Do any of the carmakers look back at their roots?

novaderrik wrote: in the case of Mitsubishi- their product lineup changed right along with the people that bought their cars in the 90's. what was the ideal vehicle for someone in their mid 20's back in the 90's is no longer the ideal vehicle for that same person in their late 30's today...

Not in all cases.

The 3000GT was a mid-life crisis cars for people here in the US, just like the Supra and FD Rx-7. It was in no way an affordable car and I remember seeing older people driving these cars back in the 90's.

The Eclipse GST/GSX was borderline midlife crisis and young persons car. It was high enough in price that it could deter younger buyers if they didn't have the money. Once again, most people who owned these cars straight off the lot new were older people.

It is my belief that SAAB is starting to move back in to their past from the GM beast that it became.

Still really hoping for an entry level that will be in the WRC with the MINI.

As far as the Subaru comment,

I like the direction they are going. Their cars now look like they were made in this century. I like old Sub's but they needed updating bad. They are now somewhat stylish, Baja and Tribeca excluded, safe and have a unique feel.

The downside is the motor. I don't believe they can continue for much longer with out getting more out of the boxer. Maybe DI across the line. They need to increase the fuel economy. When a Mustang V6 w track pack car turn a similar skid pad, comes within half a second 0-60 and does it for over $10K less than your flagship car. You have a problem.

Come on Sub, we know you follow the boards, bring us a 30+ MPG STI with 400 RELIABLE H.P. (needed to say that after the piston and head gasket debacle>) for less than $35K

Oh yeah, I forgot on thing else about the new Sub's. If you are over 6 ft you can fit now.

HiTempguy wrote:

Otto_Maddox wrote: I like the 1000 lbs of safety crap on my daily driver. I wouldn't settle for less in a family car.

I feel anger rising. I'd like to use you as an example of all that is wrong with the world.

Yeap. I'll bet he has a Camry, too.

Had I a wife and kids, they'd be in a Camry or Accord. With every available safety option checked off on the spec sheet.

This "better idiot" nonsense holds no water with me. I don't drive faster because I know the car I'm in has airbags or traction control and neither does anyone else I know. Idiot drivers will always be idiot drivers regardless of the features on their car.

Furthermore, if one of those idiot drivers were to run a red light/lose control due to being drunk/any number of unpredictable incidents outside of my control and slam into my family, I'd want them protected.

pinchvalve wrote: Turbos, AWD, Lotus Handling....these guys were on the right track.

A checklist does not a good car make.

For example, what has a 400hp turbocharged engine, a 6-speed trans, drives all four wheels, and can be had for under $45k?

An F-250.

The nicest thing I can say about Isuzu is that they don't make cars anymore.

I also have a giant loathing of Mitsubishi. They do things... odd. Like, they still control everything with vacuum solenoids (okay, GM stopped doing that about 20 years ago) and they have THE MOST asinine timing belt layout ever.

I often wish they would pull old tooling out of the shed and start making cars at a fraction of the cost.

2011 89 Si for $6000 otd anyone?

Where are you getting "a fraction of the cost"? The only place they would save cost is not having to design it. Tooling has a finite life, and would need to be replaced or repaired after a certain number of parts are made. I'm betting that a lot of mothballed tools are very close to, or past their specificied tolerances.

Factory floorspace prices haven't remained at 1989 prices. Taxes have gone up, utilities have gone up, etc. Material prices have gone up, employee wages and benefits have gone up, shipping costs are more expensive.

Adjusting for reality, your $6000 1989 Civic is now a $25,000 1989 Civic.

Bob

I like the idea of 1000lbs. of safety in a family car filled with family. But I don't have a family yet, so I want the option to excise the bloat. I drive a car with first generation ABS and two airbags. Its served me well.

Cotton wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: It's too late now, but Pontiac should have done it. They went from being the #3 car maker in the 1960s behind Chevy and Ford, to selling Azteks.

G8, GTO, Solstice all came after the Aztec.

too little too late, would have loved to see the G8T as well, but it should have been called EL CAMINO!

I don't like the new jeep danglers cause they took the only thing I can think of with real fenders away.

Joey

In reply to pinchvalve:

Yah, whatever happened to Isuzu? In the 80's they had the I-Mark and the Impulse Turbo and they were mega-cool. Then they started selling Troopers and Rodeos and--good grief, can you believe THIS name--Ascenders (Ass-Ender?). Undoubtedly one of the most poorly conceived automotive monikers EVER.

Always a niche player, but went from hero to zero in what? Two years?

1988RedT2 wrote: In reply to pinchvalve: Yah, whatever happened to Isuzu? In the 80's they had the I-Mark and the Impulse Turbo and they were mega-cool. Then they started selling Troopers and Rodeos and--good grief, can you believe THIS name--Ascenders (Ass-Ender?). Undoubtedly one of the most poorly conceived automotive monikers EVER. Always a niche player, but went from hero to zero in what? Two years?

Joe Isuzu retired and sales hit the floor...

I actually think you hit it on the head...niche player making some niche vehicles. They tried getting mainstream vehicles, but they were just rebadged models and never caught on. I think up until this year, they were still selling rebadged small Chevy pick ups.

Cotton wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: It's too late now, but Pontiac should have done it. They went from being the #3 car maker in the 1960s behind Chevy and Ford, to selling Azteks.

G8, GTO, Solstice all came after the Aztec.

unfortunately these good cars also came about 3 years after everyone but the fleet purchasers moved on to other brands.....

The 3000GT was a mid-life crisis cars for people here in the US, just like the Supra and FD Rx-7. It was in no way an affordable car and I remember seeing older people driving these cars back in the 90's. The Eclipse GST/GSX was borderline midlife crisis and young persons car. It was high enough in price that it could deter younger buyers if they didn't have the money. Once again, most people who owned these cars straight off the lot new were older people.

THANK YOU. People who pine for these 'glory days' do seem to forget how much a dang 3000 or supra or RX were costing by then in the US, and not nearly worth the price.

As luxury cars they weren't luxurious enough, and as sports cars, Chevy and Ford were finally into full swing with GT and SS new generation engines which were so much cheaper.

most of the listed rides started in the 60s all the way up to the 100s.

Current car tech is awesome, imo. An STI costs around $35k currently, and chews up/spits out nearly everything from the 90s in the aforementioned high performance 2 door classes.

Even the previous generation STI/EVO in the last part of the 90s shamed those vehicles for their low cost-to-performance ratios. And I'm not talking about tuning potential, just stock costs and stock performances.

Ranger50 wrote:

Klayfish wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

Otto_Maddox wrote: I like the 1000 lbs of safety crap on my daily driver. I wouldn't settle for less in a family car.

I feel anger rising. I'd like to use you as an example of all that is wrong with the world.

By the way HiTemp, Hate to rise your anger more... but to a big degree, I'm with Otto. I've got a wife and 3 young children. I haul them around in my 2+ ton minivan with 8 airbags and safety gizmos galore, and I'm happy to do it. But when I drive to work, I'm in my Miata having a blast.

I believe what HTG is getting at is the old axiom "If you build something "idiotproof", you are just building a better idiot." You can apply roughly the same exact thing to safety. Vehicles have got to a point where the driver is so isolated from actually driving, you need the safety to save themselves from themselves. Brian

Insert Mercedes commercial where old timers are talking about how Mercedes technology saved their lives while they were A) Sleeping at the wheel B) reading the newspaper C) Trying to text their grandchildren back or D) couldn't see through their massive sunglasses that go over their reading glasses

Given what I know from working as a Tier 1 supplier I WOULD NOT put my wife or children in the following vehicles.

Toyota Anything (For the record I had this opinion before the current very public issues) Kia before 2008 Hyundai before 2008 BMW X5&X6 Mitsubishi anything Chrysler PT Cruiser/Neon Chevy Cobalt (Thinking of recent cars only here.)

For my money I would put my family in any Subaru in the last 10 years. They are tough tough vehicles.

To prove it my old Forester was in an altercation with a Toyota Corolla. He ran a stop sign and I struck him in the side.

Toyota >$8000 in repairs. Subaru $2000. I drove off, he got towed.

And do American Muscle cars really need Sat/Nav? , heated seats, sound deadening, and 20+inch wheels?

Porsche....about to have 2 Suvs and one wagon (which is still badass but...)...that's enough said right there.

Mercedes--Yes, they have high HP cars, but all weigh way to much, do they even produce a manual anymore? What happened to their production based racing efforts besides DTM?

American car companies--have pretty much all lost their identities with the exception of a few cars from each company. What happened to bold styling, solid build quality, and rwd?

VW has taken a baby step back to their roots with what they are doing to the Jetta. I know most people don't like it but they started with the Bug which was a car for the masses. The base Jetta is an affordable means of transportation for almost all income classes. Maintenance costs maybe a different story.

DirtyBird222 wrote: VW has taken a baby step back to their roots with what they are doing to the Jetta. I know most people don't like it but they started with the Bug which was a car for the masses. The base Jetta is an affordable means of transportation for almost all income classes. Maintenance and repair costs will be triple the national debt.

Fixed that for you.

DirtyBird222 wrote: And do American Muscle cars really need Sat/Nav? , heated seats, sound deadening, and 20+inch wheels?

From listening to some people at a motorsports event in the Michigan area... the design and marketing people wanted 20s on the Camaro. The suspension engineers had to make a lot of compromises to make 20s ride well, namely seriously gooshy bushings everywhere. BUT IT HAS TO HAVE 20S OR PEOPLE WILL BUY MUSTANGS OMG

Last laugh: The Mustangs that handle better and are faster.

My question: Do Camaros have to be muscle cars, as opposed to pony cars? It's on the RWD fullsize chassis, I think. I drove a 2010 6.2l (put headers on it, before its first oil change ) and thought, my god, this is a GTO but somehow larger. Same interior layout and everything but it feels even larger.

They have this wonderful RWD chassis that they don't sell here anymore because Saturn and Pontiac are gone. Why couldn't a roof and Camaro badges have been put on that, instead?

In reply to Knurled:

Because GM is a crappy company. The exchange rate, customs, and freight also killed them.

Rule #1 the closer the better.

Rule #2 if further away, you better be able to do without it or is MUST BE CHEAPER AND HIGHER QUALITY.

Just In Time (JIT) is the only way car companies can be profitable with the large quantities they have to buy to get the discounts they do. Having a car on a shipping container for 5 weeks doesn't help.

Then they need to ship in some Aussies and retrofit a plant here to build those things in the US of A.