or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Automotive/Car Talk › Automotive Design trends....The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Automotive Design trends....The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - Page 3

post #61 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

About the only thing that's improved in the last 30 years is fuel efficiency.

Expensive to replace electronic keys: I can't even get a door key cut for my Pontiac Wave; nobody stocks the blank.  It's supposed to prevent theft.  I have never had a car stolen, but I have lost keys. - No thanks.

Roof racks that require you to purchase another roof rack to attache to it for $600. before you can use it.  Check out the '92 technology:

You could get a key cut for $2 bucks at a hardware store.  The hood stayed up by itself. The roof rack crossbars could be adjusted fore and aft.  The older '83 was even better; the rear crossbar kept the back window dust-free so you didn't need a rear wiper. 

 

I applaud the return of actual HP in cars a few years back, but I'm not so happy with the way you can only get the high output engines with the most expensive trim.  Back in the day, a few hundred more would get you the the top dog engine by clicking a box on the option cheat, now you have to pay an extra 30K.  I guess they want to keep sales down so they meet the CAFE rules.  Do they still have to meet these average fuel economy rules?

 

Dough nuts instead of spares (another concession to fuel economy) - no thanks; I just have to buy an additional tire.  Who wants to drive at 50 mph for the next 100 miles or more before you can get a new tire.

 

Fancy electronic dashboards - built in obsolescence.

Cameras - no thanks extra unneeded expense.

17 airbags - I would rather spend that money on better (better-gripping tires.)

High centre of gravity minivans and SUVs replacing low centre of gravity 50/50 front rear weighted wagons - No Thanks.

 

BTW my '09 Pontiac Wave has more new  parts at 60,000 miles than my wife's '93 Toyota Corolla (not counting wear and tear parts like filters/pads/rotors/light bulbs).  I"ve also noticed that they have geniuses designing ever more clever ways of making it more difficult for the home mechanic to do simple things like change a light bulb or a spark plug - a trend that started in the '70s and continues to this day.

Despite your comments, there are lots of improvements over the last 30 years besides fuel economy. Here are a few:
Anti lock brakes

Fuel Injection

Electronic Ignition

6/7/8 speed auto transmissions

all wheel drive

huge horsepower out of smaller, lighter engines

way better tires

airbags

electronic stability control

traction control

efficient use of space making most cars more useful

clean, quiet diesel engines in private vehicles

100k spark plugs

3point seat belts at all seating positions

better crash protection

better build quality

better rust prevention

HID lights

Cars today routinely go well beyond 100,000 miles with regular maintenance.

 

I also wish there were more wagon choices, but wagons do not sell here in the US.

 

Thirty years ago a 1984 Camaro z28 optional L69 305ci (5.0L) v8 was a $530 option (almost 5% of the Z28 base price). It was rated 190hp/240torque, the most powerful available Camaro engine and it was only available on the most expensive Camaro - the Z28. The current base Camaro comes with a 217ci(3.6L)V6 rated 323hp/278torque.

 

Sometimes our memory makes things better then they actually were.:D

post #62 of 89

Thanks X10003 for posting that.  I was just about to do the same thing...

 

To say nothing has improved with cars in the last 30 years is just insane.   They are 10X's better than they used to be.

 

Did someone actually say they prefer Crank windows?   Seriously?   Cars in the 50's had power windows for Chris sake.

 

Just waiting for someone to complain about power locks and power steering now.

 

"Driving used to be a workout!  Now I have to go to the gym..."

post #63 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by x10003q View Post

Cars today routinely go well beyond 100,000 miles with regular maintenance." src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/biggrin.gif">

 



I'll give you that. In fact, mine go to six figures w/o regular maintenance, but don't rain on our luddite parade:-)
post #64 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesj View Post

<

Modern cars are a serious violation of the KISS principle. Everything is way more complicated than it needs to be. 



p>

You know the electric defroster wires in the rear windows of cars that quickly melt away ice? Why don't cars have those running in unobtrusive ways through the front windshields? Seems like it would be a great feature for skiers and people who live in cold, snowy climes.

 

And thank your DC bureaucrats for much of that. EPA and NHTSA rules give us the cluster that we have today.

 

Integral front defrosters are available in a number of higher-end cars, however for much of the population that would probably also fall into the un-KISS concept.

post #65 of 89

I prefer crank windows because I have never seen one fail.  I have had to repair way to many power windows. Even my wifes new minivan had power window failures, fixed in warranty but who wants to look forward to that in the future. Same thing with the door locks. Why take something that is incredibly dependable and turn it into a recurring expense/problem.  That is not an improvement, that's a profit center for the dealer.

 

100,000 mile sparkplugs make great sense and I appreciate them. Having to spend a day removing  the intake system on my car to replace the back three and then going to the dealer to buy gaskets for the reassembly is a major pain.

 

Integral defrosters make sense. It's not a Luddite thing, it's common sense.

 

My ski boots are a pain to get on because they are very form fitting.  I am willing to do that to go skiing, just like I would be happy to have crank windows that always work - especially when it's raining, snowing or just cold out. 

 

Sorry for the rant, simple and sensible should be design guidelines but unfortunately aren't.

post #66 of 89
Thread Starter 

No crank windows for me. I am frustrated when there isn't an auto up down AND UP for all the windows. 

post #67 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgrezmer View Post
 

I prefer crank windows because I have never seen one fail.  I have had to repair way to many power windows.

I didn't have any power windows in the 70s, 80s, or 90s.  I did have to replace one switch in wife's 1999 Altima awhile back but other than that I've been lucky I guess. 

 

I have taken note of quite a few 80s and 90  vehicles at the drive thru windows that had to open their door to order and pick up their food.  That must really suck!

post #68 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by x10003q View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

About the only thing that's improved in the last 30 years is fuel efficiency.

Expensive to replace electronic keys: I can't even get a door key cut for my Pontiac Wave; nobody stocks the blank.  It's supposed to prevent theft.  I have never had a car stolen, but I have lost keys. - No thanks.

Roof racks that require you to purchase another roof rack to attache to it for $600. before you can use it.  Check out the '92 technology:

You could get a key cut for $2 bucks at a hardware store.  The hood stayed up by itself. The roof rack crossbars could be adjusted fore and aft.  The older '83 was even better; the rear crossbar kept the back window dust-free so you didn't need a rear wiper. 

 

I applaud the return of actual HP in cars a few years back, but I'm not so happy with the way you can only get the high output engines with the most expensive trim.  Back in the day, a few hundred more would get you the the top dog engine by clicking a box on the option cheat, now you have to pay an extra 30K.  I guess they want to keep sales down so they meet the CAFE rules.  Do they still have to meet these average fuel economy rules?

 

Dough nuts instead of spares (another concession to fuel economy) - no thanks; I just have to buy an additional tire.  Who wants to drive at 50 mph for the next 100 miles or more before you can get a new tire.

 

Fancy electronic dashboards - built in obsolescence.

Cameras - no thanks extra unneeded expense.

17 airbags - I would rather spend that money on better (better-gripping tires.)

High centre of gravity minivans and SUVs replacing low centre of gravity 50/50 front rear weighted wagons - No Thanks.

 

BTW my '09 Pontiac Wave has more new  parts at 60,000 miles than my wife's '93 Toyota Corolla (not counting wear and tear parts like filters/pads/rotors/light bulbs).  I"ve also noticed that they have geniuses designing ever more clever ways of making it more difficult for the home mechanic to do simple things like change a light bulb or a spark plug - a trend that started in the '70s and continues to this day.

Despite your comments, there are lots of improvements over the last 30 years besides fuel economy. Here are a few:
Anti lock brakes

Fuel Injection

Electronic Ignition

6/7/8 speed auto transmissions

all wheel drive

huge horsepower out of smaller, lighter engines

way better tires

airbags

electronic stability control

traction control

efficient use of space making most cars more useful

clean, quiet diesel engines in private vehicles

100k spark plugs

3point seat belts at all seating positions

better crash protection

better build quality

better rust prevention

HID lights

Cars today routinely go well beyond 100,000 miles with regular maintenance.

 

I also wish there were more wagon choices, but wagons do not sell here in the US.

 

Thirty years ago a 1984 Camaro z28 optional L69 305ci (5.0L) v8 was a $530 option (almost 5% of the Z28 base price). It was rated 190hp/240torque, the most powerful available Camaro engine and it was only available on the most expensive Camaro - the Z28. The current base Camaro comes with a 217ci(3.6L)V6 rated 323hp/278torque.

 

Sometimes our memory makes things better then they actually were.:D

:duel:Yes, early 80s were hard years for most muscle cars. The trouble with you young'uns is you have no baseline to compare to.  The trend to not being able to check the engine box began in the early 70s.  And it was pretty easy to modify that stock 350 engine in a '72 camaro or  (383, 440, 426 Hemi -take your pick) '69 Superbee without spending a small fortune.

 

You make a good point, except that most of those "advancements" were made in the '50s and '60s, The 100 k mile spark plugs being the exception.

ABS brakes were an option in the '71 Cadilac.

Electronic Fuel injection - '58 Chryslers

Electronic ignition, '60 General Motors

All my cars have gone well past 100 000 miles, starting with the '68 Nova.

 

:snowfightSpeaking ABS brakes, it's just another multi thousand dollar gadget that increases your stopping distance in deep snow and loose gravel that will cost you a couple of more grand to replace 6 years down the road, invented for people who can't drive and don't know how to properly use a brake pedal. 

post #69 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

:snowfightSpeaking ABS brakes, it's just another multi thousand dollar gadget that increases your stopping distance in deep snow and loose gravel that will cost you a couple of more grand to replace 6 years down the road, invented for people who can't drive and don't know how to properly use a brake pedal. 

 

Curmudgeon..  :D

post #70 of 89

The best thing about the cars of "the good old days (daze?)" is we survived them.  Had my share of those cars 58 MG A, Volvo P1800, 71 Cuda, Bugs, 289 4 sp Mustangs, and more; lots of fun, but not nearly as good as modern cars.  

 

A fathers wisdom to his kids was, "don't buy a car with over 60,000 miles, it is worn out". That is just broken in today.  Tires were good for about 25,000 miles, lots are warrantied for 60,000 today. The paint is better. You rarely see a car putting up a smoke screen any more. And when was the last time you worried about overheating going over the pass?  You really don't want to go back to biased ply tires do you;a cheap thrill was driving something with 2 bias and 2 radial tires, think running gates on powder skis.

 

Today's boots and skis are better. The differences in what we drive is even larger. 

post #71 of 89

When I bought my Chevelle, I ordered everything I wanted and they built it for me and shipped it to the dealer. I basically ordered a stealth SS. I got all the parts that make up an SS, except the stripes and logos. I could then tell my insurance company I had a plain jane Chevelle, and avoid the surcharge that went with an SS. Then I added some aftermarket goodies and I had a car that would spin the wheels on flat ice with the engine idling. With studded tires, however, it would walk up a 7% grade on wet ice at 15 mph without touching the gas pedal. That was my main ski car for about 3 years.

 

Can't do that now; special order the premium package one piece at a time, without the name tags, or legally modify the hardware without going to great expense. I kinda stopped being a car nut when that way of doing things became the standard.

post #72 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrison Claystone View Post
 

When I bought my Chevelle, I ordered everything I wanted and they built it for me and shipped it to the dealer. I basically ordered a stealth SS. I got all the parts that make up an SS, except the stripes and logos. I could then tell my insurance company I had a plain jane Chevelle, and avoid the surcharge that went with an SS. Then I added some aftermarket goodies and I had a car that would spin the wheels on flat ice with the engine idling. With studded tires, however, it would walk up a 7% grade on wet ice at 15 mph without touching the gas pedal. That was my main ski car for about 3 years.

 

Can't do that now; special order the premium package one piece at a time, without the name tags, or legally modify the hardware without going to great expense. I kinda stopped being a car nut when that way of doing things became the standard.

 

OTOH if you are a car nut these days the HP available in today's muscle cars is amazing. Add in huge tires and brakes and modern suspension designs and today's cars make the old ones look well...old.

 

Chrysler now offers the Challenger SRT Hellcat with a 707hp hemi V8 with 650 lbs-ft. torque and 15.4" front rotors with 6 piston calipers. Who needs to special order?

post #73 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger View Post
 

The best thing about the cars of "the good old days (daze?)" is we survived them.  Had my share of those cars 58 MG A, Volvo P1800, 71 Cuda, Bugs, 289 4 sp Mustangs, and more; lots of fun, but not nearly as good as modern cars.  

 

A fathers wisdom to his kids was, "don't buy a car with over 60,000 miles, it is worn out". That is just broken in today.  Tires were good for about 25,000 miles, lots are warrantied for 60,000 today. The paint is better. You rarely see a car putting up a smoke screen any more. And when was the last time you worried about overheating going over the pass?  You really don't want to go back to biased ply tires do you;a cheap thrill was driving something with 2 bias and 2 radial tires, think running gates on powder skis.

 

Today's boots and skis are better. The differences in what we drive is even larger. 


[curmudgeon voice]  Today's boot's are not better.  The best boots were made in the Early '80s

Koflach Comp 911

 

IMG_0042.jpg

 

IMG_0043.jpg


[/curmudgeon voice]

 

You know I would own one of those Challengers if I were rich.  You didn't have to be rich back in the old days to buy (and insure) a challenger/charger/roadrunner back in the old days. 


Edited by Ghost - 7/12/14 at 5:21am
post #74 of 89

STUPID LOOKING:  Patterns with rear LED lights.   

 

Yes, I did notice that your LED brake lights look like cat eye makeup with the 'eyelash'.   Guess what, Kia?  It's not particularly clever.  It's stupid looking.  

Yes, I did notice that your LED brake lights look like Papal crosses.   Guess what, Chrysler?  It's not clever at all.     It's stupid looking.

post #75 of 89
Leaving in spark plugs for 100k miles is not a good idea. When they seize in the aluminum heads and break trying to get them out it becomes.very expensive.
How big an issue it is I don't know, but Ford has a class action lawsuit due to problems with the Triton V8 heads. Carbon buildup would seize the plugs in. 2004-8 F 150's can have this issue along with Mustangs and some others.
See this:
http://blog.nwautos.com/2011/06/the_sad_story_of_early_spark-plug_changes_in_fords.html

http://blogs.ajc.com/business-beat/2012/04/27/ford-owners-sue-over-costly-repair/

I used to want only a drivers side crank window with the rest electric. That way it doesn't freeze up or break and if you plunge into a river you can get it open.

I agree with the complaint about dashboards. One used to be able to adjust say the temp without taking your eyes off the road. Just turn the knob lcounter or clockwise. Now you have to look at a button or try to find it on a screen.
Radios and operating them have become a huge distraction. It's almost like texting trying to operate a Ford crapo entertainment center. Just horrible. Things like that make more of a safety issue but so far it's not addressed. The way around seeing as car makers are addicted to the screens is we'll use. voice. commands. Who the hell wants to talk to their car all the time just to get it to do somethIng?
Edited by Tog - 7/13/14 at 9:25am
post #76 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post

 

 

Rear turn signals should be orange, brake lights red.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post


It's called euro spec.......

 

Really?!? I must have a euro spec 1999 3/4-ton Chevy pickup. News to me. It has orange turn signals.

 

Of course, nobody uses orange turn signals in North America anymore, but I have no idea why. I think it makes good sense to have them a different color than the brake lights.

 

Window winders... I had a full-size 1974 Blazer that required annual replacement of the driver's side window parts for the hand-cranked windows. The window also fell off the tracks with great regularity. Closing the window became a wrestling match. The door didn't have full window frames, which contributed to the problem, but it made it possible to stop the truck, open the door and literally pull the window up. The above-referenced pickup truck, on the other hand, has only required one replacement of the motor on the passenger side, which cost less than $200, even in Canada. The guy said the passenger side motor freezes up because it doesn't get used often enough.

 

I would like to see all cars have automagic headlights, like the pickup truck. If they could do it in 1999, they can certainly do it now. Every day, at dusk, you see airheads driving around in their gray cars with the lights off. You can barely see them. "I don't need to turn the lights on yet. I can see fine!" Maybe, numbskull, but nobody can see you.

 

People don't like this sort of thing, of course, because it inhibits their personal freedom to drive around with their lights off and get smacked by a log truck.

 

Daylight running lights are also a good idea. They may not be required in the States, but most or all GM vehicles have had them since at least, well, 1999. The pickup has them, and, despite the Euro spec comment above, it's a US spec model purchased in Colorado. In fact, unlike most DLRs, which are often the headlights operated at reduced voltage, the pickup has dedicated DLRs.

 

A screen is great for delivering information, as long as you're not also trying to drive. The sheer volume of information that can be delivered by screen can be a major driving distraction, and not all distracted driving accidents involve cell phones. Further, a touch screen, strangely, cannot be operated solely by touch, unlike buttons and knobs. A visual component is required to accurately touch the screen, which interferes with driving.

 

Dashboard nav packages have contributed to the drop in automobile reliability recorded in surveys over the last couple of years. I hope they get these things figured out before I have to buy another vehicle. They're certainly going to keep trying. Electronic components with no moving parts are cheap compared to a multitude of buttons and switches, even if they do charge a fortune for repair or replacement. More profit!!

 

I do like modern electronic fuel injection. I stick the key in, turn it, it starts and actually idles. And it keeps doing this for years and years. Awesome. Every carburetor I've ever owned couldn't go six months without some sort of tinkering and fussing, either by me or somebody who supposedly knew more than I did.

 

I like modern coil-on-plug ignition systems. No matter how carefully you supported and routed the plug wires on a V8, sooner or later, they would start arcing to another wire or the valve covers or somewhere, and you'd have to buy a new set. So you would get some fancy ones with big promises at a hefty price premium. And then replace them again in a year or three.

 

I wouldn't know about plugs seizing into aluminum heads. Ye Olde Chevy has cast-iron heads and over 200,000 miles. It's on its third set of plugs. We'll admit, however, that they are ridiculously expensive platinum things, and at $30 each, I'm not replacing them too much more often than the manual says to.

 

Modern vehicles have their issues, but the big picture is that they're better. A lot better. Of course, for what they're charging for them these days, they should be.

post #77 of 89

DISLIKE:   fastback pseudo-hatch styling.      C'mon people.    Is it REALLY that hard to make a 5-door fastback?    Did 1980s Camrys and 1990s Integras have something that is simply impossible in today's technology?

post #78 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post

 

I wouldn't know about plugs seizing into aluminum heads. Ye Olde Chevy has cast-iron heads and over 200,000 miles. It's on its third set of plugs. We'll admit, however, that they are ridiculously expensive platinum things, and at $30 each, I'm not replacing them too much more often than the manual says to.

 

Heh.    GM couldn't   have a plug seize into an aluminum head because their aluminum heads don't last that long.   

 

By 100K the head gasket is blown and the head is warped,

or the water pump tensioner/timing belt is slipped and the head gasket is blown and the head is warped,

or the thermostat housing has separated at the weld and the head gasket is blown and the head is warped,

or the thermoset plastic tubs press fitted onto the metal radiator core have slipped their gaskets and the head gasket is blown and the head is warped,

or the heater core has dumped all the coolant to the inside of the cabin and the head gasket is blown and the head is warped.

 

Full disclosure: when I had syndrome #2 happen there was a 20-minute warning, in that the car wouldn't start properly and ran ...well, like the timing was off.

post #79 of 89
Quote:
I like modern coil-on-plug ignition systems. No matter how carefully you supported and routed the plug wires on a V8, sooner or later, they would start arcing to another wire or the valve covers or somewhere, and you'd have to buy a new set. So you would get some fancy ones with big promises at a hefty price premium. And then replace them again in a year or three.

You need Magnacore plug wires. Simply amazing. No bullshit extra power claims, they just work. Will last well over 100k miles. Agree about coil on plug though.
post #80 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 
Quote:
I like modern coil-on-plug ignition systems. No matter how carefully you supported and routed the plug wires on a V8, sooner or later, they would start arcing to another wire or the valve covers or somewhere, and you'd have to buy a new set. So you would get some fancy ones with big promises at a hefty price premium. And then replace them again in a year or three.

You need Magnacore plug wires. Simply amazing. No bullshit extra power claims, they just work. Will last well over 100k miles. Agree about coil on plug though.


Had to replace my coil over plug system at under 60,000 miles.  Not part of the power train so not covered under warranty.  Yes, it was a GM.  (Pontiac Wave).

post #81 of 89
Quote:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 
 


Had to replace my coil over plug system at under 60,000 miles.  Not part of the power train so not covered under warranty.  Yes, it was a GM.  (Pontiac Wave).

 

If it makes you feel better, the ones on my Maxima only lasted about twice that long.

post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 


Had to replace my coil over plug system at under 60,000 miles.  Not part of the power train so not covered under warranty.  Yes, it was a GM.  (Pontiac Wave).


I finally had to look up the Pontiac Wave. It is a poorly reviewed car. It first appeared in Korea in 2002 as the Daewoo Kalos.

http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2012/11/12/Rebadged-Disasters-Pontiac-G3-Wave-7711560/

http://www.autos.ca/used-car-reviews/used-vehicle-review-pontiac-wave-2005-2010/

post #83 of 89
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post
 
Quote:
I like modern coil-on-plug ignition systems. No matter how carefully you supported and routed the plug wires on a V8, sooner or later, they would start arcing to another wire or the valve covers or somewhere, and you'd have to buy a new set. So you would get some fancy ones with big promises at a hefty price premium. And then replace them again in a year or three.

You need Magnacore plug wires. Simply amazing. No bullshit extra power claims, they just work. Will last well over 100k miles. Agree about coil on plug though.

I had these on one of my Miatas, yep worked well.

post #84 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmoney View Post

Completely agree on the juke and new Jeep. They are just two casualties of the trend to make small SUVs appear like cars. Not a fan. If you want a car, buy a car. If you want an SUV, buy an SUV.

 




There are few "real" SUV's, i.e. on framed truck platforms. Unibody is NOT a SUV. Along with proper drivetrains, with locking diffs, manual selective transfer cases, etc.
post #85 of 89
Does anyone still make a ladder frame suv? i giuess the tahoe, Suburbans, and Ford expeditions. Is the GL 450 Mercedes a frame?
post #86 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Does anyone still make a ladder frame suv? i giuess the tahoe, Suburbans, and Ford expeditions. Is the GL 450 Mercedes a frame?


Nissan Xterra actually..horrific gas mileage..sturdy SUV that isn't TOO too big.. 

post #87 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post



Really?!? I must have a euro spec 1999 3/4-ton Chevy pickup. News to me. It has orange turn signals.

Of course, nobody uses orange turn signals in North America anymore, but I have no idea why. I think it makes good sense to have them a different color than the brake lights......


Yeah, some NA models have/had them, the difference in Euro spec is that it is pretty much universal....
post #88 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 
Quote:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 
 


Had to replace my coil over plug system at under 60,000 miles.  Not part of the power train so not covered under warranty.  Yes, it was a GM.  (Pontiac Wave).

 

 

If it makes you feel better, the ones on my Maxima only lasted about twice that long.

 

On the other hand, the distributor was giving me grief on the wagon (my own diagnosis) at close to 250,000 MILES.

Quote:
Originally Posted by x10003q View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 


Had to replace my coil over plug system at under 60,000 miles.  Not part of the power train so not covered under warranty.  Yes, it was a GM.  (Pontiac Wave).


I finally had to look up the Pontiac Wave. It is a poorly reviewed car. It first appeared in Korea in 2002 as the Daewoo Kalos.

http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2012/11/12/Rebadged-Disasters-Pontiac-G3-Wave-7711560/

http://www.autos.ca/used-car-reviews/used-vehicle-review-pontiac-wave-2005-2010/

Same as Chevy Aveo, also clone of Suzuki Swift +.  Fun little car to drive (with 5-speed), but not in the same league as the old Caprice.

On the other hand at $12,795 out the door with cruise and air, payments were cheaper than repairs on the aging wagon; I did not have the time nor the facilities to fix her myself and a good mechanic is a bit of an oxy-moron and as hard to find as hen's teeth in these parts.

post #89 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post

Does anyone still make a ladder frame suv? i giuess the tahoe, Suburbans, and Ford expeditions. Is the GL 450 Mercedes a frame?

The Toyotas are still body on frame (4Runner, Land Cruiser, Sequoia.....).

The original Cherokee and Grand Cherokee were solid axle front and rear with unibody subframe design. Both were hugely capable, and the Cherokee in particular being quite light was a fun truck circa 1997-2002.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Automotive/Car Talk
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Automotive/Car Talk › Automotive Design trends....The Good, The Bad and The Ugly