American-brand cars prove poipular with millennial

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Doog
But when Golden's son, Daniel, 23, was looking for a new car, he opted for a Ford Fiesta, despite his father’s suggestion that he buy a Toyota Camry or Corolla.

Understandable....I bought all domestic until I realized how much they cost to operate and repair. But I didn't buy my first new car until after age 30. Now I drive only Toyota or Honda products. Daniel will learn the hard way.


Good for you. Anyone can say anything, but it doesn't mean it's true or they know what they're talking about.


Exactly...your claims about the Z-28 are proof of that. No doubt Car & Driver was a shill for the deep pockets at GM.


My claims? I provided links. Car & Driver were shills for GM? Hahaha, you have absolutely zero credibility now. Car and Driver had been for years basically paid shills for Honda and loved Porsche and Euro cars. They have been the biggest antagonist toward GM for years. Your statement is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Anyway, the Porsche 944 was an OK sports car (really designed by VW), but it's hard to get excited about a pricey car with a 4 cylinder and timing belt. I think the '86+ RX7 was in many ways was a better "944" than the Porsche was.

 

[Doog]

Here is what Road & Track said about the 1987 Corvette

Here begins the criticism. The Corvette is big. Really BIG. It's longer than the Cavalier station wagon, for comparison, and the Corvette weighs within a few pounds of the Monte Carlo, the rear-drive 5-passenger old-style Chevrolet. But while the Monte Carlo is designed for gentlemen who wear their hats while behind the wheel, and the Cavalier will swallow entire families with small children and even dogs, the Corvette has room for two people only and maybe a suitcase, if it's the coupe. If it's the convertible, there's room for the top to come down or a suitcase, one or the other, but not both.

So first, the Corvette is that big because it has to be that big to attract attention, to let people know this is a car of some importance. You think the Duesenberg Brothers couldn't have built small cars? And Clark Gable would have looked just as good behind the wheel of an American Bantam roadster as he did in his Duesenberg SJ with Murphy body, eh? Right. When people are sensible, we will all be called Angels and we won't need cars because we'll all have wings.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Doog
But when Golden's son, Daniel, 23, was looking for a new car, he opted for a Ford Fiesta, despite his father’s suggestion that he buy a Toyota Camry or Corolla.

Understandable....I bought all domestic until I realized how much they cost to operate and repair. But I didn't buy my first new car until after age 30. Now I drive only Toyota or Honda products. Daniel will learn the hard way.


Good for you. Anyone can say anything, but it doesn't mean it's true or they know what they're talking about.


Exactly...your claims about the Z-28 are proof of that. No doubt Car & Driver was a shill for the deep pockets at GM.


My claims? I provided links. Car & Driver were shills for GM? Hahaha, you have absolutely zero credibility now. Car and Driver had been for years basically paid shills for Honda and loved Porsche and Euro cars. They have been the biggest antagonist toward GM for years. Your statement is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Anyway, the Porsche 944 was an OK sports car (really designed by VW), but it's hard to get excited about a pricey car with a 4 cylinder and timing belt. I think the '86+ RX7 was in many ways was a better "944" than the Porsche was.


You can attack me all you want but the 1987 Z28 is a garbage wagon compared to the 944. The Corvette is an embarrassment.

 

[Doog]

Sorry I'll take a late 1960's Z28 or Vette but 20 years later GM was making trash.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Doog
But when Golden's son, Daniel, 23, was looking for a new car, he opted for a Ford Fiesta, despite his father’s suggestion that he buy a Toyota Camry or Corolla.

Understandable....I bought all domestic until I realized how much they cost to operate and repair. But I didn't buy my first new car until after age 30. Now I drive only Toyota or Honda products. Daniel will learn the hard way.


Good for you. Anyone can say anything, but it doesn't mean it's true or they know what they're talking about.


Exactly...your claims about the Z-28 are proof of that. No doubt Car & Driver was a shill for the deep pockets at GM.


My claims? I provided links. Car & Driver were shills for GM? Hahaha, you have absolutely zero credibility now. Car and Driver had been for years basically paid shills for Honda and loved Porsche and Euro cars. They have been the biggest antagonist toward GM for years. Your statement is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Anyway, the Porsche 944 was an OK sports car (really designed by VW), but it's hard to get excited about a pricey car with a 4 cylinder and timing belt. I think the '86+ RX7 was in many ways was a better "944" than the Porsche was.


Mazda & Z28....Oh world class.....

 

[mechanicx]

What the heck does that suppose to mean? The Ferrari Testarossa was big too to have a wide track for cornering stability. The Corvette has a V8 and weighed about 3300 lbs in '87. Almost all substantial sports car weighed 3000-3500 partly to meet safety regulations. The Corvette is a 2-seat spots car like a sports car should be. Not all sports car have to be in the mold of 4cylinder small British sports cars. And it's not suppose to be a Monte Carlo with utility.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Good for you. Anyone can say anything, but it doesn't mean it's true or they know what they're talking about.


Exactly...your claims about the Z-28 are proof of that. No doubt Car & Driver was a shill for the deep pockets at GM.


My claims? I provided links. Car & Driver were shills for GM? Hahaha, you have absolutely zero credibility now. Car and Driver had been for years basically paid shills for Honda and loved Porsche and Euro cars. They have been the biggest antagonist toward GM for years. Your statement is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Anyway, the Porsche 944 was an OK sports car (really designed by VW), but it's hard to get excited about a pricey car with a 4 cylinder and timing belt. I think the '86+ RX7 was in many ways was a better "944" than the Porsche was.


Mazda & Z28....Oh world class.....

They actually were both world class at the time. I don't think you know anything about '86+ RX7s or Z28s. If anyone is, you are the one coming into the thread attacking with a very uninformed opinion.

 

[cchase]

C&D has never been a "shill" for anything produced by GM.

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: Silverado12
I don't know where some of this stuff comes from either. Compare import car parts prices to GM. They can be 5X or more the price.


I wish I'd known that a few years ago; I now have 3 mortgages on the house, 5 credit cards bouncing of their credit limits, and my wife, son, and I have to sell our plasma twice a month. I guess hindsight IS 20/20...



Sorry. I had no idea.

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: Silverado12
I don't know where some of this stuff comes from either. Compare import car parts prices to GM. They can be 5X or more the price.


Well:

1. You are looking in the wrong place. Toyota & Honda parts are not imports anymore as many are made in the USA.
2. Toyotas and Hondas don't require parts replacement as much as GM

This is all evidenced by the new car reliability rankings over the past few decades.



I guess I'm just lucky and had the good GMs for the past 30+ years. I never had to buy much for parts other than maintenance, and when I did, parts were widely available and reaonably priced. But this nonsense about GM being inferior to anything import branded is just that. Nonsense. I and many others have had good service out of GM. Everything has its problems. I seem to recall honda tranny problems, Toyota head gasket and sludging issues too. No one's perfect.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Silverado12
Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: Silverado12
I don't know where some of this stuff comes from either. Compare import car parts prices to GM. They can be 5X or more the price.


I wish I'd known that a few years ago; I now have 3 mortgages on the house, 5 credit cards bouncing of their credit limits, and my wife, son, and I have to sell our plasma twice a month. I guess hindsight IS 20/20...



Sorry. I had no idea.


I don't think he was being serious - just a jerk.

 

[rjundi]

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Well the 944 was Car and Driver's import car handling champ facing off against the American car handling champ. You probably didn't read the article and that the Z28 was very competitive handling wise with the 944. The 944 wasn't perfect either. '87 IROCS had even higher levels of handling and power and honestly would walk all over an '87 944. You could buy a 'vette for the price of a 944. So calling the Camaro/Firebird a pig in comparison is just your anti-GM bias like always.


The Z-28 couldn't hold a candle to the 944...you are correct I didn't read the article...however I did drive more than 20,000 miles on each of those cars in the late 1980's. So you can pretend that GM made a car that remotely came close to the style and handling of a Porsche 944 but that is simply not true. Plus a 1987 Corvette was a nose heavy pig that couldn't get out of it's own way.


I'm still trying to figure out what made the 944 so magical.

50/50 weight distribution? The FC RX-7 had that. The E30 BMW was close at 53/47 - so was the Mitsubishi Starion/Chrysler Conquest (it is often argued that 53/47 is better in a front engine rear drive car)


150hp N/A? RX-7 was close at 146hp (and trust me, it feels a lot stronger than that) 325i was 168hp. 217hp Turbo? Little more gap there between the RX-7 and 944 Turbo. But by then you are above the price of the 230hp TPI 350 IROC-Z or Trans Am GTA.

The comically small back seat? The BMW 3-er has a better back seat than the 944 and if you absolutely must have a backseat, they made them for some markets of the RX-7.


Before the days of internet parts availability, you had to be incredibly well connected to get a Sachs clutch kit for the 944 for less than $700 (in '80s dollars). Then you would have to pay 8-12 hours of labor to replace the clutch.

 

[cchase]

The driving experience of the 944 was truly something special. Sometimes the complete driving experience is about more than the raw data.

They were a tossable, neutral car that drove smaller than it was, you could drift all day at the limit - very progressive feel, they were moderately peppy and had great steering and brakes. With a turbo they were very quick cars. Impossible to work on, but very nice otherwise.

E21 3-series do not have anything on a 944 in handling. The advantage to the E21 over a 944 is that the E21 was as simple as a tractor to work on. The E30 might have better numbers behind it but the 944 was like a go-kart. Personally I prefer E30's to 944's but not for responses on a twisty road.

The RX-7 was nothing but a copy of the 944...

 

[mechanicx]

I'm not exactly an import fan especially Japanese brands, but I think the '86+ (FC)RX7 was about best sports car available in its time for any reasonable price. One of the best styled cars of all time and nicely styled interior and attention to details, and good suspension. Then in '90 it would have to go to the 300ZX, which is also one of the best styled cars.

I think the '82 to about '90 Camaro/Firebirds, '86 Rx7 and '90 300zx were some of the best styled cars of all time. The Z28 and Corvette along with the RX7 and 300Zx were the best GT/Sports cars during their time imo. I'll throw the '87+ Mustang in there for bang for the buck all though it lacked handling. It's not just my opinion either. They were all huge sales successes and got generally very positive reviews in the media.

By the late 80's to early 90's the market was saturated with great sports cars and the market for them was drying up. Somewhere around ~'92 could be considered a sports car highmark.

 

[mechanicx]

I don't want to say it but the RX7 (FC) while it was copying the 944 it really was a brillant car. It had passive rear steering, forged aluminum parts in the suspension, and all kinds of neat features. I'm sure the 944 was a good sports car. I think people tend to underrated the FC RX7 like they do the Z28 and the Corvette, while I think Porsches and BMWs tend to be overrated.

 

[Spazdog]

The FC RX-7 did draw some styling from the 924/944. I'll concede that point. But underneath the skin, it was pure Mazda. No pistons, no camshafts, transmission bolted directly to the engine...

It was one of the purest sports cars of the period. All of the RX-7s were in their time. A little less horsepower than the 300ZX and Supra, a little more balance and precision.

I just can't see the 944 being that much better than the RX-7.

....and again, on a big track, the Z28 and Corvette are going to have their way with a 944 on 1/2+ mile straights.

 

[cchase]

Not a 944 Turbo.

Drive a 944, not a turbo necessarily, but just a regular 944. There is a reason for the accolades.

I've never driven an RX-7 of that vintage, so I can't compare, but the 944 is certainly excellent.

FWIW 944's are not VW in origin, they are Porsche. The regular 924 was a dud and did use a VW engine and probably shared some parts but the 924S/944 is a Porsche.

 

[mechanicx]

My understanding is that VW developed the 924/944 and handed it off to Porsche and Porsche put a higher performing engine of its own design. But I guess Porsche and VW regularly collaborated and Porsche probably did most of the final design of the 944.

Anyway, the thing about the Z28 and Corvette is they had a lot of grip, a wide track, low center of gravity, and power. This is why I don't see the curb weight (which aren't really that high anyway) being much of a factor and why they will beat most of these other cars even on a tight track. They had high skidpad and slalom performance and low track times in tests.

The problem is the test articles are no longer available to link to but I'm going from memory of comparison tests back then and from driving some of them.

The FC RX7 was really good pains me to say it. It was light, but solid body and 50/50 weight distribution. There was the Turbo version with 182 HP in '87 and increased to 200 HP in '89 and the normally aspirated bumped to 160 HP. They also released a GTU more performance version of the normally aspirated. And there was the lighter base model that could be had with manual steering even.

Here is a good article explaining the then new RX7. They did suggest that it was .5 second slower on the track than a 944, but keep in mind this was a loaded early production normally aspirated model. Besides it's not all about laptimes as an '86 Vette was likely faster on a track http://www.motortrend.com/classic/roadtests/8601_1986_mazda_rx_7_first_drive/viewall.html . But I guess it's not so bad giving Mazda credit as they had a lot of input from Americans behind the scenes

.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
My understanding is that VW developed the 924/944 and handed it off to Porsche and Porsche put a higher performing engine of its own design. But I guess Porsche and VW regularly collaborated and Porsche probably did most of the final design of the 944.


Regular collaboration. Porsche 914s were marketed as Volkswagen-Porsche everywhere else in the world but the US.