The General Car Thread - The Facelift.

[Elwher]

Saw an International 100-Series pickup this afternoon.

Nice!

My and my brother ran across a resto moded Studebaker pickup with no badge or logos and were killing ourselves trying to figure out what it was because we didn't know Studebaker made pickups.

I'm not 100% sure I've ever seen an International Pickup in the wild.

I was out for a stroll the other day and saw a Studebaker Hawk that some fool turned into a drag machine.

[Cappuccina]

I saw an old Opel GT yesterday, it was gorgeous!

[Petrolheadia]

Saw an International 100-Series pickup this afternoon.

Nice!

My and my brother ran across a resto moded Studebaker pickup with no badge or logos and were killing ourselves trying to figure out what it was because we didn't know Studebaker made pickups.

I'm not 100% sure I've ever seen an International Pickup in the wild.

I once sat in a Chevy 3100. The lack of interior space was quite sizable and surprising.

[Cannot think of a name]

Nice!

My and my brother ran across a resto moded Studebaker pickup with no badge or logos and were killing ourselves trying to figure out what it was because we didn't know Studebaker made pickups.

I'm not 100% sure I've ever seen an International Pickup in the wild.

I once sat in a Chevy 3100. The lack of interior space was quite sizable and surprising.

My dad had a C10 for a while and I strangely liked it more than I would have thought. Something kind of raw about that old pickup.

[Lamborghini Aventador]

I once sat in a Chevy 3100. The lack of interior space was quite sizable and surprising.

My dad had a C10 for a while and I strangely liked it more than I would have thought. Something kind of raw about that old pickup.

old pickups hold up better than they do today though

[Petrolheadia]

My dad had a C10 for a while and I strangely liked it more than I would have thought. Something kind of raw about that old pickup.

old pickups hold up better than they do today though

New pickups haven't had time to demonstrate that. Survivorship bias and all that jive.

[This nation is my Fa nation]

old pickups hold up better than they do today though

New pickups haven't had time to demonstrate that. Survivorship bias and all that jive.

ok let me go the newer models are early 2000 till 2010 they have had some time

[Cannot think of a name]

old pickups hold up better than they do today though

New pickups haven't had time to demonstrate that. Survivorship bias and all that jive.

The Silverado he bought to replace the C10 brand new ended up looking more used and falling apart in a few short years than the C10 ever did. That was the 80s though. But almost everyone I know with a modern pickup, they all looked busted. But but, selection bias. Most of the people I know with pickups are themselves busted and not buying 'nice' ones.

[Petrolheadia]

New pickups haven't had time to demonstrate that. Survivorship bias and all that jive.

The Silverado he bought to replace the C10 brand new ended up looking more used and falling apart in a few short years than the C10 ever did. That was the 80s though. But almost everyone I know with a modern pickup, they all looked busted. But but, selection bias. Most of the people I know with pickups are themselves busted and not buying 'nice' ones.

Roger Smith/Rob Stempel-era GM, eh?

[NeoOasis]

Because Fiat is spending money on a new 500 (now with a 5-door version) and Panda, guaranteed bestsellers.

Plus, what needs to be done is not cutting out Fiat, but Italian unions, which endanger FCA's profitability in Europe:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-fiatc ... KKCN1NV21F

How did you come to the conclusion that unions need to be cut from that story? That makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. If automakers had a better history of treating their workers, unions wouldn't be required, but alas... unions have sprung up to protect workers from the companies who have a history of exploitation and other bullshit. (looking at you Ford)

[Craby patty]

Because Fiat is spending money on a new 500 (now with a 5-door version) and Panda, guaranteed bestsellers.

Plus, what needs to be done is not cutting out Fiat, but Italian unions, which endanger FCA's profitability in Europe:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-fiatc ... KKCN1NV21F

How did you come to the conclusion that unions need to be cut from that story? That makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. If automakers had a better history of treating their workers, unions wouldn't be required, but alas... unions have sprung up to protect workers from the companies who have a history of exploitation and other bullshit. (looking at you Ford)

fiat panda we don't have that here

[Petrolheadia]

Because Fiat is spending money on a new 500 (now with a 5-door version) and Panda, guaranteed bestsellers.

Plus, what needs to be done is not cutting out Fiat, but Italian unions, which endanger FCA's profitability in Europe:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-fiatc ... KKCN1NV21F

How did you come to the conclusion that unions need to be cut from that story? That makes no sense in the grand scheme of things. If automakers had a better history of treating their workers, unions wouldn't be required, but alas... unions have sprung up to protect workers from the companies who have a history of exploitation and other bullshit. (looking at you Ford)

They're the one pushing Fiat to make cars in expensive, unproductive Italian factories. They have outlived their usefulness and are just weighing Fiat down.

[Saiwania]

Fiat, Chrysler, and Rénault merging- now this is truly a match made in hell. What do these companies all have in common? They all make crappy cars.

The quality control for Nissan vehicles is rumored to have plummeted ever since Rénault took over that company, and Fiat and Chrysler cars are known to suck, dying well before 200,000 miles of use even with regular basic maintenance and thus- being money pits. Fiat even if it has improved, is still "fix it again tony."

Toyota is the largest and most successful auto company in the world, in part because they're said to make fantastic engines that last a long time with good transmissions, so they have quite a strong inventory of good, reliable, and solid cars. Toyota outright made better vehicles and the Detroit brands obviously lost. In terms of longevity, can't go much better than a Camry or Corolla. Not quite sure yet, what the go to Truck is for the least mechanical problems on average- but its probably a Toyota.

[Petrolheadia]

Fiat, Chrysler, and Rénault merging- now this is truly a match made in hell. What do these companies all have in common? They all make crappy cars.

The quality control for Nissan vehicles is rumored to have plummeted ever since Rénault took over that company, and Fiat and Chrysler cars are known to suck, dying well before 200,000 miles of use even with regular basic maintenance and thus- being money pits. Fiat even if it has improved, is still "fix it again tony."

Toyota is the largest and most successful auto company in the world, in part because they're said to make fantastic engines that last a long time with good transmissions, so they have quite a strong inventory of good, reliable, and solid cars. Toyota outright made better vehicles and the Detroit brands obviously lost. In terms of longevity, can't go much better than a Camry or Corolla.

Except that none of those brands are going for longevity. What do you need longevity for anyway when you are buying new and putting average mileages on the car?

Having first-hand contact with a 2007 Corolla, I can say that longevity (and fuel economy) is all that thing has going for it. It's loud, dreary, handles badly, has a slushy transmission, plastics not much better than Chryslers of its days...

[The Two Jerseys]

So yesterday I saw what looked like a Pontiac Fiero with Ferrari-style taillights.

[NeoOasis]

Except that none of those brands are going for longevity. What do you need longevity for anyway when you are buying new and putting average mileages on the car?

Having first-hand contact with a 2007 Corolla, I can say that longevity (and fuel economy) is all that thing has going for it. It's loud, dreary, handles badly, has a slushy transmission, plastics not much better than Chryslers of its days...

Yes. You absolutely need longevity. Who in their right mind spends 30 grand knowing full well they'll have to do it again in a few years or be forced to take a hit on shit used prices. There is a reason Toyota is at the top. People who buy their cars will know those cars will drive on till the end of the world and keep their value doing it. Buy a car, and tell me spending thousands every few years is acceptable. I refuse to play that game.

And I'm gonna call bullshit on a 2007 Corolla being equivalent to Chryslers of the day. Having sat in a late 2000s Chrysler Sebring, it was a place of abject misery and horrifying material qualities. I've sat in a Corolla from that era, and it was vastly better than anything Chrysler could make in that time. And saying that durability and fuel economy are the only good things going for it still vastly outweigh any Chrysler product from that era which had fuck all going for it.

[Cannot think of a name]

So yesterday I saw what looked like a Pontiac Fiero with Ferrari-style taillights.

Doing that Ferrari Fiero kit one part at a time?

[Petrolheadia]

Except that none of those brands are going for longevity. What do you need longevity for anyway when you are buying new and putting average mileages on the car?

Having first-hand contact with a 2007 Corolla, I can say that longevity (and fuel economy) is all that thing has going for it. It's loud, dreary, handles badly, has a slushy transmission, plastics not much better than Chryslers of its days...

Yes. You absolutely need longevity. Who in their right mind spends 30 grand knowing full well they'll have to do it again in a few years or be forced to take a hit on shit used prices. There is a reason Toyota is at the top. People who buy their cars will know those cars will drive on till the end of the world and keep their value doing it. Buy a car, and tell me spending thousands every few years is acceptable. I refuse to play that game.

And I'm gonna call bullshit on a 2007 Corolla being equivalent to Chryslers of the day. Having sat in a late 2000s Chrysler Sebring, it was a place of abject misery and horrifying material qualities. I've sat in a Corolla from that era, and it was vastly better than anything Chrysler could make in that time. And saying that durability and fuel economy are the only good things going for it still vastly outweigh any Chrysler product from that era which had fuck all going for it.

Chrysler products had the price. And if you're not going to have a car for long, why get one that would last long?

[Elwher]

Yes. You absolutely need longevity. Who in their right mind spends 30 grand knowing full well they'll have to do it again in a few years or be forced to take a hit on shit used prices. There is a reason Toyota is at the top. People who buy their cars will know those cars will drive on till the end of the world and keep their value doing it. Buy a car, and tell me spending thousands every few years is acceptable. I refuse to play that game.

And I'm gonna call bullshit on a 2007 Corolla being equivalent to Chryslers of the day. Having sat in a late 2000s Chrysler Sebring, it was a place of abject misery and horrifying material qualities. I've sat in a Corolla from that era, and it was vastly better than anything Chrysler could make in that time. And saying that durability and fuel economy are the only good things going for it still vastly outweigh any Chrysler product from that era which had fuck all going for it.

Chrysler products had the price. And if you're not going to have a car for long, why get one that would last long?

Because if you are not going to have it long, you probably plan on selling it. One that last long will have a better resale value.

[Petrolheadia]

Chrysler products had the price. And if you're not going to have a car for long, why get one that would last long?

Because if you are not going to have it long, you probably plan on selling it. One that last long will have a better resale value.

It has to be quite a fair share better to offset the difference in MSRP, and cheaper cars often depreciate slower (e.g. Dacia in Europe).

[This nation is my Fa nation]

So yesterday I saw what looked like a Pontiac Fiero with Ferrari-style taillights.

yep the made kits for them to look like a Ferrari

[Oyada]

Interesting discussion. I drive a PT Cruiser (2002). My parents own a 2005 Toyota Avensis. I certainly can't say there's any great difference in comfort, ride quality, or overall performance (though the Avensis' engine's higher compression ratio does afford it a better P:W and slightly better fuel consumption). The Chrysler's suspension's a little softer, the Toyota's legroom a little more generous (especially in rear). The Chrysler is incomparably more characterful and, IMO, better-looking, not to mention a tad more versatile with its big tailgate.

However, while I do love my PT dearly, there's no denying the difference in build quality (and possibly in replacement part quality as well). Aside from consumables (timing belt, tyres and brakes), the PT (with 94,111 miles) has so far gone through, from memory: A pair of rear shock absorbers, a lower torque strut, two pairs of track rod end balljoints, a lower control arm/wishbone, and a wheel bearing. At present, it requires a new exhaust pipe, a new upper torque strut bracket (an expensive job), and a new windscreen; as of last night, it's begun to make an occasional knock at the offside front wheel, which is probably the other wishbone balljoint giving way. It's also had both rear sills welded as a result of rust. I've also had to have the front wheels balanced four times, and the tracking fixed twice - though that's more due to potoled rural roads.

The Avensis (99,719 miles), by comparison, has just had routine servicing. The last major expense my parents had was replacing the tyres.

That said, I think anyone who buys a new car is certifiable or seriously overendowed with surplus cash. Cars depreciate staggeringly fast, to the point where a nearly-new car from a year ago is half the price of a new one. Why, therefore, would anyone in their right mind pay double the cost of a nearly equivalent vehicle, just for the smell of off-gassing plastics and bragging rights?

[Vassenor]

So yesterday I saw what looked like a Pontiac Fiero with Ferrari-style taillights.

yep the made kits for them to look like a Ferrari

Yeah, Fieros and Mk2 MR2s tend to be common bases for 355 conversions and the like.

[Petrolheadia]

Interesting discussion. I drive a PT Cruiser (2002). My parents own a 2005 Toyota Avensis. I certainly can't say there's any great difference in comfort, ride quality, or overall performance (though the Avensis' engine's higher compression ratio does afford it a better P:W and slightly better fuel consumption). The Chrysler's suspension's a little softer, the Toyota's legroom a little more generous (especially in rear). The Chrysler is incomparably more characterful and, IMO, better-looking, not to mention a tad more versatile with its big tailgate.

However, while I do love my PT dearly, there's no denying the difference in build quality (and possibly in replacement part quality as well). Aside from consumables (timing belt, tyres and brakes), the PT (with 94,111 miles) has so far gone through, from memory: A pair of rear shock absorbers, a lower torque strut, two pairs of track rod end balljoints, a lower control arm/wishbone, and a wheel bearing. At present, it requires a new exhaust pipe, a new upper torque strut bracket (an expensive job), and a new windscreen; as of last night, it's begun to make an occasional knock at the offside front wheel, which is probably the other wishbone balljoint giving way. It's also had both rear sills welded as a result of rust. I've also had to have the front wheels balanced four times, and the tracking fixed twice - though that's more due to potoled rural roads.

The Avensis (99,719 miles), by comparison, has just had routine servicing. The last major expense my parents had was replacing the tyres.

That said, I think anyone who buys a new car is certifiable or seriously overendowed with surplus cash. Cars depreciate staggeringly fast, to the point where a nearly-new car from a year ago is half the price of a new one. Why, therefore, would anyone in their right mind pay double the cost of a nearly equivalent vehicle, just for the smell of off-gassing plastics and bragging rights?

Well, late 90s/early 00s Chrysler was the pinnacle of cost-cutting. Their R&D spending was 2.8%, compared to Ford's 6% and GM's 8%.

Chrysler would have failed even without Daimler. The cost-cutting culture ended up going too far to bring actual benefit to customers.

[Oyada]

The impression I get is that Chrysler has never really recovered from the Lynn Townsend era; that period seems to me to have squandered Chrysler's reputational advantages - innovation, clever design, and above-average build quality (notwithstanding the variable quality of all cars during the 1950s and 60s). Sure, the company's share price did all right, and the wages were good; but the cars became ropier by the year, the sales volume fell and fell, and eventually the company adopted a policy of storing them up and effectively counting unsold cars as "bound to be sold soon, ergo sold". By the time John Riccardo found himself in command of the ship (and made the bold choice to Americanise the SIMCA/Talbot Horizon as the Plymouth Horizon/Dodge Omni), Chrysler was in appalling financial shape, without the money to do anything more than roll the dice, hope the European-derived machines kept the lights on, and beg the US government for money. Iacocca's persuasive powers, and the fundamentally good qualities of the K-cars, then managed to pump the company out and stop it from foundering.

Thing was, by then Chrysler's old reputation from the 1950s and 1960s meant nothing; the company was trading on being fairly inexpensive, having some interesting divisional cars (e.g. the Viper) and taking advantage of the minivan and SUV booms. It did well out of that, but funamentally, it didn't have enough money to keep up sustained investment in keeping its vehicles up-to-date and keeping build quality high. The PT Cruiser is a case in point, receiving one mid-life facelift and some significant, but not really fresh, mechanical changes, before dying in 2010, and suffering a reputation for variable build quality and fragility of parts that bigger investments would have cured (and which was shared by the Sebring). Underinvestment meant underimprovement, and in the end the public began to go elsewhere. It didn't help that Chrysler execs also tended to spaff money on the trappings of high office.