2011 car models vanish in 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
392
Location
So. Utah
From: USATODAY.COM

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...anish-in-2012/1


Wave goodbye as these 2011 car models vanish in 2012

The last Ford Ranger rolled off the assembly line last week, but it's not the only model that's going to fade into automotive history.

There's a pretty good list of 2011 models taking their final bows, not to be replaced by newer versions of the same model. And there could be more to come: It's looking a lot like the whole Saab line will be gone as well. For now, let's stick with these. Josh Max, reporting for the New York Daily News, has put together this list, to which we elaborate:

BMW Active Hybrid X6. After championing diesels, BMW is increasingly going electric. But this one apparently just didn't work out.

Buick Lucerne. General Motors is putting a huge amount of effort into updating the Buick line, but its efforts have focused more on smaller, fully featured cars aimed at young professionals. Lucerne was apparently just too dowdy.

Cadillac DTS and STS. They're both going away, but the new XTS will fill the bill for midsize to large cars. Caddy is also hinting broadly that it has a new land yacht in the works as well.

Chevrolet HHR. Created as an answer to the Plymouth, later Chrysler, PT Cruiser, the HHR was small and stylish. It accidentally wandered into a hot segment, small crossovers, but GM has since come up with better ones and there's no need for this retro look. In case you're wondering, HHR stood for Heritage High Roof.

Dodge Dakota. Just as Ford gave up with the Ranger, Chrysler, er, Ram is throwing in the towel with small pickups. There's not enough demand anymore.

Ford Crown Victoria. Probably the most significant model of all those going away, it's the last, great, rear-wheel-drive American really-full-size car. Shed a tear.

Honda Element. Originally designed for surfers, the Element became a favorite of everyone who needed an economical hauler. We think its death is premature.

Lotus Elise. The whole Lotus line is being overhauled. This one was the basis for the Tesla electric roadster.

Mazda RX-8. The last rotary-engine-powered car is disappearing. But Mazda hints that the Wankel engine may live on in some new form.

Mazda Tribute. This Ford Escape clone is a victim of Ford's shedding of Mazda.

Mitsubishi Eclipse and Endeavor. Both have been eclipsed as Mitsu looks to focus on electric and smaller vehicles. We'll miss the Eclipse, a fun sports car.

Nissan Altima Hybrid. It was developed using Toyota technology. Now Nissan has its own hybrid system and plans much better models.

Volvo S40 and V50. Buh-bye.
 
Quote:
Ford Crown Victoria. Probably the most significant model of all those going away, it's the last, great, rear-wheel-drive American really-full-size car. Shed a tear.


I basically agree with that, but do you remember when full-size cars were really big like back in the 60s and 70s, and some of them had 400+ cubic inch V8s?
 
The only notable things on that list are the: '

Lotus Elise
Mazda RX-8
Volvo V 50 wagon
SAAB 9-5

The rest are forgettable.
 
I'll miss the Ranger, Crown Vic, and the HHR.


Interesting part is that there are going to be MANY more next year.....stay tuned....
 
They need to bring back the Mazda RX7 twin turbo! I never liked the RX-8 (hate the back seats and that weird side door thingy).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 91344George
The only notable things on that list are the: '

Lotus Elise
Mazda RX-8
Volvo V 50 wagon
SAAB 9-5

The rest are forgettable.


I disagree, maybee in your neck of the woods, in our parts those small pickup trucks, especialy the ranger will be missed. The crown vic is a Icon.

If you had 3 Volvo's and 3 Saab's in the grocery store parking lot I couldnt tell you the difference from one to the next..

So in different parts of our world, different makes and models will be missed more than others..its just different markets.. thats OK.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
They need to bring back the Mazda RX7 twin turbo! I never liked the RX-8 (hate the back seats and that weird side door thingy).


I'll take mine with a heavily modded, dry-sumped, 800rwhp, LS7 stuffed into it, thank you.
grin2.gif


I agree on the third door on the RX-8, as it was not a bad looking (or performing) ride except for that funky feature.
 
"Mazda Tribute. This Ford Escape clone is a victim of Ford's shedding of Mazda."

This stinks - Mazda's replacement for this is the CX-5, which will ONLY be availiable with the 155 HP 'Skyactive' DI 2.0L.

No more smooth, torquey V-6 option for small SUV's from Ford or Mazda at all. Bah.
 
Originally Posted By: strongt
Honda Element. Originally designed for surfers,

LMAO, if this was true, it was doomed from the start.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
They need to bring back the Mazda RX7 twin turbo! I never liked the RX-8 (hate the back seats and that weird side door thingy).

Mazda has had many rotary engine problems, that is probably why they are not bringing it back.

I still remember back in 2008 when I showed a guy that his RX-8 had compression way below spec, even though he took perfect care of his car, and had about 130,000 miles.
 
Originally Posted By: artificialist
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
They need to bring back the Mazda RX7 twin turbo! I never liked the RX-8 (hate the back seats and that weird side door thingy).

Mazda has had many rotary engine problems, that is probably why they are not bringing it back.

I still remember back in 2008 when I showed a guy that his RX-8 had compression way below spec, even though he took perfect care of his car, and had about 130,000 miles.


I love roatry engines, I still want an RX-8.
 
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Come on, these things sound like jet engines. I lovem.




They were nice cars, but the engine was a pig pile. Torqueless, v8 gas mileage, flooding issues, drank oil like crazy. I never understood why Mazda didnt put the mazdaspeed 3 engine in it.
 
Originally Posted By: A_A_G
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Come on, these things sound like jet engines. I lovem.




They were nice cars, but the engine was a pig pile. Torqueless, v8 gas mileage, flooding issues, drank oil like crazy. I never understood why Mazda didnt put the mazdaspeed 3 engine in it.


Because if it has the name "RX" it means that the car is built with a rotary.

Mazda would have to name the car differently if it had a piston engine.
 
Originally Posted By: artificialist

Mazda has had many rotary engine problems, that is probably why they are not bringing it back.

Name one automotive company that built a better production Wankel rotary. NSU(Audi)? Nope. GM? Nope.

Originally Posted By: A_A_G

I never understood why Mazda didnt put the mazdaspeed 3 engine in it.


It would not have had the center of gravity, balance, and would not have been able to school the BMW M3 in pure handling.

...and they would have had to call it an MX-8 or something else. Only rotaries are designated with an "R" prefix. R100, RX-2, RX-3, RX-7...etc...
 
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor

I basically agree with that, but do you remember when full-size cars were really big like back in the 60s and 70s, and some of them had 400+ cubic inch V8s?


But you would be lucky if the 6.6 liter V8 got near 300hp. My 1977 Caprice 305ci was rated at 145HP.


This article didn't even mention Dodge killing off the Nitro. (I love mine.)
 
Last edited:
OT:
I've always wonder why some American V8s make so little HP. I had a 88 Caprice v8 which made like 140 hp too...
(my wife's 4 banger Elantra makes 5 hp more than that!)

My 4.6L v8 Tbird makes 205 HP...but a lot of torque 280 or so..

My 3.0 i-6 Bimmer makes 235 HP...
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
OT:
I've always wonder why some American V8s make so little HP. I had a 88 Caprice v8 which made like 140 hp too...
(my wife's 4 banger Elantra makes 5 hp more than that!)

My 4.6L v8 Tbird makes 205 HP...but a lot of torque 280 or so..

My 3.0 i-6 Bimmer makes 235 HP...



Older V8s weren't known for power/liter. Older engines in general. The last gen equinox had a 3.4L V6 that made ~175HP. The new 2.4L DOHC I-4 makes ~10 more than that. Less torque, but more HP.
 
I had an '84 Cutlass with a 150-hp 307 V8 (30 hp/L). My '87 Buick Regal had a 140-hp 307 V8 (28 hp/L). The Olds 403 V8 I put into that Regal made but 180 hp. I think it put out 320 lb*ft of torque, but only 180 hp (27 hp/L). The "hi-po" V8 option in the Cutlass (442) was a 180-hp 307 V8 (36 hp/L).

Both of our current cars have more than double the hp/L of even the best V8 in my list above.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
OT:

My 4.6L v8 Tbird makes 205 HP...but a lot of torque 280 or so...


That's roughly the same hp and about 30 more ft-lbs than the later models of the Mustang SVO.

...of course the Mustang was a 4 cylinder, and roughly 12 years earlier, and weighed almost 1000 lbs less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top