It's because a lot of their cars just plain suck. I had a 2002 Malibu rental car for a few weeks. Compared to the Camry, Accord, or any other modern sedan, it was a pathetic joke. Crappy interior, cheap-looking exterior, the gearing was a terrible match for the engine, significant torque steer despite not having much torque, and the absolute worst handling of any car I've driven. It was completely uncompetitive. And the fact that they keep rehashing the ancient W-body platform while all the other car companies keep developing new platforms shows that GM's "it's good enough" menality is still alive and kicking. It really doesn't matter that they keep refining and tweaking it in the marketplace--the competition can say their cars are new from the ground up; GM can't. My dad bought an '04 Kia Optima in late 2003, so he's had it for 2 years now. He has not had one single problem with it. The fit and finish inside and out is flawless. Although the interior trim isn't the most expensive stuff around, it looks very attractive and is well-made. Even the inside of the trunk is thoroughly trimmed with nice materials. The impression I get is that companies like Hyundai/Kia are really trying hard to impress customers, whereas GM's mentality is "we have enough loyal customers, they'll keep coming back, so why bother going the extra mile?" That mentality is why their market share has taken a nosedive over the past several decades. I will say one thing that shows some major bias though--when GM does something innovative, it's usually either lambasted or ignored. For instance, the Riviera and Toronado had touchscreens controlling many of the car's functions back in 1986. The media hated it. Same with the digital dashes that were commonplace. But now that the imports are JUST NOW using similar touchscreens, it's perfectly fine. And I've seen no complaints about the digital speedometers on the Aerio and Civic. Most every article I've seen mentioning new engines with displacement-on-demand makes a cheap shot at Cadillac for its failed V8-6-4 from 25 years ago. GM took the risk of developing the system before the technology to reliably control it really existed. Now that it's not so much of a challenge with modern engine controls, everybody else is doing it. Of course that part never gets mentioned. So overall, I'd say that GM's problems are about 90% their own fault, and 10% unfair bias.

It amazes me how GM just never learns how to make decent interiors. Even when they try to use nice materials, they manage to assemble them in a way that looks like cheap crap (i.e. the CTS). GM really needs to fire everyone in charge of interior design, hire away designers from pretty much any other car company in existence, and stop giving the beancounters so much influence. It'd be one of the best investments they could make. I notice a lot of people making excuses for GM's interiors by saying they're "good enough" for the class of car. Unfortunately most consumers don't agree. The "well, it's good enough" line of thought is why GM went from almost monopolizing the car industry, to where they are today.