Re: Thinking of buying a VUE

But the dinosaurs aren't all dead!

The Mustang is alive and well, and judging by the pics and info I've seen, the next Mustang is going to keep that car a strong seller. Also, judging by the pics I've seen of the new F-150, Ford is really taking interiors seriously (assuming the next Mustang will get major improvement in this area, as well as ergonomics).

I think the F-bodies are just resting...they'll be back.

...after 1970 I think muscle cars started their downhill slide. Insurance rates were climbing at the same time and by 1973 the oil embargo started nailing the lid on the muscle car coffin. Smog rules seemed to have engineers by the nuts and both performance and economy just continued to suck. 1973 thru the late 80's revealed some real domestic junk and enough folks had started to taste Honda and Toyota - I'm surprised their wasn't more business carnage in our auto manufacturing.

Back in 1970 most 19 year old boys couldn't afford a $3,500 426 Hemi Challenger, let alone the insurance. And while their parents could, 40 year old Dad's and Mom's are trying to juggle insurance and fuel prices in the same budget as mortgages, utilities, vacations, and for some of the lucky, college tuition.

The Camaro was long in the tooth (in my opinion). I would love to see it come back in a few years in a more sophisticated package. I still think the Corvette is some of the best bang for the buck out there, and to me it's lines are pure sex.

Subaru's are interesting, and I think it's a whole other market segment that would buy a Camaro versus a Subaru - kinda the rally crowd versus the 1/8 mile drag crowd - apples and oranges to me...

My two cents.

Mostly that was it. Crap handling and suspension didn't help, though.

But as bad as 80's GM cars were, and I'm not saying they weren't, they were, my '87 Chevy wagon lasted 225,000 miles and never had the engine or tranny apart. Granted it was s***ty by 180,000, but it was still running. Of course, today one can buy a car with nearly as much, or more power than a musclecar of the 60's, but generally for a lot of money and bland lines and no real exhaust note. As much as I hate Chrysler, though, the new Viper looks like a fun test drive >:)

Why haven't the Japanese taken over the US car market entirely? Because they can't make anything besides buzzy 4 bangers decently. Hell, I don't even think Honda makes a V8...

re: > Why haven't the Japanese taken over the US car market entirely? Because

They certainly do have a strong presence here (USA). However talk to anyone with any car from any maker and you might come to the conclusion they ALL have their probs. Or wander through the newsgroups of different car makers and just scan/read some posts - you'll get some flavors (not that NG's are answer to life's questions).

Isuzu for one has got it's butt beat in the American market, and in general I believe the Japanese economy is in the toilet - maybe someone can expand or explain that better. Anyway, with that assumption, Japanese automakers are certainly inclined to cut corners and one could guess quality and features in Japanese autos could reflect that too.

Personally I think the past strides the Japanese automakers made that put a large gap between them and what we used to call The Big Three automakers has shrank significantly. I don't think we'll ever see a gap like that again - although as gridlock, fuel prices and an iffy world economy continue, I could see the general public swinging towards something new and hopeful - maybe hybrids. The Toyota Prius seems to be gaining popularity.

...and you don't need a V8 to go fast - Honda however does have a new for

You could also look at the 1.3L Wankel engine in the new Mazda (Ford) RX8 that in standard trans trim has 247 ponies at 8.5k rpm's too. (grin)

Large displacement is a mindset - it's from my era and I'm comfortable with it, however the last few vehicles I've had/driven are 4 cyls. Works for me.

Quoth Philip Nasadowski in news:nasadowsk- snipped-for-privacy@241.in-addr.mrf.va.news.rcn.net:

Forget about an appliance car; imagine a rally-type car (like a Subaru SVX) with four computer-controlled (possibly linear-induction) electric motors capable of powering each of the four wheels independently. You could have tremendous torque at low revs, tremendous acceleration, and tremendous traction control by alternating each motor between driving and (regenerative) braking. Use the gas engine just to charge/supplement the battery pack.

Design it so that either the front or rear axles can lock to be driven by just one motor for a limp-home mode in the event that one of your motors fails.

This approach could make for a great SUV, too. Imagine a direct-drive super- low range...

Add enough battery capacity for a quick run to the store without starting the engine (because it will never warm up in that time and you'll get crappy mileage and poor emissions) and you also have a limp-home mode in the event your engine dies or you run out of gas.

-DanD

Don't forget the 'hazardous material'(or cost) in those batteries that you'll need to begin replacing after a few hundred charge cycles.

Carl

morden wrote:

Quoth morden in news:be7huf$cpv$ snipped-for-privacy@bob.news.rcn.net:

The first generation of internal-combustion engined cars sucked, too.

Patience, grasshopper.

True. The hybrid concept would be killer in a UPS delivery truck, or a school bus or such, though. Lots of room, weight's less an issue, performance isn't an issue (though hybrids can theoretically get off the line faster - bonus there).

Then again, one could argueably say a lot of the current generation IC engined cars suck too :)

You've been brainwashed.

Unique Mobility did just such a thing with a military Humvee.

They improved acceleration 2X, top speed +10MPH, climb speed 2.5X, fording depth, fuel mileage 2X, reliability (it could limp home with only

I can't compare cost because it was a protoype. Even the Ford Escort prototype cost over a million to produce.

-DanD

One explanation I heard was that there is still fairly high demand for the vehicle - but not high enough to continue production in the VERY high capacity plant it came from. perhpas this was a convenient excuse for closing down a plant for other reasons, or reflects more poor business practices by GM. I don't know and maybe we won't know the real reason. Sometimes a product is discontinued because it cuts into more profitable sales of a different product. maybe the older generation was viewed as making nostalgia-based purchases when they could also afford a 'Vette and the camaro was taking that business away. Just speculation.

Carl

morden wrote:

So you have low self-esteem. That should be my problem?

Now you're a mind-reader? You're certainly not a very good one. I can see though, why you prefer arguing with strawmen over arguing with real people. It's so much easier to counter arguments you've imagined than those that people actually make.

In fact, I believe that fuel cells (without those batteries you complain polute so -- though unlike the production and burning of fossil fuels, if battery recycling is well-managed, that potential pollution can be prevented) will eventually beat out hybrids and become the standard; but IC/electric hybrids, with transmissionless all-electric drive trains, offer a great opportunity as transition vehicles. Once we get past the current crop of clumsy mechanical-linkage hybrids, we'll see IC/electric hybrids, then fuel cell/electric hybrids (with batteries, because current fuel cells alone have a problem providing sufficient reserve power for good acceleration at highway speeds) but eventually, just fuel cells as they develop more reserve capacity.

It shouldn't take more than 25 years for the technology to be worked out.

The infrastructure might take longer, but fuel cells can be designed to consume a wide range of fuels -- even gasoline -- so even infrastructure problems can be overcome.

Uh huh.

In maybe 30 - 40 years?

Current FC cars have no power, can barely get out of their own way, are expensive as hell, won't work in the cold, and require a $$$$$ replacement of the fuel cells every 1 - 2 years. And they're unreliable

- Chrysler bragged their development one could go cross country, but with 3 breakdowns. That kind of reliability is unaceptable to today's drivers.

Let's not even get into the fact that there's exactly one hydrogen 'gas' station in California, and none in the US :)

More practical? The IC engine running hydrogen. The clean of a fuel cell, the reliability/performance/cost point of a conventional car. BMW showed one off, Ford has. I'd sell my Ballard stock the day GM, daimler, or Honda shows one off. It's truely a fuel cell killer. Why? It offers everything a fuel cell does, today, and with a tiny fraction of the cost. You can't justify a few billion dollars development when a few million does the same thing.

Transition to what?

Eventually will be a LONG way off. The IC engine killing powerplant has been 'around the corner' for 30 years now, and none have managed to topple the IC engine.

Maybe. But the price may never achive comercial acceptance, ditto for performance (as an OVERALL measure, not 0-60). Given the long development history of FC cars and the laughably hopeless results over the last few decades, I don't see the breakthrough comming.

So, we go from gas engine to gas engines? Big whoop. IMHO, the fuel cell's alure to the enviros is less practical and more it's not a car engine. Look at how the hopeless battery cars were pushed and pushed and went nowhere because they sucked.

It's nice having a 'clean' technology, but you need comercial viability/public acceptance for it to catch on.