I love my American car

ben62670

Ricardo wrote: »

Just added a step for you.

LIL almost empty:D
Thanks bro:)

concealer404 wrote: »

It's rather unfair to condemn them to make American cars look better just because VW, one of MANY foreign manufacturers couldn't keep their act together at that point in their existence.

I was not condemning foreign cars just sharing my experience:rolleyes: The point was the foreign car needed work done too it at very low miles. They had to order the part. It took a week to fix. It would have cost me over a $1000 to fix. I would have needed a rental car, and they had to order the overpriced part from outside the country. Second time. It would have cost me over $200 to have the tranny fluid added at the dealership. This cannot be done at your typical local shop:rolleyes:

Jstas

ben62670 wrote: »

My V8 T-bird got around 26 on the open road

I had a 1994 V6 Thunderbird that would get about 28 MPG on the highway at 70-75 MPH. That car was so smooth and quiet that if I didn't use cruise control I'd be traveling at 90+ MPH and be wondering why everyone else was going so slow. It never felt like it was moving fast at all until you looked at the speedometer. But boy, could you throw that 2 ton pig through a turn! I had it pulling almost a full G in a turn with a couple grand in parts and wheels/tires. I bought the car with 33,660 miles on the clock and I traded it in on the Lightning with 140,000 miles on the clock.

The aerodynamics were slippery too and in the rain, I would turn the windshield wipers off at speeds over 60 because the airflow over the car was better at clearing the rain off the glass.

I'm told the Pontiac Grand **** were similar in performance and economy because they were equally as slippery.

I miss my Thunderbird. I'll get another one someday.

ben62670

Jstas wrote: »

I had a 1994 V6 Thunderbird that would get about 28 MPG on the highway at 70-75 MPH. That car was so smooth and quiet that if I didn't use cruise control I'd be traveling at 90+ MPH and be wondering why everyone else was going so slow. It never felt like it was moving fast at all until you looked at the speedometer. But boy, could you throw that 2 ton pig through a turn! I had it pulling almost a full G in a turn with a couple grand in parts and wheels/tires. I bought the car with 33,660 miles on the clock and I traded it in on the Lightning with 140,000 miles on the clock.

The aerodynamics were slippery too and in the rain, I would turn the windshield wipers off at speeds over 60 because the airflow over the car was better at clearing the rain off the glass.

I'm told the Pontiac Grand **** were similar in performance and economy because they were equally as slippery.

I miss my Thunderbird. I'll get another one someday.

My 89 had the six. Both are rear wheel drive:) I too hope to get another. The only real bad thing about those cars is the EGR valve:( Both of mine were too comfortable at high rates of speed:)

shadowofnight

Lorthos wrote: »

Over 30mpg at 80.......hmmmm....okay

http://www.fueleconomy.net/****/noframes/12853.shtml

Being aerodynamically slippery really counts in the real world....and the epa mileage figures are flawed because of how they are conducted....like so...

Ben, yours a 4 banger or the 6 ??

The 6 was rated at 24mpg at dyno'd 55mph...

The poor thing about the epa testing is that it is conducted on a dyno...wind resistance isnt factored in......see here..... http://www.fueleconomy.gov/****/how_tested.shtml


Here is a little comparison of what happens to a new 2008 Camry as the speeds increase ( In real life situations...not on a dyno ) just from 55 to 75. That Camry went from 40 mpg to 30 mpg just from 55 to 75...by the time you hit 80 that throws fuel mileage right out the window.

" Drive at a moderate speed. This is the biggest factor. You may have to be a little patient, but driving at 55 mph instead of 65 or 75 will save you money. When we increased the Camry's highway cruising speed from 55 mph to 65, the car's fuel economy dropped from 40 mpg to 35. Speeding up to 75 mph cost the car another 5 mpg. One reason is that aerodynamic drag increases exponentially the faster you drive; it simply takes more fuel to power the car through the air. "



What they dont mention is that if you drive at 55 , you are gonna have to replace a lot of hard mounted components on the rear of the car after getting rear ended and punted off the road by the natural flow of traffic....which seems to be anywhere from 65 to 80 here on western freeways

ben62670

A V6. The key on long trips is to keep the throttle steady. As for fuel economy dropping at higher speed this is where I feel many American cars do better. The revs are extremely low in overdrive with a high torque engine in some cars. **** cars like to rev. Not good for milage at speed. When the Gas was >$4 per gallon I was coasting down hills, and was very light with the throttle. You don't have to go slow, you do have to drive smart;)

heiney9

Ben you have just as much distaste for VW as I do for American cars. I've owned many many VW's and never had too many issues. One area VW has always lacked in and still does is their dealer network. They are abysmal at best. Why this issue (a known issue) has never been addressed in the US market is beyond me.

Their attitude and blatant complacency is legendary and HQ doesn't seem to do anything about or even think it's an issue. That's why most people are unhappy with VW. It's the total lack of empathy by the dealer network not nec the car itself. The dealer here in town is pathetic. I've used the same mechanic for over 20 years and yes I've had some issues with my VR6 that really shouldn't have happened. But considering its going on 11 years old and close to 100K it wasn't totally unexpected.

I'm sorry to hear of your issues with VW and I'm sure they could have done a better job of making sure you were taken care of.

My .02c

H9

ben62670

heiney9 wrote: »

Ben you have just as much distaste for VW as I do for American cars. I've owned many many VW's and never had too many issues. One area VW has always lacked in and still does is their dealer network. They are abysmal at best. Why this issue (a known issue) has never been addressed in the US market is beyond me.

Their attitude and blatant complacency is legendary and HQ doesn't seem to do anything about or even think it's an issue. That's why most people are unhappy with VW. It's the total lack of empathy by the dealer network not nec the car itself. The dealer here in town is pathetic. I've used the same mechanic for over 20 years and yes I've had some issues with my VR6 that really shouldn't have happened. But considering its going on 11 years old and close to 100K it wasn't totally unexpected.

I'm sorry to hear of your issues with VW and I'm sure they could have done a better job of making sure you were taken care of.

My .02c

H9

I don't hate foreign cars. I do believe America should support Americans. The big 3 deserve the kick in the nuts they got. Yes VW has left a bad taste in my mouth after that. The dealership sucked. They(salesman:rolleyes:) made promises they denied later. The service department sucked. I have respect for a lot of their older products, but you really shouldn't start having any major issues with a car at less than 150k. My buddy had an old Sirocco that was awesome. The TDI's interest me, but after VW failing in every aspect I will stay away. The jetta's, rabbits, and of coarse the real bugs are great cars. VW needs to kick it up a notch like we do;) I know you have driven VWs for years so you are biased, and loyal like I am;)

ohskigod

Lorthos wrote: »

Over 30mpg at 80.......hmmmm....okay

not too far from possible reality, heck my stang will get 25-26 on a long highway cruise........oddly enough, this is if I keep it at around 80-85 tops (granted, this was after I installed a cold air intake, a performance tune, and a lower gear ratio....before this the numbers were not as good).

press the gas pedal more and it plummets like a stone, but with discipline its very attainable.

the standard c6 Vette can get up to 28 loafing on the highway in 6th

powerful engines plus relativly low weight = surprising highway numbers

ohskigod

Jstas wrote: »

I thought the Cobalt SS had a supercharger?
.

it did, until this most recent model. its the same 260 hp jobbie found in the Solstice GXP and HHR SS models (which supposedly might make its way into the Camaro as an optional engine if rumor is correct)

it was in R&T from a month or so ago against a Mazdaspeed3, Subaru WRX (not the sti) and the Lancer Ralliart. The cobalt was the cheapest, and pretty much @ssraped the more expensive imports in every department that really matters

heiney9

ben62670 wrote: »

I don't hate foreign cars. I do believe America should support Americans. The big 3 deserve the kick in the nuts they got. Yes VW has left a bad taste in my mouth after that. The dealership sucked. They(salesman:rolleyes:) made promises they denied later. The service department sucked. I have respect for a lot of their older products, but you really shouldn't start having any major issues with a car at less than 150k. My buddy had an old Sirocco that was awesome. The TDI's interest me, but after VW failing in every aspect I will stay away. The jetta's, rabbits, and of coarse the real bugs are great cars. VW needs to kick it up a notch like we do;) I know you have driven VWs for years so you are biased, and loyal like I am;)

Last word on the VW topic. They had some major reliability issues in the 90's and were extremely slow in the American market to address them. Sometimes I think the American market is an afterthought to VAG (Volkswagen Audi Group) which also includes Audi.

Today's generation is a whole lot better car, but not without a few typical German quirks. The dealer network and US support operations are slightly better than before but need a HUGE improvement if they want to continue to maintain and gain market share.

I am biased and loyal as you are to American cars. I just wanted to present another POV. I also admit to being extremely frustrated sometimes because to me they offer something not many other automobiles do at the price point but they (VAG) can't seem to pull their head out of their **** and actually provide some level of basic customer service for the brand. They seem to foster mediocrity in their dealer network

H9

P.s. Also your 150K mileage before you start having issues is more the exception today than the rule with new cars of any brand

SKsolutions

shadowofnight wrote: »

" Drive at a moderate speed. This is the biggest factor. You may have to be a little patient, but driving at 55 mph instead of 65 or 75 will save you money. When we increased the Camry's highway cruising speed from 55 mph to 65, the car's fuel economy dropped from 40 mpg to 35. Speeding up to 75 mph cost the car another 5 mpg. One reason is that aerodynamic drag increases exponentially the faster you drive; it simply takes more fuel to power the car through the air. "

That's pretty accurate. I have that car, and at 78-82 average -according to the satellite (garmin), it gets 32mpg. In areas that the speed limit is 55, and I do 65, it goes up to 35mpg from my notes during a few thousand miles. It's rated at 31 hwy.
This is my first 'foreign' car whatever that means. The reasons for buying it was simple. I could drive it off the lot, and sell it for what I paid for it. Most likely, I won't have to do anything other than pay the bills on it. It happens to perform OK, and look decent too. I really don't care, it's a work tool to me. The last two cars that I cared about or had a connection with were a 1973 Mustang Convertible V8 for obvious reasons, and a 1996 Saturn LS-2 that was super reliable, cheap, and fun. Well, there was a 70's Roadrunner too. That connection isn't there with the Camry.

sucks2beme

Sorry. There's lot of lame imports. Even from Japan. Mazda, Mits, Izusu.
And a lot of overpriced prone to breakage Eurotrash. I don't get some of
those. Highest customer satisfaction ratings and highest product defects
are for some of the same models.
Toyota and Honda brands(including their premium brands) are at the top
of the heap for quality.
The real issue is there is a big gaping hole in the USA model lines for mid-size cars.
Remember when GM ruled the mid-size market? I think at this
point, they could re-release the Buick Grand National and do better than
their current offerings.

shack

ben62670 wrote:

Can I get some cheese to go with the whine:rolleyes: I know plenty about cars. The only time in 20 years I have been to a garage was to have a puter check;) I have rebuilt motors, an automatic tranny, converted a few Bronco's to PS,PB,RD,FD,AT, and changed the axles to lockers and LS's thank you very much. If I did see anyone coming I would have slowed down:rolleyes: Really I wonder why people say dumb stuff like this 12 year old car scares you? How about a 50 year old vette, 70's Jag? If its tight its tight.

Anybody that thinks a 12 year old car with 160,000 miles and the original suspension is "tight" is a fool. If the 50 year old Vette or a 70's Jaguar has 160,000 miles and original equipment...then it would be just as foolish to drive it at 100 mph. A 12 year old car doesn't scare me...I happen to own a couple of 40 ± year old cars that I drive from time to time. On the other hand, the driver in this case is scary.

nadams

I was going to say something about the 100mph on back roads... but... I can't. The motorcycle loves doing 85-95 on straight stretches, and does so very, very QUICKLY. Granted, it also stops a lot faster than a Grand Prix.

Face

Another here who has gotten higher than advertised fuel economy above 55mph.

Sometimes the torque curve isn't optimized for fuel economy at 55mph. My 99 Regal GS would get better fuel economy at 70mph than 55. If GM chose to give it a lower final drive ratio(numerically higher diff), instead of spinning the tires at a 20 mph roll, it would have spun them up to a 30 mph roll. I could average 28 mpg stock, and up to 31 mpg with bolt ons.

I experienced the same thing with my 98 C5, but it was less dramatic. It didn't happen often though since I couldn't keep my foot out of the pedal.

ben62670

shack wrote: »

Anybody that thinks a 12 year old car with 160,000 miles and the original suspension is "tight" is a fool. If the 50 year old Vette or a 70's Jaguar has 160,000 miles and original equipment...then it would be just as foolish to drive it at 100 mph. A 12 year old car doesn't scare me...I happen to own a couple of 40 ± year old cars that I drive from time to time. On the other hand, the driver in this case is scary.

OK buddy:rolleyes:
It's not as tight as when it was new, but it tracks straight, no pull at all, and I do check the suspension when I do my brakes. Nothing is loose. No a single clunk in any joints. The rubber is softer of coarse, but not near failing. In Ft Lauderdale we had a car lift and I checked everything. So talking out you butt having no idea what I have done, and calling me a fool... Well you do a fine job of representing yourself;) BTW the car was a FL car. Completely flat smooth roads. Not too much of a workout there for the suspension;) Go troll elsewhere. I did not insult you, and you insist on insulting me:rolleyes:
Later Shack

Ben

Face wrote: »

Another here who has gotten higher than advertised fuel economy above 55mph.

Sometimes the torque curve isn't optimized for fuel economy at 55mph. My 99 Regal GS would get better fuel economy at 70mph than 55. If GM chose to give it a lower final drive ratio(numerically higher diff), instead of spinning the tires at a 20 mph roll, it would have spun them up to a 30 mph roll. I could average 28 mpg stock, and up to 31 mpg with bolt ons.

I experienced the same thing with my 98 C5, but it was less dramatic. It didn't happen often though since I couldn't keep my foot out of the pedal.

Those who know know...

BTW Face when I get my 68 Bronco 302 down here I am changing out the cam to a real stump puller, and putting my
Holley Pro Jection on it. With 35's and 350 gears I should be able to get near 20 hwy:) I get 8 now.

exalted512

My truck gets better mileage at 80-85 than it does at 70-75...tested that a few times on the 4 hour drive to my parents house.
-Cody

shack

I was trying to be nice when I called you a fool....

shack

BTW I won't be posting anymore replys to your posts...idiots bore me and they are better ignored than wasting my time on their idiotic ramblings.

SKsolutions

Is there really a need for that?

Gearing, torque, overdrive, RPM, drag coefficient, weight. . .different on every model. You can't just assume that 55 works better on all vehicles. 65 in overdrive works best for my new car. I prefer to go faster, but I'm allergic to tickets.

cmy330go

ben62670 wrote: »

....What do you really want? I love my AMERICAN CAR!!!
Ben

Um.....Let's see. How about an interior that doesn't have a million squeaks and rattles. Until recently no american car company has had decent fit and finish. Though they've made serious progress most are still playing catch-up in my opinion.

ben62670

cmy330go wrote: »

Um.....Let's see. How about an interior that doesn't have a million squeaks and rattles. Until recently no american car company has had decent fit and finish. Though they've made serious progress most are still playing catch-up in my opinion.

My interior is doing pretty good for a 12 yo car that lived in the S FLA sun for its whole life;) My Tbirds were very good. Like I have stated with American cars you need to pick and choose. I think the worst vehicle for fit and finish was the late 80's Ford Aero Star. They lived long, but everything fell apart on the interior.

BTW another car that did real good at 80mph. My mom's 84 BMW528e. 1500 rpm at 80, and 30mpg with the six;)

cmy330go

ohskigod wrote: »

oh, an example of a gem? the new Cobalt SS. yes, its a cobalt, but its a turbocharged cobalt that has a shot at high 13's stock (R&T got 14 flat) in the quarter.

this thing pulls .90G's in the lateral skid pad and does the slalom at around 71-72 mph (apparently this thing did alot of laps at the Nurburgring in Germany during development to get those #'s).................. for 24 GRAND!!!!! thats insane!!!!! and GM can't build a car? really?!?!

I'm sorry but that car is just a late answer to the Neon SRT-4, and arguably just as ugly. Inside and out that thing looks like it was built by Fisher Price. Plus I don't really see how GM, or Dodge for that matter, deserves much credit for it's efforts. Basically all they are doing is finally building a handful of engines capable of taking serious boost, which their foreign counterparts have been doing for YEARS.

ben62670

So what you are saying is you are glad they are making improvements(I agree still ugly). Lets not forget the hybrids, and electrics they are working on.

cmy330go

ben62670 wrote: »

So what you are saying is you are glad they are making improvements(I agree still ugly). Lets not forget the hybrids, and electrics they are working on.

Yea it's good that they're improving things, but at this point it almost seems to be too-little-too-late. Plus IMO almost all current american cars have next to no curb appeal. With very few exceptions they are dull and boring.

Don't even get me started on all this Hybrid BS, or Ethanol for that matter.

Kex

Part of the problem of the American auto industry, IMHO, may be that since gasoline has been so cheap here for years, compared to many markets where there would be a real interest in American cars, there are really no interesting recent American cars other than a few thirsty eight cylinder versions. Many Europeans have a huge interest for American cars, but it is impossible to drive an American V8 for the vast majority of Europeans, for example, because of fuel economy (never mind such terribly inferior interior design). Over there it is possible to find excellent four cylinder sedans from Mercedes-Benz that are not even sold over here. Add to that seven speed transmissions (standard over here too) and you get at least 40 mpg highway at 80 mph, without even considering the diesel versions, which have so much torque they can often accelerate faster - yes faster - than the gasoline equivalent, and still get even better fuel economy.

My point is, while M-Bz, BMW and VW-Audi can sell cars reasonably successfully over here, even without the diesel versions that are so popular over there, we are currently unable to build a car almost any European could ever want and/or afford to buy or fill with fuel ($100 per tank is common in Europe, but so are cars that will easily exceed 500 miles on one fill).

That said, I am astonished that everyone seems to think that the auto industry here could not re-invent itself and compete more effectively here and overseas, rather than try to say that we all need to buy American just so that they can continue to build cars that have trouble competing with a Hyundai. If Honda and Toyota could invent Acura and Lexus to compete credibly with the European luxury brands, surely the American auto industry can find a different solution than trying to guilt us into buying their mediocre vehicles. The British tried that a few decades ago, and look where their brands all ended up ... including Rolls Royce and Bentley!

zingo

Kex wrote: »

Part of the problem of the American auto industry, IMHO, may be that since gasoline has been so cheap here for years, compared to many markets where there would be a real interest in American cars, there are really no interesting recent American cars other than a few thirsty eight cylinder versions.

Um... yep! Go big block go!

[Deleted User]

i like american muscle cars, or sports cars. I have owned several mustangs. One 89, two 95, and the 99 cobra... none that went beyond 110k without an engine overhaul... 99 cobra, had many many problems. all the mustangs? severe transmission problems. My parents were huge American car fans, including, f150 and lincolns. The newest 05 Lincoln Naviator. Every one of them, since 1979 Lincoln to all the other Fords, have hopelessly sad quality. I have owned nissan 300z, as well as the 95 supra twin turbo. Sorry to say, but the technology and quality to this day is not surpassed by the american production. The only thing that I like truly like about american is the fact that parts are cheap to replace v. foreign. I am as well a supporter of liters and cc's over rpm. But again, I do not want to get into the high rev v cc's and the carbs v. fuel injection. Its all about efficiency and true reliability. I was born and breed american. I strongly believe all the technology of foreign came from american. But times are changing and the big 3 will change as well. The tradition continues.

shadowofnight

ben62670 wrote: »

A V6. The key on long trips is to keep the throttle steady. As for fuel economy dropping at higher speed this is where I feel many American cars do better. The revs are extremely low in overdrive with a high torque engine in some cars. **** cars like to rev. Not good for milage at speed. When the Gas was >$4 per gallon I was coasting down hills, and was very light with the throttle. You don't have to go slow, you do have to drive smart;)

Oh yeah, the combo that works best for my V8 on flat terrain is 70mph using cruise control....it sits perfectly at around 1,900 rpm rolling on my 35" tires...any higher and it significantly drops because of my brick aerodynamics...any lower and I dont see a benefit worth getting rearended for

If I dont use cruise , my foot tends to like to play with the throttle a bit too much...and the more I hear my baby sing out of her JBA header/Magnaflow catback combo...the more I gotta pay

ben62670

shadowofnight wrote: »

Oh yeah, the combo that works best for my V8 on flat terrain is 70mph using cruise control....it sits perfectly at around 1,900 rpm rolling on my 35" tires...any higher and it significantly drops because of my brick aerodynamics...any lower and I dont see a benefit worth getting rearended for

If I dont use cruise , my foot tends to like to play with the throttle a bit too much...and the more I hear my baby sing out of her JBA header/Magnaflow catback combo...the more I gotta pay

What are you driving SON? My 68 Bronco's cruise control is just a throtle lock:eek: You don't really want to drive any faster than 70 in that. The wheel base is shorter than a CJ7's, and it has 7 inches of lift.