Confirmed! We've Got a GM Mole at BITOG.

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the biggest problems with GM is their styling. EVERYTHING is ugly. Where are the body and interior designers anyway? Are they still in Detroit? Ford moved some of their body design group to California and I think the cars looked much better.

I don't understand why some car companies always produce beautiful cars (Mercedes) and some cannot ever produce a nice looking car (Chevrolet). Sheet metal is sheet metal. It should not cost any more to make a good looking than an ugly car. The new GTO looks like an economy car. The Malibu - Bleh! Pontiac AZTEC. Chevy Lumina van - steeply raked windshield on an ugly body.
 
Two words sum up my opinion of GM - "Cutlass Cierra".
rolleyes.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by Winston:
The new GTO looks like an economy car. The Malibu - Bleh! Pontiac AZTEC. Chevy Lumina van - steeply raked windshield on an ugly body.
Click to expand...
The new GTO has the same platform as the old Cadillac Catera. Even some of the exterior sheet metal is the same.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Winston:
The new GTO looks like an economy car. The Malibu - Bleh! Pontiac AZTEC. Chevy Lumina van - steeply raked windshield on an ugly body.

Originally posted by jtantare:
The new GTO has the same platform as the old Cadillac Catera. Even some of the exterior sheet metal is the same
Click to expand...
Interesting you mention that cause the biggest cookie cutter car that there is being sold today( and in the worst way of how it was done years ago) is the Lexus ES330 and Toyota Camry.

When I see one of the two I can now tell the difference cause I learned to differences between the cars' taillights. Other than that toyota didn't even try like on the previous generation. Even the engine is the same. Goes to show the vanity of people who buy ES330s; or ignorance.

I'm sure making virtually identical cars, except for the Lexus badge, is just one of the many reasons they make 66% of their world-wide profits in North America, yet only sell about 20% of their cars here.

As far as styling, besides looking bland, it's tall, thin proportioned body with the oversized headlight lenses make it look really ugly.

The GTO is bland but it's not out of proportion and ugly like Camrys and ES300s
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kernel Potter:

quote:
Originally posted by Winston:
The new GTO looks like an economy car. The Malibu - Bleh! Pontiac AZTEC. Chevy Lumina van - steeply raked windshield on an ugly body.

Originally posted by jtantare:
The new GTO has the same platform as the old Cadillac Catera. Even some of the exterior sheet metal is the same
Click to expand...
Interesting you mention that cause the biggest cookie cutter car that there is being sold today( and in the worst way of how it was done years ago) is the Lexus ES330 and Toyota Camry.

When I see one of the two I can now tell the difference cause I learned to differences between the cars' taillights. Other than that toyota didn't even try like on the previous generation. Even the engine is the same. Goes to show the vanity of people who buy ES330s; or ignorance.

I'm sure making virtually identical cars, except for the Lexus badge, is just one of the many reasons they make 66% of their world-wide profits in North America, yet only sell about 20% of their cars here.

As far as styling, besides looking bland, it's tall, thin proportioned body with the oversized headlight lenses make it look really ugly.

The GTO is bland but it's not out of proportion and ugly like Camrys and ES300s
Click to expand...
It's no difference than GM, GMC and Cadillac (Avalanche:Escalade "truck"). Yeah, they're nicer inside....so is the Lexus.

So, what's your next point????
 
quote:
Two words sum up my opinion of GM - "Cutlass Cierra".
Click to expand...
Sure, it wasn't a styling masterpiece, but these things were tanks. Why don't you pick on an ugly AND crappy GM design (Citation, Chevette, Lemans). Hatchbacks are for squares, daddy.
 
quote:
Originally posted by XS650:

quote:
Originally posted by XS650:

quote:
Originally posted by TallPaul:

quote:
Originally posted by kingrob:
Buy the time Nader started his campaign the adjustments and improvements had been made and the later model Corvairs were very nice cars, a decent example of American sportiness for the time.
Click to expand...
The story as I read it (can't remember where) is that GM wanted to under cut the VW Beetle on price. The car came out just a tad higher, they decided to remove some suspension component in the rear that seemed superfluous. The GM engineers complained that without it the axle could fold under if it hit an obsticle sideways like a curb. The bean counters said, the car isn't meant to be driven that way and took out the component. And as kingrob said, this was later corrected.
Click to expand...
The early Corvairs had a simple swing axle rear suspension, like an early VW Bug. In a hard corner with good traction, or a bump that caused the rear of the car to raise bit in relation to the road, the rear end would jack up and the rear wheel tend to tuck under. I was in couple that spun because of that. VW bugs of the same era had the same problem. It wasn't a strength problem.

65 and later Corvairs used their version of the Corvette Stingray rear suspension which was and still is a decent independent rear suspension. It's not all that drastically different in concept and geometry from a new Corvette rear suspension.

I had a 65 Corvair Corsa with the factory 4 carb setup and factory sporty suspension. I also put wider 14 inch wheels on (stock was 13!), good tires and good shocks. It was every bit a match for a Porsche 912 of the same era in auto-xs and illegal twisty road driving (except the brakes sucked compared to Porsche) and went around corners like spit through a bugle. I used to **** off a couple of Porsce driving friend on a regular basis by sticking with them in the twisties and occasionally beating them in an auto-x
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I also had a '65 140HP 4 carb Corsa. People were consistantly amazed at not only how well the car handled but how much power it had once the RPM's were up a little bit.

The coil spring semi-trailing arm rear suspension it used was quite similar to what appeared on a lot of vehicles later on. Datsun 510 sedans, BMW 1600 and 2002 sedans, etc.

The handling was a little quirky, but nothing like the earlier cars with swing axles. You had to pay attention not to let off suddenly in the middle of a corner, or try any funny business like trailing throttle braking. A lot of weight in the rear and high polar moment is not your friend if you're de-accelerating and trying to turn.
wink.gif


I still wonder why Loud Mouth Ralph didn't go after the swing axle VW's. They had all the handling issues of the early Corvairs and a higher center of gravity to make matters even worse.

Maybe he wasn't really concerned about our safety? Maybe he was just attention whoring while trying to make a name for himself? Naw, couldn't be...
lol.gif
 
Bet Toyota owns GM before it's all over. Then I can tell everyone my Silverado is a rice-burner ! I am afraid that most USA auto mfg's are "Perfectly poised to sell autos in a $1.00/gal gas market".
 
quote:
Originally posted by texasproud:
Bet Toyota owns GM before it's all over. Then I can tell everyone my Silverado is a rice-burner ! I am afraid that most USA auto mfg's are "Perfectly poised to sell autos in a $1.00/gal gas market".
Click to expand...
Toyota has decided to buy Florshiem instead of GM. Their research determined that they can get just as many loafers for less money.
 
Originally posted by jtantare:
[QB] GM is already having to sell its stock holdings to Toyota in order to pay for last quarter's losses.

GM lost a bundle on its investment in Fiat and now its losing on its investment in Subaru. GM should let the engineers run the company and fire some of their 'suits'.
Click to expand...
 
The 140HP Corvairs were nice, and had a very nice spun aluminum dash too. The critical thing with all rear engine cars is keeping tire properly inflated. Went on a little trip with a friend that had a 65 Corvair, and we put air in first. He said 30 psi all around!!! We had a terrible time keeping it on the expressway, and we'd be passed by other Corvairs that didn't seem to be having any problem. On the way back I read the owner's manual, I think it alled for 18 psi front, 30 psi rear or something like that. What a difference it made. I remember attending some SCCA races and watching 3 Corvairs lead their class from start to finish. They modified the engines but suspensions were near stock. It is a shame that the Corvair by the time they stopped production was one of the best handling production cars out there.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Would you buy a car from Congress?
2
Replies
36
Views
12K
paulo57509
The Critic
  • Locked
GM Introduces Dexos I and Dexos II
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
126K
wgtoys
buster
  • Locked
Great Article on GM/Daewoo Engineering
2
Replies
35
Views
12K
Willy_G
Pablo
  • Locked
A letter that I never sent to Al Amatuzio
2
Replies
27
Views
10K
MarkC
Back
Top