List of cars and truck models to be retired.
14 Car & Truck Models To Be Discontinued
- Thread starter launderess
- Start date
Help Support :
I had the HHR and i HATED it.
firt's the poor quality plastic everywhere and then I had to have a gas station in the trunk because it doesn't drink... it SWALLOWS gas.
I had to fill the tank 2 or 3x a week, while with other cars, i fill only once every 10 days.
It used to spend almost the same as my old Ford Explorer.
My next car wil be the Renault Fluence.
firt's the poor quality plastic everywhere and then I had to have a gas station in the trunk because it doesn't drink... it SWALLOWS gas.
I had to fill the tank 2 or 3x a week, while with other cars, i fill only once every 10 days.
It used to spend almost the same as my old Ford Explorer.
My next car wil be the Renault Fluence.
Wow - my father owned one of the original (1987!) Dodge Dakota pickups and it was in service until 2004 when he sold his farm in Ontario. I always thought they were a pretty decent truck...
mrb627
Well-known member
Hmmm...
Can't say that there is anything on that list that I will actually miss.
Malcolm
Can't say that there is anything on that list that I will actually miss.
Malcolm
Volvo wagons used to be pretty popular, and they were one of the few "true" wagon companies left. Now they're going to focus on sedans and SUVs. While those are more popular than wagons these days, the market for those body types is also the most competitive. Will their sedans and SUVs really stand out from the competition? We will see.
polkanut
Well-known member
My sister & brother-in-law got an HHR to replace the Buick Lucerne that she wrecked last winter when she hit a patch of black ice on her way to work. I think it is the butt ugliest vehicle to ever come out of Detroit. Good riddance!
Sad about the Volvo wagons, but it will be interesting to see what Geely does with the Volvo line. Positioned as a higher-end brand, they're walking a tightrope. Quality has to remain or exceed expectations or not only will their Volvo brand be tainted but the Geely name, or whatever brand they glue onto their coming U.S. export vehicles, may be as well.
Am rather surprised at the Ford Ranger and Dakota pickups, it will certainly leave a hole in the market for Chevy - GMC to drive right into. I always like the Ranger better than the GM S-10 trucks.
I had a 2006 Honda Element and while it was a fun looking car, it also had some serious disadvantages. The crash ratings were horrible because of the front-rear door arrangement, the doors were always in the way if you had passengers or cargo you needed to reach in the back seat. The rear seats did fold up and out of the way, but they impaired vision almost entirely on the sides and while gaining added floor space, the seats still protruded out into the cargo area enough that it was easier to just remove them from the car altogether. Not a comfortable car to ride in, it was nimble and the Honda automatic 4WD system worked well. I sold mine right around the two year mark, never really bonded with that one.
My dad has an HHR. Never have I driven a car that feels like you have a blanket over your head, peering out from underneath to see a stoplight. Blech. Economy is surprisingly terrible, as stated and the back seat is outrageously small for anything but a couple of shopping bags. Good riddance is right
Am rather surprised at the Ford Ranger and Dakota pickups, it will certainly leave a hole in the market for Chevy - GMC to drive right into. I always like the Ranger better than the GM S-10 trucks.
I had a 2006 Honda Element and while it was a fun looking car, it also had some serious disadvantages. The crash ratings were horrible because of the front-rear door arrangement, the doors were always in the way if you had passengers or cargo you needed to reach in the back seat. The rear seats did fold up and out of the way, but they impaired vision almost entirely on the sides and while gaining added floor space, the seats still protruded out into the cargo area enough that it was easier to just remove them from the car altogether. Not a comfortable car to ride in, it was nimble and the Honda automatic 4WD system worked well. I sold mine right around the two year mark, never really bonded with that one.
My dad has an HHR. Never have I driven a car that feels like you have a blanket over your head, peering out from underneath to see a stoplight. Blech. Economy is surprisingly terrible, as stated and the back seat is outrageously small for anything but a couple of shopping bags. Good riddance is right
I am a bit surprised too about the Ranger, then again not so much in some ways.
Originally, the plan was to kill it off a few years ago, I believe around 2008, but when Katrina came through and cause oil price havoc, its efficiency was a newly re-discovered bonus until Ford got the Eco-boost engine in the F-series, etc. That gave the truck a few more years of existence, albeit on borrowed time. This is why it's been riding on 1993 sheet metal so long. Interestingly the Twin Cities plan is/was Ford's oldest assembly plant operating, and dates back to the 1920s or 30s I believe.
I've had three Rangers, and would like one more new one - If I'm going to do that I'd better act quickly, but probably won't.
What surprises me this is that I thought the reason for keeping the old Ranger was to bridge the design until a new one could be engineered. Ford obviously has done that, but now it's not for the U.S. market? Odd....
I have no desire whatsoever to own a full-size truck - they are too big and bulky for me.
Gordon
Originally, the plan was to kill it off a few years ago, I believe around 2008, but when Katrina came through and cause oil price havoc, its efficiency was a newly re-discovered bonus until Ford got the Eco-boost engine in the F-series, etc. That gave the truck a few more years of existence, albeit on borrowed time. This is why it's been riding on 1993 sheet metal so long. Interestingly the Twin Cities plan is/was Ford's oldest assembly plant operating, and dates back to the 1920s or 30s I believe.
I've had three Rangers, and would like one more new one - If I'm going to do that I'd better act quickly, but probably won't.
What surprises me this is that I thought the reason for keeping the old Ranger was to bridge the design until a new one could be engineered. Ford obviously has done that, but now it's not for the U.S. market? Odd....
I have no desire whatsoever to own a full-size truck - they are too big and bulky for me.
Gordon
whirlcool
Well-known member
With all that rubber around the windows of the HHR, it made me think the interior was pressurized. You see this on high performance singe engine aircraft that are pressurized too.
I had a Ford Ranger in the early 90's. A nice little truck that was good for hauling things around town when you are working on the house. But in wet weather the rear end was always ready to swing around on you if you weren't careful.
I had a Ford Ranger in the early 90's. A nice little truck that was good for hauling things around town when you are working on the house. But in wet weather the rear end was always ready to swing around on you if you weren't careful.
macboy91si
Well-known member
My rundown, emphasis on MY...
I think one of the things that many of these cars share in a way is that they grew away from their roots.
The Dakota, introduced as a replacement to the RAM-50 was a nicely sized small truck that offered good fuel economy (4-cyl) and the availability of a reasonable V6. This went wayside with size increase and hungry engine choices. With the last model departing, what's the point in getting a Dakota? It became almost as bulky as a full-size some 8 years ago.
The Eclipse was a popular car. Lots of aftermarket parts and a straightforward design that was easy to make your own with some modding. The late models turned into anything but a lean, fun to play-with ricer car that frankly I think built this model up to any fame it had. The departing model was fat, hungry and and expensive for what it was, to me it also looked an exotic fish.
The Element was a neat car in concept when it came out. My friends mother bought one and she still loves it. Safety issues aside however there were issues. For one, it's surprisingly hard to see out of. As big as it seems on the inside, you also feel somewhat boxed in, lots of bulky interior pieces. Actually, most of this vehicle could be described as bulk. I like it (in idea...) but the implementation of a quirky, fun utility vehicle was not followed through very thoroughly. Rubber mats were a neat idea, but what they don't tell you is there is still water absorbent padding under the rubber that can cause issues. Newer updates removed that feel of utilitarian spark and assimilated it into the rest of Honda's somewhat pricey, shiny lineup. The 4-cylinder engine only manages to squeeze about 22mpg out and power is sometimes completely inadequate for the vehicle's size. A great idea that was ruined at inception with the bigger is better philosophy that is loved so much.
Ford should be smacked over the Ranger debacle period. The Ranger had been pretty much the same truck since 93! REally!? Cheap bastards. I liked the little truck and I'm not a Ford fan by any stretch. These trucks have proved reliable and fun. Fuel mileage in the 4-cyl 5-speed could reach 28mpg or more under a conservative foot. These were small pickups that were doing exactly what they were designed to do. They weren't trying to be a big truck or terribly flashy. A redesign would have been nice, but it probably would end-up being a mid-size anyhow.
The Chevy HHR really was a neat vehicle... until you sat in one. We rented one and it was fairly awful. Sort of like a pill-box gunner but with 4-wheels and satellite radio. Ours was loaded, but the thing was just down-right uncomfortable. I would imagine it's only real competition was the P/T, which I hold in much higher regards than this.
I am not terribly surprised that the RX-8 was axed, but it certainly was a fun car. A guy I used to work with had one, and it was a fun car. Wankel power and what I though was a nice shape overall. Most people that I talked to thought the 4-door concept was odd though and the car was hard to see out of as well as heavy. Maybe another Wankel gem will show up how it's supposed to be?
The Volvo's I will miss. To me these are some of the better looking wagons. I hope Geely builds cars better than they build scooters. Seems like a great move though, lets ax the wagons from the lineup, nothing says "on-brand" like removing the category of car that put you on the map. I don't have a lot of hope for Volvo and it's current management really.
The Ford Crown Victoria is at the end of it's line anyway, I'm surprised that they made it this far. I can't say I feel either way over these as most of my experience with them has been with flashing lights behind me or blue-hairs going to church. The fact that Ford made an engine capable of that broad of a performance range is humerous though. I see these huffing and puffing smoke all over town from the police auctions, some with only 130k miles on them. Cab companies love them because they're cheap, but cabbies don't because of fuel. Locally they're being replaced with Chargers as LEA seems to want a V-8, rear-drive car to peruse the congested city streets to issue citations. This is another example of the Ford philosophy of build it and never change it again, much like the Ranger. To be honest I'm surprised they didn't stick the name on another car like the damn Sable/Taurus badges on the 500.
I don't have an opinion of the DTS or the Lucerne, maybe someone would care to comment on either. I've only rode in a Lucerne once and the driver was shall we say dusty. Comfy car, but to me very mature. The DTS however I am completely indifferent about, I'm not really a Caddy driver, out of my price range and off my radar. Not really a practical car and like the Lucerne seems to attract a more mature audience. Haven't been a Caddy fan since the later 80's RWD models.
Lotus Elise, I dunno, do they really sell THAT many of any Lotus? I've never been in one, seldom see any on the road. I'm sure they're fun though, they sure look it.
-Tim
I think one of the things that many of these cars share in a way is that they grew away from their roots.
The Dakota, introduced as a replacement to the RAM-50 was a nicely sized small truck that offered good fuel economy (4-cyl) and the availability of a reasonable V6. This went wayside with size increase and hungry engine choices. With the last model departing, what's the point in getting a Dakota? It became almost as bulky as a full-size some 8 years ago.
The Eclipse was a popular car. Lots of aftermarket parts and a straightforward design that was easy to make your own with some modding. The late models turned into anything but a lean, fun to play-with ricer car that frankly I think built this model up to any fame it had. The departing model was fat, hungry and and expensive for what it was, to me it also looked an exotic fish.
The Element was a neat car in concept when it came out. My friends mother bought one and she still loves it. Safety issues aside however there were issues. For one, it's surprisingly hard to see out of. As big as it seems on the inside, you also feel somewhat boxed in, lots of bulky interior pieces. Actually, most of this vehicle could be described as bulk. I like it (in idea...) but the implementation of a quirky, fun utility vehicle was not followed through very thoroughly. Rubber mats were a neat idea, but what they don't tell you is there is still water absorbent padding under the rubber that can cause issues. Newer updates removed that feel of utilitarian spark and assimilated it into the rest of Honda's somewhat pricey, shiny lineup. The 4-cylinder engine only manages to squeeze about 22mpg out and power is sometimes completely inadequate for the vehicle's size. A great idea that was ruined at inception with the bigger is better philosophy that is loved so much.
Ford should be smacked over the Ranger debacle period. The Ranger had been pretty much the same truck since 93! REally!? Cheap bastards. I liked the little truck and I'm not a Ford fan by any stretch. These trucks have proved reliable and fun. Fuel mileage in the 4-cyl 5-speed could reach 28mpg or more under a conservative foot. These were small pickups that were doing exactly what they were designed to do. They weren't trying to be a big truck or terribly flashy. A redesign would have been nice, but it probably would end-up being a mid-size anyhow.
The Chevy HHR really was a neat vehicle... until you sat in one. We rented one and it was fairly awful. Sort of like a pill-box gunner but with 4-wheels and satellite radio. Ours was loaded, but the thing was just down-right uncomfortable. I would imagine it's only real competition was the P/T, which I hold in much higher regards than this.
I am not terribly surprised that the RX-8 was axed, but it certainly was a fun car. A guy I used to work with had one, and it was a fun car. Wankel power and what I though was a nice shape overall. Most people that I talked to thought the 4-door concept was odd though and the car was hard to see out of as well as heavy. Maybe another Wankel gem will show up how it's supposed to be?
The Volvo's I will miss. To me these are some of the better looking wagons. I hope Geely builds cars better than they build scooters. Seems like a great move though, lets ax the wagons from the lineup, nothing says "on-brand" like removing the category of car that put you on the map. I don't have a lot of hope for Volvo and it's current management really.
The Ford Crown Victoria is at the end of it's line anyway, I'm surprised that they made it this far. I can't say I feel either way over these as most of my experience with them has been with flashing lights behind me or blue-hairs going to church. The fact that Ford made an engine capable of that broad of a performance range is humerous though. I see these huffing and puffing smoke all over town from the police auctions, some with only 130k miles on them. Cab companies love them because they're cheap, but cabbies don't because of fuel. Locally they're being replaced with Chargers as LEA seems to want a V-8, rear-drive car to peruse the congested city streets to issue citations. This is another example of the Ford philosophy of build it and never change it again, much like the Ranger. To be honest I'm surprised they didn't stick the name on another car like the damn Sable/Taurus badges on the 500.
I don't have an opinion of the DTS or the Lucerne, maybe someone would care to comment on either. I've only rode in a Lucerne once and the driver was shall we say dusty. Comfy car, but to me very mature. The DTS however I am completely indifferent about, I'm not really a Caddy driver, out of my price range and off my radar. Not really a practical car and like the Lucerne seems to attract a more mature audience. Haven't been a Caddy fan since the later 80's RWD models.
Lotus Elise, I dunno, do they really sell THAT many of any Lotus? I've never been in one, seldom see any on the road. I'm sure they're fun though, they sure look it.
-Tim
Yeah, the Ranger is a great truck. My sister has an '04 Mazda B2300 version of it (built in Ford's New Jersey plant) and so far at 75,000 miles it's been like an anvil. It was hard to find due to being a combination most dealers wouldn't order: aluminum twincam 4 cylinder engine, five speed trans, deluxe interior, remote locks & power windows, tilt wheel w/cruise. Mostly Ford and Mazda dealers would only order the nice interior with that boat anchor iron 3.0 V-6 that made an extra 5 hp while adding 250 lbs. to the nose of the truck, probably one reason the tail seems too light to some. The four has adequate power and can honestly return 26-27 mpg on the highway, quite good for a truck. Ford should understand that many people don't want to mess with driving something so large as a full size F-150 - when my sister bought the Mazda she wouldn't even consider the extended cab as it made parallel parking a pita. While she mostly uses it for daily transportation, on occasion the bed has been very fully loaded - I once helped a friend move some broken concrete for a landscaping project and we had enough in there to make the mudflaps scrape the ground!
Sad, sad, sad to see the Lotus Elise go away, it's such a nice little car, very light and delicate in the tradition of Colin Chapman. I would prefer to have a Toyota engine anyway over a Lotus engine; Lotus has never really been an engine company and many of their best cars have used engines from other companies such as Toyota, Ford and Coventry Climax. Lotus' own 907 four proved to be a very good engine but it had massive teething problems when introduced in the '70s and only fulfilled its' potential in the '80s and '90s. The 907 probably did more than even poor assembly quality to kill the Jensen-Healy, if Lotus starts developing their own engines again they'll have to do better or it will kill them too.
In the automotive world it's not unusual for manufacturers to create special editions of older models about to be discontinued in hopes of moving a few extra cars off the lot - I'd love to see Mercury give the Marquis a proper send-off with a black on black with black leather deSade edition!
[this post was last edited: 11/2/2011-15:37]
Sad, sad, sad to see the Lotus Elise go away, it's such a nice little car, very light and delicate in the tradition of Colin Chapman. I would prefer to have a Toyota engine anyway over a Lotus engine; Lotus has never really been an engine company and many of their best cars have used engines from other companies such as Toyota, Ford and Coventry Climax. Lotus' own 907 four proved to be a very good engine but it had massive teething problems when introduced in the '70s and only fulfilled its' potential in the '80s and '90s. The 907 probably did more than even poor assembly quality to kill the Jensen-Healy, if Lotus starts developing their own engines again they'll have to do better or it will kill them too.
In the automotive world it's not unusual for manufacturers to create special editions of older models about to be discontinued in hopes of moving a few extra cars off the lot - I'd love to see Mercury give the Marquis a proper send-off with a black on black with black leather deSade edition!
[this post was last edited: 11/2/2011-15:37]
On Rangers...
I have probably been spoiled a bit.
I have had three Rangers, a '92 long-wheel base regular cab, a '97 short wheelbase regular cab, and a '98 supercab.
Of the three, my favorite is the '97 (I still have the 97 and 98).
The 92 and 97 both have the 4.0L powerhouse V6. In a regular cab, both trucks qualify in my opinion for pocket-rocket status, especially the 97 with its adaptive 5-speed auto transmission that acts like it has a shift kit in it when romped on early enough. I guess it's no wonder that I get about half the mileage out of my tires as others have from factory tires when coupled with the 3.0L and the various 4-cylinder engines. Both trucks needed new tires by 38k miles (they were beyond the wear bars).
The 98 is an entirely different animal. Being a supercab, it is much easier to live with interior-wise, and I'm not a big guy at 5-foot eleven. The original regular cab was a bit tight, especially with the Explorer style bucket seats that my 97 came with. The 98 has the 3.0L engine. I get decent mileage in combined city/highway driving of about 21mpg, but for only 10 fewer hp than the 4.0L, the performance is stunningly different. I agree that these trucks can be quite squirrely on wet roads, especially with no load in the bed. Try it with too much power to the rear wheels too!
Funny that my "little truck" as I call it has a bigger, much more capable engine than the "big truck". I got the 98 'big truck' used in 2004 (because I had the 97 completely rebuilt after a nasty accident and it was having re-birthing pains to the tune of $2,000 worth of odd repairs). I was supposed to sell the 97. Maybe one day I'll do that, or as everyone who knows me says, I'll be buried in that truck's bed.
Gordon
I have probably been spoiled a bit.
I have had three Rangers, a '92 long-wheel base regular cab, a '97 short wheelbase regular cab, and a '98 supercab.
Of the three, my favorite is the '97 (I still have the 97 and 98).
The 92 and 97 both have the 4.0L powerhouse V6. In a regular cab, both trucks qualify in my opinion for pocket-rocket status, especially the 97 with its adaptive 5-speed auto transmission that acts like it has a shift kit in it when romped on early enough. I guess it's no wonder that I get about half the mileage out of my tires as others have from factory tires when coupled with the 3.0L and the various 4-cylinder engines. Both trucks needed new tires by 38k miles (they were beyond the wear bars).
The 98 is an entirely different animal. Being a supercab, it is much easier to live with interior-wise, and I'm not a big guy at 5-foot eleven. The original regular cab was a bit tight, especially with the Explorer style bucket seats that my 97 came with. The 98 has the 3.0L engine. I get decent mileage in combined city/highway driving of about 21mpg, but for only 10 fewer hp than the 4.0L, the performance is stunningly different. I agree that these trucks can be quite squirrely on wet roads, especially with no load in the bed. Try it with too much power to the rear wheels too!
Funny that my "little truck" as I call it has a bigger, much more capable engine than the "big truck". I got the 98 'big truck' used in 2004 (because I had the 97 completely rebuilt after a nasty accident and it was having re-birthing pains to the tune of $2,000 worth of odd repairs). I was supposed to sell the 97. Maybe one day I'll do that, or as everyone who knows me says, I'll be buried in that truck's bed.
Gordon
I've got a 2000 Ranger super cab, that I bought used. Once I got the quirks straightened out, it's become a decent vehicle.
There is rumor that the next small Ford truck will be called F100, sort of a throwback name.
There is rumor that the next small Ford truck will be called F100, sort of a throwback name.
xraytech
Well-known member
Well, half of the list I couldnt care about never seeing again, but there are a few that I was very fond of.
The Ford Crown Victoria/Lincoln TownCar: as an owner of both of those vehichles I must say that they offer me everything I want, V-8 performance, good gas mileage(21mpg in town), a comfortable well appointed interior, huge trunk, smooth floaty ride, great reliability and build quality. Being 6'5" I prefer a large car with plenty of room and power, I also like something laden with lots of options which this delivered at a good price, and the reliability, I figure if the police can use them and abuse them for 200k miles then it is good enough for me.
Buick Lucerne: I have always been a Buick fan, my first car was a 1990 Buick LeSabre, and I currently have a 1999 Park Avenue, I was devastated by those models being dropped, but I always felt that the Lucerne was a good replacement that bridged the gap between those models and met in the middle, and still offered the bulletproof 3800 V6 engine, well until 2009, but this was another model I thought could give me more bang for my buck with luxury appointments, power, ride quality and overall size.
Cadillac DTS: as a former owner of one I loved the styling of the car and the interior comfort, but what I didnt love was the lack of quality of the NorthStar V8, if only they had continued using something like the 5.7LT1 they used in the larger models of the early 90's it would have been a better car, but overall with exception of the reliability it was another car a truly loved driving. The reliability is what caused me to get my current Town Car which I am even more in love with.
Volvo Wagons: Though I have never owned a Volvo and am NOT a fan of imports I still find the Volvo wagon to be so iconic and being a lover of station wagons I always loved that Volvo still offereda true station wagon.
Really overall what I am most pissed about is the fact that all of the true full size luxury cars that I always lean towards due to my taste of prefering a more mature car, and my needs for excessive cargo room as well head and leg room for my raher tall build have all been discontinued and there really dont seem to be any equivalent replacements. The Ford Taurus/Lincoln MKS seem to be the biggest now and that is still a bit too small for me. I guess good thing my Town Car has 24000 miles on it and I will try to find a late model Buick Park Avenue in the spring with under 50000 miles to help carry me for several more years before being forced to downsize.
The Ford Crown Victoria/Lincoln TownCar: as an owner of both of those vehichles I must say that they offer me everything I want, V-8 performance, good gas mileage(21mpg in town), a comfortable well appointed interior, huge trunk, smooth floaty ride, great reliability and build quality. Being 6'5" I prefer a large car with plenty of room and power, I also like something laden with lots of options which this delivered at a good price, and the reliability, I figure if the police can use them and abuse them for 200k miles then it is good enough for me.
Buick Lucerne: I have always been a Buick fan, my first car was a 1990 Buick LeSabre, and I currently have a 1999 Park Avenue, I was devastated by those models being dropped, but I always felt that the Lucerne was a good replacement that bridged the gap between those models and met in the middle, and still offered the bulletproof 3800 V6 engine, well until 2009, but this was another model I thought could give me more bang for my buck with luxury appointments, power, ride quality and overall size.
Cadillac DTS: as a former owner of one I loved the styling of the car and the interior comfort, but what I didnt love was the lack of quality of the NorthStar V8, if only they had continued using something like the 5.7LT1 they used in the larger models of the early 90's it would have been a better car, but overall with exception of the reliability it was another car a truly loved driving. The reliability is what caused me to get my current Town Car which I am even more in love with.
Volvo Wagons: Though I have never owned a Volvo and am NOT a fan of imports I still find the Volvo wagon to be so iconic and being a lover of station wagons I always loved that Volvo still offereda true station wagon.
Really overall what I am most pissed about is the fact that all of the true full size luxury cars that I always lean towards due to my taste of prefering a more mature car, and my needs for excessive cargo room as well head and leg room for my raher tall build have all been discontinued and there really dont seem to be any equivalent replacements. The Ford Taurus/Lincoln MKS seem to be the biggest now and that is still a bit too small for me. I guess good thing my Town Car has 24000 miles on it and I will try to find a late model Buick Park Avenue in the spring with under 50000 miles to help carry me for several more years before being forced to downsize.
My thoughts.
Will the Mercury "DeSade" come with tire chains as standard equipment?
As the proud and long-time owner of a Volvo 240 sedan (and a big fan of the wagons) I am disappointed in the direction Volvo is taking. I think Ford really trashed the brand and now its empty carcass has been sold to a third-rate owner. The Volvos of the 70s, 80s, and 90s were not cheap, but were honestly comfortable and exceptionally durable. They were both innovative and conservative at the same time and were distinct from everything else on the road. Mine is a joy to drive and handles very nicely. I love my 240 and despite being nearly 25 years old, it is not a showpiece or trailer queen, I drive mine. I agree that the station wagon was Volvo's iconic car and it bothers me a great deal that the simple, reasonable, and distinct station wagon is being replaced by yet another politically incorrect SUV.
I also own a 2008 Honda Element. The safety concerns were addressed with the 2007 redesign. It's true that the visibility isn't wonderful, but I've found that the addition of a pair of inexpensive convex stick-on mirrors has helped the visibility considerably. I do wish it came without the stupid tinted glass in the rear, however. The engine could benefit a great deal from a turbo charger like my Saab had (the one thing on that car that didn't break). I find my Element to be well designed and flexible. It suites my needs quite nicely and I'm sad to see it go. I would have bought a new one, except they stopped offering the manual transmission in 2009. Mine has AWD and we'll see what happens this winter. For regular driving, however, I wish it was set up to allow most of the power to go to the rear wheels most of the time for better handling, and only engage the fronts in slippery conditions.
Dave
Will the Mercury "DeSade" come with tire chains as standard equipment?
As the proud and long-time owner of a Volvo 240 sedan (and a big fan of the wagons) I am disappointed in the direction Volvo is taking. I think Ford really trashed the brand and now its empty carcass has been sold to a third-rate owner. The Volvos of the 70s, 80s, and 90s were not cheap, but were honestly comfortable and exceptionally durable. They were both innovative and conservative at the same time and were distinct from everything else on the road. Mine is a joy to drive and handles very nicely. I love my 240 and despite being nearly 25 years old, it is not a showpiece or trailer queen, I drive mine. I agree that the station wagon was Volvo's iconic car and it bothers me a great deal that the simple, reasonable, and distinct station wagon is being replaced by yet another politically incorrect SUV.
I also own a 2008 Honda Element. The safety concerns were addressed with the 2007 redesign. It's true that the visibility isn't wonderful, but I've found that the addition of a pair of inexpensive convex stick-on mirrors has helped the visibility considerably. I do wish it came without the stupid tinted glass in the rear, however. The engine could benefit a great deal from a turbo charger like my Saab had (the one thing on that car that didn't break). I find my Element to be well designed and flexible. It suites my needs quite nicely and I'm sad to see it go. I would have bought a new one, except they stopped offering the manual transmission in 2009. Mine has AWD and we'll see what happens this winter. For regular driving, however, I wish it was set up to allow most of the power to go to the rear wheels most of the time for better handling, and only engage the fronts in slippery conditions.
Dave
lordkenmore
Well-known member
[Volvo] Quality has to remain or exceed expectations
I'm not sure what the expectations are. I suppose it depends on the buyer. I have no direct experience with Volvo--real Volvo or Ford Volvo--but I am still waiting for someone who knows the real Volvo to say one positive thing about Ford Volvo. I can't imagine the situation will improve any with the Chinese.
Of course, quality is probably not a concern of many buyers of these cars. Quality has, by all accounts, slipped on several--if not all--high end European cars. Yet they still sell--probably to people who don't care about quality, and only care about having something to impress everyone they know with how far they've come in the world to be able to afford an expensive car.
While I never have had the budget for a new Volvo, I miss the years when they were expensive, but one got a real, lasting investment.
I'm not sure what the expectations are. I suppose it depends on the buyer. I have no direct experience with Volvo--real Volvo or Ford Volvo--but I am still waiting for someone who knows the real Volvo to say one positive thing about Ford Volvo. I can't imagine the situation will improve any with the Chinese.
Of course, quality is probably not a concern of many buyers of these cars. Quality has, by all accounts, slipped on several--if not all--high end European cars. Yet they still sell--probably to people who don't care about quality, and only care about having something to impress everyone they know with how far they've come in the world to be able to afford an expensive car.
While I never have had the budget for a new Volvo, I miss the years when they were expensive, but one got a real, lasting investment.
I really thought 2010 would be the last year for the Honda Element (& even got told that by a dealer I went to last year)...
Kind'a regret not getting that instead of my 2003 CiViC that I still drive... But I have never seen even one of those that had a Moonroof...
Not too surprised to see the Buick Lucerne make the list, as w/o the Pontiac Bonneville, there is still no GM-counterpart for it, unless the Chevrolet Impala is still supposed to count!
Had no idea that my Nanny's Chevy HHR was a gas hog; I borrowed it for a drive it to buy my lawnmower & a small patio dinette set & that seemed to be the only thing (well, thingS) I think it "swallowed"... Her hubby has a Dodge Ram Diesel Quad Cab--would have loved to drive that!
Disappointing to see the Dodge Dakota go--that is a truck I would consider buying, but if only it could get the refinements that the larger Ram got--it's still not too late for Chrysler to do...
Even more shocking for Ford to discontinue its Ranger, after that near-30-year run! Surely Ford should think of an ideal replacement if it still wants to compete w/ Chevrolet's Colorado and GMC's Canyon (unless the news ever comes out that these two are destined to leave, as well!)
Hoping while these models go, SOMETHING good can fill their shoes...!
-- Dave
Kind'a regret not getting that instead of my 2003 CiViC that I still drive... But I have never seen even one of those that had a Moonroof...
Not too surprised to see the Buick Lucerne make the list, as w/o the Pontiac Bonneville, there is still no GM-counterpart for it, unless the Chevrolet Impala is still supposed to count!
Had no idea that my Nanny's Chevy HHR was a gas hog; I borrowed it for a drive it to buy my lawnmower & a small patio dinette set & that seemed to be the only thing (well, thingS) I think it "swallowed"... Her hubby has a Dodge Ram Diesel Quad Cab--would have loved to drive that!
Disappointing to see the Dodge Dakota go--that is a truck I would consider buying, but if only it could get the refinements that the larger Ram got--it's still not too late for Chrysler to do...
Even more shocking for Ford to discontinue its Ranger, after that near-30-year run! Surely Ford should think of an ideal replacement if it still wants to compete w/ Chevrolet's Colorado and GMC's Canyon (unless the news ever comes out that these two are destined to leave, as well!)
Hoping while these models go, SOMETHING good can fill their shoes...!
-- Dave
pushtorelease
Well-known member
I'm very sad to see the Ranger go - I'm on my second. Had a '94 then bought an '08 new. Never had trouble with either of them. I was looking at getting an '11 a couple of months ago and the salesman told me this was the last year. He said the same thing, the F-100 will be the replacement.
The RX-8 is probably the best car of the bunch, but to its credit Mazda is vowing to bring back an even better version of the Wankel engined car.
RX-9? Or will it be a Wankel hybrid? Who knows?
RX-9? Or will it be a Wankel hybrid? Who knows?
