Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

The GM is hardly leftover anything. Except for body on frame construction, which many believe to be a plus, it is totally new from the ground up over the past few years. It is true he asked about mid sized cars, but he currently has a larger than current midsize cars. The fact is most mid sized V6 cars cost MORE to buy. Ones purchase decision should certainly consider value for the dollar as part of that decision.

mike hunt

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

True not now, before the "merger" just a few of the Chrysler executive board and a few others held majority shares and controlling interest. Post merger they all sold off their stock and retired and the stock was bought up mostly overseas. After making the mistake of buying one Chrysler and having to replace most of the Mitsubishi parts in it I won't make the same mistake again weather its owned my Americans or anyone else :)

Hardly. Although the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis have had a number of tweaks over the years, it is probably the oldest automobile design still in production in North America.

If you like the vehicle, fine, but calling it "totally new from the ground up" would be worthy of a politician or PR flak.

John

The CV/GM are definitely large cars. It sounds like you've never driven one. They are hard to beat for the money. My mother has a Grand Marquis and it gets great mileage (pushes

30 on the highway), has plenty of room for 6, a huge trunk, and her current GM has had zero problems in four years. This is her second Grand Marquis. The previous was a '92 model, and it never had a failure in almost 9 years of driving. It is certainly not the vehicle for the person enamoured with buzz words, or the street racer, but for the target audience (frugal old farts who are looking for a good car at a good price), they are hard to beat. I personally wouldn't be caught dead owning one, but that is becasue of the image, not the overal quality or performance of the vehicle.

Mid-sized cars to me are not Malibus - Malibus are compacts (at least in my mind). For a mid-size domestic car, one of the current GM products mid-size cars (Impala, Century, etc.) is a good choice, although they also suffer from the old guy car syndrome almost to the same extent as the CV/GM. If you can put up with the weird styling and less than mediocre reliability, the newer DC entries have the best wow factor. Although I like the looks, I just can't bring myself to buy another Chrysler product, even if they are now Diamler-Chrysler products (seems to me things are actually getting worse in the reliability area since Diamler took over).

Eventually the Ford 500 might be a good choice, but it is bland looking to me - at least in the pictures. I'd like to see one in person and drive it.

The Accord and Camry are also bland, but worth a look. These days they are close to being domestically produced vehicles. I am not a fan of Toyota (almost as bad as Chryslers in my book), but many laud Camry's as super reliable. My family has had great luck with Hondas, but they are more expensive for what you get.

Best advice is to try a number of different cars that appeal to you and then research your first choice. I suggest you don't get hung up on domestic vs import. The lines are definitely getting blurred. If you are a union guy, it might be worth focusing on the union vs non-unon shop. In which case there are both domestic and "import" brands that will fill the bill.

Ed

I'm a fan of the car too, but Dan is likely to come back and say that the GM/CV twins:

• are seriously, possibly dangerously, underbraked

• are not size- or space-efficient

• are pretty darned slow for the gas they use

• do not ride or handle like a modern car of the same size

and he will be mostly right. A 300 V6 is probably superior in all respects and can be had for similar money.

The EPA rates cars by interior space. The current Malibu has all the space and then some, of, say, a 1979 Malibu and it isn't that much smaller. The previous-gen Malibu was a little small but again interior-wise it was up to the mark of the Seventies/Eighties RWD cars of the same name.

Until the oil sludge blows your motor apart at 65K mi, of course.

:)

Although they may look similar the 92 or even the 2000 models have little in common with the 2004. The GM and the CV have been upgraded several times over the years. There have been improvements to just about everything, the engine, tranny suspension as well as a new stiffer frame. Any one who believes they do not perform or handle well would be well advised not to try to outrun a cop chasing you in one of them today. As to durability, from what we see in our business, there is nothing within 20K that can touch them. ;)

mike hunt

"C. E. White" wrote:

Apparently you do not know much about the CV and GM if that is what you believe. By design I guess you mean RWD. RWD IS the design of the future except in small cars. Look at Cadillacs and Chryslers newest cars. ;)

mike hunt

John Horner wrote:

Hi Mike... I see you found the Chrysler group.

The old technology give away on the CV is the wheelbase. Everytime I see one on the road (not often) I wonder where the people in the backseat put their legs.

I suspect you can get a great deal on one. Don't seem to be selling at all in my area. I test drove one and thought it was pretty decent though it would be hard for me to consider giving GM any of my money again. The Maxx version is interesting but they forgot to perfect the rear shade latch before going into production. Doesn't even work in the showroom.

My 2 cents says; "Century, Regal, LeSabre, Park Avenue".

Or another way to look at it is this way: Go to a retirement community and look at what the old men there drive. They've spent their lives trying out every different combination and tend to pick better bets than their Kia buying grand-kids.

Oh yeah. Did I mention that mid-sized GM's are really cheap on insurance & gas as well? Just something to keep in mind when you are doing your cost calculations. If you've any doubts look at what Warren Buffet drove for years.

The car may be "domestic", from a legal definition, however the company that produced it is not. A larger percentage of the profits, as a general rule, leave the US on its way to the high wage salaries, R&D, design teams, etc. of the host country where the HQ is location as a result.

I agree...a couple people at work (one with a GM and one a CV) and both have

200K+ on the clock with hardly a problem. They're damn reliable vehicles, it seems. Could be one reason law enforcement use them so much.

I don't see many of the new Malibu's here either...and I live a mile from a Chevy dealer...one would think you'd at least see the ones out for a test drive.

| >

| > The new Chevy Malibu is getting very strong reviews in the press, and the | > friend of ours who bought one is happy with it. | >

| > John | >

| >

| |

Buick received some high marks on reliability recently as well. A little bland on styling. And definitely gimmicked control systems, right down to the silly vehicle speed-controlled radio volume control system.

.........and they still produce nothing that will bring me back to their dealerships as a serious buyer.

I misinterpretted this post in my last reply and read "GM" to mean General motors and not Grand Marquis. After re-reading it I ask you - what have you been smokin'? "....totally new from the ground up over the past few years."? I don't think so!!!

So tell us, Mike, in a Chrysler newsgroup why are you so hellbent on convincing us of the supposed merits of the CV/GM relics when we all ready don't give a tinker's damn???

Jeeezzz, James.......You seem to think every modern convenience is silly or a gimmick. Do you have a running stream with large rocks in it near your house? I'm sure it comes in handy on laundry day.

H

They also forgot to finish putting the sheet metal on the back end :)

To me, it looks like they ran out of material, and chopped the ass-end off.