NeonLX

But...but...the Saudis are our friends...

The CEOs need bigger bonuses. They were really hurting last year, you know.

I'm amazed at how close to the EPA mileage estimate both of our current cars perform. The Maxx averages about 20 MPG around town, and will consistently pull 30 MPG on the highway (if I keep speeds below 70 MPH). The Neon pulls 25 MPG in & around town and 32+ on extended highway trips, again exactly what the sticker says. Worst fuel economy I ever got was 3 MPG, in a '78 Chevy K20 pickup with "full time" 4WD. We were pulling a horse trailer across South Dakota and bucking one helluva headwind all the way. My '72 Olds Regency used to get 11-13 MPG on the highway. I didn't really care when gasoline was 35-cents/gallon.

Whoa! Thanks for posting those links! Made my day, you did.

I still had some hair on top of my head back in the 1970s. Had a full beard too; guess I was going for the Grizzly Adams look.

My last three cars have been "program" vehicles...Our current Malibu Maxx had 13K miles on the odometer when we bought it, while the Neon had 16K miles. Both cars had been in service for less than a year. I wound up paying just over half of the MSRP on the sticker. Both had full (remaining) factory warranties, and I added an extended warranty for the powertrain and A/C to the Neon that stretches out to 8 years and 80K miles. I'm starting to like this way of acquiring cars.

Took me years to wrap my mind around all of the permutations and combinations of Phord V8s...the 352 vs. the various 351s (same bore & stroke!), the 361 vs. the 360, the 1958 410 vs. the 1966 410, etc. etc.

Wow, that was fast! Yup, I'm looking at the brochure for the 1959 Continental Mark IV. It was powered by the 350 HP, 430 CID "MEL" (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) V8. This engine family included 383, 410 and 462 CID versions: 410 CID for the 1958 "senior" Edsels only; 383 CID for 1958-'60 mid-level Mercurys, and 462 CID for 1966-'67 Lincolns (though some early 1968 Lincolns may have had this engine before production of the new "385-series" 460 V8 was up to speed).

Then again, with this crew, it might not be much of a head-scratcher. I'm looking at a sales brochure for the Lincoln Continental Mark IV and it says the standard (and only available) engine is a 430 CID, OHV V8 with a 4V carb. C'mon now, everybody knows the Mark IV came with the 460 CID variant of the Ford's admittedly excellent "385-series" V8...yet the brochure I'm looking at does NOT have a misprint when it comes to the engine displacement. How can this be?

Amen, Dodgefan. Amen. And thanks, balthazar. I've been called "racist" elsewhere for my staunch support of the domestic industry. I can explain until I'm blue in the face...er, fingers about how my immediate family is multi-racial (whatever that means) but it doesn't go anywhere; I'm still some kind of bigot because I don't want to throw my $$$ at a German, or Japanese, or Korean, or ?? company if I can help it. When I was still on the farm, we bought everything we could locally to keep people we knew employed. It was what you did in a small-town economy. Guess I still think in that rather quaint way. Old dog, new tricks and all that.

I wish I could say something earth-shattering in Chrysler's defense. I've been a fan of theirs for many decades--and a long time customer (starting with my old '66 Plymouth Belvedere). Same holds for Jeep--I learned to drive in a '48 CJ-2A. But there ain't a thing in their current lineup that does much for me. The Challenger looks nice until you get up close and realize what a huge tub it is (though it sounds like the new Camaro will be a similar tank as well). The 300 is a good concept--fast, roomy, comfy RWD sedan--but the styling plain leaves me cold. The Sebring & Avenger are just bizarre (though an extra four inches in wheelbase and trunk might make the Sebring look decent). Etc. I really don't want to see any of the domestic manufacturers disappear, but this may be based a lot on nostalgia on my part. I grew up with "American iron" and have yet to buy any vehicle with a foreign nameplate, not because of any racist tendencies (a quick glance at my immediate family should dispel any notion that I'm some kinda racist), but because I'd like to champion the local, homegrown industries while they still exist. I should also add that I'd rather see industries that employee people with decent wages and benefits, like the auto companies, be the recipient of "bail outs" way before the financial & banking institutions, which seem like nothing more than legalized gambling with other people's money to me.

I grew up in a family of gearheads. We were farmers, who tend to be gearheads anyway (since you have to work on your own tractors & trucks all the time). Both my dad and uncle did a lot of drag racing back in the early 1960s; I remember my uncle's '63 Chevy II powered by a nasty small block he'd built up. My grandad sold Chevy trucks and also John Deere tractors. In the mid 1960s, he bought a '26 Ford Model T, just like the one he and my granny had driven on their honeymoon. I spent many hours helping to clean parts and reassemble that car, as did my brother. My dad used to take us to the car shows every year and we'd collect all the sales literature and promo models. I've still got a lot of it, thank goodness.

First car I ever rode in was a Plymouth; that's what my folks drove when I was born. For many years, I drove a '66 Belvedere II sedan with a "poly" 318 & Torqueflite under the hood. For some reason, that car always seemed quicker than it should. The thing had a lot of scat for being powered by such a "small" engine. I always thought that the '65 Satellite was an excellent car. You could still get the 365 HP, 426 "wedge" V8 that year. In '66, the top "regular" engine was the Super Commando 383, though the 426 Hemi was an option (at a stratospheric price, of course). The Super Commando 440 became an option in '67. I'd love to have a '67 GTX with that mill. For some dumb reason, I always liked the '68 full-sized Plymouth much better than the '69--but when it came to the Chryslers, I prefered the fuselage-styled 1969-'71 models to the fugly '67 & '68s. The 1970-'71 C-body Plymouths were most excellent however.

Yeah, I had asked about the Buick engines, then my ADHD took me off track into Olds engines.

Cool, thanks for the answers. There is so much misinfo out there about these historical engines. I have a book on American V8 engines by Peter Sessler and I've noticed some inaccuracies in it. I wanted to get the skinny on the Buick engines from a reliable (preferably "geeky" ) source. Interesting about the Olds small & big V8s. For some reason, I'd always thought they were the same basic engine, with added deck height for the larger, stroker engines (like the B & RB Mopar engines). That '59 Buick in your sig picture is enough to make a grown man weep.

With mention of the Redstone rockets, I'd almost think circa 1960-'63 somewheres. If memory serves, the Mercury space shots of those years were generally on top of Redstones.

OK, of all the GM brands, I'm least familiar with Buick powertrains in a historical sense. I've always "heard" that the 300, 340 & 350 CID V8s from the 1960s-70s were "small blocks" and had their roots in the early 1960s 215 CID V8, which was at least sometimes an aluminum engine. I also have it rolling around in my head that the modern Buick "big blocks" were intro'd for 1967 and were available in 400, 430 and 455 CID versions (1970 for the 455). So here are my questions: Is this summary essentially true? Are the 1967+ big blocks related at all to the previous nail-head V8s? How about the small blocks? Did the early Olds F85/Cutlass come with the Buick 215 V8? Were the small- and big-block engines completely distinct? (The Olds big block 400-425-455 engines were essentially tall deck versions of the 260-307-330-350-403 small block, IIRC.) Yes, I am a complete geek. Have been since Eisenhower was president.

I hear ya, man. For a long time, my mother-in-law drove an '86 LeSabre. That car was sweet in so many ways--quick, comfortable and fantastic fuel economy. I always enjoyed taking her car on trips. She traded it for a '96 Riviera (SC), another very sweet car. Wish she still had a Buick. Now she's driving a Volvo S60, which rides like an old haywagon relative to the Buicks.

In the 40 years I've been driving, I've never owned a Ford (!) but I have to admit that of the three current "pony cars", the Mustang appeals to me the most. I like its styling and its "bang for the buck" factor. Being a family guy and pinching pennies, I ain't really in the market for such a car anyway. But if I had dough lying around to purchase a fun car, I'd be looking at something old, preferably a sleeper of some sort.

I always wondered why they didn't call those models "86", since they were (presumably) the 80-series powered by a six-cylinder engine. Same would hold for the 1977+ models with the standard 231 V6. My dad had a 1990 Olds 88 that went a long ways too. I think his made it to around 250K, with very minimal maintenance (that's the only kind of maintenance my old man has ever practiced!).

Wasn't there one year in the Pontiac lineup where you could get a "Star Chief Executive" model? Seems like it was circa 1965 or '66. By '67, I think it had become just the "Executive" (long wheelbase model like the Bonneville, but with trim more like the Catalina/Ventura, right?).

Of course, with a carbureted 231 V6 in a '77 Olds 88, it was fairly realistic. (or am I misremembering the diesel here?)

The Challenger is good-looking, no doubt. I was skeptical until I saw one (actually two) in person. The proportions are correct--but the thing grows in scale quickly as you walk closer to it. Even my wife's Malibu Maxx looks kinda small next to a new Challenger, while my Neon is downright puny. Interior is better than I thought it would be. Wish it weren't a two-ton-plus behemoth. Haven't driven one yet, though.

I'm still not a fan of smaller displacement, turbo'd motors yanking around big heavy tubs like the Sebring, at least with auto trannies. I'm kind of old school; I'd prefer a larger, torquier engine that's able to loaf along at highway speeds and return reasonable fuel economy from not always having to drive with a heavy foot. The turbo engines are certainly better than they were a decade or two back, but I still like the extra (and immediate) torque of a larger engine in a heavy-ish vehicle like the Sebring (or my current Malibu). Now, your idea of pairing the turbo with a nice manual tranny--that certainly has merit!

You know, maybe they are putting the six-speed trans behind the 2.7L engine now. I don't think they were when the new Sebring was introduced; I think it was only the 3.5L V6 that got the 6-speed tranny. I could very well be wrong though. I honestly haven't been paying a lot of attention to Chrysler products over the past two years. Which is a sad statement, given my decades of driving Mopars, starting with my '66 Plymouth Belvedere... The six speed would help a little, I suppose. But a car of that stature really should have the 3.5L as standard, with the torquier 4.0L V6 optional.