If your old enough to remember the late 70's and early 80's, the first time I remember a energy crisis and long lines for gas, everyone rushed to small cars remember the Chevette? Then came a time when there were many small cars domestic and foreign on the highways. The BIG ole gas guzzlers trickled down to people with limited financial means, sticking them with the guzzlers, many were under or not insured. When a big car hits a little car the $damage is often greater than small car to small car collision. Id imagine your chance of being killed, in the smaller car is greater. So in about 2-4 yrs we will again be in our our small cars with big ole, worn out, smoking, SUV's in front of us. Now if the auto companies want to do something GREEN, and good for all of us. IMHO, Corporate responsibility would begin with a trade in SUV or other guzzler, and it goes back to the manufacturer of ORIGIN, for a melt down and recycle into something we can afford and live with. I wonder what MFR. would get the most "guzzlers" returned to them? I have a PT cruiser now, must admit it is fun to drive and real close to 30 mpg on the highway. Something to think about in fuel cost, insurance rates, injuries, death. LOL, I just hope that we do not relive that 55MPH experiment. Sorry to repost this I had posted in the "Taurus thread" below, Im really p.o. with this. Your thoughts? Now I realize there is a need for service trucks and such. How amazing GM now needs money to retool.
another bailout requested Gm exec on CNN
- Thread starter alr2903
- Start date
Help Support :
whirlcool
Well-known member
A few years ago this problem was dealt with. It seemed that a lot of SUV's would over ride the bumpers of smaller cars causing more damage and injuries. So they lowered the ride height of vehicles such as the Ford Explorer, etc to match that of smaller cars. They wanted to make sure that the people in both cars received the same amount of injuries.
Yes, I remember the Chevette. First really cheap and crappy small car from GM. They usually didn't last too long. From what i have seen if you got 75K miles out of one you were doing good.
Yes, I remember the Chevette. First really cheap and crappy small car from GM. They usually didn't last too long. From what i have seen if you got 75K miles out of one you were doing good.
petek
Well-known member
And if you ordered your Chevette with power windows they called it a Cadillac Cimmaron iirc.
LOL
Cavalier w/power windows!
Cavalier w/power windows!
andrewinorlando
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,392
Yes, with that snappy 2.8L V-6 Pontiac engine.....pure luxury for a then-whopping $12,000! For a Cavalier.
danemodsandy
Well-known member
The Price of a Detroit Bailout...
...Should be a demand for greater responsibility to consumers. All three of the Big Three have been guilty of poor after-sale satisfaction, with Ford and Chrysler being particularly remiss.
What is going on is this: Auto manufacturers, in an effort to cut their costs, are outsourcing much of their design process to suppliers and contractors, and are not testing the result as thoroughly as was formerly the case. That has caused catastrophic failure in a number of popular cars, such as the Ford Taurus re-design of 1996, and the Dodge Intrepid. I personally lost an immaculately maintained, brand-new-looking '96 Taurus at 66,000 miles due to a cooling system design flaw that should never have happened in the first place. Ford did zip for me.
Under today's system, auto manufacturers can handle such problems with a "customer satisfaction" campaign that lasts only a limited period of time. If you take the car to a dealer during that time and complain of the exact issue covered by the campaign, you may get some help. After the campaign expires, you're out of luck. Manufacturers are under no obligation to inform you of such campaigns, either. This is what happened with my Taurus - by the time my car began showing the infamous "brown coolant" problem caused by stray electric current in the cooling system, the campaign was over. The cooling system problem went on to eat my water pump, radiator, freeze plugs, and heater core, despite changing the coolant several times a year, and despite my having Ford's recommended cooling system update installed at my own expense. Ford would do absolutely nothing about a problem their faulty design process had caused, and they were legally in the clear under Federal law; only safety-system defects get a mandatory Federal recall. Intrepid owners with the 2.7L engine have had similarly horrendous failures, typically around 63,000 miles, due to inadequate oil passages in that engine.
This is why nobody trusts Detroit any more. A new car is the second-largest purchase most of us will ever make (the largest for many of us), and yet we are subject to an enormous shafting, with very little recourse. I have long pressed for a design warranty requirement on cars, where the car is expressly guaranteed against defects in design for five years, which is the length of a typical auto loan nowadays. Only by doing this can faith be restored in American cars; I can tell you from personal experience that anyone who has eaten a car through no fault of their own will never go back to that manufacturer.
Detroit has acted irresponsibly for a long time, and this request for a bailout (which is actually for government-guaranteed loans, not a handout) is one of the few opportunities we'll ever have to correct the problem. If we don't, the American auto industry will slide down the tubes, victim of its own arrogance and misguided cost-containment efforts (why don't they ever start with cutting executive salaries?). While I don't mind that for overpaid execs, there are hundreds of thousands of autoworkers and dealer employees whose livelihoods depend on Detroit, and who bear absolutely no responsibility for the horsetwaddle that's been eating away at Detroit's onetime supremacy in the world market. They, and we, should not suffer any more, but if Detroit won't agree to better treatment of consumers, then I say we'll all have to bite the bullet and let 'em die.
I'm off my soapbox now.
...Should be a demand for greater responsibility to consumers. All three of the Big Three have been guilty of poor after-sale satisfaction, with Ford and Chrysler being particularly remiss.
What is going on is this: Auto manufacturers, in an effort to cut their costs, are outsourcing much of their design process to suppliers and contractors, and are not testing the result as thoroughly as was formerly the case. That has caused catastrophic failure in a number of popular cars, such as the Ford Taurus re-design of 1996, and the Dodge Intrepid. I personally lost an immaculately maintained, brand-new-looking '96 Taurus at 66,000 miles due to a cooling system design flaw that should never have happened in the first place. Ford did zip for me.
Under today's system, auto manufacturers can handle such problems with a "customer satisfaction" campaign that lasts only a limited period of time. If you take the car to a dealer during that time and complain of the exact issue covered by the campaign, you may get some help. After the campaign expires, you're out of luck. Manufacturers are under no obligation to inform you of such campaigns, either. This is what happened with my Taurus - by the time my car began showing the infamous "brown coolant" problem caused by stray electric current in the cooling system, the campaign was over. The cooling system problem went on to eat my water pump, radiator, freeze plugs, and heater core, despite changing the coolant several times a year, and despite my having Ford's recommended cooling system update installed at my own expense. Ford would do absolutely nothing about a problem their faulty design process had caused, and they were legally in the clear under Federal law; only safety-system defects get a mandatory Federal recall. Intrepid owners with the 2.7L engine have had similarly horrendous failures, typically around 63,000 miles, due to inadequate oil passages in that engine.
This is why nobody trusts Detroit any more. A new car is the second-largest purchase most of us will ever make (the largest for many of us), and yet we are subject to an enormous shafting, with very little recourse. I have long pressed for a design warranty requirement on cars, where the car is expressly guaranteed against defects in design for five years, which is the length of a typical auto loan nowadays. Only by doing this can faith be restored in American cars; I can tell you from personal experience that anyone who has eaten a car through no fault of their own will never go back to that manufacturer.
Detroit has acted irresponsibly for a long time, and this request for a bailout (which is actually for government-guaranteed loans, not a handout) is one of the few opportunities we'll ever have to correct the problem. If we don't, the American auto industry will slide down the tubes, victim of its own arrogance and misguided cost-containment efforts (why don't they ever start with cutting executive salaries?). While I don't mind that for overpaid execs, there are hundreds of thousands of autoworkers and dealer employees whose livelihoods depend on Detroit, and who bear absolutely no responsibility for the horsetwaddle that's been eating away at Detroit's onetime supremacy in the world market. They, and we, should not suffer any more, but if Detroit won't agree to better treatment of consumers, then I say we'll all have to bite the bullet and let 'em die.
I'm off my soapbox now.
The Cimarron was based on a Citation, not a Shove-itte, I mean Chevette. Still a pile o' crap!
iheartmaytag
Well-known member
Actually the Cimmeron was from the J platform. Skylark, Cavalier, Sunbird.
The X cars Citation, Skyhawk, Omega
The bottom of the crap pile was the Chevette, Vega,
We moved from GM to ford in 1980, and then from All Ford to Chrysler in 1990. Still driving Chrysler cars and very happy with them.
I will say that Chrysler's guaranteed loan helped them be able to come up with the Mini-van and they paid back the loan in record time. I don't see anything wrong with helping these companies. We've done it for the airlines, why not?
But actually as Iacocca said in his book. The government could help the auto industry alot with regulations. Not by relaxing them per se, but by relaxing the anti-trust laws so that they could work on non-income items together to solve a problem of emmissions, fuel economy, crash testing. The way the laws are now GM and Chrysler execs can't even have a cup of coffee together without an antitrust action being slapped on them.
The X cars Citation, Skyhawk, Omega
The bottom of the crap pile was the Chevette, Vega,
We moved from GM to ford in 1980, and then from All Ford to Chrysler in 1990. Still driving Chrysler cars and very happy with them.
I will say that Chrysler's guaranteed loan helped them be able to come up with the Mini-van and they paid back the loan in record time. I don't see anything wrong with helping these companies. We've done it for the airlines, why not?
But actually as Iacocca said in his book. The government could help the auto industry alot with regulations. Not by relaxing them per se, but by relaxing the anti-trust laws so that they could work on non-income items together to solve a problem of emmissions, fuel economy, crash testing. The way the laws are now GM and Chrysler execs can't even have a cup of coffee together without an antitrust action being slapped on them.
petek
Well-known member
Well just cause you wrap a ribbon round a turd doesn't make it any more appealing. Chevette,Cavalier or Cimarron
iheartmaytag
Well-known member
Well just cause you wrap a ribbon round a turd doesn't m
Yea, but you can add three grand to the price tag.
Yea, but you can add three grand to the price tag.
petek
Well-known member
The difference is that Toyotas and Hondas are ribbon worthy cars not ....
beadsobleach
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 179
Get your hands on a Toyota, you'll never let go
This was the earliest Toyota commercial I remember. While not knocking the Japanese cars, (I had a Tercel), what Iheartmaytag said is true, the Japanese companies can share technologies, in the US its illegal. It seems so many are wishing for the end of US auto makers, remember they were the ones who helped lift many workers to a better living standard.
This was the earliest Toyota commercial I remember. While not knocking the Japanese cars, (I had a Tercel), what Iheartmaytag said is true, the Japanese companies can share technologies, in the US its illegal. It seems so many are wishing for the end of US auto makers, remember they were the ones who helped lift many workers to a better living standard.
sudsmaster
Well-known member
The loan guarantee certainly did help Chrysler survive, but the key to their success with the minivan was the fact that Iococca had led a team to develop the van while he was at Ford. Ford was supremely disinterested in the project and somehow Iococca was able to take the plans with him to Chrysler. I guess it's a story sort of similar to Xerox developing a personal computer and the mouse, decided it would go nowhere, and then turning the other way when Steve Jobs stole the idea. The rest is history. The K-cars got Chrysler back into the black, and the minivans made it quite profitable.
petek
Well-known member
K was for krappy wasn't it. My poor dad had always been a Ford guy and then back 80ish? he bought a new Plymouth Reliant. Oh what a piece of junk, he couldn't have been more disappointed. It was in the shop more than it was out and it rusted like crazy. Anyways it sent him straight to Japan for his next car and he never looked back. The worst car he ever owned he used to say.
