Today's new cars

JDgreen

Lawn Addict
Joined
May 14, 2010
Threads
248
Messages
2,887
Last nite my brother in law was showing off his new Chevy Cruze to the family, they appear to be a very modern looking vehicle, but in the quest for better fuel mileage GM installed an EIGHTY THREE cubic inch engine (although a turbo) in a 3200 pound car. My '04 Lesabre has a 231 cubic inch V-6, weighs only 400 pounds more, and will out accelerate the Cruze easily yet still delivers almost comparable fuel mileage (about 23-24 overall, and has a lot more room inside, rides better, and is much easier to service and repair.

To me, the automakers are trying to improve fuel mileage at the expense of every other factor in their cars. Given a choice between the two, I would opt for my Lesabre every time. I personally don't care for the flash, streamlined stying or electronic gadgetry many newer cars seem to have.
 

twall

Lawn Addict
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Threads
78
Messages
1,628
Imagine THAT, an old guy with a Buick....:rolleyes:

When I have to go for another car (which will be soon), I am going to try and stay out of the 2000+ cars and trucks. That persnikety EEC in newer cars is just a pain, miraculous as it may be.
 

BKBrown

Lawn Addict
Joined
May 5, 2010
Threads
15
Messages
1,415
I agree ....

When looking for new vehicle in 08, I was looking for:
  • PickUp bed - haul our own trash to the "transfer station" and didn't want smelly trash inside the vehicle.
  • Independent suspension - gravel road that is washboard surface OFTEN
  • V-8 - Trailer towing and general power
  • 4WD / AWD - Hills and Winter
  • Rear Seat and Doors - Room for Chocolate Lab
The only truck with those features only offered a 4.6 V-8 (same as Mustang)
298 Hp , BUT revs higher than I would like before shifting. I would prefer larger CID and lower revs. The 1999 5.9 L. 360 CID Dodge got 18 to 26 MPG and this 2008 4.6 L. Ford gets 14 to 18 (maybe 20 if Im lucky).

Lower CID does not always get better fuel economy !

Given the choice, I would have prefered larger CID !
 

JDgreen

Lawn Addict
Joined
May 14, 2010
Threads
248
Messages
2,887
I agree ....

When looking for new vehicle in 08, I was looking for:
  • PickUp bed - haul our own trash to the "transfer station" and didn't want smelly trash inside the vehicle.
  • Independent suspension - gravel road that is washboard surface OFTEN
  • V-8 - Trailer towing and general power
  • 4WD / AWD - Hills and Winter
  • Rear Seat and Doors - Room for Chocolate Lab
The only truck with those features only offered a 4.6 V-8 (same as Mustang)
298 Hp , BUT revs higher than I would like before shifting. I would prefer larger CID and lower revs. The 1999 5.9 L. 360 CID Dodge got 18 to 26 MPG and this 2008 4.6 L. Ford gets 14 to 18 (maybe 20 if Im lucky).

Lower CID does not always get better fuel economy !

Given the choice, I would have prefered larger CID !

Concur about CID vs fuel mileage...a small engine straining will use as much fuel as a large engine loafing, and have a shorter lifespan to boot.
 

JDgreen

Lawn Addict
Joined
May 14, 2010
Threads
248
Messages
2,887
Imagine THAT, an old guy with a Buick....:rolleyes:

When I have to go for another car (which will be soon), I am going to try and stay out of the 2000+ cars and trucks. That persnikety EEC in newer cars is just a pain, miraculous as it may be.

Oh no, I go with Buick because Tiger Woods used to shill for them...:laughing:. And for what it is worth, my Y2K GMC has never given us any EEC problems. '04 Lesabre, none either.
 

LandN

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Threads
30
Messages
420
Last nite my brother in law was showing off his new Chevy Cruze to the family, they appear to be a very modern looking vehicle, but in the quest for better fuel mileage GM installed an EIGHTY THREE cubic inch engine (although a turbo) in a 3200 pound car. My '04 Lesabre has a 231 cubic inch V-6, weighs only 400 pounds more, and will out accelerate the Cruze easily yet still delivers almost comparable fuel mileage (about 23-24 overall, and has a lot more room inside, rides better, and is much easier to service and repair.

To me, the automakers are trying to improve fuel mileage at the expense of every other factor in their cars. Given a choice between the two, I would opt for my Lesabre every time. I personally don't care for the flash, streamlined stying or electronic gadgetry many newer cars seem to have.
most of todays vehicles are much more reliable and safer and better mpg than before. Routine maintenance in most cases is also better. i'm sure jd, that your full size buick is smoother riding than a compact chevy cruze which replaced the cobalt....as far as gadgets inside the car,i'm not real happy with that issue, as it is not much different than driving with a cell phone in use. but in many cases the gadgets are what sells the cars to certain people who like that sort of distraction and if certain makes of cars don't offer gadgets inside the car they will lose sales to other manufactures models. i'm not a car guy(trucks forever) for me.i dont worry about mpg figures to much since most drivers never see ideal driving conditions anyway. if i get good mpg in the normal driving i do, fine. if not,oh well. most any day that i am on the roads doing the limit there are always people driving like h=ll.....so then, where's the mpg there.......but all in all, the new cars of today beat the cars of yesterday.
 

JDgreen

Lawn Addict
Joined
May 14, 2010
Threads
248
Messages
2,887
most of todays vehicles are much more reliable and safer and better mpg than before. Routine maintenance in most cases is also better. i'm sure jd, that your full size buick is smoother riding than a compact chevy cruze which replaced the cobalt....as far as gadgets inside the car,i'm not real happy with that issue, as it is not much different than driving with a cell phone in use. but in many cases the gadgets are what sells the cars to certain people who like that sort of distraction and if certain makes of cars don't offer gadgets inside the car they will lose sales to other manufactures models. i'm not a car guy(trucks forever) for me.i dont worry about mpg figures to much since most drivers never see ideal driving conditions anyway. if i get good mpg in the normal driving i do, fine. if not,oh well. most any day that i am on the roads doing the limit there are always people driving like h=ll.....so then, where's the mpg there.......but all in all, the new cars of today beat the cars of yesterday.

Something I do appreciate about newer models is the reliability and safety that is built in, cars used to need engines and transmissions rebuilt at 100,000 miles, tune ups every year, exhaust systems replaced every few years. We have the safety of air bags, stability control, and many others that make driving easier and reduce deaths and injuries. My in laws had a
1999 Saturn, to add anti lock brakes to their new car was a $695 option !!!! Now they all have them standard.

What irks me most about todays new cars are they are so BLAND looking, used to be able to tell a Ford from a Chevy, a Dodge from a Buick, now everything seems to look identical. Little chrome, no two tone paint, you see yourself coming and going all day long. And I miss useful features like roof drip moldings, vent windows, real spare tires, and many others. And get this...the brother in law who was showing off his Cruze, his son in Florida has a Corvette. That has no spare tire, but has run-flat tires, well his kid hit some road junk, tire was ruined, said it was FIFTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A NEW ONE !!!!! Frickin' inane. For $1500 I can buy a set of four 8 ply 16 inchers for my GMC, and a set of four premium Michelin all seasons for my Buick, and have money left over. What a farce.
 

Bison

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Threads
11
Messages
679
When i go shopping for a new(to me) vehicle, it has to be/have,
A GMC
A truck
A 6.5 diesel
At least 12 yrs old
No rust
No more than $ 2000 purchase price.:wink:
 

JDgreen

Lawn Addict
Joined
May 14, 2010
Threads
248
Messages
2,887
When i go shopping for a new(to me) vehicle, it has to be/have,
A GMC
A truck
A 6.5 diesel
At least 12 yrs old
No rust
No more than $ 2000 purchase price.:wink:

12 years old, no rust, and in Canada.....:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
 

Bison

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2011
Threads
11
Messages
679
12 years old, no rust, and in Canada.....:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:
What's so funny bout that?
I ain't living in the rust belt like you.:tongue:
 
Top