G.m.

[Firebird]

Actually, considering GM were the first to use precision manufacturing, mass produce the V8, and the automatic transmission (all by Cadillac)

Hydra-Matic Drive debuted in 1940 model year Oldsmobiles.

It was an option in '41 Cadillacs.

 

[Drifting Thunda]

i would say that the domestics tend to have solo home runs, while the big three japanese tend to be more steady.

cars like the aztek and thunderbird really give ford and GM a black eye. abject failures on the market, they diminish the good work being done by cars like the corvette, CTS, focus etc. whereas nissan, toyota and honda seem to manage to sell pretty much everything they make.

This is very true, but the big three American tend to sell gobs and gobs of trucks, SUVs, and minivans, and the cars they do strike gold with (Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Corvette, Thunderbird, etc.) go a long way. They have enough play to play with.

 

[///M]

Hydra-Matic Drive debuted in 1940 model year Oldsmobiles.

It was an option in '41 Cadillacs.

Hmmm, maybe I should have gone to the book case and dragged out a few books betore typing that comment. Still GM though so I suppose its not too bad.

And I have noticed lately that GM have been doing their 'retro' stuff in their concept vehicles (just like Ford) and newer models, reviving old names and cars, so I suppose they are copying themselves too now?

 

[1X83Z]

I've been thinking about this for a while now so heres what I've been thinking about GM lately. They seem to just copy everyone else.

Since Toyota invented the midsize sedan segment in 1985, isn't everyone else with a midsize sedan simply copying Toyota? Believe it or not, segments are set up and buyers have preferences - and manufacturers play to those preferences. So when you say a manufacturer is 'copying' another, really all they're doing is trying to make money by selling cars to interested buyers.

Then you get down to there total BS cars like caddy, CTS,

The Cadillac brand right now is the best it's ever been in its entire history. The CTS isn't the best Cadillac, but it's a decent competitor in the segment.

They also seem to throw SS logo on anything with mag wheels, monte carlo SS, impala SS etc

Chevrolet Cobalt:
- Base/LS/LT: 140-horsepower 2.2-liter four
- SS: 205-horsepower 2.0-liter supercharged four
Chevrolet Impala:
- Base: 180-horsepower 3.4-liter V6
- LS: 200-horsepower 3.8-liter V6
- SS: 240-horsepower 3.8-liter supercharged V6
Chevrolet Monte Carlo:
- LS: 180-horsepower 3.4-liter V6
- LT: 200-horsepower 3.8-liter V6
- SS: 240-horsepower 3.8-liter supercharged V6
Chevrolet Silverado
- Base: 195-horsepower 4.3-liter V6
- LS/Z71: 285-horsepower 4.8-liter V8
- LS/LT/Z71: 295-horsepower 5.3-liter V8
- SS: 345-horsepower 6-liter V8

Got that?

The ION Redline is 202Hp. The SRT4 is 220. The Redline sucks, the SRT4 could beat anything in it's class.

Yeah, but check this out:

Dodge Neon SRT-4: $20700
Saturn Ion Red Line: $20900

His comparison is correct, even if the SRT-4 would smoke the Red Line every time. Pretty stupid from Saturn, huh?

I actually like G.M. for 1 reason - they're happy to get rid of the Cavalier.

Yeah - but watch them keep the Cobalt around for twenty years with only one major redesign.

 

[1X83Z]

The Vue is selling like hotcakes around here. Is the L-Series dead yet?

Vue's selling because of my endorsement.

L-series was actually re-named L300 in 2004. It's going to have a very brief 2005 model year before cancellation; it shouldn't see February.

The Colorado and Canyon are already behind in the small truck (or is it called midsize now) division, and lord knows how long it'll be before they're updated.

They aren't behind at all. They offer just as many if not more styles than competitors with good prices and good options prices. The only problem I see is the engines - the five may be powerful, but telling people "it's a straight five" isn't as cool as saying "it's a V8." Trust me - I've been there.

I've lost track of the Envoy/Trailblazer, but I assume they're falling behind in the midsize SUV arena, and quite frankly, they don't see to be selling too well. We all know the Corvette's doing fine. Does anybody still buy the Impala and Monte Carlo?

Nope - but Malibu's doing very well. Envoy and Trailblazer are both still meeting sales goals, but the Buick Rainier hasn't done particularly well - not that anyone expected it too. The Isuzu Ascender, the cheapest model of the bunch, sells less than 400 units a month (and now is Isuzu's only vehicle).

I'm prepared to be disappointed with the new minivan-SUV-crossover things that GM's ready to unleash – the Saturn Relay is the only name that I can remember off the top of my head, but I know it spans a couple other GM divisions. I don't see why one would get one of those in light of a real minivan or a real SUV.

Same with the Ford Freestar and Mercury Monterey - it's as if the domestic companies are literally giving minivans to the Japanese by coming out with vans that they know are awful. One thing I will grant the new GM vans (Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana SV6, and Saturn Relay) is that they're going to have standard OnStar and a standard rear DVD player.

I would rather eat off my own foot than buy one, though. In 1998, GM became the very first manufacturer to put side airbags in a minivan (better yet, they were standard). Granted, they were front side airbags, which kind of defeats the purpose, but it was 1998. Seven years later, they're STILL front side airbags, and they aren't even standard anymore. What ****.

cars like the aztek and thunderbird really give ford and GM a black eye. abject failures on the market, they diminish the good work being done by cars like the corvette, CTS, focus etc. whereas nissan, toyota and honda seem to manage to sell pretty much everything they make.

I think history will tell us that a new Thunderbird was a good idea. It may not have sold well, but Ford got a huge image boost from it. Remember, there's two ways to sell a car: actually selling a car, and selling a brand's image. Seeing exciting products from a manufacturer boosts sales for all that manufacturer's cars by association. Works every time. That's why Ford's advertising the GT so much.

Saturn Relay (cheap minivan), Chevrolet Uplander (standard minivan), Pontiac Montana SV6 (sport minivan...seriously, that's what the SV6 stands for), and Buick Terraza (luxury minivan).

The Saturn starts at $23800, $200 more than the $23600 Chevrolet Uplander.

But that includes a DVD player! But no side airbags to be found.

 

[Firebird]

Since Toyota invented the midsize sedan segment in 1985, isn't everyone else with a midsize sedan simply copying Toyota?

???

 

[The359]

I knew I forgot one SS...

GM's MSRP on their websites list the base Saturn Relay ($24,485) as only $135 more then the Uplander ($24,350), but when you get up to the AWD models, the Relay ($30,570) is $1,530 cheaper then the AWD Uplander ($32,100).

 

[1X83Z]

???

I know, I know - Americans started the midsize sedan segment in whatever year. Whatever. Toyota started the new generation in 1985.

But his idiotic, poorly thought-out point seems to be that GM's copying Dodge by putting out the Ion Red Line after the SRT-4, when all they're actually doing is capitalizing on a growing trend. I don't think Saturn wants the Ion Red Line and SRT-4 viewed in the same comparison.

GM's MSRP on their websites list the base Saturn Relay ($24,485) as only $135 more then the Uplander ($24,350), but when you get up to the AWD models, the Relay ($30,570) is $1,530 cheaper then the AWD Uplander ($32,100).

Cheap is cheap - and the cheaper of the two is Chevrolet. You're adding in destination anyway - the actual bases are $23600 ($23635) for the Chevrolet and $23800 ($23770) for the Saturn. $135 dollars in theory, $200 in practice.

 

[Firebird]

I know, I know - Americans started the midsize sedan segment in whatever year. Whatever. Toyota started the new generation in 1985.

With which model, exactly?

 

[1X83Z]

With which model, exactly?

This cute little guy:

You'll hear people say it came out in 1984, but don't mind them.

 

[Firebird]

You'll hear people say it came out in 1984, but don't mind them.

The Camry came out in '83.

And it was the size of a present-day Corolla.

I personally hate 95% of cars manufactured before 1989 so you know where I'm coming from. I can tell you practically anything about mainstream cars from 1989 on, but before that I know nothing and consequently I hate everything. If you ever see me commenting on pre-1989 cars again, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about and move on.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[1X83Z]

The Camry came out in '83.

And it was the size of a present-day Corolla.

It actually came out in 1982.

1982-1986
1987-1991
1992-1996
1997-2001
2002-pres

But no-one bought it until 1985 (seriously - 'no one' is stressed), so it didn't come out until then. In my book. Kind of like in my book, the Chevrolet Blazer, Chevrolet Astro, GMC Safari, GMC Sonoma, and Chevrolet S-10 are no longer manufactured. Though I saw a brand new Astro yesterday - first one in years. I nearly ate off my own lips with excitement.

But aside the years, we agree Toyota revolutionized the segment? I realise it was way smaller, but it's grown.

 

[Sage]

I have a friend (just got his license) who wanted a new S-10 for his first car. I told him crappy choice. So guess what his better choice is? A new Ford Ranger. I nearly passed out when he told me.

Oh, and, he hit a parked car last week. A parked car!

 

[MistaX]

Sage, maybe because he knew he couldn't drive, and wanted something easy to replace...

 

[Firebird]

But aside the years, we agree Toyota revolutionized the segment?

Nope.

If any car revolutionized the midsize sedan in the early '80s it was these quadruplets:

Front-drive, 4- or 6-cylinder engine... Pretty much the groundwork for every midsize car since.

 

[1X83Z]

Except they all got cancelled because they fell notably behind the new designs. The new designs being the Toyota Camry in 1985 (1982), the Honda Accord in 1985 (1980), and the Ford Taurus in 1986. See, the segment was revolutionized in 1985. No-one paid any attention to the Accord and Camry until 1985 when they realized how crappy the vehicles above were.

Celebrity was cancelled in 1990 and not replaced until 1997 when GM finally came up with a competitor for the Japanese, Pontiac 6000 was cancelled in 1991, the Oldsmobile Ciera in 1996, and the Buick Century this year - but only after sharing the 1997 redesign with the Malibu, still aimed at the Japanese, who revolutionized the segment in 1985.

 

[Firebird]

Nope.

The segment was revolutionized in '82 by the GM A-bodies. You can moan about them being "crappy", but truth be told they weren't. They were best-sellers, and were critical praised (especially the 6000STE, which was considered a legitimate competitor to Audis and BMWs of the period).

No one paid attention to the Accord until 1982, when it was still a compact, and was considered one of if not the best compact. It wasn't considered an alternative to a midsize until the '86 redesign, which made it signifcantly larger, and didn't really catch on in popularity until the 1990 redesign.

The Camry was a non-entity on the market until 1988, over a year into the second generation, when it was given the 2.5L V6. Even then, it didn't catch on until the early '90s.

'80s Accords and Camries, especially Camries, are footnotes in the history of the respective models. They weren't influential in the midsize market until the '90s (again, moreso the Camry). The Camry wasn't influential whatsoever in the '80s, except for encouraging Honda to build a bigger Accord (which was somewhat influential).

Even then, the '86 Taurus revolutionized the midsize sedan more than the Accord and Camry ever did.

 

[Firebird]

And for the record, the Camry was launched in North America in late calendar year 1982; model year 1983. Which is what I meant, and I assume what you meant. If you want to get really technical, the Camry began life as a Celica model in Japan in 1980, but was sold only a few right-hand-drive countries.

And the 1997 Century redesign was shared with the Regal, not the Malibu. The 1997-2005 Century is a W-body car, whereas the 1997-2003 Malibu was an N-body car, sharing it's major components with the Grand Prix, Alero (and Cutlass). The '97-'99 Cutlass shared its redesign with the Malibu, but sold very poorly by virtue of the fact barely anyone knew it existed.

 

[1X83Z]

No one paid attention to the Accord until 1982, when it was still a compact, and was considered one of if not the best compact. It wasn't considered an alternative to a midsize until the '86 redesign, which made it signifcantly larger, and didn't really catch on in popularity until the 1990 redesign.

I think you're missing the point - the Accord was only a "compact" compared to the larger GM designs. It didn't grow very much in 1986, but demand for a smaller, better-built midsize sedan did. With a center console.

The Accord was significantly popular from 1986-1989.

The Camry was a non-entity on the market until 1988, over a year into the second generation, when it was given the 2.5L V6. Even then, it didn't catch on until the early '90s.

The Camry took off in 1985. The V6 helped sales, but not too much - obvious, since Honda didn't do the V6 thing until 1996 and they did well anyway. More than 60% of 87-91 Camrys - which set sales records for Japanese cars - were four-cylinders. Only two percent were AWD.

'80s Accords and Camries, especially Camries, are footnotes in the history of the respective models. They weren't influential in the midsize market until the '90s (again, moreso the Camry). The Camry wasn't influential whatsoever in the '80s, except for encouraging Honda to build a bigger Accord (which was somewhat influential).

"Camrys".

Even then, the '86 Taurus revolutionized the midsize sedan more than the Accord and Camry ever did.

So then why does Ford admit having built the Taurus solely to catch up to the trends they saw the Japanese starting in 1985?

The '97-'99 Cutlass shared its redesign with the Malibu, but sold very poorly by virtue of the fact barely anyone knew it existed.

One of my friends has one; I've tried to convince him it's rare but he doesn't believe me. A neighbor had one, too. Those things are like the Pontiac Trans Sport after the 1997 redesign: rare, but also ... not rare.

 

[neanderthal]

we have tons of those mid eighties camrys and accords in california. maybe sales in te rest of the country werent brisk, but judging by how many of them are still on the roads here, they were already a major factor.

 

[1X83Z]

we have tons of those mid eighties camrys and accords in california. maybe sales in te rest of the country werent brisk, but judging by how many of them are still on the roads here, they were already a major factor.

By 1986 for the Accord and 1987 for the Camry, sales had taken off. It wasn't even a contest, except with the Taurus, by 1990. In fact, the domestic cars that Firebird claimed turned around the segment were laughable by 1990 - and some lived on another five or six years. The Pontiac 6000 and Chevrolet Celebrity have 1970s interiors (and practically don't exist today), and the Century and Ciera are only still on the road by pure viture of having been sold for more than a decade in one basic form.

Plus - no-one ever tried to copy the format of the Buick Century or Oldsmobile Ciera. Everyone instead had to follow-up on the idea of a center console, economical four-cylinder engines, smaller bodies, consistent (and constant) redesigns, and cheap features-per-dollar. GM may have had the winning formula, but the Japanese executed it right.

 

[Firebird]

By 1986 for the Accord and 1987 for the Camry, sales had taken off.

Accord, yes. Camry? NO.

Plus - no-one ever tried to copy the format of the Buick Century or Oldsmobile Ciera. Everyone instead had to follow-up on the idea of a center console, economical four-cylinder engines, smaller bodies, consistent (and constant) redesigns, and cheap features-per-dollar. GM may have had the winning formula, but the Japanese executed it right.

GM A-bodies had centre consoles, economical four-cylinder engines, smaller bodies, and cheap features-per-dollar. So, they didn't revolutionize the market because they weren't redesign by 1986?

I submit that, again, as you have claimed previously, you know nothing of cars before 1989.

 

[1X83Z]

Accord, yes. Camry? NO.

1987-1991 Camrys sold like hotcakes! My dad bought one in 1988 and he was no trendsetter, they were already everywhere and with a proven track record.

GM A-bodies had centre consoles, economical four-cylinder engines, smaller bodies, and cheap features-per-dollar. So, they didn't revolutionize the market because they weren't redesign by 1986?

They didn't have full-length center consoles. The Pontiac 6000 might have. That's one of the trends Ford picked up on that buyers wanted!

And they used a pushrod four-cylinder with a three-speed automatic. Sound revolutionary? No manual transmissions available, but you can't expect any sort of choices in the late 1980s from GM. Honda used a SOHC 2.2-liter with a 5-speed manual and four-speed automatic. The 1990 Accord was 185.1" long, the era's Buick Regal was 194". Today, Accords have grown less than three inches while GM's sole true midsize competitor, the Chevrolet Malibu, has shrunk to fit the mold - it's 188" in length.

On top of that, the Accord and Camry revolutionized the segment by simply being Japanese - and showing the Americans that the Japanese could control more than just the small car market. Look at the top sellers now - it's all because of those first designs twenty years ago. Or less - the Accord was the best-selling car in the US by 1991. That wasn't thanks to the fact that sales quadrupled in 1990 - because they didn't. They built up a slow, steady sales curve thanks to a sensible, reliable product in 1985 that was different from anything GM had to offer.

I submit that, again, as you have claimed previously, you know nothing of cars before 1989.

I submit to you that, while that may be true in many segments, it's not true here. Let me ask you: of the four vehicles that you claimed revolutionized the segment - which are still in production? Zero. Whereas the Accord and Camry are the most popular vehicles in the US. And let's consider some of GM's revolutionary ideas in that segment in the 1980s:

- OHV four-cylinder engines? There isn't a single one on the market. While Honda and Toyota's SOHC and DOHC engines are now being copied in many cases by GM and have otherwise swept the market.
- The Accord had dual airbags standard in 1992. GM didn't do that until the government forced them to in 1995 - but worse, they didn't even have a driver airbag available until 1993 - and then, it wasn't even standard.
- Four-cylinder engines are now used across the board, like Accord and Camry in the 1980s. Every popular model has a four-cylinder available, and the ones that don't are getting cancelled left and right. GM cancelled them in 1993, seeing a nonexistent trend, only to finally bring a four back on the new Malibu, and guess what? It's a DOHC unit, not a pushrod.
- The 3-speed automatic! GM used one until 1993 - another trend they clearly saw. Considering that by the 1996 model year, there were exactly two seperate three-speed automatic transmissions on the market (one in a hatchback and the other in a minivan) and by 1998 they were nonexistent - and all the other midsize competitors copied the four-speed that Honda and Toyota were using by 1987.
- Antilock brakes were available in the Accord by 1994, and in the Camry by 1992, they're standard linewide now of course whereas they're not standard on a single GM midsize - Buick LaCrosse, Chevrolet Malibu, whatever.

That's just the 1980s. It doesn't mention side airbags, which Honda figured out in 2000 and Toyota in 1998. GM of course doesn't have side airbags on some of their models - the Chevrolet Impala has a driver-only side airbag, as does the Buick Century; only the very newest GM midsizes have anything else and it's all optional whereas it's now standard on Accord. I won't even get down to the 'minor' details like automatic climate control and CD changers, or the current power-crazy midsize market that GM's still leaving out. Oh, and sunroofs, which GM didn't offer and the Japanese did. And the 5-speed automatic!

 

[Firebird]

1987-1991 Camrys sold like hotcakes! My dad bought one in 1988 and he was no trendsetter, they were already everywhere and with a proven track record.

No, they didn't, until '89.

They didn't have full-length center consoles. The Pontiac 6000 might have. That's one of the trends Ford picked up on that buyers wanted!

Full-length centre consoles were available on every model, in every trim.

And Ford's '86 Taurus had a choice between a centre console and a front bench seat. I suppose they decided to offer a choice because the Camry and Accord did?

And they used a pushrod four-cylinder with a three-speed automatic. Sound revolutionary?

Actually, no other midsize cars in the '80s came with OHV I4's, except from GM and AMC (which also used the Pontiac 2.5L "Iron Duke"). In a sense, yes, it was quite revolutionary. Or at the very least unique. (The 2.5L actually replaced an OHC four-banger)

No manual transmissions available

An option in 1984. Demand was extremely low, so they dumped it for the following year.

On top of that, the Accord and Camry revolutionized the segment by simply being Japanese - and showing the Americans that the Japanese could control more than just the small car market. Look at the top sellers now - it's all because of those first designs twenty years ago.

Or less - the Accord was the best-selling car in the US by 1991. That wasn't thanks to the fact that sales quadrupled in 1990 - because they didn't. They built up a slow, steady sales curve thanks to a sensible, reliable product in 1985 that was different from anything GM had to offer.

Irrelevant. And already pointed out:

'80s Accords and Camrys, especially Camrys, are footnotes in the history of the respective models.

I submit to you that, while that may be true in many segments, it's not true here. Let me ask you: of the four vehicles that you claimed revolutionized the segment - which are still in production? Zero.

You chastized them for NOT being redesigned (replaced) in 1986, and now you're chastizing them for being replaced?

Whereas the Accord and Camry are the most popular vehicles in the US.

Today. Irrelevant.

And let's consider some of GM's revolutionary ideas in that segment in the 1980s:

- OHV four-cylinder engines? There isn't a single one on the market. While Honda and Toyota's SOHC and DOHC engines are now being copied in many cases by GM and have otherwise swept the market.

Don't even TRY to claim that every OHC I4 in a midsize sedan since the '80s is the result of the Camry and Accord.

The 1978 Ford Fairmont had a 2.3L SOHC I4 as its base engine.
The 1983 Chrysler E-class/Dodge 600/Plymouth Caravelle ONLY had SOHC I4's.

- The Accord had dual airbags standard in 1992. GM didn't do that until the government forced them to in 1995 - but worse, they didn't even have a driver airbag available until 1993 - and then, it wasn't even standard.

So, in the grand scheme of things, where do the years 1992, 1993 and 1995 fall in the 1980s?

Irrelevant.

- Four-cylinder engines are now used across the board, like Accord and Camry in the 1980s. Every popular model has a four-cylinder available, and the ones that don't are getting cancelled left and right. GM cancelled them in 1993, seeing a nonexistent trend, only to finally bring a four back on the new Malibu, and guess what? It's a DOHC unit, not a pushrod.

GM abandoned I4's in their larger midsized cars in the early '90s, yes. Are the '90s in the '80s? No.

Irrelevant.

- The 3-speed automatic! GM used one until 1993 - another trend they clearly saw. Considering that by the 1996 model year, there were exactly two seperate three-speed automatic transmissions on the market (one in a hatchback and the other in a minivan) and by 1998 they were nonexistent - and all the other midsize competitors copied the four-speed that Honda and Toyota were using by 1987.

The A-bodies had an optional 4-speed automatic beginning in 1984.

(For trivia's sake, Honda made 2-speed automatics ("Hondamatic"; semi-automatic, actually: you had to manually move the shift lever from "L" to "H" to shift into second gear) exclusively, until 1979 when they introduced their first 3-speed. Then again, the fact that automatic transmissions exist at all is due to GM.)

- Antilock brakes were available in the Accord by 1994, and in the Camry by 1992, they're standard linewide now of course whereas they're not standard on a single GM midsize - Buick LaCrosse, Chevrolet Malibu, whatever.

1994 > 1989
1992 > 1989

Irrelevant.

That's just the 1980s.

Actually, a lot of it seems to be the 1990s...

It doesn't mention side airbags, which Honda figured out in 2000 and Toyota in 1998. GM of course doesn't have side airbags on some of their models - the Chevrolet Impala has a driver-only side airbag, as does the Buick Century; only the very newest GM midsizes have anything else and it's all optional whereas it's now standard on Accord. I won't even get down to the 'minor' details like automatic climate control and CD changers, or the current power-crazy midsize market that GM's still leaving out. Oh, and sunroofs, which GM didn't offer and the Japanese did. And the 5-speed automatic!

... and most of that is not even from the same millenium as the 1980s.

Irrelevant.



The summary of this? You're confusing the evolution of the midsized sedan with the evolution of the Accord and Camry (or you believe they're one and the same, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility, since you have conjured your own automotive history). As I had said, the '80s proved to be extremely influential to the development of the Accord and Camry themselves, but not the midsized segment. The '80s renditions of the CamCord laid the groundwork for the popularity they accumulated throughout the 1990s, but was not the groundwork of the modern midsized sedan. If it weren't for cars like the Celebrity/6000/Ciera/Century, the CamCord wouldn't have grown in size at all in the 1980s.

 

[neanderthal]

this is an irrelevant fact, but in 96 the jeep wrangler still had a 3 speed auto.

 

[Firebird]

Actually, the Wrangler didn't ditch the 3-speed until 2003! And the Neon had a 3-speed until 2002.

In the case of the TJ it wasn't really an issue, since over 95% of all Wranglers, TJ and YJ alike, had 5-speed manuals. (Real Jeepers drive sticks ) Equipped with the 3-speed, the Wrangler went from being fun to a downright dog, which is why no one bought them.

The Neon's 3-speed wasn't really all that bad. Having driven a 2001 Chrysler Neon extensively last year, I had no problems with the 3-speed, except for a tendency to hunt through the gears too much (then again, so do Honda's 5-speeds).

 

[MazKid]

Put it this way, what is the ratio of Accords and Camrys from the '80s still on the road compared to GM's midsized cars? I see older Accords and Camrys every day, yet rarely do I see a Pontiac 6000 or much of anything else GM midsize from that time, and Oldsmobiles and buicks don't count because the old people that own them never hit the gas harder than 33.3% and drive them prolly 50 miles a month, the rest of the time they sit in a garage like a bowling participation "trophy" in a glass case.
And your statement about the fact that there was a manual made in low numbers that didn't sell at all just prooves that every single GM midsized car owner can barely handle an auto, let alone a car that you have to shift. Insanity!

Final thought - we still have a 5 speed Alero at Fusz. Why? Because anyone who wants a midsize stick goes with a company who can really build a quality, fun to drive, and reliable 5 speed, E.X., Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru. End of story.

 

[lingenfelter]

GM

check out this ................ GM Stars

 

[MazKid]

Man, that makes me want to puke. Almost as much as that Grand Am "pet store" odor found in all Grand Ams.

 

[Firebird]

Actually Mazkid, it's been years and years since I've seen a Camry or Accord from the '80s. They've all rusted and gone to car heaven.... or hell.... I don't know...

Either way, the ratio of GM midsizes from the '80s is far higher. Here, anyway.

In fact, I saw three 6000s today (and a Merkur Scorpio!). A white LE sedan in pretty good shape, another blue sedan, and a primer gray Safari (Pontiac-speak for wagon) that had seen far better days (rusted, belching exhaust fumes, engine rattling away...).

I won't even get into the number of Centurys (Centuries?) and Cieras I see everyday, but then again they were sold until 1996.

If there's any midsized car from the 80s I see more than anything on a daily basis, it's GM cars. A-bodies and H-bodies, for the most part.

As much as it pains you to hear that, and as much as you will absolutely refuse to believe that, it's the honest truth.



As for the rest of your posts... I haven't anything to say really... Ignorance speaks for itself.



Almost forgot: for future reference, the 5-speed in the Alero was made by Getrag. Yes, the same Getrag that makes manual transmissions for BMW, the same Getrag that made the 6-speed in the Mk. IV Supra, the same Getrag that made the 6-speed for the Nissan Skyline GT-R, the same Getrag that makes the 6-speed for Porsches, the same Getrag that makes the Mini Cooper S's 6-speed... If you have any complaints about the Aleros transmission you can reach Getrag President & CEO Tobias Hagenmeyer at tobias.hagenmeyer@getrag.de .