: 30 MPG is enough.



Pages : [1] 2

Jesda
06-14-11, 10:24 AM
The new Elantra gets 40mpg, has "interesting" styling, and comes packed to the gills with gadgets. The biggest selling point is that it gets as much as 40mpg.

However, the Mazda 3, despite the garish happy face, is still my favorite small car despite the comparably poor fuel economy (29mpg). And once you hit 25-30mpg, fuel economy gains beyond that have a smaller impact on savings. Going from 30 to 40mpg you arent saving as much money on fuel as going from 20 to 30.

--At 12,000 miles per year at 20 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $2400.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 30 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $1600, saving $800 per year over the 20mpg alternative.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 40 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $1200, saving $400 per year over the 30mpg alternative.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 50 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $960, saving $240 per year over the 40mpg alternative.

The savings diminish as you go up the scale, but in your head 40mpg sounds like "whoa thats a lot" when its not quite dramatic compared to the 30mpg standard of typical economy cars.

To me, the fun and character of the Mazda 3 makes it worth the $400 more per year to fill it up. I refuse to subject myself to driving a pile of sadness. The Elantra is an interesting car but its often described as lacking in driving dynamics.

The 300HP, 4000-lb Seville gets 23-26mpg on the highway, which seems good enough for me.

EcSTSatic
06-14-11, 10:51 AM
I understand your point but I look at it differently. When i decided to dump the minivan for a small wagon daily driver the savings was huge. I averaged 17MPG in the van. I now get a consistent 30MPG. If I would have found something with a 40MPG rating the savings would have been even greater,

--At 12,000 miles per year at 20 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $2400.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 30 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $1600, saving $800 per year over the 20mpg alternative.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 40 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $1200, saving $1200 per year over the 20mpg alternative.
--At 12,000 miles per year at 50 mpg assuming $4/gallon, you're spending $960, saving $1440 per year over the 20mpg alternative.

Stingroo
06-14-11, 10:59 AM
I tend to see it Jesda's way, and I'm perfectly content with my 18 city 24 highway.


Doesn't matter anyway, all this technobullshit in cars these days has made them morbidly obese, and fuel economy has suffered as a result. It makes me laugh sometimes. I had a friend who once told me I should buy a 4-runner for better fuel economy and cargo space, because he said his parents get 22 mpg highway. When I told him I got 24 (and showed him a receipt to prove it) he didn't understand it.

P.S. I like the Mazda happy face. :lol: I just wish they made some RWD cars. If the 6 were RWD, I would seriously lust for one... and my dad would own one.

Jesda
06-14-11, 11:33 AM
I understand your point but I look at it differently. When i decided to dump the minivan for a small wagon daily driver the savings was huge. I averaged 17MPG in the van. I now get a consistent 30MPG. If I would have found something with a 40MPG rating the savings would have been even greater,


Indeed, but when looking at the market for a small car and trying to choose between two, one 30 and one 40 mpg, its worth it (to me, since I'm a "Driver") to spend a little extra on fuel for more smiles per gallon if the choices present themselves as such.

$400 per year comes out to $33 a month. If someone said "For $33 a month, we'll sharpen your steering, reduce body roll, increase grip, improve acceleration by a half second to 60, and increase your chassis stiffness" I'd take the offer. :) Ideally, the Mazda 3 would get 40mpg, but until then, the negligibly higher fuel costs are tolerable. I wouldn't pick a Hyundai Elantra over a Mazda 3 for fuel economy reasons alone (other reasons may sway buyers, like more standard equipment).

Stoneage_Caddy
06-14-11, 11:36 AM
problem with the 40 mpg elantra is it is a tick slower to 60 then my 91 dodge spirit ....thats sad esp when the old girl isnt even a turbo or the 3.0 v6 ...

progress......

C&C
06-14-11, 03:21 PM
Slight correction on what has made these (latest cars) morbidly obese; it is more like government regulations and safety sanctions; whether the good outweighs the bad (safety versus lightness) is arguable, but nevertheless, most weight comes from regulation.

ben.gators
06-14-11, 03:33 PM
I drive about 6000 miles each year, and therefore my saving will be half the numbers listed above. Well, lets see, if I drive a Prius instead of my comfortable, safe, fast, and classy Seville STS I will save about 700$ each year. No, thank you! I keep my Cadillac!

drewsdeville
06-14-11, 04:27 PM
$400 per year comes out to $33 a month. If someone said "For $33 a month, we'll sharpen your steering, reduce body roll, increase grip, improve acceleration by a half second to 60, and increase your chassis stiffness" I'd take the offer. :) Ideally, the Mazda 3 would get 40mpg, but until then, the negligibly higher fuel costs are tolerable. I wouldn't pick a Hyundai Elantra over a Mazda 3 for fuel economy reasons alone (other reasons may sway buyers, like more standard equipment).

Mileage for performance in low-buck compact cars? Is that comparison worth the effort? Sounds like something Motor Trend would write about :alchi:

You should probably include towing capacity figures while you are at it, no?

There's no problem with wanting more performance, but if one is willing to make sacrifices for the sake of driving dynamics, I doubt they'd be shopping for either of these cars. It's probably likely that many of the people shopping for the Elantra are willing to sacrifice for mileage GAIN, not the other way around.

The whole thing is moot imo.

EDIT: Just clicked on the Lexus thread below and your own post fits in right here. Touting Mazda 3 performance over other cheap compact cars is like saying Oprah is skinny for a fat chick. The Mazda 3 may perform better than the Elantra, but it's still slow, and it gets worse mileage to boot (which probably weighs a bit more on the scale for a compact car shopper).

Jesda
06-14-11, 04:35 PM
Mileage for performance in low-buck compact cars? Is that comparison worth the effort? Sounds like something Motor Trend would write about :alchi:

Its possible, likely, and natural to get driving fun out of a light compact car, unless you go to extremes and neuter the fun with a gutless miser in an effort to gain a few dollars of fuel savings.


The public is swayed by MPGs, Consumer Reports, and pricing. The public will pursue MPGs to the detriment of common sense, including costly trade-ins that negate any fuel savings.

gdwriter
06-14-11, 05:34 PM
The 300HP, 4000-lb Seville gets 23-26mpg on the highway, which seems good enough for me.Agreed. The rental Altima I had in North Carolina — the one with the horridly noisy engine while accelerating and the sluggish CVT — averaged 26 while I had it, and it was probably about the same 70/30 highway/city mix that I have with the Seville. I average 25-27 on straight highway driving and 21-22 in my 70/30 mix. The gas mileage advantage of the Altima is not nearly enough to overcome its crappy powertrain.

As for Drew's typical wet-blanket comments, the Mazda3 is widely considered the enthusiasts' choice for somebody who wants or needs a compact car. Acceleration is respectable: 0-60 @ 8.7 seconds (http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mazda-0-60-mph-Times.html) won't blow anybody's doors off, but you're not holding up traffic either. But what stands out with the Mazda is the tossable handling characteristics. Just because a compact is what you can afford doesn't mean you can't have any fun behind the wheel (unless your Mr. No-Fun Drew). :suspect:

Night Wolf
06-14-11, 05:34 PM
I agree with the statements about new cars lacking in performance.

Just rented a 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe to drive back from Chicago with. Overall it was very nice but it was a decent sized AWD SUV with a DOHC I4. The 6-speed automatic helped, but merging on the interstate was a wide open affair for about 20 seconds. It was in 3rd gear by the time 60 came and 4th at 80. Throttle by wire sucks, every vehicle I drive with it seems to be worse then the last. Overall I didn't really notice the lack of power...

... until I got back to my 528e and did a wide open throttle run getting on the interstate and the said part is I actually said "damn" to myself as it accelerated briskly. Why is it sad? Because new, the 528e had a ground shaking 121hp to move a 3100lbs car - 25yrs and 274k miles ago.

I understand what Jesda is saying though. Once you reach a point, it takes a great difference in MPG to improve. In the case of my 528e, it'll get 30mpg on the highway. To some, that may not be much at all - but to me when the alternative is my Jeep that gets 16mpg highway, the difference is huge. On a fill up, I can easily get 350 miles to a tank in the 528e (15 gallon tank) while the Jeep needs a fill up around 240-miles (19 gallon tank) 120 miles greater distance on 4 gallons less of gas - big difference. Both of those figures are not from a fully empty tank - figuring about 2 gallons left in each example. It's actually enough of a difference that even at $50 fill ups in the BMW, it's not enough to really play into my overall budget.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-14-11, 08:21 PM
It's kinda sad that the Mazda 3, with it's little 2.5 I-4 gets 29mpg, and most any 3800 powered car will get 28-33 depending on the weight of the car, the tune in it's in and whether or not it's got the blower. I got 27-28 on the trip to Chicago in February.

The Mazda 3's 2.5 is an unusually large engine for that class of car. The Cruze has either a 1.4T or 1.8, The Focus has a 2.0, the Elantra, Corolla and Civic have a 1.8, the Rio has a 2.0 and the Jetta has a 2.0. You can get a 2.5 in a Jetta, but that's the I-5.

The Mazda also generally seems to come up high in comparison tests. Reviews generally say it's the "driver's economy car". Or the one for the one that doesn't want to be penalized for choosing an econocar. I almost bought an '07 Mazda 3s Sedan in the summer of '09, as I actually found it fun to drive and it was very tossable, but I'm glad I didn't buy it...it was a "fling", not true automotive love.

These econocars are the sorts of cars I'd gladly take a manual transmission in. Small motor = lack of torque, but that's easily dealt with with a 5-6 speed manual, and it makes it a lot less humdrum.

I'm satisfied with 27-30 mpg highway. Easily accomplished with the sorts of cars I enjoy owning without having to penalize myself into an econocar.

Rodya234
06-14-11, 08:31 PM
Its even more sad considering that my dinosaur 4.9 could get nearly 28 when conditions allowed.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-14-11, 08:42 PM
I got 27 or 28 once with my 4.9, doing 70-75 mph with a hell of a tailwind.

gdwriter
06-14-11, 09:44 PM
I got 27 or 28 once with my 4.9, doing 70-75 mph with a hell of a tailwind.When I was driving Cruella to North Dakota last year, I think we averaged 26 MPG on a stretch of I-94 with a ferocious tailwind.

Night Wolf
06-14-11, 11:55 PM
With all the talk of seeking an "economy drivers car" with the Mazda3 - why not get a 1 or 2 year old MINI instead? Is buying brand new and taking that much of a hit on depreciation really important? Does the Mazda3 offer loads more space than a Mini?

As for power vs MPG - GM did a damn thing right with the 3800, already a good performer in N/A trim and down right crazy when force fed. Even the Series I held their own - my '89 Olds would routinely get low 30s MPG with A/C on and cruise set on the highway. My moms '98 Park Ave (non ultra) gets high 20s MPG and my fathers modded '99 GTP would also pull high 20s and good for high 13s in the 1/4 mi.

What a shame GM didn't pull their head out of their butt and put such an excellent powerplant facing the correct way, powering the correct wheels with a clutch between it and the transmission with a stick poking out the top. That was a given eh? F-body doesn't count.

Destroyer
06-15-11, 12:36 AM
What a shame GM didn't pull their head out of their butt and put such an excellent powerplant facing the correct way, powering the correct wheels with a clutch between it and the transmission with a stick poking out the top. That was a given eh? F-body doesn't count.You know, I was just about to point the F-body out. Ok Rick, why does the f-body not count? "Excellent powerplant facing the correct way, powering the correct wheels with a clutch between it". Seems like the f-body was the car you are talking about.

Stingroo
06-15-11, 12:47 AM
F-body is a coupe, with minimal storage capacity and OBVIOUSLY limited interior room.

Not gonna lie, a Bonneville GTP with a 5 speed would have been sweet. On this one, Rick has a point.

drewsdeville
06-15-11, 12:49 AM
Storage capacity and interior room were not any of Rick's requirements.

gdwriter
06-15-11, 12:56 AM
Is anybody else sick of Rick's incessant harping about RWD and stick shifts? This broken record seems to have infected multiple threads in the Lounge lately. :blah: We know what you prefer. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum. :annoyed:

thebigjimsho
06-15-11, 12:58 AM
Eh. I can spin tires on demand. I can beat just about anything on the road, even some newer Ferraris and Lambos. My car has "interesting" looks and gets attention. Since I have no wife, I can live with 13/19 mpg numbers...

thebigjimsho
06-15-11, 12:59 AM
Is anybody else sick of Rick's incessant harping about RWD and stick shifts? This broken record seems to have infected multiple threads in the Lounge lately. :blah: We know what you prefer. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum. :annoyed:No. I let him enjoy himself and i skip over the novels. You should calm down and do the same...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-15-11, 01:08 AM
What a shame GM didn't pull their head out of their butt and put such an excellent powerplant facing the correct way, powering the correct wheels with a clutch between it and the transmission with a stick poking out the top. That was a given eh? F-body doesn't count.

The 3800 powered F-Bodies are exactly what you're looking for. I always thought it'd be neat if someone put a supercharged 3800 into one of those, with the right tune, you'd keep up with an LT1 Z28, and if you massage it, you can keep up with the LS1's...

Stingroo
06-15-11, 01:21 AM
Storage capacity and interior room were not any of Rick's requirements.

But that's what makes F-bodies different from the sedans mentioned previously.

gdwriter
06-15-11, 01:22 AM
No. I let him enjoy himself and i skip over the novels. You should calm down and do the same...I mostly ignore them, but it gets so frickin' old. And so bloody repetitive. :gah:

More significantly, when it's mixed in with not-very-subtle digs at FWD, automatic Cadillacs, as well as at the people who like them, it leaves a crappy impression for newcomers and occasional visitors.

Stingroo
06-15-11, 01:23 AM
The 3800 powered F-Bodies are exactly what you're looking for. I always thought it'd be neat if someone put a supercharged 3800 into one of those, with the right tune, you'd keep up with an LT1 Z28, and if you massage it, you can keep up with the LS1's...

There are kits. Fun stuff. A friend of mine's mom had one. It was cool as hell.

Aron9000
06-15-11, 02:34 AM
Problem is you can't use a roots style blower like your Regal has on top of the 3800 in a fbody. Well you can if you hack the cowl all to hell, and its still a tight fit. Have to go with an aftermarket centrifugal unit, and by the time you spend all the $$$ on that you might as well have bought a v8 model anyways.

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 02:43 AM
You know, I was just about to point the F-body out. Ok Rick, why does the f-body not count? "Excellent powerplant facing the correct way, powering the correct wheels with a clutch between it". Seems like the f-body was the car you are talking about.

Atleast as far as I am concerned, it doesn't count because who wants a V6 in an F-body? The V8 completes the car. Plus, the N/A 3800 was a good overall performer, but the s/c 3800 is really where the excellent power (that still brought great fuel econ) came into play. That was never offered in the F-body.

As great as the 3800 is, it is overshadowed in the F-body. Yes, I know there is a strong following with it, but that engine really shined in the mid/full size luxury/"performace" cars. That is the application that it would have been truely awesome to see in RWD configuration with option of a manual transmission.

Folks act like it isn't a big deal now, but get all excited when GM (and others) are finally building RWD cars again, and offering optional manual transmissions. Just like many prefer the old GM/Ford tanks because of their RWD nature. GM could have had some really nicely styled, modern cars with up to date features and options with a very fun drivetrain.

Last year on a trip to NY I had my fathers '99 Grand Prix GTP for about a week and put a good bit of miles on it for the time, everything from city driving, highway trips and curvy mountain fun. That car was maintained very well and had various modifications putting engine output over 300hp as well as some basic brake/suspension mods - in the world of these cars, it was a very well sorted out and performing car.

But it did very little for me. Not taking into account the interior that felt like a childs toy and creeked when you touched it or the horrible seats that literally made me hurt after driving the car an hour. Just the overall feeling of the car - I didn't like it. Yes, the engine produced crazy amounts of power that would launch the car like a wild beast, hit the speed limit in a matter of seconds and hit triple digits in just a few more seconds. But that was it. The FWD nature of the car made it feel like I was forcing it to turn while accelerating on the tight mountain roads. The automatic made the overall experience quite boring as "press harder to go faster" set in. It was fun at first to have rocket-like propulsion coming out of the turns, but after the first dozen turns I realized I was not really enjoying driving the car on these types of "driving" roads and would sort of casually cruise thru the turns just to accelerate out of them quick, which I soon realized was just making me reach stupid speeds in a matter of seconds given the roads and conditions. But that was the only "fun" part of the time spent behind the wheel of that car, because making the car turn, wasn't. GM builds an excellent automatic. This one was rebuilt with a shift kit and turning "performance shift" on produced neck-snapping shifts that stayed in gear nicely, was quick to down shift and overall performed very well. I have no complaints with how it did its' job. It's just that it was one less thing for me to be involved with while driving, which further made me feel like all I was doing was pushing the gas pedal and sorta steering the car where I wanted it to go - I didn't feel like I was part of the car, the car was part of the road, and it was a full "driving experience". That is the difference.

Because the mountains seperated my girlfriends house from my fathers, I was back and fourth them every day atleast once, sometimes more. By the 2nd day - it just really wasn't that fun to drive the car on those roads anymore. The car felt like I was disturbing it when pushed around the turns. The automatic really took a whole lot of fun out of the whole experience. Even the engine power sort of became a limiting point. There was so much that it would just loaf along at a low RPM keeping the car up to speed, while at the same time begging to be ran hard which would launch the car to very unreasonable speeds in short time. Overall it was not a thrilling experience that I grew tired of quickly.

What is the point of that? Because I really feel that if that same exact car had a proper 4-wheel independent RWD setup and a manual transmission - it would have been a totally different experience, even with everything else being left the same (horrible seats, poor interior quality etc...).

A couple months later due to turn of events, I made an emergency trip back to NY - driving the 528e up. Yet again I was crossing those mountains on a daily basis. This is when the car was in much worse condition then it is now overall (which still isn't in the best condition). Yet there was simply no comparison to the fun and thrill on those roads. Without a doubt, the 528e didn't have anything close to the acceleration and making my way up the mountain was usually a wide open throttle run - but the whole car was involving to drive, felt eager to turn and inspiried confidence. GM could have had an awesome thing going (think Pontiac G8, 10+yrs ago) but ruined it.


The 3800 powered F-Bodies are exactly what you're looking for. I always thought it'd be neat if someone put a supercharged 3800 into one of those, with the right tune, you'd keep up with an LT1 Z28, and if you massage it, you can keep up with the LS1's...

Quite honestly, the F-bodies just don't do much for me, though I understand their appeal.

The cars I do find interesting that would have been neat with a proper setup are cars like the Bonneville GXP or even my fathers GP GTP (which wouldn't be as bad if the darn thing didn't physically hurt me after such a short time - atleast seats are easy to change). Along with the Olds Aurora and Seville STS. All had the potential to be even better "sport sedan" cars. These cars could have really put the individual brands as well as GM as a whole on the map of a whole lot more people while still keeping the base they had. The F-body doesn't fit the type of car I am looking for in a "fun" car (no, space isn't the reason or a consideration). I'm talking about the existing cars the s/c 3800 was already in.


Is anybody else sick of Rick's incessant harping about RWD and stick shifts? This broken record seems to have infected multiple threads in the Lounge lately. :blah: We know what you prefer. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum. :annoyed:

Go pound sand.

gdwriter
06-15-11, 03:18 AM
^^^ :rtfinger:

77CDV
06-15-11, 03:20 AM
Boys, boys! Either simmer down or break out the ruler and put this nonsense to rest already!

gdwriter
06-15-11, 03:24 AM
Eh, I'm done. Not going to get into another episode of War and Peace debating the boring putz. :yawn:

Playdrv4me
06-15-11, 04:29 AM
I've always found it ironic that the Mazda 3 is called that because in reality, for its given segment, it IS the most like the BMW which shares its namesake. The best driving in that category, with similarly solid build quality and just a downright slew of technological features you can't get otherwise. Things that are just not seen like Xenon headlights and high quality control surfaces. Even when this car was the Protege, it was STILL the underdog favorite by comparison to the Civic and especially the Shit-roller.

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 04:49 AM
I rented a Mazda3 while in NY over an extended weekend. It was one of the newer ones - I just don't like the styling of it at all and the interior was kind of quirky with the radio display being up top. Atleast they got the push/pull manual shift mode thing correct - but they are just a gimick, it is no different then putting the automatic shifter in 3, 2 or 1. I don't find any of them "fun" to actually change gears with - and only are useful to downshift for holding a lower gear when going down mountains etc... I'm sure it was a base model rental and I remember enjoying it a bit from time to time but it really didn't do much for me... I guess I'd consider it if I HAD to buy a new car, but so many better used cars can be had.

I actually preferred the Kia Forte I got as a loaner for a week while my Jeep was getting a new exhaust under warranty. That car was actually a 5spd manual transmission too! It was such a base model that it had crank windows and no power lows, yet it had bluetooh radio and XM lol. Still though, it was a pretty nice car that I enjoyed. Main issue was the throttle control - flat out sucked with the clutch. Letting off the throttle, it would hold RPM for a few seconds, I had to relearn how to drive a manual trans for that week. Plus, the clutch pedal was like stomping the air - very little resistance, very little feel.

But, the "performance" version of the Forte has a more powerful I4, a "sport-tuned" suspension and a 6-speed manual... and they come in 2-door. I thought it was a really neat looking car with cool styling bits. In that week I had it, I put 900 miles on it (got it with only 300) and actually enjoyed it... the manual transmission really made the difference in that car otherwise it would have been a rather boring ride. But it atleast put the car on the map for me to consider one in the future as I have positive memories from it.

Playdrv4me
06-15-11, 04:56 AM
Yea you can't compare a based out Mazda 3 with an automatic to a manual transmission Kia. That said, the Forte is ANOTHER good car in that segment. Remember that regardless (as Drew pointed out), we are discussing econoboxes here. All I'm saying is that OF the econoboxes, the Mazda 3 has the right combination of features, quality and driving enjoyment.

Jesda
06-15-11, 05:08 AM
I'd pick the automatic rental-spec 3 over the Forte, but it would not be an easy choice. The Forte gets you so many options for cheap its like the car comes with an automatic $1000 rebate. When you're selling cars to college students, young military guys, and people starting out in their careers, a thousand bucks is enticing.

The 3 has that extra little bit of sizzle in the steering and chassis that most of its competitors dont. My understanding, however, is that the steering in the Chevy Cruze is supposedly marvelous, but the suspension is pudding. I'm sure the MCE of the Cruze will address that. It seems to be just a few tiny steps away from being the best in its segment.

Jesda
06-15-11, 08:25 AM
I've always found it ironic that the Mazda 3 is called that because in reality, for its given segment, it IS the most like the BMW which shares its namesake. The best driving in that category, with similarly solid build quality and just a downright slew of technological features you can't get otherwise.

Automobile Magazine mentioned the same thing a few months ago. They said that the Mazda 3 and BMW 3-series are both frequent All-Star award winners and the most desirable cars in their classes, for drivers.

The Tony Show
06-15-11, 10:14 AM
One thing everyone forgets is that your fuel economy is greatly influenced by HOW you drive, not just WHAT you drive. I know several people who have purchased Priuses or Escalade Hybrids and then complained that their gas mileage was worse than their previous (non-Hybrid) car. Why? Because the big drop in power makes them press the throttle harder to take off from stoplights or pass like they're accustomed to.

Top Gear did a comparison where the Stig briskly drove a Prius around the test track with Clarkson following right behind him in a V8 M3. In the end, the M3 actually got the same mileage as the Prius because Clarkson could maintain pace with the Prius minimal throttle, while Stig had to beat the snot out of the Prius to keep it hustling.

My point is if your driving style includes pulling away from lights briskly and passing people on the highway, a Hybrid or turbo 4 isn't going to get you any better mileage than a good ole' V6 or V8.

Stingroo
06-15-11, 10:17 AM
And that's me! :)

I accept this. lol

Whoa, non-lame smileys back? :D :rolleyes:

Woohoo!

The Tony Show
06-15-11, 10:22 AM
Oh, and I forgot to mention: If you don't like what someone has to say, debate their point- not their intentions.

Too much personal arguing around here. Argue about the cars all you want, but stop being personally rude to each other.

Stingroo
06-15-11, 11:48 AM
I see Tony got an upgrade.

I approve of this message.

The Tony Show
06-15-11, 12:07 PM
I just don't understand why people can't let stuff roll off them. I read 10 posts a day on here that make me roll my eyes, but I don't feel the need to type out a rant or insult about the person who wrote it.

Chill out, guys. Sheesh. :bigroll:

Stingroo
06-15-11, 12:55 PM
They mad, bro.

:lol:

thebigjimsho
06-15-11, 01:04 PM
One thing everyone forgets is that your fuel economy is greatly influenced by HOW you drive, not just WHAT you drive. I know several people who have purchased Priuses or Escalade Hybrids and then complained that their gas mileage was worse than their previous (non-Hybrid) car. Why? Because the big drop in power makes them press the throttle harder to take off from stoplights or pass like they're accustomed to.

Top Gear did a comparison where the Stig briskly drove a Prius around the test track with Clarkson following right behind him in a V8 M3. In the end, the M3 actually got the same mileage as the Prius because Clarkson could maintain pace with the Prius minimal throttle, while Stig had to beat the snot out of the Prius to keep it hustling.

My point is if your driving style includes pulling away from lights briskly and passing people on the highway, a Hybrid or turbo 4 isn't going to get you any better mileage than a good ole' V6 or V8.No, Tony. You're WRONG! The M3 got BETTER mileage on the track...

thebigjimsho
06-15-11, 01:27 PM
Atleast as far as I am concerned, it doesn't count because who wants a V6 in an F-body? The V8 completes the car. Plus, the N/A 3800 was a good overall performer, but the s/c 3800 is really where the excellent power (that still brought great fuel econ) came into play. That was never offered in the F-body.

As great as the 3800 is, it is overshadowed in the F-body. Yes, I know there is a strong following with it, but that engine really shined in the mid/full size luxury/"performace" cars. That is the application that it would have been truely awesome to see in RWD configuration with option of a manual transmission.

Folks act like it isn't a big deal now, but get all excited when GM (and others) are finally building RWD cars again, and offering optional manual transmissions. Just like many prefer the old GM/Ford tanks because of their RWD nature. GM could have had some really nicely styled, modern cars with up to date features and options with a very fun drivetrain.

Last year on a trip to NY I had my fathers '99 Grand Prix GTP for about a week and put a good bit of miles on it for the time, everything from city driving, highway trips and curvy mountain fun. That car was maintained very well and had various modifications putting engine output over 300hp as well as some basic brake/suspension mods - in the world of these cars, it was a very well sorted out and performing car.

But it did very little for me. Not taking into account the interior that felt like a childs toy and creeked when you touched it or the horrible seats that literally made me hurt after driving the car an hour. Just the overall feeling of the car - I didn't like it. Yes, the engine produced crazy amounts of power that would launch the car like a wild beast, hit the speed limit in a matter of seconds and hit triple digits in just a few more seconds. But that was it. The FWD nature of the car made it feel like I was forcing it to turn while accelerating on the tight mountain roads. The automatic made the overall experience quite boring as "press harder to go faster" set in. It was fun at first to have rocket-like propulsion coming out of the turns, but after the first dozen turns I realized I was not really enjoying driving the car on these types of "driving" roads and would sort of casually cruise thru the turns just to accelerate out of them quick, which I soon realized was just making me reach stupid speeds in a matter of seconds given the roads and conditions. But that was the only "fun" part of the time spent behind the wheel of that car, because making the car turn, wasn't. GM builds an excellent automatic. This one was rebuilt with a shift kit and turning "performance shift" on produced neck-snapping shifts that stayed in gear nicely, was quick to down shift and overall performed very well. I have no complaints with how it did its' job. It's just that it was one less thing for me to be involved with while driving, which further made me feel like all I was doing was pushing the gas pedal and sorta steering the car where I wanted it to go - I didn't feel like I was part of the car, the car was part of the road, and it was a full "driving experience". That is the difference.

Because the mountains seperated my girlfriends house from my fathers, I was back and fourth them every day atleast once, sometimes more. By the 2nd day - it just really wasn't that fun to drive the car on those roads anymore. The car felt like I was disturbing it when pushed around the turns. The automatic really took a whole lot of fun out of the whole experience. Even the engine power sort of became a limiting point. There was so much that it would just loaf along at a low RPM keeping the car up to speed, while at the same time begging to be ran hard which would launch the car to very unreasonable speeds in short time. Overall it was not a thrilling experience that I grew tired of quickly.

What is the point of that? Because I really feel that if that same exact car had a proper 4-wheel independent RWD setup and a manual transmission - it would have been a totally different experience, even with everything else being left the same (horrible seats, poor interior quality etc...).

A couple months later due to turn of events, I made an emergency trip back to NY - driving the 528e up. Yet again I was crossing those mountains on a daily basis. This is when the car was in much worse condition then it is now overall (which still isn't in the best condition). Yet there was simply no comparison to the fun and thrill on those roads. Without a doubt, the 528e didn't have anything close to the acceleration and making my way up the mountain was usually a wide open throttle run - but the whole car was involving to drive, felt eager to turn and inspiried confidence. GM could have had an awesome thing going (think Pontiac G8, 10+yrs ago) but ruined it.



Quite honestly, the F-bodies just don't do much for me, though I understand their appeal.

The cars I do find interesting that would have been neat with a proper setup are cars like the Bonneville GXP or even my fathers GP GTP (which wouldn't be as bad if the darn thing didn't physically hurt me after such a short time - atleast seats are easy to change). Along with the Olds Aurora and Seville STS. All had the potential to be even better "sport sedan" cars. These cars could have really put the individual brands as well as GM as a whole on the map of a whole lot more people while still keeping the base they had. The F-body doesn't fit the type of car I am looking for in a "fun" car (no, space isn't the reason or a consideration). I'm talking about the existing cars the s/c 3800 was already in.



Go pound sand.Ahh, the simple ways and opinions of Rick. I can understand Gary getting aggravated at you but most of what you say doesn't bother me, probably because I drive the type of car your desires match. Even still, your opinion is severely skewed.

My parents have had their '72 2002 longer than I have been alive. I grew up a Bimmer lover and remember when everyone who had one still flashed their high beams at another. The reason I bought my '04 V was because it was as close to an M5 as I was ever going to get, new. And therein brings me to my point.

You do degrade GM for not building cars with "proper" drivelines. Last I checked, BMW doesn't build economy cars. No, wait, they do. Minis. They don't worry about being cost conscious in the sense they need to build an economy car. Should GM do the same? Cars like the Grand Prix GXP and Impala SS are incomplete. They do have fundamental shortcomings. It's because it's GM's best effort to providing SOME fun for the consumer that can't afford the "proper" RWD. As for transmissions, that's another cost issue. Not cost to build, but cost to present and not be bought. The everlasting question of "How many should we build" is always an issue. Will manuals flood the market or will there not be enough?

There is no doubt money talks. And SOMEONE needs to make economy cars and mid and full-size sedans that are cheaper than the premium vehicles from BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti and Lexus. Funny, Infiniti and Lexus each do well with some FWD based lineups. Cadillac offered a RWD based SRX and it's being killed in sales by the new FWD based version.

Your criteria, Rick, is not an end all be all. Maybe if more people were like you, every car would cost more but offer RWD and a manual transmission. But, then again, no one would buy them. Because, BMW can't give away their cars for a couple grand waiting for you to buy them 20 years later. Funny how you rail on GM for building economical cars but you can't actually go out and buy your own BMW when brand new. I'm sure you'd like to, but even the 1 series stripped down to nothing is still overpriced, overweight and over your budget. And it is NOTHING like its 2002 forebear, or so you call it. Blasphemy.

But maybe if you save really hard, you can get a track weapon in a Cobalt SS turbocharged.

Supply. Demand. Cost. Learn that system and maybe your real world experience will include more than just driving a car to get how it feels without appreciating what goes into it and why...

gdwriter
06-15-11, 01:38 PM
My understanding, however, is that the steering in the Chevy Cruze is supposedly marvelous, but the suspension is pudding. I'm sure the MCE of the Cruze will address that. It seems to be just a few tiny steps away from being the best in its segment.Based on the recent reviews I've read, the Cruze actually has a nice ride/handling balance. What's hurt it in these comparisons is a buzzy engine and clumsy automatic transmission. The Cruze Eco with a stick, however, has been highly praised by of all places Road & Track (http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/impressions/2011-chevrolet-cruze-eco).

EcSTSatic
06-15-11, 01:49 PM
Apply to affected area. Do not get into eyes:

http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/demotivational-posters-reality.jpg

gdwriter
06-15-11, 01:58 PM
I was discussing this with Chad on the phone the other night, and there are economic factors involved regarding whether or not a car is offered with a stick. For one, after visiting the BMW site, it appears the non-M 5 Series is no longer offered with a stick, at least in the U.S. I expect that's because BMW sold a miniscule number of stick shift 5-Series in the U.S., and the cost of federalizing that variant did not make economic sense. Of course, a stick is still available on the 3-Series, and I think it always will be (and should be). But I bet the majority of 3-Series sold in the U.S. are automatics. Since most new BMW owners live in metro areas with rush hour traffic, they probably don't want the hassle during stop and go traffic. I know it got old fast when I was in Phoenix traffic every day when I drove a stick.

My theory for why BMW does offer sticks and Cadillac does not (except in the CTS) is because sticks are still popular in Europe. So BMW can justify the development and tooling costs because even if they don't sell many in the U.S., they sell enough in Europe for it to pay for it. With the vast majority of Cadillacs sold in North America, where automatics are preferred, GM can't justify the development and tooling costs to offer sticks in Cadillacs — or a lot of its other cars — because virtually no one wants them that way. However, I applaud GM for offering a stick in both the regular CTS and the V — even if they don't sell many — to satisfy customers who want them. And since it's the same transmission used in the Corvette and Camaro, it can be done cost effectively.

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 03:32 PM
Ahh, the simple ways and opinions of Rick. I can understand Gary getting aggravated at you but most of what you say doesn't bother me, probably because I drive the type of car your desires match. Even still, your opinion is severely skewed.

My parents have had their '72 2002 longer than I have been alive. I grew up a Bimmer lover and remember when everyone who had one still flashed their high beams at another. The reason I bought my '04 V was because it was as close to an M5 as I was ever going to get, new. And therein brings me to my point.

You do degrade GM for not building cars with "proper" drivelines. Last I checked, BMW doesn't build economy cars. No, wait, they do. Minis. They don't worry about being cost conscious in the sense they need to build an economy car. Should GM do the same? Cars like the Grand Prix GXP and Impala SS are incomplete. They do have fundamental shortcomings. It's because it's GM's best effort to providing SOME fun for the consumer that can't afford the "proper" RWD. As for transmissions, that's another cost issue. Not cost to build, but cost to present and not be bought. The everlasting question of "How many should we build" is always an issue. Will manuals flood the market or will there not be enough?

There is no doubt money talks. And SOMEONE needs to make economy cars and mid and full-size sedans that are cheaper than the premium vehicles from BMW, Mercedes, Infiniti and Lexus. Funny, Infiniti and Lexus each do well with some FWD based lineups. Cadillac offered a RWD based SRX and it's being killed in sales by the new FWD based version.

Your criteria, Rick, is not an end all be all. Maybe if more people were like you, every car would cost more but offer RWD and a manual transmission. But, then again, no one would buy them. Because, BMW can't give away their cars for a couple grand waiting for you to buy them 20 years later. Funny how you rail on GM for building economical cars but you can't actually go out and buy your own BMW when brand new. I'm sure you'd like to, but even the 1 series stripped down to nothing is still overpriced, overweight and over your budget. And it is NOTHING like its 2002 forebear, or so you call it. Blasphemy.

But maybe if you save really hard, you can get a track weapon in a Cobalt SS turbocharged.

Supply. Demand. Cost. Learn that system and maybe your real world experience will include more than just driving a car to get how it feels without appreciating what goes into it and why...

It's not just RWD. Honda, Toyota and Nissan all offered manual transmissions in their family sedans both in I4 or V6 flavor. GM didn't. It has nothing to do about building cheap economy cars either - plenty of econo cars were avalible with a manual transmission. In 90s GM world you had three options: J-body, F-body or Corvette. There was a whole lotta markets left out that others offered.

If it wasn't a big deal than threads like that recent one about the Lexus SC300 wouldn't be popping up on non-Lexus sites, the cars wouldn't be still bringing a demand, nor would the manual transmission models be more sought after than the automatics.

I have no desire to own any brand new car, BMW included. As much of a car enthusiast as I am - there is more to life than cars. That is exactly why I prefer older models - let someone else take the huge hit on depreciation and they are still fun. I enjoy these cars for what they offer, not for a status symbol.

If everyone was limited to ONLY buy a brand new car - than most folks here would never be driving a Cadillac. In fact, there would be a whole lot less people driving their cars.

As for me, I used to be a GM fanboi. I grew up around it. Everything was big GM cars with big GM V8s. That is what I was used to and when I started driving, what I related to. I thought they were the best of anything offered and looked down upon anything from Japan or Europe. Then something crazy happened - I experienced the very thing I thought I was against. Even with resistance, it changed the way I felt about cars and driving so strongly.

Since 80s-90s vehicles are what grabs my attention - perhaps if GM built proper "drivers" cars during these years, I would never have had a reason to look anywhere else. I could have stuck with good ol GM and be thrilled.

The ironic part? What was the car that first made me want the small, fun "drivers" car?

Pontiac Solstice GXP.

I already really liked the styling of that car (Saturn Sky better) and I drove one - the thing performed excellent. I enjoyed the open air feeling that the convertible offered, the eager to rev 4cyl and fun to drive manual transmission. I could have "afforded" a brand new one too, but don't see the reason to buy a brand new car and loose so much money.

So I started looking at cash cars I could buy cheap and used - After months and months of browsing, reading and researching, two options kept coming back that fit the bill. Mazda Miata and BMW e30 convertible. Then I spent even more time deciding between those two models.

So there it is, GM is what got me interested in this segment, but because they didn't offer anything like it for decades prior, I went elsewhere. Shame for GM. Just like the "sport sedans" which they finally got right with the CTS v2, unfortunately it will be a long time until I'm ready to buy a car of that year so yet again - will have to look elsewhere for a car that suits my needs and wants.

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 03:40 PM
I was discussing this with Chad on the phone the other night, and there are economic factors involved regarding whether or not a car is offered with a stick. For one, after visiting the BMW site, it appears the non-M 5 Series is no longer offered with a stick, at least in the U.S. I expect that's because BMW sold a miniscule number of stick shift 5-Series in the U.S., and the cost of federalizing that variant did not make economic sense. Of course, a stick is still available on the 3-Series, and I think it always will be (and should be). But I bet the majority of 3-Series sold in the U.S. are automatics. Since most new BMW owners live in metro areas with rush hour traffic, they probably don't want the hassle during stop and go traffic. I know it got old fast when I was in Phoenix traffic every day when I drove a stick.

My theory for why BMW does offer sticks and Cadillac does not (except in the CTS) is because sticks are still popular in Europe. So BMW can justify the development and tooling costs because even if they don't sell many in the U.S., they sell enough in Europe for it to pay for it. With the vast majority of Cadillacs sold in North America, where automatics are preferred, GM can't justify the development and tooling costs to offer sticks in Cadillacs — or a lot of its other cars — because virtually no one wants them that way. However, I applaud GM for offering a stick in both the regular CTS and the V — even if they don't sell many — to satisfy customers who want them. And since it's the same transmission used in the Corvette and Camaro, it can be done cost effectively.

Americans are lazy. Moreso when it comes to vehicles. Both in driving them and maintaining them. It is no surprise at all that automatics outsell manuals. Most American drivers have no idea what a clutch does - vastly different in other countries.

As for new BMW - the cars keep getting bigger and further away from what made the original models as legenday as they are. It is no surprise that they no longer offer a manual transmission in the new 5-series. Then again, I'm not sure how many buyers of new 5-series even know how to drive a manual.

Vehicles as a whole are getting to be very ridiculous with nanny computers everywhere. Bigger, adding weight, less relying on the driver and more on the car to take care of itself - then again that may just be exactly what most Americans want. With a few exceptions, everytime I drive a new vehicle - they are "nice"... but just feel more and more like appliances. But, that is also the way our society is going - throw away models that get replaced every 1-3 years.

thebigjimsho
06-15-11, 04:00 PM
It's not just RWD. Honda, Toyota and Nissan all offered manual transmissions in their family sedans both in I4 or V6 flavor. GM didn't. It has nothing to do about building cheap economy cars either - plenty of econo cars were avalible with a manual transmission. In 90s GM world you had three options: J-body, F-body or Corvette. There was a whole lotta markets left out that others offered.

If it wasn't a big deal than threads like that recent one about the Lexus SC300 wouldn't be popping up on non-Lexus sites, the cars wouldn't be still bringing a demand, nor would the manual transmission models be more sought after than the automatics.

I have no desire to own any brand new car, BMW included. As much of a car enthusiast as I am - there is more to life than cars. That is exactly why I prefer older models - let someone else take the huge hit on depreciation and they are still fun. I enjoy these cars for what they offer, not for a status symbol.

If everyone was limited to ONLY buy a brand new car - than most folks here would never be driving a Cadillac. In fact, there would be a whole lot less people driving their cars.

As for me, I used to be a GM fanboi. I grew up around it. Everything was big GM cars with big GM V8s. That is what I was used to and when I started driving, what I related to. I thought they were the best of anything offered and looked down upon anything from Japan or Europe. Then something crazy happened - I experienced the very thing I thought I was against. Even with resistance, it changed the way I felt about cars and driving so strongly.

Since 80s-90s vehicles are what grabs my attention - perhaps if GM built proper "drivers" cars during these years, I would never have had a reason to look anywhere else. I could have stuck with good ol GM and be thrilled.

The ironic part? What was the car that first made me want the small, fun "drivers" car?

Pontiac Solstice GXP.

I already really liked the styling of that car (Saturn Sky better) and I drove one - the thing performed excellent. I enjoyed the open air feeling that the convertible offered, the eager to rev 4cyl and fun to drive manual transmission. I could have "afforded" a brand new one too, but don't see the reason to buy a brand new car and loose so much money.

So I started looking at cash cars I could buy cheap and used - After months and months of browsing, reading and researching, two options kept coming back that fit the bill. Mazda Miata and BMW e30 convertible. Then I spent even more time deciding between those two models.

So there it is, GM is what got me interested in this segment, but because they didn't offer anything like it for decades prior, I went elsewhere. Shame for GM. Just like the "sport sedans" which they finally got right with the CTS v2, unfortunately it will be a long time until I'm ready to buy a car of that year so yet again - will have to look elsewhere for a car that suits my needs and wants.First off, general statements are general. And not correct. Nissan, indeed, offered a manual with its V6. Hence why they marketed the 4 door sports car, and succeeded. But what are they building now? A Maxima with a CVT only. Altimas that are half-baked. But they sell a ton. Money talks. The Honda Accord? I'm sorry, but a V6 with a manual was vaporware for most of its life. When I got my '01 Accord coupe, I had to buy a 4 cyl. A V6 Camry w/ manual? I'm sorry, what brownies are you eating?

As for the SC300, did the SC400 have a manual option? The SC300 is legendary because it is the cousin to the Supra.

Then, this paragraph...

I have no desire to own any brand new car, BMW included. As much of a car enthusiast as I am - there is more to life than cars. That is exactly why I prefer older models - let someone else take the huge hit on depreciation and they are still fun. I enjoy these cars for what they offer, not for a status symbol.


There is more to life than cars. Exactly. If you're a father and work your ass off, can you afford a brand new BMW? Can you afford to have a used car being repaired every couple of weeks? Do you have the time to fix it yourself? What cars like the Malibu, Fusion, Impala, Cobalt, Focus, 200 all offer is models with a modicum of performance and style. The platforms allow them to be affordable and have just enough sport to keep the budget minded happy as they dream of their M5s, CTS-Vs, Boxsters, etc...

What you feel in a car that does things well are things I'm sure a lot of people would like to. Most people, probably. However, unlike you, someone who is single and can fix his hunks of junk, these people have other priorities to fill. They may not have the time you have.

There is no doubt that GM dropped the ball in the 80s and 90s. But BMWs have always been more expensive and were able to build machines on a RWD or AWD platform and sell enough to be profitable. But they left entire segments open, ala GM. To continue to rail on GM for not filling segments but ignore BMW doing the same is again, hypocritical. BMW CAN'T build an affordable car unless they ditch RWD. So where is the greatness there? There is no magic pill.

So hold your nose high, Rick. You only buy cars that please you, amount of work or cheapness be damned. That's great. But why not take a little lighter tone when talking about cars others find pleasurable or are maybe forced to buy in order to keep their families well kept? People's priorities are not yours. GM is profitable no matter how much you hate FWD and automatics. The world is still spinning with or without you...

thebigjimsho
06-15-11, 04:09 PM
Americans are lazy. Moreso when it comes to vehicles. Both in driving them and maintaining them. It is no surprise at all that automatics outsell manuals. Most American drivers have no idea what a clutch does - vastly different in other countries.

As for new BMW - the cars keep getting bigger and further away from what made the original models as legenday as they are. It is no surprise that they no longer offer a manual transmission in the new 5-series. Then again, I'm not sure how many buyers of new 5-series even know how to drive a manual.

Vehicles as a whole are getting to be very ridiculous with nanny computers everywhere. Bigger, adding weight, less relying on the driver and more on the car to take care of itself - then again that may just be exactly what most Americans want. With a few exceptions, everytime I drive a new vehicle - they are "nice"... but just feel more and more like appliances. But, that is also the way our society is going - throw away models that get replaced every 1-3 years.I'm sorry, is Europe even half the size of the US? Does gas cost $9 a gallon here? Are city streets 10' wide here? Is driving as cheap an affair in Europe as it is here?

As for the 5 series, the last gen M5 was offered everywhere else with a DSG transmission. The US market demanded a traditional manual. General statements are general.

As for electronic nannies, that's not what Americans want but, rather, what Americans are being given per the government. All US vehicles are mandated to have traction control. And for 2012, all are to have stability control and TPMS. Argue what you want, but lazy Americans have cars that are myriads safer than your old-school boxes. The "lazy American" attitude is vastly misplaced.

orconn
06-15-11, 04:39 PM
Rick, it's time to get off you one note sonata! I too enjoy small displacement manual transmission cars, but I would hardly recommend them for everyone. Having known personally several legendary race car drivers over the years, I know for a fact that each and every one of them chose an automatic transmission for their road cars.

Believe me we are all aware of your personal bias toward the BMW brand and for old BMW's equipped with manual transmissions, but hearing about these preferences continually in each one of your posts, is , quite frankly, BORING! While I have enjoyed your posts describing your rehab of and modification of your cars, lately your posts have become to monotonous to be enjoyable.

Just my 2 cents!

Brett
06-15-11, 04:48 PM
Buying a car with an automatic trans makes you lazy? It's a convenience, nothing more. If you follow the lazy line of thinking then you better not use the remote for your TV or a microwave or an oven for that matter. Stay away from the grocery store, you are going to have to grow or kill your food and cook it on a fire you build yourself.

The modern world is full of conveniences, it doesnt necessarily lead one to laziness.... post hoc ergo propter hoc

Jesda
06-15-11, 04:54 PM
My Saab chooses gears all by itself. I bet the ATF is made out of meatball juices.

RippyPartsDept
06-15-11, 05:19 PM
post hoc ergo propter hoc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

logical fallacy FTL

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 05:22 PM
lol, the same folks defending the fwd automatic luxury cars are the same folks that look down to ''lesser'' cars saying things like they wouldn't be caught dead in a Corlla or having to drive one for hundreds of thousands of miles would be torture. What about the working man that can only afford those cars? How ironic! I find fixing up what others consider hunks o junk to be enjoyable - joys of the single life I suppose, so it all works out! In the end, we are all free to drive what we choose. For me - life is too short to drive boring cars. Enjoy!

Jesda
06-15-11, 05:35 PM
Corollas are trash. It is by far the worst car in its class. If you buy one brand new, you're missing out on its better built, better looking, better driving, and equally dependable competitors.

Toyota dealers are reluctant to discount them, thinking their turds are made of gold.

Brett
06-15-11, 05:43 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

logical fallacy FTL

Imaginary rep points to you for looking it up :thumbsup:

Yes, our friend Rick has become trapped in the fallacy that having a car with an auto trans makes you lazy. One does not beget the other and I could just as easily argue that an auto trans increases your productivity. Much like many modern conveniences.

Stingroo
06-15-11, 05:46 PM
Brett = hero status.

RippyPartsDept
06-15-11, 05:48 PM
I used to think the same thing when i drove a honda civic and a chevy cavalier (both five speeds of course) but now that I drive an auto i have a different perspective ...

The Tony Show
06-15-11, 06:08 PM
Since 80s-90s vehicles are what grabs my attention - perhaps if GM built proper "drivers" cars during these years, I would never have had a reason to look anywhere else.

What you're saying is you like driving 20-30 year old cars, and GM didn't build what you like during that period. I understand that completely. But the problem is you're making the argument that since a 1987 528e is more appealing to you than a 2011 Malibu, GM needs to make something more like the 1987 528e.

Manufacturers don't build cars in 2011 with the intention of pleasing the 5th owner that's going to buy it off craigslist in 2042- they build it to sell today, based on the demands of today's market. For all we know by 2042 all cars will weigh 7200 lbs, have self parking, 14 speed CVTs, joystick activated electric steering, holographic dashes and run on unicorn farts. By that time, guys like you will be pining for the good ole' days of the 2011 Malibu and its svelte 3900 lbs and real steering feel.

My point is the same as Jim's- what makes a good 25 year old car for a hobbyist does not make a good car for the original buyers, and that's the only buyer the OEM cares about.

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 06:21 PM
I used to think the same thing when i drove a honda civic and a chevy cavalier (both five speeds of course) but now that I drive an auto i have a different perspective ...

Isn't it funny how that works? I used to think the only way to cruise around or enjoy highway roadtrips was in a plush V8, automatic luxury car that created a living room on wheels environment. Hence why I have owned 3 Cadillacs, 1 Lincoln and 1 Oldsmobile that fit the description. Then I tried the very vehicles I was against and now I too, have a very different perspective :).

gary88
06-15-11, 06:30 PM
1) BMW most definitely still offers a stick in the 5 series, worldwide

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/reviews/car/10q4/2011_bmw_535i-long-term_road_test_intro/gallery/2011_bmw_535i_interior_photo_36/3891921-1-eng-US/2011_bmw_535i_long_term_5_cd_gallery.jpg

2) BMW is going to build a FWD econobox not under the MINI badge
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427654
http://f20.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=539036 (http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427654)

RippyPartsDept
06-15-11, 06:36 PM
Isn't it funny how that works? ... Then I tried the very vehicles I was against and now I too, have a very different perspective :).

not funny so much as eye opening...

i wasn't against the cars... i was against the drivers of those cars...

now that i'm a driver of one of those cars i've not flipped my opinion... i've opened up my tolerance for others' opinions

i've just dropped stick/auto preference from my judgement of other drivers

gdwriter
06-15-11, 07:25 PM
I've just dropped stick/auto preference from my judgement of other driversThis.

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 07:34 PM
What you're saying is you like driving 20-30 year old cars, and GM didn't build what you like during that period. I understand that completely. But the problem is you're making the argument that since a 1987 528e is more appealing to you than a 2011 Malibu, GM needs to make something more like the 1987 528e.

Manufacturers don't build cars in 2011 with the intention of pleasing the 5th owner that's going to buy it off craigslist in 2042- they build it to sell today, based on the demands of today's market. For all we know by 2042 all cars will weigh 7200 lbs, have self parking, 14 speed CVTs, joystick activated electric steering, holographic dashes and run on unicorn farts. By that time, guys like you will be pining for the good ole' days of the 2011 Malibu and its svelte 3900 lbs and real steering feel.

My point is the same as Jim's- what makes a good 25 year old car for a hobbyist does not make a good car for the original buyers, and that's the only buyer the OEM cares about.

I understand that and they are valid points. What I was saying is that if GM simply offered the same vehicles they already made with a manual transmission (like the competition) then not only would it have opened the doors for many potential buyers in the future - but it would have also grabbed the attention of a lot of new car buyers that went elsewhere. If it was such a fail and not making money - then why is GM finally starting to offer such vehicles? Why are they gaining popularity? Why are the same folks saying that 90s GM cars didn't need manuals but then praise the CTS for offering it?

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 07:53 PM
not funny so much as eye opening...

i wasn't against the cars... i was against the drivers of those cars...

now that i'm a driver of one of those cars i've not flipped my opinion... i've opened up my tolerance for others' opinions

i've just dropped stick/auto preference from my judgement of other drivers

I'm not judging other drivers - but the auto manufacturers who chose to not even offer their cars equipped the way a not so small group of people prefer. My 'lazy American' comment was in reply to the comment made about new car sales of auto vs manual transmissions as being a reason the choice of manual transmissions was simply not even offered.

* as for used car sales - manufacturers do care to a point - it's commonly known that there is more profit made from the service dept than sales dept. More people a certain car appeals to, more people buy that car, buy parts to fix that car and potentially get it serviced at the dealer.

** GM also can loose on new car sales from such past decisions. 5 years ago I wouldn't think I'd ever own a BMW. They weren't on my list of cars I was interested in. When my interests changed, there were no offerings from GM in my target vehicle choice - I went elsewhere. Because of that, I have been opened up to BMW as a whole, both old and new and if I chose to buy a brand new car, BMW would be on the list - in the past, they wouldn't. If GM made a car that fit the bill 20yrs ago, then good chance I would have both it - and as such, still be a GM fanboi, and only look to GM if I was buying a new car. For the record, I was this >< close to buying a brand new Saturn Sky Redline, I could have 'afforded' it. But I simply chose not to get in such debt over a car and found something that provided all I enjoyed from it, for much cheaper. That was before I bought the Jeep - and even at that price point ($14k) GM still didn't offer the type of car I was interested in. Seeing as how I was also looking at e46 convertibles when I decided on the Jeep - GM lost out twice from even being a consideration because hey, they don't care about the used car buyer, only new.

gdwriter
06-15-11, 08:06 PM
What I was saying is that if GM simply offered the same vehicles they already made with a manual transmission (like the competition) then not only would it have opened the doors for many potential buyers in the future - but it would have also grabbed the attention of a lot of new car buyers that went elsewhere.Oh, bull.

GM lost market share in the 80s and into the 90s by producing too many poorly conceived, shoddily built, unreliable cars that looked all alike, not because they didn't offer them with a stick. As the Accord and Camry became increasingly dominant in the market, the vast majority were equipped with automatics. It's likely that Honda and Toyota offered them with a stick primarily as a way to advertise a lower price, then command a higher price for consumers to get what they wanted, not as a way to attract enthusiasts. Sure, there are consumers who prefer a stick and would choose an Accord over a Malibu to get one, but they are clearly in the minority. Otherwise, most Accords, Camrys, Altimas, Legacys, 6s, Jettas, etc. on American roads would be equipped with sticks. And they're not.

As noted by McClatchy Media (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/04/21/66604/whats-driving-a-shift-away-from.html#ixzz1PO8gpusi) in 2008:



As recently as 1985, more than 50 percent of male car buyers said they wanted a stick shift. Last year, only 11 percent did, according to market researchers, and sales totaled 7 percent of the new car market.



And this from Jalopnik (http://jalopnik.com/5694777/67-of-vehicles-sold-in-us-have-manual-transmissions) in late 2010:

The EPA report shows 3.9% of trucks and 9.1% of cars were sold this year compared to 45.8% and 19.9% respectively 20 years ago. The 6.7% segment of cars sold so far this year is the highest percentage since 2005. While Ford and Chrysler's percentage of vehicles sold with manual transmissions was lower than the 6.7% average, GM's percentage of vehicles sold with a manual was 7.2%.



Well whaddya know, GM builds more sticks than the average. I guess they've finally seen the light. :coffee:

gdwriter
06-15-11, 08:09 PM
I'm not judging other drivers...:lies:

ryannel2003
06-15-11, 09:05 PM
My best friend's girlfriend just got a brand new Elantra and it's very impressive. I can't comment on how it drives but I love the exterior design and the interior is quite nice also. She got a fully loaded Limited (minus Nav) out the door for $20,750. Not bad at all. It's a beautiful color grey with grey leather interior.

To be honest I'm impressed with the new Jetta. At first I felt like VW cheapened out but once you look at the big picture it's quite nice. The styling is clean and inoffensive, the interior is comfortable and well made, power is decent and the price isn't so bad for a compact car. I've thought about getting a compact, 4 cylinder car since my new job is clear across town and getting there is wall to wall traffic, my Seville's gas mileage is only about 16.5MPG. If i were to get a new compact car, I'd be looking hard at the Jetta and maybe the Jetta TDI.

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 09:21 PM
I've been very impressed with the new offerings from Hyundai and Kia. Once past any brand stigma someone may have - they are very nice competitive vehicles. They would be on the top of my recommended list of vehicles for 'non car' folks.

77CDV
06-15-11, 09:46 PM
Yay! Back on topic! :)

gdwriter
06-15-11, 10:10 PM
Us? Off topic? Never! :lol:

Stingroo
06-15-11, 10:12 PM
NEVAR






Evar.

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 10:19 PM
My best friend's girlfriend just got a brand new Elantra and it's very impressive. I can't comment on how it drives but I love the exterior design and the interior is quite nice also. She got a fully loaded Limited (minus Nav) out the door for $20,750. Not bad at all. It's a beautiful color grey with grey leather interior.

To be honest I'm impressed with the new Jetta. At first I felt like VW cheapened out but once you look at the big picture it's quite nice. The styling is clean and inoffensive, the interior is comfortable and well made, power is decent and the price isn't so bad for a compact car. I've thought about getting a compact, 4 cylinder car since my new job is clear across town and getting there is wall to wall traffic, my Seville's gas mileage is only about 16.5MPG. If i were to get a new compact car, I'd be looking hard at the Jetta and maybe the Jetta TDI.

VW has always been sort of on the back burner to me, but enough to keep me interested. I first learned how to drive a manual transmission vehicle on my friends '94 Jetta. This was back when I had my '93 CDV and while I didn't like small cars - I realized that I enjoyed the smaller, fun to toss around traits of that car. Then after every time I drove it - I missed shifting the gears. The same goes for the '01 Jetta 1.8t the same friend got a couple years later. It was nice to know that if a larger car was desired, the Passat too was offered with a manual transmission. I know many folks that needed a family sedan but were seeking a fun to drive car and went to VW because of that. I also work with a guy who had an SVT Focus, but needed a larger car to fit two child seats in and specifically seeked a V6 manual transmission Accord for both the size and fun factor.

While I was referring to the 90s models, as mentioned above - the new Nissan Maxima has the CVT and the Camry isn't all that appealing. Japaneese brands in the 90s had a good thing going offering manuals on most all vehicles, not just cars but SUV's too. Of course Mazda continues to offer really nice everyday cars with manuals. I've been noticing that the Korean brans have been quietly adding interesting engines - turbo 4s and higher performance V6s in their cars while also offering them with 5 and 6 speed manuals. They've already been improving their cars and are expaning to a larger market.

I saw a 2011 Kia Optima up close recently and it was a darn impressive car. Especially when it looks good inside and out, has a lot of features, an interesting drivetrain and can be had around $20k

http://www.carsuk.net/wp-content/gallery/kia-magentis-2011/kia-optima-2011-3.jpg

http://www.carsuk.net/wp-content/gallery/kia-magentis-2011/kia-optima-2011-4.jpg

http://www.egmcartech.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2011_kia_optima_sedan_images_010.jpg

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 10:31 PM
1) BMW most definitely still offers a stick in the 5 series, worldwide

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/reviews/car/10q4/2011_bmw_535i-long-term_road_test_intro/gallery/2011_bmw_535i_interior_photo_36/3891921-1-eng-US/2011_bmw_535i_long_term_5_cd_gallery.jpg

2) BMW is going to build a FWD econobox not under the MINI badge
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427654
http://f20.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=539036 (http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427654)

I just noticed - but those look like the same rubber brake and clutch pedal covers that BMW has been using since the e28 days. A friend stopped by with his e36 and I noticed that, but I didn't think they were still using them on the new models. Heh, that's neat.

ben.gators
06-15-11, 10:32 PM
^
It's an impressive car for $20k!
However, if you give me $20k for a car, I would add 5-6k from my own pocket and will buy a cadillac-certified CTS 2008+. But I should add that there are people that prefer a a mid-sized normal sedan to a fancy and shiny luxury car like Cadillac. Example? My father! He says a luxury car is too much for a normal person....

ryannel2003
06-15-11, 10:40 PM
The new Kia Optima and Hyundai Sonata are extremely impressive cars for the money. For some reason I just like the new Jetta:

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n46/ryannel2003/2011-jetta-leak.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n46/ryannel2003/car_photo_375937_25.jpg

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 11:03 PM
^
It's an impressive car for $20k!
However, if you give me $20k for a car, I would add 5-6k from my own pocket and will buy a cadillac-certified CTS 2008+. But I should add that there are people that prefer a a mid-sized normal sedan to a fancy and shiny luxury car like Cadillac. Example? My father! He says a luxury car is too much for a normal person....

There in is the main thing.

For many folks, buying a brand new car just doesn't make sense. Out of a group of 100 people that were handed $20,000 in cash - how many would buy a Kia Optima? How many would buy a car period? How many would buy a brand new car?

Atleast for me - there is a seemingly unlimited amount of awesome cars to be had all around $5k, still in good condition too. Being able to work on them myself just makes it a win-win situation. Though I know that isn't the same for everyone and for someone that is unable to work on a car and doesn't want to worry if their car will start tomorrow, then maybe budgeting in a set dollar figure every month for a nice new car like that Kia works for them.

The line between "luxury" keeps getting blurred. I like "older" luxury cars for the luxury features they offer, that I find helpful or useful. But now, even the most basic cars or cars a couple steps above the most basic - like that Optima already have the same, or exceed the features offered in once premium cars.

Maybe back in the days when getting an economy car was somewhat literally a sacrifice. I remember hearing about horror stories of Chevettes and Yugos brand new. Messed up paint from the factory, stuff breaking off early on and then people treated like crap because they bought an econo car.

I was just on the Kia website and the Rio starts at $13,000. That buys an overall "nice" brand new car. A modern car with decent features. Move up to $20k and you get cars like that Optima that has features along with fit & finish surpassing high end luxury cars of just 15yrs ago!

Night Wolf
06-15-11, 11:05 PM
The new Kia Optima and Hyundai Sonata are extremely impressive cars for the money. For some reason I just like the new Jetta:

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n46/ryannel2003/2011-jetta-leak.jpg
http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n46/ryannel2003/car_photo_375937_25.jpg

Compared to the Kia, both inside and out - it is a much more conservativly styled car hinting of "professional"... or perhaps the way of the market... old person?

Jesda
06-16-11, 02:41 AM
The interior of the new Jetta is now the worst in class. Sure, it photographs well, but it feels like a late-model Cavalier. They cut thousands of dollars from the MSRP and it shows.

Playdrv4me
06-16-11, 03:53 AM
I think the Mazda 3 is the best overALL econobox, but of the econoboxes to be seen in, I'm gonna have to toss Ryan a bone and say I do thoroughly like that simply elegant exterior design on the VW. It's not Toyota irrelevant, but not Focus wild. The Cruze is also pretty.

As for the stick versus auto thing, that depends entirely on the vehicle. But I can tell you that never in a million years would I want to row my own gears in the Seville. It remains one of my all time favorite sporty(er) sedans and a lot of that has to do with its "just right" automatic.

Stingroo
06-16-11, 08:03 AM
The interior of the new Jetta is now the worst in class. Sure, it photographs well, but it feels like a late-model Cavalier. They cut thousands of dollars from the MSRP and it shows.

This. Not to mention the fact that base models still come with rear DRUM BRAKES. What the hell, VeeDub?

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-16-11, 08:30 AM
The dealer I work at sells Nissans and Kias. We sell a good amount of Altimas, but we can hardly keep the Optimas on the lot. Most of the Optimas that we sell now are purchased from other dealers because our inventory goes so fast.

RippyPartsDept
06-16-11, 09:52 AM
The Cruze is also pretty.^^ that


a lot of that has to do with its "just right" automatic.^^ and that

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 10:03 AM
I think the Mazda 3 is the best overALL econobox, but of the econoboxes to be seen in, I'm gonna have to toss Ryan a bone and say I do thoroughly like that simply elegant exterior design on the VW. It's not Toyota irrelevant, but not Focus wild. The Cruze is also pretty.

As for the stick versus auto thing, that depends entirely on the vehicle. But I can tell you that never in a million years would I want to row my own gears in the Seville. It remains one of my all time favorite sporty(er) sedans and a lot of that has to do with its "just right" automatic.

Nobody is saying cars should -only- come with manuals or even that they are preferred. It just seems fitting that a car marketed to be a 'drivers' car at any level would have the *option* of one. I like the Seville STS and as you've mentioned, they are overall such great looking cars with a lot to offer for the money on the used market, that one can overlook its' shortcomings. Personally, I never considered the interiors to be 'that cheap' and materials seemed well. Maybe I overlooked that because the overall design was so appealing? Or maybe because at the time I mostly had experience with 80s-90s GM that wasn't as nice.

*in the world of automatic transmissions - GM has a great thing going. I was very happy with mine that I've owned and others I've driven. Even after all the common upgrades/updates, I still wasn't happy with the shifting of my '96 Town Car. Most other automatics I've driven I've found some fault that sticks out in mind or just overall wasn't happy with it. Actually, oddly enough - an automatic that impressed me was my girlfriends beat up 230k (then, now 270k) '98 Corolla. That actually shifted well and at the right times. Main issue was gear hunting up the mountains but that was expected from the engine power - turning O/D off fixed that.

** it's been a while since I've driven a Seville STS, I remember liking it a whole lot. Though my tastes in cars changed since then, I still quite like them and one would make an excellent long distance highway car - for that application, I would be able to overlook the negative points and enjoy the positive.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 11:00 AM
This. Not to mention the fact that base models still come with rear DRUM BRAKES. What the hell, VeeDub?

Interesting post. Given the market the car is targeting, why does it matter?

gary88
06-16-11, 02:29 PM
Not gonna lie, when I had my SLS I thought to myself on more than one occasion how great it would be with RWD and a stick :hide::duck:

thebigjimsho
06-16-11, 03:18 PM
Not gonna lie, when I had my SLS I thought to myself on more than one occasion how great it would be with RWD and a stick :hide::duck:You hate GM! Why do you hate GM?

orconn
06-16-11, 03:32 PM
You'd have to be a "one note" stick junky to think a Seville would be a better car if it had a stick shift. Good automatics come into their own when there is sufficient power under the hood for them to work properly.

While I also prefer manual transmission in small displacement cars where power to weight ratio may lead to sluggish performance. And while I readily admit that all automatic transmissions are not created equal and there are wide differences in how well they perform (European cars seem to be more likely to suffer from the shortcomings of an automatic) the automatic transmission fitted to the Seville performs flawlessly for a strong performing personal luxury touring car suited to the American driving environment.

BMW and Alfa Romeo offer especially good manual transmissions in their cars, especially BMW's 3 series, but even in these "sporting" oriented "drivers" cars with sufficient power under the hood, a strong case could be made for the use and enjoyment of a automatic transmission for the day in and day out commuting.

The light weight and slick manual transmissions found in some Japanese econo cars, and to be sure sports cars, can make for easily driven commuters and at the same time deliver some "sprightly" if not really stellar performance.

Stingroo
06-16-11, 03:52 PM
Interesting post. Given the market the car is targeting, why does it matter?

Don't tell me you think drums are more efficient than discs now and more cars should use them....

Rodya234
06-16-11, 04:00 PM
I've actually heard that unless the discs are vented, they'll stop no better than a similarly sized drum. I don't know if there's any truth to that though.

gdwriter
06-16-11, 04:02 PM
As for the stick versus auto thing, that depends entirely on the vehicle. But I can tell you that never in a million years would I want to row my own gears in the Seville. It remains one of my all time favorite sporty(er) sedans and a lot of that has to do with its "just right" automatic.Agreed. Even though the 4-speed automatic GM used in the Seville, DeVille and DTS has been made obsolete in a world of 5- and 6-speed automatics, its performance is beyond reproach. Part of what makes the Seville a sport/touring sedan is having a well-sorted powertrain. Yesterday, at a green light entering a highway where there was no traffic ahead of me, I nailed the throttle just for fun. Not only does the Northstar deliver brisk, effortless acceleration, the automatic executes virtually seamless shifts. Just plant your right foot and go! As a driving enthusiast, I find that smooth rush of acceleration both involving and exhilarating.


I like the Seville STS and as you've mentioned, they are overall such great looking cars with a lot to offer for the money on the used market, that one can overlook its' shortcomings. Personally, I never considered the interiors to be 'that cheap' and materials seemed well.

** it's been a while since I've driven a Seville STS, I remember liking it a whole lot. Though my tastes in cars changed since then, I still quite like them and one would make an excellent long distance highway car - for that application, I would be able to overlook the negative points and enjoy the positive.The 4th and 5th generation Sevilles are both timeless designs. Still look sleek, elegant and even a bit sporting all these years later. I definitely prefer the interior of the 5th generation; it is beautiful, and the materials are high quality, if not world class (in a 2001 feature in Automobile magazine, Jamie Kitman had high praise for both the Seville STS and DeVille DTS, mentioning the quality and tastefulness of the interiors, even commenting that the Cadillacs struck him as more elegant, more luxurious and better built than the contemporary Mercedes S Class he had recently driven). Build quality and fit and finish on these cars tends to be hit and miss; I got one of the good ones; I think Ryan's STS has some squeaks, rattles and misaligned interior bits. Not sure about Jesda's.

As Jesda and Ian have mentioned, the Seville is a superb long-distance highway car. In 2009, I drove the 2,000+ miles home from Chicago in 3 1/2 days, which meant three of them were over 600 miles each. And I never felt fatigued. I'd look down at the trip odometer, see that I had driven 300 miles and be surprised because it certainly didn't feel like it.

I've found the Seville's handling to be mostly neutral. On my daily drive to work, there is one road with series of four 90 turns, and if I take them briskly, the car does feel nose heavy, but not oppressively so. Likewise, on a hairpin turn along my favorite roller coaster road, if I really push it, the front end will start to plow. I think part of that is due to the tires; the Goodyears I have on it now are softer than the Yokohamas I had previously; there was definitely less plow on that turn before. But I can take sweeping curves at speed without FWD being too much of a disadvantage. Would I prefer the car to be RWD? Yes. But the looks, comfort and overall performance of the Seville far outweigh the limitations of FWD.

I also have a firsthand perspective on the FWD vs. RWD debate, having rented a 2011 STS when I was in Arizona back in January. I have a favorite twisting back road that goes through a mountain pass outside of Tucson. The STS proved capable, well-balanced and fun to drive on that road, but I didn't detect a significant advantage over my Seville on the back roads I drive at home. I would have had just as much fun on that road in the Seville. And the Seville is so much better looking, both inside and out (the STS is OK, but bland overall). That thoroughly trumps the RWD advantage.

I look forward to owning a second-generation CTS in the future and definitely want one with RWD since I don't need AWD, don't want the added weight, and I understand from Jimmy that AWD adversely affects steering feel. But for now, I'm completely satisfied with the car I have now.

gdwriter
06-16-11, 04:09 PM
Don't tell me you think drums are more efficient than discs now and more cars should use them....


I've actually heard that unless the discs are vented, they'll stop no better than a similarly sized drum. I don't know if there's any truth to that though.Where discs have a big advantage is in heat dissipation, and if you drive through water, you don't have to worry about the brakes being flooded. Since the front brakes carry the primary braking load, that's where having disc brakes is most critical. And on most cars with 4-wheel disc brakes (i.e., not high-performance cars), only the front discs are vented (I know that's the case with my Seville).

The average driver probably wouldn't be able tell a difference between disc/drum and 4-wheel disc brakes in daily driving, which is why VW figures they can get away with it. But for enthusiasts who notice such things, the regression to disc/drum brakes strikes us as VW being cheap.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 04:27 PM
Don't tell me you think drums are more efficient than discs now and more cars should use them....

You didn't ask what I think about drum brakes. I'm aware of both their good and bad points. Now please answer the question as to why it matters that the base model Jetta comes with rear drum brakes.

I'd like to be enlightened.

*Ninja edit - Drum brakes ARE actually more "efficient". Can you explain that one?


I've actually heard that unless the discs are vented, they'll stop no better than a similarly sized drum. I don't know if there's any truth to that though.

We are talking about the REAR brakes of a NON-performance car. Flooding the drums isn't an issue on a daily driven grocery getter unless you were crusing around New Orleans during Katrina.

ga_etc
06-16-11, 04:46 PM
Everyone has their own personal taste in cars. The budget that people have to work with affects what they drive just as much, if not more so than what they prefer. Therefore, they buy something they can live with.

Example, my Explorer. Is that THE vehicle I wanted? No. It just happened to show up at the right time and be the right price. Sure, I could have bought something else at that price, but I know the person I bought the truck from and knew it's reliable. Since buying it, I haven't regretted it. I still have my wants, but the Explorer does what I need it to do.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 06:06 PM
Buying a car with an automatic trans makes you lazy? It's a convenience, nothing more. If you follow the lazy line of thinking then you better not use the remote for your TV or a microwave or an oven for that matter. Stay away from the grocery store, you are going to have to grow or kill your food and cook it on a fire you build yourself.

The modern world is full of conveniences, it doesnt necessarily lead one to laziness.... post hoc ergo propter hoc

You make very valid points! Thinking more about this I see a clear difference. Those that are enthusiasts and those that are not.

Here in the good ol' South - there is a whole lot of the hunting and fishing thing going on. Many folks are quite passionate about it and feel that is the only way to eat meat - if they kill it themself. Those folks enjoy everything the whole experience has to offer, and to them it is worth it. In the case of myself? I can be passionate about food and cook a nice meal - but yes, it is all stuff grocery store bought. I'm just not "into" food enough to grow and kill my own.

Same can be said about entertainment around the house. For many folks, it is easy to just pop in a CD and hit play. Before cars, my hobby was hi-fi home audio equipment. There was a large portion that CDs simply did not cut it. They preferred the crisp sound of vinyl on a turn table, much more work and upkeep, but the rewards were worth it to those pasionate about their sound. That isn't to say CD can't or doesn't sound good - it just means that in some cases, those that want to go that much further will spin vinyl. I understand, and depending on intentions would either put in a CD or spin the turn table. In several cases - I have the same album on both vinyl and CD. It depends if I wanted background music or to critically listen.

It doesn't mean that those not *as* passionate about it are not at all, and every step of the way someone else will say "that's not real..... this is real..." It is product of compromise.

Automotive speaking, there are many "enthusiasts". The "enthusiast" at topic here isn't a "car" enthusiast. It isn't someone that enjoys going for a ride, a cruise, waxing the car in the driveway, someone that wants to recreate their living room on wheels or someone that enjoys a "nice" or "luxury" car after a day at work. This person -can- also be those things, but this isn't the person at hand.

The person at hand is a driving enthusiast. This person does NOT represent a large portion of drivers on the road. In fact, this person doesn't even represent a large portion of "car enthusiasts". Again we get to what is the definition of a word and what it means to someone. For many (not all) it means having a vehicle that the driver has full control of and knows what is going on via their senses at all times.

These people may or may not enjoy "other" parts of being a car enthusiast. They may or many not have a prestine looking car always kept waxed, their car may be considered a hunk o junk by others. That isn't the topic at hand, because for this application, the car isn't used as a status symbol, to 1-up the neighbor, heck in many cases even to be the best all around car. Instead the car is a tool used for the driver to turn the road into an experience.

THIS is the person that the manual transmission appeals to. This person comes in many forms - poor college student, family dad, loaded CEO, it doesn't matter. The car also comes in many forms - old hunk o junk that looks like crap but performs well, a well-kept older model or brand new right off the showroom floor. One of the most enjoyed, most sought-after things in this drivers car - is a proper manual transmission. Depending on the car, RWD is also favored for the exceptional dynamics it generally has to offer.

Both RWD and manual transmissions are not cut and dry. Mini is a FWD car, but in that application it simply doesn't matter. Automatics also have a big performance edge in certain automotive sub-categories such as rock crawling and drag racing. Perhaps there is a magical combination of an automatic FWD car that fills this gap. I haven't experienced it yet if there is.

THAT is the whole debate. Not the drivers, not which is "better", not what sells more or what most average joes prefer. Having that option makes all the difference. Nobody is trying to say manuals will outsell automatics or everybody wants them. But atleast have the option.

The big question - how is this relevant? The cars in topic - 90s GM, how were they marketed? What segment were they in? What was the competition? Cars like the Pontiac, the "driving excitment" divsion made the Grand Prix - the "fun to drive" family sedan. It's competition also offered decent output V6s and a manual transmission for those that desired it. The Cadillac Seville STS in question was marketed as a "drivers" car in a segment of RWD cars with the option of a manual transmission. The specific car in target? BMW 5-series.

That doesn't discredit the car for what it is. It just means that GM brought a knief to a gun fight. It doesn't mean that those who own the car don't, or can't enjoy it. It just means there was that much less folks the car originally appealed to, how ever small that group was.

RippyPartsDept
06-16-11, 06:36 PM
tl ; dr

just kidding ... i did read it ... and all good points that i agree with...
...except that i feel like i fit your description of 'driving enthusiast' but manual transmission had dropped off of my 'must have' list
i don't really even think there's a must have list that can encompass all driving enthusiasts... you said it best


The person at hand is a driving enthusiast. ... For many (not all) it means having a vehicle that the driver has full control of and knows what is going on via their senses at all times.
...
Instead the car is a tool used for the driver to turn the road into an experience.

sure most 'driving enthusiasts' will probably prefer manual transmissions for 'purist' reasons ... but you can be a driving enthusiast and drive a land yacht ... i'm the textbook example

it has more to do with how you drive than what you drive
awareness is a big part of how you drive (in my book at least)

and as for the STS in question - I'd much rather drive one of those than any manual transmission rear wheel drive car (from it's time)

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 07:05 PM
tl ; dr

just kidding ... i did read it ... and all good points that i agree with...
...except that i feel like i fit your description of 'driving enthusiast' but manual transmission had dropped off of my 'must have' list
i don't really even think there's a must have list that can encompass all driving enthusiasts... you said it best



sure most 'driving enthusiasts' will probably prefer manual transmissions for 'purist' reasons ... but you can be a driving enthusiast and drive a land yacht ... i'm the textbook example

it has more to do with how you drive than what you drive
awareness is a big part of how you drive (in my book at least)

and as for the STS in question - I'd much rather drive one of those than any manual transmission rear wheel drive car (from it's time)

I agree. Which is why I'm not claiming that a manual is "better" or would sell more, nor saying that those who have automatics can't enjoy them.

Unlike how others here chose to turn what I said around into a personal thing, it was intended towards the manufacturer. Nobody is claiming that a DeVille should have a 6-speed manual, but in the case of the SeVille STS, when it was clearly marketed as a "drivers" car (just watch the original ads on youtube), in a high-end segment of RWD cars that, while the majority were automatics - atleast had the option of a manual - THAT is the issue I was bringing up. FWD on the family sedan was OK - thats what the market held, that's what the competition had. But the competition also offered a manual. In the case of the Seville STS (and Eldorado ETC), GM put that car in a market that had long time "big boys" setting the standard - and failed to produce a car offering similar options. Was that a major reason of why 90s Cadillac was considered a "dark time"? Minor reason? maybe no reason at all? I don't know. Maybe it was the marketing department - they already put a world-class engine (for early-mid 90s) in some of the highest quality cars they made in decades, they should have been more successful and taken more sales in their market segment then they did. Perhaps others will pick and choose what I say (yet again) to insist I am saying that by offering a manual transmission in the DeVille, Cadillac would have sold more than the competitors :rolleyes:.

As for the "purist" thing - maybe in some. Actually, on the Jeep site - that happens a lot, people say things like "It's a Jeep, it's supposed to have a manual" when an automatic has several distinct advantages in straight up hard core rock crawling. For me, it isn't about what the car "should have" but what makes me -that- much more involved with the car. For me, having a clutch pedal and a shifter allows all sorts of extra feelings, sensations and emotions while driving (yes, for me driving is a passionate thing) that I have simply not experienced yet with an automatic.

Of course, there have been times I've driven automatics and it didn't bother me - like recently. I rented a Hyundai Santa Fe and drove it from Chicago to Atlanta in 1 day. I wasn't as concerned about "driving" as I was "getting there". Not to mention while a nice car, the vehicle felt like an appliance. It didn't matter in that case, there was no "emotion" of driving at that point, I was just simply doing it because I had to. However, I chose to drive back instead of fly (same cost) for several reasons. I still enjoyed the overall trip experience - but no part of "driving" sticks out to me.

Then again, it's all realtive. I used to think my '96 Town Car with the "Ride Control Package" handled well. Maybe for what it was it did, but I've since experienced other cars, however the Town Car offered things the other cars didn't. Though it was pretty clear both in marketing and execution what market that car was made to suit. If someone only drove big rigs all their life, I'm sure that base model AWD 4cyl 6spd auto Hyundai Santa Fe would feel and drive like a race car. In the case of my Lincoln, I told myself I'd keep it 6 months after I bought the '90 BMW 325iC and see how much I drove it. I noticed I'd drive it less and less, then once I bought the Jeep I hardly drove it and when I did, I wanted to be driving the other vehicles instead. It became pointless to keep it if it wasn't getting used, so I sold it. The car still did its' thing great - my taste in vehicles changed. Do I miss it? Yeah, from time to time - it was an excellent highway cruiser but I really don't think about it much and enjoy taking all my current vehicles on highway trips. As for me personally - maybe it is just a phase in my life. I grew up around large automatic luxobarges and thats what I first started driving on my own. Maybe in many years from now when I'm old, I'll be tired of shifting gears and have the "why do something extra when it can do it for me" mentality that others have. Then again, maybe not - maybe I'll always enjoy it. Maybe I'll be somewhere in between and have an automatic as a daily driver and a fun toy with a manual. Having the option is nice, it's too bad original buyers of certain "drivers" cars did not.

BTW - I'm still waiting on the answer to the drum brake question. Inquiring minds want to know!

gdwriter
06-16-11, 07:08 PM
I'll make this brief.

I have loved cars for as long as I can remember — 40+ years. I've been driving for nearly 30 years. I am both a car enthusiast and a driving enthusiast. I thoroughly enjoy taking a car on a challenging road and extracting as much performance out of it as I can. That I thoroughly enjoy this experience in a Cadillac Seville makes it a driver's car for me and other enthusiast drivers who own them. That includes several members here, and with one possible exception, none of us care about Cadillac not offering a so-called "proper" manual transmission. In other words, not having that option made no difference at all.

Jesda
06-16-11, 07:16 PM
Modern drum brakes are adequate but modern disc brakes are often better. A commuter might not notice. A driver might notice.

Some of the more analytical commuters base their new car purchases on spec sheets and expert reviews, and they generally believe that a drum brake is "old", so it matters to the buyer's sense of value.

Likewise, a commuter might not notice the Jetta's torsion beam rear suspension. A driver, however, might notice during somewhat enthusiastic driving. An analytical buyer might notice it too, at least on paper. "Fully independent suspension" has been advertised enough to become something that the masses frequently look for. They dont know what it means, but they know they're supposed to want it, so if they're looking at a list of specs for the Jetta and a list of specs for the Elantra, most of them are going to pick the Elantra. If the Hyundai name scares them, the generous warranty alleviates their concerns.

------------------------------

Eager for more than 1.8% of the US market, VWUSA chose to trade in its loyal fanbase in favor of mass-market revenues.

That strategy worked for Subaru but not for Saab. In the process of mainstreaming its cars, Saab cheapened its interiors and compromised overall build quality while spending more to engineer its own otherwise shareable components like HVAC and wiring [according to Bob Lutz] -- who the f*** is going to notice whether a 9-3 uses GM's wiring harnesses? Saab loyalists, a very particular group of people, noticed the changes and left the brand while the BMW/Audi/Mercedes crowd never showed up. In the end, Saab was left without any customers at all.

Subaru, however, made its cars larger and much nicer inside while improving fuel economy and continuing to offer AWD. They're winning people over left and right.

I did a lengthy report on Volkswagen's failed US strategy back in early summer 2010, when Stefan Jacoby's plans were to move VW's cars upscale to differentiate them from Ford, Chevy, Honda, and Toyota. The goal was to sell more than 600,000 units per year in North America. The result was less than 220,000, down from a peak of 355,000 a decade earlier. No one in a VW showroom can afford a Phaeton. The VW CC steps on Audi. No one wants to buy a Routan when it costs $1000 more than a Town and Country and lacks features likes Sto-and-Go.
VW was, basically, a luxury brand without a luxury badge, creeping on Audi's turf.

VW is now aiming for the price-motivated American who doesn't know or care about mechanical details. Unfortunately, the crap interior (with its otherwise nice layout) keeps the Jetta from being competitive in a segment that's crowded, rapidly evolving, and relentless. The interior is something that John and Jane Doe immediately notice. VW can't candy coat that as "good enough" when "good enough" got a hell of a lot better in the last 2-3 years.

The Passat is nice though.


On that note, I'm heading back to bed.

Jesda
06-16-11, 07:32 PM
Was that a major reason of why 90s Cadillac was considered a "dark time"? Minor reason? maybe no reason at all? I don't know.

The 90s were a major comeback period, initiated by the 1992 Seville STS; sales of Cadillacs were respectable most of the decade especially considering the new competition from Lexus and Infiniti which hadn't even existed before 1990. Cadillac was the #1 seller (in the luxury segment) until Lexus dethroned it in 2000, and Lexus was bumped off a few years later by Mercedes-Benz. BMW is consistently #2 thanks to a wider product portfolio that now mimics Mercedes and Lexus. Lexus is ranked anywhere from #4 to #5 depending on the month and the industry's incentive programs (and whether Buick is included as luxury).


I'm heading back to bed for real now.

gdwriter
06-16-11, 07:38 PM
Go back and read Post #47. The car business is ultimately a business, and manufacturers have to make decisions based on economics.

Since BMW uses some of the same straight six engines in both the 3-Series and 5-Series, I'm going to assume that they also use the same transmissions. So even though even most BMW drivers in the U.S. prefer automatics, there's still enough of a market to offer a manual and to do so profitably since the development and tooling costs are spread across two high-volume product lines. And, of course, because BMW bills itself as "the ultimate driving machine," to not offer a manual would be heresy. Also, BMWs have not always been seen as luxury cars. This has been an evolution over the past 20-30 years.

Cadillac, however, is entirely different. First, except for the ill-fated Cimmarron, Cadillac had not offered a manual transmission since 1952 when the CTS was introduced. People simply don't associate Cadillacs and shifting for yourself. That is changing with the CTS and CTS-V, but just like with the 3-Series and 5-Series, most buyers — even a good number of driving enthusiasts — automatically choose to buy an automatic. They don't care if the car is available with a stick, because that's not what they want.

But back to economics. For most of its run, the Northstar was a Cadillac exclusive. Let's leave the DeVille out of this and concentrate on the Seville and Eldorado. For GM to invest millions in developing a manual transmission that could handle the Northstar would make no economic sense if only a few thousand sold — and that's if they were lucky. GM made a business decision — and a sensible one.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 07:42 PM
Jesda - you make a perfectly valid point as to the drum brake on the Jetta, and that is exactly what came to mind for me - the average joe sees something, associates it with something else then comes up with an "I heard..." reason.

I was asking Roo why it was an issue, the following comment "Don't tell me you think drums are more efficient than discs now and more cars should use them...." made me eager to hear the reason.

Drum brakes will fade in certain applications. The rear of a daily driven grocery getter is not one of those applications. Drum brakes also have an advantage off-road, they pack up with mud/dirt/whatever else driving through and make them less effective. My Jeep has drum brakes, I'm aware of this. The Jeep has a much less rear bias than most cars, so it isn't as big of an issue.

In the case of certain cars - like the '79 Sedan DeVille I had, my car had rear drum brakes - rear disc were optional. The massive drums had far more contact area and actually provided greater stopping forces to the wheel.

But since the Jetta is not a huge land yacht, no a race car and not an off-road vehicle - I was wondering why it was a bad move. Cause as we learned - VW isn't concerned about the future gear head who will turn the car into an autox machine - they are only concered about the brand new Jetta buyer. You know, the guy really busy with family that he doesn't even have time to replace his own brakes. So when he brings it to Midas for the brake special, they will charge little (if any) difference to replace rear brakes on the Jetta no matter if they were drum or disc. So it won't even save money down the road.

However, I was recently talking to a fine lady in her late 20s who had a late model Dodge Neon, I was helping her with her car and she was excited to say it has rear drum brakes. When I asked why she prefers them the response was because if they were disc they would need to be replaced eventually like the front brakes.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 08:04 PM
Go back and read Post #47. The car business is ultimately a business, and manufacturers have to make decisions based on economics.

Since BMW uses some of the same straight six engines in both the 3-Series and 5-Series, I'm going to assume that they also use the same transmissions.

But back to economics. For most of its run, the Northstar was a Cadillac exclusive. Let's leave the DeVille out of this and concentrate on the Seville and Eldorado. For GM to invest millions in developing a manual transmission that could handle the Northstar would make no economic sense if only a few thousand sold — and that's if they were lucky. GM made a business decision — and a sensible one.

Let's apply a little bit of "gearhead" sense mixed with "business" sense.

The Northstar shares an extremely similar bolt pattern to a few other GM engines. Some of which provide similar power output levels (s/c 3800) and were used in other types of cars marketed as "driver" cars that could have had decent sales with a manual.

Other engines sharing very similar bolt pattern:

5.3 LS4 V8 (ala FWD V8 Impala SS)
The Chevy 60* V6, first in 2.8/3.1/3.4 flavor, later in 3.5 and 3.9
3800
And of course easily:
4.0 Northstar in the Aurora
3.5 Shortstar in the Intriuge and Aurora
Plus others that don't matter for this reasoning.

How many 90s FWD GM cars had any of those engines? Almost every single one? Sure they would have had to design an "all new" manual transmission, but that same transmission could have been used across the board. Now your example of only selling a "few" thousand turned into over a hundred thousand if you factor in all models during the production run.

I used to frequent the Grand Am boards some time ago. It was very common that people desired a manual transmission in their V6 Grand Am (yes, original buyers bought new and then came to the website). Only way to get a manual was to get a 4cyl (as some did for that reason). Before the "but those are enthusaists!!!!" comments start - of course they are. There are also a lot of "non" enthusiasts that would have chosen it too. Was there enough Grand Am owners to warrant an all-new transmission? No. Was there enough Cadillac owners? Probably not. But when you factor in the same basic transmission could have been used (and yes, there could be base model and HD depending on engine) for a period of well over a decade in the majority of GM's cars as a whole.... now all of a sudden it kinda sorta makes business sense.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 08:13 PM
Also, BMWs have not always been seen as luxury cars. This has been an evolution over the past 20-30 years.

Cadillac, however, is entirely different. First, except for the ill-fated Cimmarron, Cadillac had not offered a manual transmission since 1952 when the CTS was introduced. People simply don't associate Cadillacs and shifting for yourself.

Cadillacs were also not always seen as sport-sedans. What's your point? I remember the first time my mother saw a late model Eldorado, her response was "THAT'S a Cadillac?!?". You mention about Cadillac not offering a manual transmission for so many years - big whoop! What kind of cars was Cadillac making during that time frame? Cars marketed as "drivers" cars? Cars targeting the cars now setting the standard?

Again, your missing the point and trying to call me out on your same made up assumptions. I'm simply stating that Cadillac marketed the Seville STS as a "drivers" car and put it into a segment dominated by RWD cars with an option of a manual transmission.

Do you disagree with that?

gdwriter
06-16-11, 08:26 PM
.... now all of a sudden it kinda sorta makes business sense.No it doesn't.

Roughly 7% of GM cars last year were sold with manuals. Manuals are popular — and expected — in sports cars like the Corvette and Camaro. Economy cars like the Cruze are also the most likely candidates for a stick. The higher you go up in the automotive food chain — regardless of manufacturer — the smaller the percentage of buyers choose a stick.

Let's use the mid-size market as the base since supercharged or not, I doubt any Park Avenue buyer would want a stick. The Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP and Regal GS were small subsets of high-volume car lines. I have been unable to find specific production/sales numbers, but I suspect the combined annual sales of the Seville STS, Eldorado ETC, Impala/Monte Carlo SS supercharged, Grand Prix GXP and Regal GS was probably 100,000-150,000 cars. It's reasonable to assume that half of those 7% of GM buyers who want a stick are buying sports cars or economy cars. So 3.5% of those aforementioned cars works out to 3,500 to 5,250 equipped with a stick. That's a drop in the bucket and nowhere near worth the cost of development, tooling and manufacturing.

And for the record, GM did attempt to offer sticks in its mid-size performance models in the late 80s, early 90s. I remember test-driving a '88 Grand Prix with a 5-speed when I was car shopping immediately after college. The Cutlass Supreme was also available with a 5-speed. Chevrolet offered a 5-speed in the Lumina Z34. I've been unable to dig up production or sales figures for those cars, but they are definitely rare, and GM ultimately decided the costs weren't worth it with so few takers.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 08:45 PM
1992:

W-MW3tUv7js

1998 (my favorite):

Mu_7-B2VJ08

2000:

OhvBTa5C_Ws

Again: What was the target segment? Target vehicle? Of the 3 main target vehicles, all were RWD. Two were traditional luxury, one other also did the "drivers" thing. How was the car being marketed? But hey! If you are ever in a race on ice, winner!

I guess a cheeseburger from a fast food joint is just as good as one ordered take out from a steak house... I mean, heck, after all, they are both cheeseburgers and people just want to eat. Who -really- cares about what's going on underneath the wrapping?

Man, Cheeseburger sounds good right now... I'm gonna shift gears in my ol' hunk o junk to Five Guys, yummy!

gdwriter
06-16-11, 08:49 PM
Again, your missing the point and trying to call me out on your same made up assumptions. I'm simply stating that Cadillac marketed the Seville STS as a "drivers" car and put it into a segment dominated by RWD cars with an option of a manual transmission.

Do you disagree with that?I am trying very hard not to get into another personal flame war with you. You think I'm missing the point, and I think you are. Let's leave it at that without any subtle or not-so-subtle acrimony.

Yes, Cadillac marketed the Seville STS as a sport sedan/driver's car even though it was FWD and automatic only. Had I been in charge of GM when the 1992 Seville was being developed, I would have recommended going to RWD. Whether it was misreading the market or simply for economy of scale (since the platform became the basis for all of GM's full-size cars up until the discontinuation of the DTS/Lucerne) — probably a combination of both — GM stuck with front drive. And as I've pointed out now in several posts, with the miniscule market for a manual transmission in these cars, it made no economic sense for GM to offer that option.

After all of the disasters of the 1980s, GM was in big trouble by 1991 — there was talk of bankruptcy even back then. GM had limited resources and they wisely chose to focus on developing a world-class, high-tech engine for its flagship. Go back and read car magazine test reviews from the early 90s STS. The car was widely praised for its balance of ride and handling. Many of the writers actually called it a driver's car and a credible competitor in the evolving high-end market. I don't recall too many complaints about the car being FWD, at least early on. Even in that 2001 Automobile magazine review I cited earlier, the author did mention the FWD configuration meant it didn't have the canyon carving ability of the RWD German competitors, but still considered the Cadillacs credible touring sedans for driving enthusiasts.

If you believe Cadillac had no business marketing the Seville STS as a driver's car because it wasn't RWD and didn't offer a manual transmission, you're entitled to that opinion. If purists looked down their nose at the car for those reasons, big whoop. Enough driving enthusiasts agreed with Cadillac's positioning to make the car successful — and profitable — for GM.

tkruger
06-16-11, 08:51 PM
I just went from averaging 32 mpg in a 1998 Mercury Tracer to 24 mpg in a 2004 Cadillac SLS. Why with gas prices like this? One of the major considerations was safety. The larger car not only has the laws of physics on its side but has more safety equipment. Also when I was shopping used cars a used Seville was $2000 less than a Vibe or Corolla that were a year newer with more miles. A Cobalt of the same year and milage cost almost the same as the Cadillac. The Cadillac is a better family car. Also the smiles per mile are higher.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 08:59 PM
I am...............for GM.

You win, Gary! Kudos to you! You are right and anyone in disagreement with you is an evil outsider.

I'll eat some Five Guys fries for ya bro

http://www.edopter.com/images_user/ideas/200806/dky3DF

gdwriter
06-16-11, 09:12 PM
^^^ There's that not-so-subtle acrimony. Enjoy shifting your Panzer until it breaks off in your hand. :wave:

ryannel2003
06-16-11, 09:23 PM
I'll make some quick points here:

Seville STS would be a weird car to have a stick shift in. You have to remember this is a big car, only 3-4" shorter than a Deville and I don't think anybody who considered a Seville thought for a second about a stick shift. Of all E39 production, how many were sold with a stick? Probably less than 5%, and that is the car that Cadillac supposedly benchmarked the car against. For that matter, why does it even matter if the Seville had a stick shift or not? This is a car that was built in the 90's so it really doesn't matter now since it's 2011 and the heydey of the 5th Gen STS is long past. The problem with this car was Cadillac had no idea the kind of cult following the E39 would have in the BMW community and quickly started using less and less of the "Hey my Cadillac has CVRSS and 300HP Northstar system" in advertising mainly because they knew the product couldn't compete. Now compared to the Lexus, Mercedes, and Audi I would arguably say the Seville STS is a better car especially when it comes to timeless elegance and power. I don't think the Cadillac costs any more to maintain than any of those cars I just listed save the Lexus, but build quality with these cars is always hit and miss. Mine is pretty average: some creaks and 1 or 2 rattles but not really bad compared to the other cars I've seen.

On that note I agree with Gary; the RWD STS is more composed in cornering with better steering feel but honestly the handling differences isn't that great between the two. It seems like Cadillac hit a sweet spot with the FWD platform and had it been refined for a 6th Generation car I think it would have been better than what everybody else was offering at the time. Instead, Cadillac killed the car and gave us the goofy looking RWD STS, which to be honest to this day I have a hard time differentiating from the CTS. Pathetic. The Seville had a style all it's own, and I've listed to more than a few people who said if they could choose between a brand new Seville and a brand new STS, they would take the Seville hands down. I know I would.

As for the new Jetta, I do agree that VW really cheapened out on the dashboard. It's a very hard material that really wouldn't look out of place in an Aveo. However if you can overlook that and a few other changes it's a really nice car. Plus, VW throws in a 3 year, 36,000 mile plan where they don't charge for any maintenance. Not a bad deal if you ask me. VW reliability seems to be improved over the previous generation cars. I'll tell you though, working a VW dealership is really a wake up call for people who thinks Cadillac's are bad. I've never seen so many cars with check engine lights, air bag lights, horrible engine misses, etc. than I have at the dealership. I swear in 1 day I saw more cars with problems than working 1 week at the Cadillac dealership. Parts are insane, and labor is expensive. If you thought about owning a VW or Audi: buy a damn warranty.

orconn
06-16-11, 10:03 PM
I second the thought "if you have to have a VW or Audi product be sure to get an extended warranty." Same goes for Mercedes and BMW. Not a bad idea for your Cadillac either!

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 11:20 PM
Seville STS would be a weird car to have a stick shift in. You have to remember this is a big car, only 3-4" shorter than a Deville and I don't think anybody who considered a Seville thought for a second about a stick shift.

Have you ever driven a "big" car with a stick shift?

On second thought, Of those that keep insisting manual transmissions don't matter - who has actually owned one? In a "drivers" (at any level) car? I too used to think it was over rated and didn't see the big deal most all 90s GM didn't have the option (when others made this very argument). Then I drove one.


Of all E39 production, how many were sold with a stick? Probably less than 5%

What data are you using? I'm not sure about e39 production numbers as the website I've used doesn't go that new. Is e34 ok? 1988-1996 so it sorta was the targeted car... we are talking world wide, correct (you said all). In that case a total of 1,331,056 e34s were made.

Auto: 505,173
Manual: 825,883

I guess nobody wanted a stick shift in a "big" car as 62% were manuals.

What about even bigger? e38 7-series? Not even sold in the US with the manual option. 327,560 were sold total, of that 14,177 were manuals - 4%. So there's your magic number. But it's on a car that was not marketed nor intended to be a "drivers" car and simply nothing from the US even compared to.


and that is the car that Cadillac supposedly benchmarked the car against. For that matter, why does it even matter if the Seville had a stick shift or not?

You answered your own question.

Folks here are funny; they'll nit pick to no end when Hyundai decides to build a car to compete with Cadillac, yet they'll defend to the end the not-so-great decisions Cadillac has made when competing against others.

It would be interesting to know why Lexus, upon introduction chose to use a RWD layout for the LS400 - a car not marketed, targeted nor intended to be a "drivers" car. Apparently, a car Cadillac also set as a target with the Seville STS (according to that youtube commercial)

Rodya234
06-16-11, 11:30 PM
Whenever I think of a big, rear-drive, stick shift Cadillac I think of a FWB with a T-56 swap. Real "driver's" car that one.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 11:42 PM
Don't tell me you think drums are more efficient than discs now and more cars should use them....

I'd still like to hear this one.

Just cause it's kool to be different, I'll give a couple extra nods to drums:

1) Because of the greater surface area, they are more effective as a parking brake (one of the reasons many rear disc systems use an inner drum for parking brake)

2) You used the word efficient. That is an interesting word. I think you mean effective, but even then - it is simply not a factor for the application at hand.

How about doing more with less? Sounds efficient to me. So does something that is self-energizing. 2 for the price of 1, or apply friction material to half the surface and use the energy in the rotating mass to apply the friction material to the other half - sweet.

http://www.tpub.com/content/armyordnance/OD1008/OD10080039im.jpg

Since it deals with levers, take note to one of the only major items that is stationary - the anchor pin. Then think about what is happening to the hydraulic force as it enters the wheel cylinder and meets resistance. Also note how the orientation of the entire shoe assemblies change in relation to the direct of travel.

But hey, knowing how or why things work isn't cool anymore - blanket statements are.

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 11:46 PM
Whenever I think of a big, rear-drive, stick shift Cadillac I think of a FWB with a T-56 swap. Real "driver's" car that one.

I'm honestly not sure if you are serious or not. But I will say this:

Back in my '93 CDV days, from 2003-2006, want to know what my ideal "hot rod" was? A '75 Coupe DeVille with a beefed up Caddy 500 and a Turbo400 trans.

The funny thing is, the very car that FIRST got me interested in a big car with a manual transmission - was the very car you described. A few original members here really modified '94-'96 Fleetwoods and one of them had a T56. I thought that was the coolest thing, for a short time I wanted a Fleetwood then once I was actually interested in that type of car, I realized a whole world of opportunity elsewhere.

Stingroo
06-16-11, 11:47 PM
Holy f*ck Rick. Don't you have a job or something? Jesus. Yes, I meant to say effective. Refer to Jesda's post for pretty much exactly what I was thinking.

Are you this much of a douchebag in person? Do you know any other human beings? I think my ignore list just got one more resident. Pages will probably load faster now. My internet connection is pleased.

hueterm
06-16-11, 11:50 PM
Rick does a better job of bringing out the big hairy troll in Gary than I do. Now that you are back, Rick, Gary's post count is gonna soar. He's probably already posted more times in your recent threads than he has all of last month. Kudos man, you certainly have the magic touch :highfive: CF.com will definitely be entertaining for a while!EDIT: Damn, that 5% estimate was hardcore fail.

www.priceline.com/hotels (http://www.priceline.com/hotels)

Have fun, you two...

drewsdeville
06-16-11, 11:53 PM
For the reasons Rick already covered (the most important being surface area), drum brakes ARE very effective, moreso than their disc counterparts. They lost their place in passenger cars because they are more complicated and disc brakes dissipate heat much better, and don't fade as easily (which is why you'll never find drums behind the front wheels anymore).

Even still, in heavy duty applications such as tractor-trailers, large drum brakes are preferred.

As far as labeling which is better? I'd say that depends on the application. Drum brakes are "stronger", disc brakes are simpler and less prone to fade.

As far as the cars modified with manual transmissions thing, I was driving alongside a last gen Mark VIII on the way home from work today. I didn't think anything of it until the exhaust made it clear that it was no automatic. One of the things I disliked the most about the Mark VIII was that agonizingly sloppy and sluggish 4R70W, so I thought it was pretty cool :thumbsup:

Night Wolf
06-16-11, 11:56 PM
Rick does a better job of bringing out the big hairy troll in Gary than I do. Now that you are back, Rick, Gary's post count is gonna soar. He's probably already posted more times in your recent threads than he has all of last month. Kudos man, you certainly have the magic touch :highfive: CF.com will definitely be entertaining for a while!

EDIT: Damn, that 5% estimate was hardcore fail.

It already has. I think it is a game. Replying to my posts just to include a single emoticon, I feel special!

Yes, 5% fail. I was going to include the prior 5-series generation (that my 528e falls under) but I figure that car is so old and out dated now it couldn't possibly be relevant. Because surely out of the world-wide production of e28s, 70% of which being equiped with manuals would be false - remember, nobody would even think about a stick in a "big" car.

Of course those cars don't matter. There is no possible way the big boy "cruisers" like the Allante would have ever sold with a manual transmission. That must be why the e24 (70s/80s 6-series) only sold with 54% being manual transmissions.

Let's not even take into account the "everday" BMW of the era, e30 3-series of which 82% were sold with manual transmissions.

How lame eh? What kind of a market is there at all for such cars - apparently to the folks at GM and those supporting it - None.

Want proof?

http://www.e38.org/BMWProductionData.pdf

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 12:07 AM
Holy f*ck Rick. Don't you have a job or something? Jesus. Yes, I meant to say effective. Refer to Jesda's post for pretty much exactly what I was thinking.

Are you this much of a douchebag in person? Do you know any other human beings? I think my ignore list just got one more resident. Pages will probably load faster now. My internet connection is pleased.

What? It was just a bit of knowledge and fact. Not like I haven't been called out by others on their assumptions... or called a troll...

You made a statement, I asked a question, you accused me, I simply answered it. Now you come back with personal attacks?

As for having a life outside CF.com... I dunno, you've got 9.3k posts, I have 10.5k posts... yet I've been a member here over 6yrs longer :suspect:

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 12:15 AM
As far as the cars modified with manual transmissions thing, I was driving alongside a last gen Mark VIII on the way home from work today. I didn't think anything of it until the exhaust made it clear that it was no automatic. One of the things I disliked the most about the Mark VIII was that agonizingly sloppy and sluggish 4R70W, so I thought it was pretty cool :thumbsup:

That's a car that would have been a down right BEAST with a manual. DOHC 4.6 V8, basically the Cobra engine? sweet car and IRS RWD? I wasn't happy with the 4R70W in the SOHC Town Car, I've heard the auto trans was the biggest thing holding back that engine, and car as a whole. Honestly, now that they've been catching my eye and I'm not afriad of tearing into cars like I once was - the thought about picking one up and doing a manual conversion has been crossing my mind, put a nice exhaust on it and even if left stock engine power wise, that'd still be a heck of a ride. I had a mildly modded ~'01 Mustang GT 5spd for the weekend last year. I know most folks say it wasn't much on power, but it was quicker than anything I've owned, sounded epic (Bassani? exhaust, WAI) and fun.... as long as the car was pointing straight. That thing just didn't want to turn worth a darn.

gary88
06-17-11, 12:28 AM
I think a big part of why GM, and other domestic companies, never really bothered offering manuals deals less with the performance aspects and more with the culture here. Europeans prefer manual transmissions because 1) they're cheaper 2) they're easier to fix and 3) they're more fuel-efficient (though that gap is beginning to close now). When you're paying $9 for a gallon of gas, those extra 2-3mpg make a difference. Also as you most likely know, the large majority of cars in Europe are sold with smaller displacement motors. As we all know, a car with a 1.2L engine and an automatic will barely get out of its own way. A manual gives it a noticeable increase in performance. Plus for the most part Europeans just hate automatics. To quote my Polish uncle, "automatic transmission is, how you say, for girls". Even the Chrysler minivans I've seen there had sticks.

Here in the US, most people prefer automatics out of the pure convenience they offer, which many see as a luxury. "Put it in D and forget about it". We had (and still have, relatively speaking) cheap gas, so nobody was concerned with saving a few mpg, plus your average Joe-owns-a-car doesn't even know how to drive stick. I know manuals aren't used in drivers ed here (unless you sign up for a private program which offers them), while in European countries all road tests are done in manual transmission cars, and if you test in a car with an automatic you are ONLY allowed to drive automatic transmission-equipped cars. Really the only people who buy manuals here are the enthusiasts which make up a tiny percent of the overall market, while in Europe about 80% of all new cars are sold with a manual. So GM knew from an economic standpoint it just made more sense to put automatics in everything since that's what was (and still is) widely preferred here.

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 12:40 AM
I agree, I stated that too but was jumped on when I dared to say Americans were "lazy". Perhaps I should have said "prefer the path of least resistance". All excellent points though. Asking non-car folks why they prefer an automatic, majority of the responses was because they are not really interested in cars, don't know how to drive one, too much effort or the ol' "why change gears myself when it can do it for me?".

I believe every one that drives should atleast know how to drive a manual transmission. Then again I believe everyone that drives should have a basic understanding of cars, how they operate and how to perform basic inspections/maintenace/repairs (getting a license to operate most any other piece of machinery requires it...)

orconn
06-17-11, 12:40 AM
I think a big part of why GM, and other domestic companies, never really bothered offering manuals deals less with the performance aspects and more with the culture here. Europeans prefer manual transmissions because 1) they're cheaper 2) they're easier to fix and 3) they're more fuel-efficient (though that gap is beginning to close now). When you're paying $9 for a gallon of gas, those extra 2-3mpg make a difference. Also as you most likely know, the large majority of cars in Europe are sold with smaller displacement motors. As we all know, a car with a 1.2L engine and an automatic will barely get out of its own way. A manual gives it a noticeable increase in performance. Plus for the most part Europeans just hate automatics. To quote my Polish uncle, "automatic transmission is, how you say, for girls". Even the Chrysler minivans I've seen there had sticks.

Here in the US, most people prefer automatics out of the pure convenience they offer, which many see as a luxury. "Put it in D and forget about it". We had (and still have, relatively speaking) cheap gas, so nobody was concerned with saving a few mpg, plus your average Joe-owns-a-car doesn't even know how to drive stick. I know manuals aren't used in drivers ed here (unless you sign up for a private program which offers them), while in European countries all road tests are done in manual transmission cars, and if you test in a car with an automatic you are ONLY allowed to drive automatic transmission-equipped cars. Really the only people who buy manuals here are the enthusiasts which make up a tiny percent of the overall market, while in Europe about 80% of all new cars are sold with a manual. So GM knew from an economic standpoint it just made more sense to put automatics in everything since that's what was (and still is) widely preferred here.

Very true and well stated!

drewsdeville
06-17-11, 12:45 AM
Then again I believe everyone that drives should have a basic understanding of cars, how they operate and how to perform basic inspections/maintenace/repairs (getting a license to operate most any other piece of machinery requires it...)

YES. Not to say everyone has to be a mechanic or even make their own repairs, but it's important to know when your vehicle isn't safe to drive. Many people don't understand that, it seems.

I met one guy on a bridge deck I was working on today who's been letting his son drive his car with leaky brake lines, saying he'll get to them when he has time :cookoo:

To get certified to operate other machinery, usually a course on basic operation and safety is mandatory. Apparently, operating a 4000lb, 65mph missile does not require that kind of attention.

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 12:52 AM
It's the vehicles on the road like this that are the real scary part... especially when the driver doesn't think anything is wrong!

http://www.rantswer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/clunker.jpg

77CDV
06-17-11, 03:02 AM
^Dear Lord, what did that used to be?

Playdrv4me
06-17-11, 03:34 AM
Architecture, layout and the "toss-ability" factor in the Mark VIII make it a far more appealing manual transmission candidate than the Seville.

RippyPartsDept
06-17-11, 09:11 AM
^Dear Lord, what did that used to be?
toyota corolla :cool2:

J/K looks like a volvo after about 5 wrecks and 5 years sitting

EcSTSatic
06-17-11, 09:29 AM
This thread is everywhere so I don't feel too bad adding this: my '88 Thunderbird TurboCoupe was a fairly large car and it had a 5-speed. You could get them in an automatic but it just didn't seem right. My bro-in-law's SuperCoupe was a 5-speed also.

The Tony Show
06-17-11, 10:37 AM
So about those econoboxes and their fuel economy...

Brett
06-17-11, 10:42 AM
usually a course on basic operation and safety is mandatory.

"Basic Operation and Safety" is exactly what Drivers Ed is

drewsdeville
06-17-11, 10:48 AM
"Basic Operation and Safety" is exactly what Drivers Ed is

Sorry, basic function might be a better word. Drivers ed stops at checking headlights and mirrors when there are many more equally dangerous scenarios (the brake line example above).

Submariner409
06-17-11, 11:30 AM
To get certified to operate other machinery, usually a course on basic operation and safety is mandatory. Apparently, operating a 4000lb, 65mph missile does not require that kind of attention.

There IS the inconvenience of needing to qualify for a driver's license, though.........................

Heh.............Try some dude with more money than brains who decides to buy a $300,000 50 foot 18 ton missile - a boat - doesn't even know the pointy end from the roundy end and does not need anything but the keys to operate it !!!!

gary88
06-17-11, 01:13 PM
Driver's Ed is largely a joke. During my behind the wheel class my instructor made me drive to his house so he could finish doing his taxes, and my driving test at the DMV consisted of driving about an eighth of a mile down the road, driving into a subdivision, then driving back. Compare this to Finland for example where they put you on a wet skid pad to practice skid control, make you drive at night, and teach you how to deal with situations like hydroplaning. You could get training like that here, but it is usually through private programs which costs more than the average 16 year olds first car.

orconn
06-17-11, 02:11 PM
There IS the inconvenience of needing to qualify for a driver's license, though.........................

Heh.............Try some dude with more money than brains who decides to buy a $300,000 50 foot 18 ton missile - a boat - doesn't even know the pointy end from the roundy end and does not need anything but the keys to operate it !!!!

Boy, you can say that again! But it doesn't make any difference whether it is a small boat or the much larger craft you describe, ignorant, unsafe boat operation is all too common on America's waterways. This is further compounded by those idiots that think they drink and still operate their vessel safely. A full Coast Guard Auxiliary course should be mandatory, along with on the water instruction boat handling and navigation. I can think of six fatalities here in Virginia caused by ignorant skippers endangering there passengers and others on the waterway by reckless and drunk operation of their watercraft!

gdwriter
06-17-11, 03:42 PM
What data are you using? I'm not sure about e39 production numbers as the website I've used doesn't go that new. Is e34 ok? 1988-1996 so it sorta was the targeted car... we are talking world wide, correct (you said all). In that case a total of 1,331,056 e34s were made.

Auto: 505,173
Manual: 825,883

I guess nobody wanted a stick shift in a "big" car as 62% were manuals.Rick should go into politics. He does a fabulous job of leaving out data that disagrees with his theory.

Since the debate has centered on why Cadillac did not offer a manual transmission in a car where the BMW 5-Series was a competitive target, let's compare apples to apples and focus on the U.S. market, where both cars were sold in volume.

http://www.gdwriter.com/BMWProductionData-13.jpg

Going from that same document, out of the 1,331,056 e34s produced, 166,696 were sold in the U.S. market. That's just 13% of total e34 production. Since it's well established that manuals are preferred in Europe and other overseas markets, it's logical to conclude that the total number of manual transmission e34s is higher because far more of them were sold in markets outside the U.S. The worldwide production total relative to the U.S. market skews the numbers toward the preference for manuals.

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 04:34 PM
Rick should go into politics. He does a fabulous job of leaving out data that disagrees with his theory.

Since the debate has centered on why Cadillac did not offer a manual transmission in a car where the BMW 5-Series was a competitive target, let's compare apples to apples and focus on the U.S. market, where both cars were sold in volume.

http://www.gdwriter.com/BMWProductionData-13.jpg

Going from that same document, out of the 1,331,056 e34s produced, 166,696 were sold in the U.S. market. That's just 13% of total e34 production. Since it's well established that manuals are preferred in Europe and other overseas markets, it's logical to conclude that the total number of manual transmission e34s is higher because far more of them were sold in markets outside the U.S. The worldwide production total relative to the U.S. market skews the numbers toward the preference for manuals.

Gary, try not to let your own nonsense get to your head so much.

The original question:


Of all E39 production, how many were sold with a stick? Probably less than 5%


My response:


What data are you using? I'm not sure about e39 production numbers as the website I've used doesn't go that new. Is e34 ok? 1988-1996 so it sorta was the targeted car... we are talking world wide, correct (you said all). In that case a total of 1,331,056 e34s were made.


Noted and accounted for, pal. Try again.

drewsdeville
06-17-11, 04:52 PM
Rick should go into politics. He does a fabulous job of leaving out data that disagrees with his theory.


Going from that same document, out of the 1,331,056 e34s produced, 166,696 were sold in the U.S. market. That's just 13% of total e34 production. Since it's well established that manuals are preferred in Europe and other overseas markets, it's logical to conclude that the total number of manual transmission e34s is higher because far more of them were sold in markets outside the U.S. The worldwide production total relative to the U.S. market skews the numbers toward the preference for manuals.

Sounds like you are the politician. Rick is providing hard numbers to support his argument. It doesn't get any better than that. You, on the other hand, are countering that (or, trying) by providing us with nothing but assumptions and "logical conclusions", with no support. That's a government address if I ever heard one.

You gave us your logical conclusion, but failed to present the data that Rick supposedly left out.

What a fool.

orconn
06-17-11, 05:03 PM
It doesn't add anything to your argument to call a poster a name ("fool"), except to show a childish frame of mind!

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 05:03 PM
Gary likes numbers. Lets look at more.

Right now on ebay, for sale - there are 17 e34s.

http://motors.shop.ebay.com/Cars-Trucks-/6001/i.html?_dmpt=US_Cars_Trucks&_mqf=0&_qfkw=1&_trksid=p4506.c0.m273&_myi=1989-1996&_fpos=31008&_lsbx=0&_fspt=0&_flso=0&Make=BMW&Model=5%252DSeries

Of them, 10 are automatics, 7 are manual. That means 41% of the current used e34s on ebay have manual transmissions.

e39? They have those too - 75 on ebay:

http://motors.shop.ebay.com/Cars-Trucks-/6001/i.html?_dmpt=US_Cars_Trucks&_mqf=0&_qfkw=1&_trksid=p4506.c0.m273&_myi=1997-2003&_fpos=31008&_lsbx=0&_fspt=0&_flso=0&Make=BMW&Model=5%252DSeries

Of those, 50 are automatics, 25 are manuals. That means 33% of the current used e39s on ebay have manual transmissions.

Oh, this is USA ebay. So even here in the gran ol' USA where there is no market for a stick in a "big" car, where no drivers can possibly want a manual in a luxury sport sedan. Where, as you claim - the amount of manual transmission vehicles purchased is vastly lower than other parts of the world - Across two generations of the targeted car - in worst case, there is still over 30% with manual transmissions.

Then again Gary, I wouldn't be surprised if you try to disprove me by saying nobody could possibly want their manual 5-series so every one that was sent to the US and not wrecked is currently on ebay for sale :helpless:

30% is quite a big chunk of eh? Same car, nothing else changed, just the transmission. Using that number, if GM took half those sales from BMW, then GM's sales figures could have been 15% higher and BMW sales figures would have been 15% lower, that'd make a big difference to close in the gap eh?

gdwriter
06-17-11, 05:09 PM
Nice try.

Ryan was the one who brought up all e39 production. You and I were debating Cadillac vs. BMW in the U.S. market. You know, the one with all the lazy Americans.


Since the debate has centered on why Cadillac did not offer a manual transmission in a car where the BMW 5-Series was a competitive target, let's compare apples to apples and focus on the U.S. market, where both cars were sold in volume.

When 84% of production is sold in a market that prefers manuals, of course that means more manuals will be built. Did you flunk math?

That there's a 62% to 38% preference for manuals in worldwide production is irrelevant. Comparing worldwide sales of one car, which includes markets where a manual transmission is widely preferred, does not provide a valid comparison to one that is sold almost exclusively in the U.S.

Stingroo
06-17-11, 05:10 PM
Yeah, but that's in the past now, eh? Also it's completely off topic from the original point of this thread, eh?

Are we talking about the Canadian market next, eh?

hueterm
06-17-11, 05:15 PM
Who said a 5-series was a big car....? For Europe, maybe, where most everyone drives around in some sad little penalty box (usually w/a stick shift, further adding to the penalty...).

Let's see the numbers for the 7....

orconn
06-17-11, 05:18 PM
Who said a 5-series was a big car....? For Europe, maybe, where most everyone drives around in some sad little penalty box (usually w/a stick shift, further adding to the penalty...).

Let's see the numbers for the 7....

Exactly!

gdwriter
06-17-11, 05:18 PM
...but failed to present the data that Rick supposedly left out. I got your data right here:

http://www.gdwriter.com/BMWProductionData-13_highlight.jpg

Actually it's Rick data. And what he conveniently left out were the U.S. sales for the e34: 166,696 or 13% of total production.

How's that for hard evidence, as you like to call it?

orconn
06-17-11, 05:19 PM
That's not calling him a name, that's just calling it like it is - providing support with the hard evidence shown in this thread :)

Oh, and

76672

Great shot of you on the roller coaster! Like the bike too!

drewsdeville
06-17-11, 05:21 PM
Gary is fighting this with vehicles comparable in size to the 5 series. He listed them all a few pages back: Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP, Regal GS, Seville STS, Eldorado ETC, Monte Carlo SS... all midsizers comparable in size to the 5 series. It's all in post #107.

drewsdeville
06-17-11, 05:22 PM
I got your data right here:

http://www.gdwriter.com/BMWProductionData-13_highlight.jpg

Actually it's Rick data. And what he conveniently left out were the U.S. sales for the e34: 166,696 or 13% of total production.

How's that for hard evidence, as you like to call it?

Right, but where's the rest of it. The concern is auto vs manual numbers, which you assumed with the logical conclusion.

RippyPartsDept
06-17-11, 05:26 PM
so i only got 16.5mpg on my last tank of gas... it was enough.

who else has raw data from all this bickering?

btw - where's the OP?

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 05:27 PM
Who said a 5-series was a big car....? For Europe, maybe, where most everyone drives around in some sad little penalty box (usually w/a stick shift, further adding to the penalty...).

Let's see the numbers for the 7....

Post # 113:



Seville STS would be a weird car to have a stick shift in. You have to remember this is a big car, only 3-4" shorter than a Deville and I don't think anybody who considered a Seville thought for a second about a stick shift. Of all E39 production, how many were sold with a stick? Probably less than 5%, and that is the car that Cadillac supposedly benchmarked the car against.

Stingroo
06-17-11, 05:27 PM
Jesda? He (well, assuming still a "he") is in Thailand with spotty Internet availability.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 05:28 PM
Right now on eBay (http://motors.shop.ebay.com/Cars-Trucks-/6001/i.html?_dmpt=US_Cars_Trucks&_mqf=0&_qfkw=1&_trksid=p4506.c0.m273&_myi=1989-1996&_fpos=31008&_lsbx=0&_fspt=0&_flso=0&Make=BMW&Model=5%252DSeries), for sale - there are 17 e34s.Since we only have, ahem, hard evidence for the e34, let's work with that number.

17 out of 166,696 e34s in the U.S. market = 0.00010198 or 0.01%. Any statisticians here? Is that a valid sample size? I highly doubt it.

orconn
06-17-11, 05:31 PM
You think that was really Jesda going down the escalator in his pictures from Thailand? Couldn't see the face but the weight loss was amazing as well as the hair growth! Wonders of modern medicine!

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 05:32 PM
I got your data right here:

http://www.gdwriter.com/BMWProductionData-13_highlight.jpg

Actually it's Rick data. And what he conveniently left out were the U.S. sales for the e34: 166,696 or 13% of total production.

How's that for hard evidence, as you like to call it?

How did I leave it out when it wasn't asked or implied?

Gary, you are using any reason possible to fight.

BTW, why are you so caught up with Europe's numbers. Did you know the FWD Seville was designed, and sold as a WORLD car? In fact, GM wanted to make that clear, the car was first shown as RHD - wanna guess what country it was announced in? Hint: Not the US.

kD9888pUiP8&playnext=1&list=PL3F38821CE28E9CEF

So using your own logic - yes, it is perfectly acceptable to use WORLD data from the competitors.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 05:33 PM
Right, but where's the rest of it. The concern is auto vs manual numbers, which you assumed with the logical conclusion.Rick already provided those numbers in post #113. But here they are, from the .pdf Rick provided:

http://www.gdwriter.com/BMWProductionData-14.jpg

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 05:34 PM
Jesda? He (well, assuming still a "he") is in Thailand with spotty Internet availability.

Hey, you're still here! Why did you get so butt-hurt over me calling you out about drum brakes when you did the same in the Buick vs Cadillac picture thread - asking someone else to please explain how fake vents mean a car isn't a true luxury car, then included the picture of the 50's Cadillac asking to please explain good sir...

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 05:37 PM
Who said a 5-series was a big car....? For Europe, maybe, where most everyone drives around in some sad little penalty box (usually w/a stick shift, further adding to the penalty...).

Let's see the numbers for the 7....

BTW, numbers for the 7 (e38) were there too - 4% were manuals.

But, that doesn't matter. Why? Becuase the 7 is not marketed as a "drivers" car, it's not targeting a "drivers" car or is it trying to be one. Besides, the US has nothing to compete with it, so it's a mute point.

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 05:41 PM
How did I leave it out when it wasn't asked or implied?

Gary, you are using any reason possible to fight.

BTW, why are you so caught up with Europe's numbers. Did you know the FWD Seville was designed, and sold as a WORLD car? In fact, GM wanted to make that clear, the car was first shown as RHD - wanna guess what country it was announced in? Hint: Not the US.

kD9888pUiP8&playnext=1&list=PL3F38821CE28E9CEF

So using your own logic - yes, it is perfectly acceptable to use WORLD data from the competitors.

I just watched this video again - man, if that wasn't FACTORY direct - then I don't know what is. As awesome as the Seville STS is, it's kinda hard not to LOL at many points in that video. It is quite easy to see what the target was.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 05:42 PM
Gary is fighting this with vehicles comparable in size to the 5 series. He listed them all a few pages back: Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP, Regal GS, Seville STS, Eldorado ETC, Monte Carlo SS... all midsizers comparable in size to the 5 series. It's all in post #107.Not really. When I said that GM could not make a business case for developing a manual transmission that could handle the Northstar, Rick brought this up in post #105:


The Northstar shares an extremely similar bolt pattern to a few other GM engines. Some of which provide similar power output levels (s/c 3800) and were used in other types of cars marketed as "driver" cars that could have had decent sales with a manual.

Other engines sharing very similar bolt pattern:

5.3 LS4 V8 (ala FWD V8 Impala SS)
The Chevy 60* V6, first in 2.8/3.1/3.4 flavor, later in 3.5 and 3.9
3800
And of course easily:
4.0 Northstar in the Aurora
3.5 Shortstar in the Intriuge and AuroraThat's why I mentioned the Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP, Regal GS and Monte Carlo SS in post #107, all smaller subsets of high-volume models, and still not enough production to make a business case for GM to develop a manual transmission for those cars. I also mentioned in that post how GM did offer a manual transmission in the W-body in the late 80s/early 90s and found few takers.

Ryan was the one who brought up size. Size is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned in this discussion. None of those GM mid-size cars were targeted at the 5-Series, but the STS was. For an apples to apples comparison, the discussion should be focused on the Seville STS vs. the 5-Series.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 05:51 PM
How did I leave it out when it wasn't asked or implied?Because you used an apples-to-oranges comparison — worldwide vs. U.S. production — as the basis for your conclusion. Whether intentional or not, using only the worldwide production and not factoring in the U.S. portion of that total skews the numbers.


Did you know the FWD Seville was designed, and sold as a WORLD car? In fact, GM wanted to make that clear, the car was first shown as RHD - wanna guess what country it was announced in? Hint: Not the US.Yes, I did know that. I also know that it was a flop overseas. Maybe a few thousand at best (no luck finding hard numbers). Certainly not 13% of total Seville production during the 1998-2004 run.


So using your own logic - yes, it is perfectly acceptable to use WORLD data from the competitors.It's really too bad we can't find production numbers for the 1998-2004 Seville, including the number of units sold overseas. Then we could compare apples to apples, both in the U.S. and worldwide. But since it's clear that the vast majority of Sevilles were sold in the U.S. market, that's the market where valid comparisons can be made between the two cars. At least that's what I think.


Gary, you are using any reason possible to fight.Right back at you.

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 05:59 PM
Not really. When I said that GM could not make a business case for developing a manual transmission that could handle the Northstar, Rick brought this up in post #105:

That's why I mentioned the Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP, Regal GS and Monte Carlo SS in post #107, all smaller subsets of high-volume models, and still not enough production to make a business case for GM to develop a manual transmission.

Ryan was the one who brought up size. Size is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned in this discussion. None of those GM mid-size cars were targeted at the 5-Series, but the STS was. For an apples to apples comparison, the discussion should be focused on the Seville STS vs. the 5-Series.

Gary, you claimed GM would have to make an all new manual transmission exclusive to Cadillac. I simply pointed out that no, it would not be exclusive to Cadillac, it could be used across the board on engines with similar output (s/c 3800) as well as offer a non-HD version for the smaller engines. Thus allowing GM's OTHER "drivers" cars to have a manual transmission too.

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 06:04 PM
Because you used an apples-to-oranges comparison — worldwide vs. U.S. production — as the basis for your conclusion. Whether intentional or not, using only the worldwide production and not factoring in the U.S. portion of that total skews the numbers.

The question asked was ALL e39s.

If I asked you how many of ALL Sevilles were in STS trim, would you default to giving me production numbers of cars sold only in Germany? *Ninja edit - I also CLEARLY noted both "all" and "worldwide" in the very post.

C'mon Gary, take your head out of your butt...

gdwriter
06-17-11, 06:06 PM
Gary, you claimed GM would have to make an all new manual transmission exclusive to Cadillac. I simply pointed out that no, it would not be exclusive to Cadillac, it could be used across the board on engines with similar output (s/c 3800) as well as offer a non-HD version for the smaller engines. Thus allowing GM's OTHER "drivers" cars to have a manual transmission too.No, I was simply unaware that the bolt pattern for the Northstar would also be compatible with other engines. That's my bad. Since those cars shared the same automatic transmission, I should have recognized it would be the same as with a manual.

I also pointed out that when GM offered manual transmissions in the driver's car versions of the W-bodies, they found few takers. Hell, I even test drove one — when you were a baby.

RippyPartsDept
06-17-11, 06:10 PM
i don't really think the seville was marketed as a 'world car' ... but marketed as a car that is like the european sports cars ... at least that's how i took that marketing video

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 06:14 PM
i don't really think the seville was marketed as a 'world car' ... but marketed as a car that is like the european sports cars ... at least that's how i took that marketing video

That video to me seemed like a clear "We now own this segment - this is our car" message. They used many different "world" references and compared it directly to the 540i.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 06:16 PM
The question asked was ALL e39s.It was not my question.

You were the one pointing out that Cadillac aimed the Seville STS at the 5-Series. That's why I believe the only valid comparison between the two would be within the market where both cars sold in volume. A few thousand Cadillacs sold in Europe — if that — versus more than 1 million 5-Series in that same market? What statistician would consider those valid data points for comparison?

If I could locate 1998-2004 Seville production/sales numbers for the U.S. and overseas — and I've tried — I would certainly bring those numbers to the discussion.

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 06:21 PM
I don't have to point out the STS was marketed towards the 5-series. Doing a Youtube search on factory commercians and videos of your own car would have made that clear.

It's when others started making claims that the Seville STS was not targeting the 5-series, that I then made the point.

RippyPartsDept
06-17-11, 06:31 PM
That video to me seemed like a clear "We now own this segment - this is our car" message. They used many different "world" references and compared it directly to the 540i.

SURE, but they weren't marketing at potential buyers in other countries (maybe a little) but they were marketing at the american buyer who buys the bmw and merc etc because of the perceptions that the buyer has of those brands and trying to re-brand cadillac as better than those guys

how many germans do you really think they were trying to win over?

Night Wolf
06-17-11, 06:34 PM
SURE, but they weren't marketing at potential buyers in other countries (maybe a little) but they were marketing at the american buyer who buys the bmw and merc etc because of the perceptions that the buyer has of those brands and trying to re-brand cadillac as better than those guys

how many germans do you really think they were trying to win over?

Considering that the '98 Seville STS was first announced/displayed (with a real car in person) not in the US, but in Germany - as a RHD model none the less. I'd say they were trying to win over a "lot" of Germans.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 06:39 PM
It's when others started making claims that the Seville STS was not targeting the 5-series, that I then made the point.Wasn't me. I've always thought it was. E-Class, A6, XJ, Q45 and LS400, too. Were any of those available in the U.S. with a manual? Nope.*

Of course, whether it was actually competitive against those other cars is a matter of opinion.



*A6 became automatic only in the U.S. as of 1996.

dkozloski
06-17-11, 06:50 PM
With all the talk of seeking an "economy drivers car" with the Mazda3 - why not get a 1 or 2 year old MINI instead? Is buying brand new and taking that much of a hit on depreciation really important? Does the Mazda3 offer loads more space than a Mini?

As for power vs MPG - GM did a damn thing right with the 3800, already a good performer in N/A trim and down right crazy when force fed. Even the Series I held their own - my '89 Olds would routinely get low 30s MPG with A/C on and cruise set on the highway. My moms '98 Park Ave (non ultra) gets high 20s MPG and my fathers modded '99 GTP would also pull high 20s and good for high 13s in the 1/4 mi.

What a shame GM didn't pull their head out of their butt and put such an excellent powerplant facing the correct way, powering the correct wheels with a clutch between it and the transmission with a stick poking out the top. That was a given eh? F-body doesn't count.
Minis are famous for the transmission letting go like a bomb at about 70K and it costs more to fix than the car is worth. Don't waste your money on a POS like that.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 06:52 PM
...as a RHD model none the less. I'd say they were trying to win over a "lot" of Germans.Only the Brits drive on the left side of the the road in Europe. The RHD version would have been targeted for the U.K. (and Japan; they drive on the wrong side of the road, too).

ryannel2003
06-17-11, 08:20 PM
Have you ever driven a "big" car with a stick shift?

On second thought, Of those that keep insisting manual transmissions don't matter - who has actually owned one? In a "drivers" (at any level) car? I too used to think it was over rated and didn't see the big deal most all 90s GM didn't have the option (when others made this very argument). Then I drove one.

I've never owned one but certainly driven many. GM's manuals suck. Honda and BMW build the best in my opinion but as an everyday thing I would never want to drive one, especially where I live where every 1/2 mile is a stop light and traffic can be a pain.




What data are you using? I'm not sure about e39 production numbers as the website I've used doesn't go that new. Is e34 ok? 1988-1996 so it sorta was the targeted car... we are talking world wide, correct (you said all). In that case a total of 1,331,056 e34s were made.

Auto: 505,173
Manual: 825,883

I guess nobody wanted a stick shift in a "big" car as 62% were manuals.

What about even bigger? e38 7-series? Not even sold in the US with the manual option. 327,560 were sold total, of that 14,177 were manuals - 4%. So there's your magic number. But it's on a car that was not marketed nor intended to be a "drivers" car and simply nothing from the US even compared to.

I'm talking US only. The Seville sold in such miniscule numbers in Europe that it wouldn't even be relevant to use data from there. I should have made my question clearer: In the US, how many E39's were sold with a stick shift? I'd be likely to bet relatively few.




You answered your own question.

Folks here are funny; they'll nit pick to no end when Hyundai decides to build a car to compete with Cadillac, yet they'll defend to the end the not-so-great decisions Cadillac has made when competing against others.

It would be interesting to know why Lexus, upon introduction chose to use a RWD layout for the LS400 - a car not marketed, targeted nor intended to be a "drivers" car. Apparently, a car Cadillac also set as a target with the Seville STS (according to that youtube commercial)

Simple: Cadillac already had a great platform with the G-Body Aurora, and instead of investing millions of dollars into producing a true RWD platform they decided to capitalize on the Aurora and improve upon that further. It has been said that the Seville STS with CVRSS handles BETTER than the RWD LS400. This is from people who have owned both cars. Besides it was shown the RWD STS was a complete failure and many customers could have cared less if it was RWD besides the maybe 5% of the enthusiast market who would have bought a BMW to begin with because they don't see Cadillac as sporty car anyway.

If you really think about it, Cadillac would have wasted so much money by putting a manual transmission in this car, even if its markted direct competitor offered one. I bet less than 1000 Seville's would have been sold with a manual tranny. Besides, what enthusiast would have purchased this car anyway? They would have looked at the specs and and read "FWD" and walked away laughing. I will agree that marketing this car against the 5-Series was a mistake. Cadillac should have been marketing against the LS400 which it shared more similarities with than the BMW.

ryannel2003
06-17-11, 08:30 PM
Post # 113:

I never stated in that post that the 5-Series is a big car. I said the Seville STS was a big car. Since you like facts so much, here they are:

BMW 5-Series (E39): 188" long
1998-2003 Cadillac Seville STS = 201" long.

The Seville STS is a pretty big car.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 09:35 PM
Have you ever driven a "big" car with a stick shift?

On second thought, Of those that keep insisting manual transmissions don't matter - who has actually owned one? In a "drivers" (at any level) car?Why yes I have:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTOAudbkOe4

Think of it as a Japanese Mustang.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 09:37 PM
Sorry. Technical difficulties with the YouTube link. Print ad:

http://designora.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/toyota-celica-vintage-ad.jpg

As mentioned in another thread, I would enjoy having one of these again as an other classic car, and definitely with a stick. That was a big part of what made that car fun to drive.

orconn
06-17-11, 09:58 PM
"The fact is the Celica GT is an economy car" and I would definitely classify it as a light weight, small displacement Japanese car. Certainly not what springs to mind when I think of a large (even for a senior European sports sedan). I have driven many "performance" cars with larger displacement, over three liters ( at least) producing in excess of 200 horsepower in both sedan ( Mercedes and Jaguar) form and grand turismo form (Lamborghini, Aston, Ferrari, Mercedes and Jaguar (including a stick XJS V-!2, a very rare beast both in Britain and the US) and they offer a very different driving experience than the light European and Japanese sporty cars.

While I could putter through L.A. traffic all day in the Scirocco with its' light clutch action and light gear selection with no problem, the same traffic in my Jaguar E-type or my Lamborghini 350 GT got tiring very quickly. Back when I was single and using the Lambo as my DD I used to borrow my stepfather's Toronado for dates because I wanted to be able to pay attention to my date, not to mention have a little energy left at the close of the evening!

77CDV
06-17-11, 11:24 PM
Finding one that hasn't rusted into oblivion would take a minor miracle.


Sorry. Technical difficulties with the YouTube link. Print ad:

http://designora.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/toyota-celica-vintage-ad.jpg

As mentioned in another thread, I would enjoy having one of these again as an other classic car, and definitely with a stick. That was a big part of what made that car fun to drive.

gdwriter
06-17-11, 11:44 PM
I think Toyota was pushing it to call the Celica a sports car, but it was sporty and probably the most successful of the small sporty coupes that came out in the 70s like the Capri and Opel Manta.

Like the Mustang that it imitated, it hid sedan mechanicals under sportier bodywork. The interiors of these cars were really nice with full instrumentation, including tach, voltmeter and oil pressure gauges. It certainly felt sporty for what it was. Consider the era from which it came.

Interestingly, I get roughly the same gas mileage with my big V8 Seville than I did with that little Celica. Now that's progress.

Night Wolf
06-18-11, 12:15 AM
Think of it as a Japanese Mustang.

Fast in a striaght line and handles like a pig on roller skates? Atleast that was my experience with a mildly modded '01 5spd GT for the weekend.


It has been said that the Seville STS with CVRSS handles BETTER than the RWD LS400.

1) I'd hope so, and?
2) The LS400 was not marketed, inteded or trying to be a "drivers" car. It was a "traditional" luxury car, not a "sport sedan"
3) LS400 was not specifically targeting the 5-series by saying it "does what it do" - only better.
4) That's not a point I'd use to support the Seville STS' handling capability

Was watching more Youtube videos... it wasn't only Cadillac. GM was really pushing hard to compete with BMW, to a pretty pathetic point with Pontiac. Yes, they had crappy interiors... but yet again - the whole "drivers" thing. The fine print claims the comparisons were made to the 5 (and even 7) series.

ZMPf2l1QBOs&feature=related

UZZZQfg_0Bw&feature=related

Q_Hno3Vi47M&feature=related

5_IaSGda8RI&NR=1

I guess when the Pontiacs failed to win over BMW sales, they tried with the Seville STS. I'll give them credit though, atleast they dumped the plastic knife and brought a steel one to the gun fight. Would RWD and manual transmission on these cars (Pontiacs) steal sales from BMW? Probably not, though maybe from the actual competing brands - both sides have established their points... I'm just wondering what GM's 90s marketing department was on - it was good stuff!

As for the argument of driving a manual in stop and go city traffic, every day.... I don't think anyone here supporting manuals is insisting on being a NYC taxi cab driver with one. Yes, it also greatly depends on where you live and the type of roads/traffic around. Even when I lived in Clearwater, FL with backed up traffic on US19 every day (before the intersection overpasses) I still enjoyed driving my 5spd Isuzu Amigo.

I am kinda lucky here in Middle Georiga, everything is a lot more open, traffic isn't too bad. Though with no mountains (some hills) it isn't nearly as fun as it could be. Ah well, Blue Ridge mountains are only a few hours away and make for an absolutely wonderful weekend!

Night Wolf
06-18-11, 12:35 AM
Interestingly, I get roughly the same gas mileage with my big V8 Seville than I did with that little Celica. Now that's progress.

Finally something we can both relate to! We both get the same gas mileage from a 70s vehicle we owned compared to our 00's!

My Jeep gets the same gas mileage as my '79 Sedan DeVille d'Elegance did, cheers to progress!.... oh wait...

orconn
06-18-11, 12:45 AM
Let's face when it comes to the Pontiac performance cars, these cars deliver a semblance of performance at a very cheap price. I don't think most buyers of the Pontiacs were under the illusion, nor wanted or could afford the type of engineering sophistication which brought about the performance delivered by the BMW's from their relatively small displacement engines. Most Pontiac buyers were looking to get the best performance from a new car that they could buy with from their middle class paycheck.

There were other drawbacks to the BMW sport sedans besides just price. The Bimmers of 20 to thirty years ago were mechanical sounding and to a certain had a coarseness to them that was not present in Jaguars, some other cars from Europe (not Mercedes) and most American makes. While you, Rick, may enjoy a degree of cacophony many Americans were turned off by this mechanical noise. I know when I was buying my first Euro sedan for work in the 1970's I chose the XJ6 Jaguar because not only were its' performance figures equal to a Mercedes E class equivalent or a BMW Alpina sedan, but the ride and handling were equal without beating you to death. Also the Mercs and the BMW's were pretty slow when equipped with automatic trans for city traffic.

gdwriter
06-18-11, 12:46 AM
Fast in a striaght line and handles like a pig on roller skates? Atleast that was my experience with a mildly modded '01 5spd GT for the weekend.More like mimicking the concept of the original Falcon-based Mustang (the Celica was mostly Corona under the skin).

It was not what I'd call fast — the ad charmingly brags about a 1/4-mile time of 17.5 seconds — this was the 70s after all, but it didn't feel slow in my regular driving, and it cruised happily at highway speeds with no trouble. And the weight distribution was probably as biased toward the front as a FWD car, so it understeered considerably when pushed, and you could easily make the tail go sideways, especially on a wet road. I once hit a dip too fast, hit the brakes and did a complete 360 spin.

But for what a high school kid could afford in 1982, it was a fun little car, and I enjoyed it. The 4-speed stick was a big part of that. I drove sticks from age 16 to 25, put more than 100,000 miles on two cars in the process, so I do have considerable experience with them.

Night Wolf
06-18-11, 01:26 AM
Let's face when it comes to the Pontiac performance cars, these cars deliver a semblance of performance at a very cheap price. I don't think most buyers of the Pontiacs were under the illusion, nor wanted or could afford the type of engineering sophistication which brought about the performance delivered by the BMW's from their relatively small displacement engines. Most Pontiac buyers were looking to get the best performance from a new car that they could buy with from their middle class paycheck.

There were other drawbacks to the BMW sport sedans besides just price. The Bimmers of 20 to thirty years ago were mechanical sounding and to a certain had a coarseness to them that was not present in Jaguars, some other cars from Europe (not Mercedes) and most American makes. While you, Rick, may enjoy a degree of cacophony many Americans were turned off by this mechanical noise. I know when I was buying my first Euro sedan for work in the 1970's I chose the XJ6 Jaguar because not only were its' performance figures equal to a Mercedes E class equivalent or a BMW Alpina sedan, but the ride and handling were equal without beating you to death. Also the Mercs and the BMW's were pretty slow when equipped with automatic trans for city traffic.

It isn't so much about the buyers of the cars as GM's marketing. What the heck were they thinking or actually trying to say? The cars were not anywhere near the same segment - so why the constant "we can do it better" attitude? I understand touting the cars performance - but making claims to cars in such a different category?


I drove sticks from age 16 to 25, put more than 100,000 miles on two cars in the process, so I do have considerable experience with them.

We seem to be getting more and more in common! During the same age range (so far) of the 3 Cadillacs (40k,10k,5k), 1 Oldsmobile (20k) and 1 Lincoln (25k), I've accumulated right around 100,000 miles on my automatics in all types of driving from city stop and go to spirited to open highway. I too have lots of experience with them though some have made it out to be like I never drove a car with an automatic or owned a Cadillac before.

Someone mentioned about the 7-series being sold with a manual - which again wasn't marketed as a "drivers" car, but in other countries could be had in 735i flavor - with a manual, how can you say no to the e38? If that car was sold here, I'd be looking for one on the used car market - even if I was the only one in the country that desired it!

Made me think back to a really good movie with a personal favorite chase scene.

JLk4CJ7BTHw

ryannel2003
06-18-11, 01:46 AM
Fast in a striaght line and handles like a pig on roller skates? Atleast that was my experience with a mildly modded '01 5spd GT for the weekend.



1) I'd hope so, and?
2) The LS400 was not marketed, inteded or trying to be a "drivers" car. It was a "traditional" luxury car, not a "sport sedan"
3) LS400 was not specifically targeting the 5-series by saying it "does what it do" - only better.
4) That's not a point I'd use to support the Seville STS' handling capability

Was watching more Youtube videos... it wasn't only Cadillac. GM was really pushing hard to compete with BMW, to a pretty pathetic point with Pontiac. Yes, they had crappy interiors... but yet again - the whole "drivers" thing. The fine print claims the comparisons were made to the 5 (and even 7) series.

ZMPf2l1QBOs&feature=related

UZZZQfg_0Bw&feature=related

Q_Hno3Vi47M&feature=related

5_IaSGda8RI&NR=1

I guess when the Pontiacs failed to win over BMW sales, they tried with the Seville STS. I'll give them credit though, atleast they dumped the plastic knife and brought a steel one to the gun fight. Would RWD and manual transmission on these cars (Pontiacs) steal sales from BMW? Probably not, though maybe from the actual competing brands - both sides have established their points... I'm just wondering what GM's 90s marketing department was on - it was good stuff!

As for the argument of driving a manual in stop and go city traffic, every day.... I don't think anyone here supporting manuals is insisting on being a NYC taxi cab driver with one. Yes, it also greatly depends on where you live and the type of roads/traffic around. Even when I lived in Clearwater, FL with backed up traffic on US19 every day (before the intersection overpasses) I still enjoyed driving my 5spd Isuzu Amigo.

I am kinda lucky here in Middle Georiga, everything is a lot more open, traffic isn't too bad. Though with no mountains (some hills) it isn't nearly as fun as it could be. Ah well, Blue Ridge mountains are only a few hours away and make for an absolutely wonderful weekend!

Edit: I'm really too tired to give a damn. I'm done with this thread, there is no point in arguing a case.

Playdrv4me
06-18-11, 01:46 AM
I don't know if the STS handles better than the LS400, but for as different as both cars are architecturally speaking, I've always found it fascinating how close they are driving dynamics. In fact, the only thing holding back the LS is the aggravating automatic transmission shift mapping. The Seville is worlds better in this respect.

gdwriter
06-18-11, 02:17 AM
I hadn't seen The Transporter car chase before; thanks for posting that. I can only imagine what the late, great Bill Hickman (who also drove the Charger in Bullitt) could have done with a 5-Series in a car chase, especially considering what he managed to do with a 70s Detroit land-yacht (albeit one with a 455) on the streets of New York. And without any special effects:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vACWV5sRcY

Jesda
06-18-11, 02:23 AM
While the original point is long gone, its true that you do have to compare apples to apples.

----

I bought an issue of Top Gear a couple days ago and one of the writers from Australia wrote an article about his visit to America. They rented a Lincoln MKT and drove from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. He said he finally understood why our cars are the way they are. Our roads are wide, well-maintained (at least out west), and straight, and the continent is massive and sparsely populated.

He hated the looks of the MKT but appreciated its superb comfort on such a boring drive. He was also worried that global development programs like One Ford and the move to global platforms at GM would kill Australia's selection of sporty sedans and utes. There's 300 million Americans and 20 million Australians, so an independently operated Ford.au or Holden is unlikely to remain that way.

And even Aussies are buying Camrys in droves, beating the Ford Falcon as Australia's #2 selling passenger car.



You guys might remember 'elwesso' who was a moderator here several years ago. He recently converted his 1994 Infiniti Q45 to a 5-speed manual adapted from a Nissan 300ZX. The JATCO 4-speed automatic developed for the Q45 was kind of shoddy, with questionable reliability (the one on my first Q45 was replaced at only 55k under warranty) and sometimes unresponsive shifting. The difference between the JATCO unit and the Hydramatic in the Seville is like night and day.

Americans not only prefer automatics, we also build better ones, at least traditionally, good enough for BMW and Rolls Royce to purchase Hydramatic units from GM. That said, VW's dual-clutch gearboxes are pretty effing impressive.

Jesda
06-18-11, 02:28 AM
You think that was really Jesda going down the escalator in his pictures from Thailand? Couldn't see the face but the weight loss was amazing as well as the hair growth! Wonders of modern medicine!

:histeric:

This thread needed a hearty chuckle :D

Jesda
06-18-11, 02:35 AM
Finally something we can both relate to! We both get the same gas mileage from a 70s vehicle we owned compared to our 00's!

My Jeep gets the same gas mileage as my '79 Sedan DeVille d'Elegance did, cheers to progress!.... oh wait...

You know I'm a big fan of Jeeps including yours, which I enjoyed driving (and I tried to make a Wrangler fan out of Ian but I guess it didn't stick) -- but I think you've convoluted the comparison a bit.

Its progress that a modern luxury sedan gets the same fuel economy as a light economical sporty car from 30 years ago, because you expect 23mpg from a Celica. You don't expect it from a Cadillac. In your comparison, you're examining the same gap of time, yes, but you're looking at a full size car and an off-road truck, neither of which have any expectations of economy.

Or maybe you were being sarcastic and it went over my head. I just ate some pad krapow and my head is spinning from the hot peppers.

Submariner409
06-18-11, 12:33 PM
My daddy is bigger than your daddy, so nyah, nyah, nyah............

thebigjimsho
06-18-11, 03:21 PM
Is he?

Submariner409
06-18-11, 03:42 PM
Good point - he was: 6' 6.5" and 260#. I'm the runt of the family - 6' 2.5" and 235.

thebigjimsho
06-18-11, 03:53 PM
You are runty. Better than being something that rhymes with it.






































wut?

Submariner409
06-18-11, 04:02 PM
:kitty: Meowww !!!!

(They're correct: I tried it and threads DO load faster.)

thebigjimsho
06-18-11, 04:17 PM
Rick and his corrupting of teh intrawebz...

Night Wolf
06-18-11, 06:30 PM
I hadn't seen The Transporter car chase before; thanks for posting that. I can only imagine what the late, great Bill Hickman (who also drove the Charger in Bullitt) could have done with a 5-Series in a car chase, especially considering what he managed to do with a 70s Detroit land-yacht (albeit one with a 455) on the streets of New York. And without any special effects:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vACWV5sRcY

The seven-ups, one of the best chase scenes too and real. I remember reading somewhere the engine sounds for the smaller Pontiac were dubbed over from one of the other movies of the era.




Americans not only prefer automatics, we also build better ones, at least traditionally, good enough for BMW and Rolls Royce to purchase Hydramatic units from GM. That said, VW's dual-clutch gearboxes are pretty effing impressive.

I agree. From my experience, GM builds the best automatics. TH400, 440T4 and 4T60E in the vehicles I've owned both performed excellent for their application.

In the e28 and e30 worlds, the automatics are looked down on so much not just because it really kills a lot of the fun and performance from the cars (well that's the main reasons), but they also weren't that great of a transmission. Both in how they operated and reliability.


You know I'm a big fan of Jeeps including yours, which I enjoyed driving (and I tried to make a Wrangler fan out of Ian but I guess it didn't stick) -- but I think you've convoluted the comparison a bit.

Its progress that a modern luxury sedan gets the same fuel economy as a light economical sporty car from 30 years ago, because you expect 23mpg from a Celica. You don't expect it from a Cadillac. In your comparison, you're examining the same gap of time, yes, but you're looking at a full size car and an off-road truck, neither of which have any expectations of economy.

Or maybe you were being sarcastic and it went over my head. I just ate some pad krapow and my head is spinning from the hot peppers.

lol, yes I was being sarcastic, perhaps even taking a stab at my Jeep :canttalk:. If concerned about fuel mileage than a Jeep (Wrangler) is out the window. For me, the MPG doesn't matter.

gdwriter
06-18-11, 07:01 PM
The seven-ups, one of the best chase scenes too and real. I remember reading somewhere the engine sounds for the smaller Pontiac were dubbed over from one of the other movies of the era.They dubbed the sound for the Ventura from Steve McQueen's Mustang in Bullitt.

JimmyH
06-18-11, 09:43 PM
One thing everyone forgets is that your fuel economy is greatly influenced by HOW you drive, not just WHAT you drive. I know several people who have purchased Priuses or Escalade Hybrids and then complained that their gas mileage was worse than their previous (non-Hybrid) car. Why? Because the big drop in power makes them press the throttle harder to take off from stoplights or pass like they're accustomed to.

Top Gear did a comparison where the Stig briskly drove a Prius around the test track with Clarkson following right behind him in a V8 M3. In the end, the M3 actually got the same mileage as the Prius because Clarkson could maintain pace with the Prius minimal throttle, while Stig had to beat the snot out of the Prius to keep it hustling.

My point is if your driving style includes pulling away from lights briskly and passing people on the highway, a Hybrid or turbo 4 isn't going to get you any better mileage than a good ole' V6 or V8.


Here here. My 24-mpg hwy rated Camaro gets me 24 mpg overall average without trying. If I work it, I get 25, even 26. My boss with his considerably less powerful G35 struggles to get 20 on a similar commute. And I know how he drives and why he gets what he gets.

I chuckle as I see folks in econoboxes weaving through traffic, racing towards a clump of slow moving cars, brake lights flashing like a strobe.

I prefer hypermiling a performance car than flogging an econobox.

thebigjimsho
06-18-11, 09:50 PM
I prefer neither. And I prefer staying the F away from you on the highway...

JimmyH
06-18-11, 09:50 PM
Minis are famous for the transmission letting go like a bomb at about 70K and it costs more to fix than the car is worth. Don't waste your money on a POS like that.

Minis are awesome. There is often a hot blonde behind the wheel. FTW!

JimmyH
06-18-11, 09:51 PM
I prefer neither. And I prefer staying the F away from you on the highway...

I always stay away from Limousines. I still value my life.

thebigjimsho
06-18-11, 10:01 PM
That makes no sense, goofball...

JimmyH
06-18-11, 10:26 PM
I know in Baahhhston everyone is perfect (chauffeurs inclusive) and life is rosy. Here in Chicagoland, such is not the case, and a limo driver will kill you rather than share a road with you. The majority of other drivers are not much better. So you can call me a pansy if you like, but I stay my ass out of everyone's way rather than get hit and be in the middle of an insurance investigation because police do not determine fault anymore.

thebigjimsho
06-18-11, 10:35 PM
You pansy.

JimmyH
06-18-11, 10:36 PM
I am not the one watching figure skaters with sticks on TV.

JimmyH
06-18-11, 10:36 PM
And buying shag carpeting.

thebigjimsho
06-18-11, 10:37 PM
When and where did I ever tell you I did that?

JimmyH
06-18-11, 10:42 PM
I am psychic.

JimmyH
06-18-11, 10:43 PM
psychotic?

Night Wolf
06-18-11, 11:05 PM
I know in Baahhhston everyone is perfect (chauffeurs inclusive) and life is rosy. Here in Chicagoland, such is not the case, and a limo driver will kill you rather than share a road with you. The majority of other drivers are not much better. So you can call me a pansy if you like, but I stay my ass out of everyone's way rather than get hit and be in the middle of an insurance investigation because police do not determine fault anymore.

Some of the worst drivers I've experienced in recent years were in Chicago. Red lights mean go, blinkers mean don't let anyone in. Not just cars but there was also a guy jammin out on his head phones riding a bicycle - crossing the middle of a large intersection full of people driving fast. First he tried cutting off an old big body Benz, swerved around them then attempted to do the same just to swerve back around and cross behind me, cutting off 2 lanes of traffic. That was just during the time I was test driving that '93 CDV too.

Plus, what's with all the man holes/covers sticking 6" above the street? Dodging those things while dealing with idiot drivers and crazy bicyclists kept things entertaining.

Stingroo
06-18-11, 11:16 PM
Asshats, all.

















































wait, wut?

JimmyH
06-18-11, 11:32 PM
We have broad shoulders and no tolerance for outtatowners. We are asshats. All of us. And we don't like donks or dubs. That's why we keep the potholes in place. Like a filter.

orconn
06-19-11, 12:32 AM
We have broad shoulders and no tolerance for outtatowners. We are asshats. All of us. And we don't like donks or dubs. That's why we keep the potholes in place. Like a filter.

And this is the guy who got his feelings hurt by Frenchmen! Perhaps the French were justified in reacting rudely to a tourist from Chicago!

I suspected as much after your diatribe against the French people, but your candor above leaves no doubt as to the responsible party!

Stingroo
06-19-11, 12:45 AM
The French eat snails and funny smelling cheese.


That is all.

JimmyH
06-19-11, 01:23 PM
French fries are quite tasty.

thebigjimsho
06-19-11, 02:37 PM
French chicks have striking facial features and hairy armpits. A delicate balance is needed...

orconn
06-19-11, 03:16 PM
French chicks have striking facial features and hairy armpits. A delicate balance is needed...

Boy, is your knowledge of "French chicks" dated!

JimmyH
06-19-11, 03:27 PM
Probably why he has never dated French chicks.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-19-11, 09:11 PM
I can thank France for this beast.

http://www.awecar.com/Make/Citroen/SM/Citroen_SM.jpg

77CDV
06-19-11, 09:14 PM
^One of the best riding cars ever.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
06-19-11, 09:30 PM
Citroen's usage of both air AND hydraulic pressure is what makes their ride so smooth. As far as I know, nobody else ever offered any setup like that, something that rode so smoothly and still handled very nicely.

gdwriter
06-19-11, 11:46 PM
I'm renting a car in September to drive from Paris to Chateau du Lude (http://www.lelude.com/), about a 3-hour drive SW of Paris near Le Mans. I'm hoping to get some delightfully weird French car.

Ranger
06-19-11, 11:59 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/12/automobiles/190-lecar.jpg

orconn
06-20-11, 12:32 AM
I can thank France for this beast.

http://www.awecar.com/Make/Citroen/SM/Citroen_SM.jpg

The Citroen SM is one of the cars I had hope to own one day. I came very close on a few occasions, but chickened out over service concerns (even in L.A. there were only knowledgeable Citroen mechanics. I did get to drive one extensively while living in France in the early seventies. My girl friend's dad had one that he let me drive. Initially it took a lot of getting used to, but once you got comfortable with it driving it became intuitive and the car became an extension of the driver. Anyone who thinks French cars are cheaply put to gether never looked closely at a SM, or a top of the line CX, for that matter. These cars were beautifully put together from very high quality materials. The French really do know how to make luxury goods when the market justifies it!

Stingroo
06-20-11, 12:55 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/12/automobiles/190-lecar.jpg

Don't joke about that thing! My girlfriend thinks it's cute. Ugh. :ack:

I've been trying to convince her otherwise....

thebigjimsho
06-20-11, 01:16 AM
http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/1986RenaultR5Turbo2_2.jpg

thebigjimsho
06-20-11, 01:17 AM
I can thank France for this beast.

http://www.awecar.com/Make/Citroen/SM/Citroen_SM.jpgI saw one of these exact models in Williamstown, MA a few weeks back...

gdwriter
06-20-11, 02:43 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/12/automobiles/190-lecar.jpgI'm hoping for better than that! :rofl:

Jesda
06-20-11, 03:03 AM
http://www.carpages.co.uk/peugeot/peugeot-images/peugeot-rcz-15-10-09.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wSUG_ibJWC4/S7Bd17iy4fI/AAAAAAAAFzM/HU91VisqsUw/s400/2011-Peugeot-RCZ-14.gif

I saw one of these by the beach, a Peugeot RCZ. Looks like a mix between a 350Z and an Audi TT.

Its $98,000 USD. :O

Must be a massive VAT tax or something in Thailand.

gdwriter
06-20-11, 03:15 AM
^^^ Doubt I'll be getting that for my my ~100 euros from Avis. :lol:

Jesda
06-20-11, 03:37 AM
Looks like you have your choice of:
Renault Twingo
Opel Corsa Manual
Citroen C3
Peugeot 308

All manuals. I kind of dig the Peugeot's looks, but the Corsa is the same as the Saturn Astra (I think), which I know is an excellent-driving car.

131EUR/day will get you a BMW 1-series with an auto.

STS_Seville_Hunter
06-20-11, 06:42 AM
I seen a SM and a DS side by side in a pick a part a month ago.

JimmyH
06-20-11, 03:06 PM
Looks like you have your choice of:
Renault Twingo
Opel Corsa Manual
Citroen C3
Peugeot 308

All manuals. I kind of dig the Peugeot's looks, but the Corsa is the same as the Saturn Astra (I think), which I know is an excellent-driving car.

131EUR/day will get you a BMW 1-series with an auto.

a plethora of vehicles three proper pedals is about all Europe has going for it these days.

gdwriter
06-20-11, 04:18 PM
I plan to drive the stick.

Rick = :shocked2:

JimmyH
06-20-11, 06:05 PM
which stick?

thebigjimsho
06-20-11, 11:35 PM
He doesn't need to do that anymore...

Submariner409
06-21-11, 09:59 AM
This is truly epic: A 7 page thread of masturbation over manual and automatic transmissions which swings from clutches to ice hockey to chauffeurs to sound bites to french fries in one page !!!

Useful information at its finest :hide:

thebigjimsho
06-21-11, 11:47 AM
And you're not too old to be right in the middle of it! Congrats!

RippyPartsDept
06-21-11, 12:01 PM
i'm just a bit miffed that nobody commented on my witty remarks from post #153

'raw' data... get it?? ... ugh

Submariner409
06-21-11, 01:42 PM
................go sell a fan belt.





:lildevil:

RippyPartsDept
06-21-11, 02:13 PM
ouch :cool2:

JimmyH
06-22-11, 02:02 PM
24 mpg is enough

RippyPartsDept
06-22-11, 02:21 PM
enough already!

thebigjimsho
06-22-11, 06:37 PM
Too much is never enough...

JimmyH
06-22-11, 07:43 PM
^slogan of alcoholics everywhere