GM's TRUE 'Golden Age'....an opinion

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: Duffman77

But that was always GM's and strength (Styling). From the 50s Chrysler was always the Engineering leader with styling that trailed GM & Ford by a few years and factory squeaks and rattles as standard equipment. Ford had a combination of styling and fit and finish but lagged the other two in chassis and engine.


Chrysler's styling IMO passed the other two in the 1990s. Caravan vs dustbuster/ astro/ aerostar? No contest. Big Rig Ram? LH cars? Everyone was looking at Taurus/Sables until LH came along and were the new aero freaks on the block. Then the mini bentley original (or 2nd gen?) 300 and decent redesign.


Maybe past 1995 for styling but its very much like it or hate it styleing. The cab forward concept was more engineering than styling IMO.

 

[johnachak]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Trying to be careful with what i say, but the uaw has pushed away many gm/ford loyal customers, myself included.

I still miss my 76 buick regal 2 door.


Believe me, all us loyal Gm owners miss you. The 96 Regal was a much better car than the 76. I've had both.

 

[johnachak]

Originally Posted By: NHGUY
ooEven humble AMC with their unibody designs built a far more solid car.Hudson was NASCAR champ with their straight 6 Hornet,and Plymouth did well with a flathead 6.Not even having standard oil filters,showed how cut rate cheap they were.Had it not been for people getting sucked into GMs price ladder of brands (Chevy,Pontiac,Olds,Buick,Cadillac),I believe Ford or Plymouth would have put the hurt on sales leader Chevrolet.


I beg to differ. AMC's cars were like tin cans compared to GM's cars excluding their cheapest models. If you believe Ford or Plymouth would have put a hurting on GM, why didn't they?

 

[johnachak]

[/quote]
I don't know if this is typical ,but a friend of mine has a 08 Ram 1500 Hemi that tows almost every day of its life.
On the wknds its his 7k boat ,and during the week its his enclosed work trailer weighing between 3k and 4k depending on what he is carrying.
He's a little over 100k with no engine or trans issues.
His rear diff started whining around 90k ,and they replaced it free under the lifetime warranty.

It was towing pretty much right off of the dealer lot so improper break in may have contributed to the axle issue.

No unusual ticking so far. [/quote]
But if it starts ticking he'd immediately trade it for a Hyundai or Other Foreign truck, right?

 

[johnachak]

I'm curious, what did you expect from a 1955 model car? Twin turbos and computer controlled ignition? How abour GPS?

 

[johnachak]

I disagree 100%

 

[johnachak]

Originally Posted By: daves87rs

I guess they're not perfect like the other manufacturers.

 

[johnachak]

Originally Posted By: spasm3
Trying to be careful with what i say, but the uaw has pushed away many gm/ford loyal customers, myself included.

I still miss my 76 buick regal 2 door.


Why, because they need salaries and benefits needed to pay the USA; income taxes, real estate and school taxes as well as medical insurance? I am NOT a union member and I am a retired manager. I just know what it cost to live in this country. I would rather a well paid and well trained person assemble my vehicle than a low paid 3 rd world beaten down person.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: johnachak
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Trying to be careful with what i say, but the uaw has pushed away many gm/ford loyal customers, myself included.

I still miss my 76 buick regal 2 door.


Why, because they need salaries and benefits needed to pay the USA; income taxes, real estate and school taxes as well as medical insurance? I am NOT a union member and I am a retired manager. I just know what it cost to live in this country. I would rather a well paid and well trained person assemble my vehicle than a low paid 3 rd world beaten down person.



I feel the same way. That foreign automakers could come in and get American's to work non-unionized for in some cases half the previous rate and no benefits and at temporary employment, meanwhile charging as much and more for their cars, pushed me away from them.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: mpvue
Originally Posted By: morris
do you really an other 1955 small block chevy WITH OUT a full flow filter, that vapor locks in the summer, and uses spark plugs as fast as you can put them in. please take your rose colored glasses OFF. but remember i can blast my chryslers better than you can.

only the '55 265ci SBC didnt have an oil filter. starting in '56 they did. the SBC had a fantastic oiling system, the whole engine was a wonderful design that lasted for many decades.



Well, the design was great, but it had some infancy hiccups.
The early Chevy had problems with rings seating properly and sometimes they just never quite seated at all. I'm not sure that GM actually told their Chevy mechanics to put Bon-Ami down the carburetor to scuff up the rings and cylinder walls, but I know a lot of Chevy mechanics of that era who did it. The 55 and 56 Chevy small block had a bad enough reputation that in 1957, Ford cars actually outsold the 1957 Chevy.
Chevy eventually got their act together.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: johnachak
Originally Posted By: NHGUY
ooEven humble AMC with their unibody designs built a far more solid car.Hudson was NASCAR champ with their straight 6 Hornet,and Plymouth did well with a flathead 6.Not even having standard oil filters,showed how cut rate cheap they were.Had it not been for people getting sucked into GMs price ladder of brands (Chevy,Pontiac,Olds,Buick,Cadillac),I believe Ford or Plymouth would have put the hurt on sales leader Chevrolet.


I beg to differ. AMC's cars were like tin cans compared to GM's cars excluding their cheapest models. If you believe Ford or Plymouth would have put a hurting on GM, why didn't they?


I don't get the tin can statement. The gauge of steel used was consistant with GM products. Perhaps it's the styling you are referring to. George Romney didn't want to get into the styling war with the other makers restyling their cars on a yearly basis.

AMC beat Lincoln and Cadillac to offer standard air conditioning. They also led the way in the tandem brake master cylinder and the standardized PRNDL automatic selector pattern.

They were WAY ahead of the curve in the desire to make a fuel efficient compact. Almost two decades ahead of time on that plan. Unfortunately, they seem to have lost that plan by the time that the '73 gas crisis came around. What did they have? The Gremlin.

Rambler is both panned and loved for still using a flathead 6 as late as '65. My personal feeling is that it is incredibly cool but I understand why many would criticize it. To me personally, they lost their way right about the time the Rambler nameplate disappeared. They were done when they became an inlet to Renault to sell in the US. Pretty much dead and being propped up by Jeep by the time Chrysler acquired them. But for awhile, AMC Rambler was innovative and unique.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: johnachak
I'm curious, what did you expect from a 1955 model car? Twin turbos and computer controlled ignition? How abour GPS?

you could get fuel injection in '57.

 

[Kruse]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: johnachak
I'm curious, what did you expect from a 1955 model car? Twin turbos and computer controlled ignition? How abour GPS?

you could get fuel injection in '57.


I'm going by memory here....but wasn't there a higher horsepower rating with a carb verses fuel injection? Also, very few techs were trained to work on fuel injection.

 

[Spazdog]

The mechanical fuel injection 283 was 1 hp per cu in. I don't think the carb'd version did that.

 

[johnachak]

The Matador and the Javelin felt very light and it seemed that everything vibrated over bumps. It could be that the ones I was in were pretty beaten up. That's what I remember. My Mom did have a 69 Rambler American that actually held up very well till we sold it in 72 and for a few years after that with the 2nd owner till we moved. We eventually lost track. There was nothing in it to break though. Manual everything, in fact no radio even. We kept a transistor radio in the car. I had a 74 Gremlin. It ran but I had to keep replacing Brakes every year and It kept fouling plugs. It did have a radio though.

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The mechanical fuel injection 283 was 1 hp per cu in. I don't think the carb'd version did that.


1957 283s
185 hp 2V
220 hp 4V
245 hp 2x4V
250 hp FI
270 hp 2x4V
283 hp FI

 

[Propflux01]

Originally Posted By: johnachak

Why, because they need salaries and benefits needed to pay the USA; income taxes, real estate and school taxes as well as medical insurance? I am NOT a union member and I am a retired manager. I just know what it cost to live in this country. I would rather a well paid and well trained person assemble my vehicle than a low paid 3 rd world beaten down person.


There are much more than just union places that pay those salaries and bennies you speak of. But Spasm3 is right on many levels. And I think Everyone on here has seen the result of some of those "well paid, well trained" assembly people.... This coming from a former hard core GM person, who, after owning 2 of GM's finest Union-made lemons, will never own one again.

Oh, and BTW, Hyundai does not make trucks...

 

[mechtech2]

addguy -
You want to hear how this is so wrong? First, who cares how GM does business wise? Or in a similar vein, who cares how much any dictatorship accrues? Their net justifies nothing.
And you actually think it right to make average and below average quality stuff that is inefficient? Just as long as there are a lot of them??
Nonsense.

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: johnachak
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Trying to be careful with what i say, but the uaw has pushed away many gm/ford loyal customers, myself included.

I still miss my 76 buick regal 2 door.


Why, because they need salaries and benefits needed to pay the USA; income taxes, real estate and school taxes as well as medical insurance? I am NOT a union member and I am a retired manager. I just know what it cost to live in this country. I would rather a well paid and well trained person assemble my vehicle than a low paid 3 rd world beaten down person.



I feel the same way. That foreign automakers could come in and get American's to work non-unionized for in some cases half the previous rate and no benefits and at temporary employment, meanwhile charging as much and more for their cars, pushed me away from them.

I didn't mid other companies coming to the USA and paying less, because plenty of people have to work harder and get less for their work.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
addguy -
You want to hear how this is so wrong? First, who cares how GM does business wise? Or in a similar vein, who cares how much any dictatorship accrues? Their net justifies nothing.
And you actually think it right to make average and below average quality stuff that is inefficient? Just as long as there are a lot of them??
Nonsense.


GM wasn't completely hopeless in the '70s. They did manage to trim 700lbs off of the B-body cars. Made them smaller and more nimble while simultaneously increasing interior space and trunk volume. The full-size '77 Impala was actually lighter than the mid-size '77 Malibu.
At the end of the '70s, the A-body got downsized in a similar fashion. They remain immensely popular cars to this day. I don't know that they were really any better than the Fox unibody Ford Fairmont, but there must be something about them.
The Z/28 took a couple of years off, but at least it had a V8. The Mustang Mach1 was a 2.8 in 1974. The Cobra was a sticker package on the 140 hp MustangII. The Plymouth Roadrunner was a sticker package on the Volaré. The Challenger was a Mitsubishi.

But the '70s was not a time for 10-15 mpg fullsize sedans and sporty coupes. It was a time of energy crises, layoffs and economic uncertainty. (deja vu) In affordable and efficient small cars, GM was a failure. They had the resources to compete with Volkswagen and the Japanese. They just chose to not do it. They chose to phone it in. Gave the segment away. Within a few years they would pay for that miscue. Honda would bring Acura in and Toyota would bring Lexus. Cadillac would lose it's place. Accord and Camry would battle for sales supremacy. Oldsmobile would be euthanized.