Bring back the pretty cars

Edwin,

The HHR would look a lot nicer, in my humble opinion, if it had
chrome bumpers to make it look more like the '49 GMC pickup the front
end design is based on (first time I saw an HHR I said to myself :hey,
Uncle George's old pickup lives on ) My uncle George had a '49 GMC
when I was a kid - loved that old truck. Remeber the old "step-on"
starter where your foot was actually the starter solenoid?

AMEN on the 300 - and the chopped off greenhouse of nearly all the new
Chrysler stuff leaves me cold - reminds me of a chopped and channeled
'49 Mercury. My all-time favorite Chrysler is the 68-72 Dodge Dart
hardtops and convertibles - I'd KILL for a '69 Dart GTS (but I want it
with a 340, not a big block). If Chrysler want to go retor, why not
make a 300 that looks like a '55 Chrysler 300? Of course too I have
fond memories of the '67 Hemi Coronet hardtop we had for a driver's
training car my senior year of high school (no joke - that was one
scary car when you pushed that "loud" pedal a bit too much).

Pontiac has some OK looking cars but they are getting tired

Yep - why not let Pontiac import the entire Holden line and sell it?
Hate to say it, but the Aussies are kicking our butts in style.

Boxy is not necessarily bad - example: GM "C" body '85 to '90. The
Olds had a really classy look to it, and the squarish greenhouse made
it easy for even 6 foot tall folks to easily get in and out of the
back seat. I'd buy another one (had an '87 Olds 98 Touring Sedan) in a
New York minute.

Remember, as the baby boomers like me get older we're looking for
style WITH a sense of practicality. Take a look at the number of older
folks that have bought Scions or Elements - why? Because those
"breadbox on wheels" are so damn easy to get into and out of for
someone with a bad back and/or arthritis - nearly as easy as a minivan
without the extra size, weight and operating expense.

It is all fine and good to cater to the 20-something crowd, but the
baby boomer generation is still a sizable number of car buyers AND,
for the most part, they have more $$ than the 20-somethings do.

OH BARF

, as are some of the

Yep Ferraris should be either red or black; to me anyway, Corvettes
look best in black, white (like the original '53s) or that dark blue
they used in the mid 90s.

I'd like to see GM bring back the maroon they used on the larger
Buicks and Oldsmobiles in the late 80s - that '87 Olds 98 I had was in
that color and I really liked it.

For a bad paint color, remember the "champagne" color GM used in the
mid 80s? My old boss had an 85 Monte Carlo in that color and I though
it sucked. On the other hand, I saw a really great car driving home
yesterday - a 63 Thunderbird hardtop in that kinda salmon color
(original CA car with original issue plates, and the car I'd guess is
a totally unrestored original based on the age of the driver {an older
lady I'd suspect to be in her late 70s).

Style is such a subjective things, and our tastes change as time goes
on. I remember when the '80 Seville was introduced - I thought Bill
Mitchell had gone and done crack before he designed it! But as time
goes on that design has kinda grown on me. On the other hand, all
these plastic "Taraus clone" designs (like the Neon) of today I think
suck and will just get "suckier" as time goes on.

Regards,
Bill Bowen
Sacramento, CA

P.S. A retro idea for GM - take the Holden Caprice chassis (modern
version of the US "B" body of the mid-late 90s) and put a modern re-do
of the '55-57 Nomad body on it. But it HAS to have chrome bumpers -
none of this plastic crap. Idea for Chrysler - modern version of the
'69 Dart GTS with a new Hemi under the hood - AND make it a
convertible as well as a hardtop.

 

AMEN on all three points. Ed Cole and his team designed a great engine
with the Chevy small-block that the 4.3 is derived from, and the folks
at Buick did a real winner with the 90-degree V-6. I've owned 3 cars
with them (an old Buick with an old odd-fire version, an '87 Olds with
the first FI/DIS design and a '94 Regal with a Series I 3800) and they
have all been great engines. Even owned an Olds with the 300 CID V-8,
which is basically a Buick 90-degree V-6 with 2 added cylinders..

I agree - take a look at the AMC/Jeep I-6 as an example. Basic block
used from 1964, with new heads etc. the 4L version produces 200 HP,
runs very smoothly and is reliable as a large rock. Another example is
the DOHC I-6 in the S/T GM trucks - that engine is a bit
over-complicated for my tastes (as is the NorthStar V-8) but it is a
very smooth engine and produces gobs of HP. The I-6 has a natural
balance. Also too, let's not foget all the great BMW, Mercedes and Jag
I-6s over the years..

Regards,
Bill Bowen
Sacramento, CA

 

Some O wrote:

Well, there's also the fact that GM's 90-degree v6 (the Buick 3800) is
widely regarded as one of the best v6 engines made, while MANY of their
60-degree v6s (the 2.8, 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5L v6s for example) are
trouble-prone pieces of junk.

I agree that, philosophically, a 60-degree v6 is better than a
90-degree. But in GM's case reality hasn't followed philosophy. Ever
since manufacturers figured out how to make good, strong, balanced
offset-throw cranks, bank angle doesn't mean nearly as much as it used to.

 

The HHR started out looking more dated to me. Ironic, since both were
designed by the same guy.

 

Not at all. The current Chrysler 3.5L will easily run longer than a
Chevy v6 (and without dumping coolant in the oil past a warped manifold
like the Chevy does). Also, the current 3.3 and 3.8L pushrod v6 engines
are incredibly durable, as is the OHC 4.7L v8. The 5.7 and 6.1 are too
new for any real long-term numbers yet, but they're turning in very low
initial failure rates (and no Chevy piston slap either). About the only
dogs in the Chrysler garage for the past 60 years were the
just-went-out-of-production 2.0/2.4L 4-banger (head gasket problems,
interference engine), and the 2.7L v6 (oil cooking problems in the
pre-2000 model year versions).

 

Buick had to limit power output in the early '50s "Fireballs" to
prevent broken crankshafts. Thickening the crankshaft would've
lowered RPMs. It was the best argument to switch to 322" V8s in '53
to stay competitive, as Olds began eating away at Buick sales after
the '49 Rocket debuted. The Oakland/Pontiac 8, another holdover from
the late '20s, not only had the harmonic vibration/torsional twist
problem, but had a soft, sagging block as well. How that lasted until
'54 and still sold is a mystery to me. It even made a Chevy 6 look
good. The only saving grace Pontiac Division had back then was that
they used HydraMatic instead of Chevy's miserable PowerSlide. Pete
Estes would change that with the 287 in '55, setting the stage for De
Lorean's GTO in '64.

The Chevy 60° V6 (2.8, 3.1) was one tough little engine, although none
too clean nor efficient in carbureted form. I've seen many 2.8s go
250K miles without major service. The 90° V6, a rehash of the
odd-firing Buicks of 1961, has long had crankshaft problems since they
tried that "offset journal" trick in the early '80s, but they hold
onto it nonetheless. Many parts on today's 3800 and variants are
directly interchangeable with what you'd find on a 1961 Buick Special
or Olds F85. The English also got a lot of miles out of the Buick 215
aluminum V8, sold to Land Rover in the mid-'60s. GM management dumped
it after refusing to invest money into improving their aluminum
casting processes, a decision that would bite GM in the ass once again
once the Japanese started invading the market.

People bought and liked the "Blue Flame" for only one
reason...cheapness. Cheap to buy, cheap to fix...which they had to do
a lot. Stories used to abound about hayseeds using a strip of belt
leather to replace a worn out bearing shells, and so on...a true
"goober's engine," just like the Cole V8 that came in '55, another
piece of crap GM held onto far too long.

Smart pickup buyers from 1946 onward that wanted a GM vehicle were
wise to buy a GMC instead...FAR better engines, and very long lived.
GM management basically destroyed the independent GMC light truck line
in 1963, mandating that more Chevy components be used. By '68, the
massive GMC V6 truck engine was also gone gone from pickups, and gone
from medium duty lines in '73. GM brass felt it was too expensive to
produce. A 305D or E V6 had more AMA torque than a Chevy 327, a fact
that most buyers overlooked....to GM's glee. A GMC dealer told me
back then that GM could knock out three Chevy V8s for the cost of one
GMC V6. Thus the change, and an indictment of Chevrolet engines.

Prior to '63, about the only thing that was the same between GMCs and
Chevies were the body panels and basic frame rails. 1963 was the year
that GM started becoming bold around cheapening their product, and
they went headlong into that with their "less car for more money"
campaign starting in 1971. By the time Chrysler got their styling act
together circa 1964 after reining in the excesses of Virgil Exner,
Chrysler was producing far better cars than GM across the entire line.
So was Ford, for that matter. By '64, people were buying GM cars
mostly based on blind brand loyalty rather than quality of product.

 

The 4.3 is the sawn off V6. The little V6, the 2.8 and 3.1, were
quite long lived. The 4.3 had the same problems of the small block
V8. However, by the time the 4.3 debuted, GM had finally invested
money in fixing the notorious bad cam oiling and toughness problems,
as well as some of the problems caused by a too light block casting.
It only took GM 30 years to get the bugs out of the small block Chevy.

Not true. The As and LAs were vastly superior in longevity to any
Chevrolet engine, excepting maybe the 2.8/3.1 60° V6. Even Ford's FEs
could outlast any Chevy engine 3 to 1. As a machinest told me a few
years back, "Guys come in with their tired 352s, 360s and 390s in
their trucks after a quarter million miles or more. Guys come in with
their blown up Chevy small blocks usually before 100K. You do the
math."

 

Horse shit. Cole's main dictum in designing the 265 was that it be
CHEAP. In doing so, he eschewed most of the features that led to the
longevity and efficiency of Bennett's Olds Rocket and he and Barr's
Cadillac of 1949. Back in the '50s and '60s, if someone got 75K miles
out of a small block Chevy without replacing a camshaft and lifters or
throwing a rod, they were doing quite well.

You mean a "wiener," I'm sure.

Really. Why aren't you still driving them? I had a 3800. It was a
complete piece of shit...bad power, bad efficiency. When I noticed
warm oil pressure starting to get lower at 95K miles, I dumped that Le
Slobber and have never looked at any GM product since.

WRONG! The 300 was a Buick engine developed for the '64 Special when
GM management decided to dump the 215 aluminum V8 on Rover. The 300
became the basis for all "modern" Buick V8s until GM dictated that
Buick's only output would be V6s. Olds never used the 300, period.
Olds used the "new Rocket" 330/400 from 1964 onward in the F85
intermediates, and from '65 on in the senior cars as a 330/425. As
with all GM cars, displacement got "corporatized" in 1968, with the
330 going to 350 and the 425 going to 455. The 400 stayed a 400. It
had NOTHING in common with the Buick 300. You need to get your story
straight.

Finally, some truth.

You've got to be kidding.

The only truly good engine you've mentioned from GM is the Northstar.

 

That's just GM, not the best manufacturer to base a basic engine design
decision on.

 

DeserTBoB wrote:
The 90° V6, a rehash of the

Outright false. The 3800 has never had "crankshaft problems" at all. Nor
have any of the other 90-degree v6s that have sold millions in the past
20 years, including but not limited to the Chevy 4.3, Mopar 3.9, Mopar
OHC 3.7 (a shortened 4.7), and the Windsor v8 based Ford 3.8 (not the
one used in FWD cars).

 

Normally, I'd agree. But the Buick 3800 is really world-class good. Very
few (maybe not any) v6 engines have a better track record than the Buick
3800, and certainly few have ever reached the sheer output power that
the 3800 delivered way back in the 80s in the GNX turbo. Those cars (and
clones thereof built from Regals) are still hard to beat at the strip.

In complete contrast, the little Chevy v6s have all the typical
small-block chevy v8 problems and more. Like the small-block v8, many of
them will run like cockroaches to ridiculously high mileage, but a
disproportionate number just flat explode. Connecting rods out the side
of the block, that sort of thing. A really nifty and unique to the Chevy
v6 failure is snapping the (hollow) camshaft in two when a cam bearing
seizes due to contamination with DexCool leaked past the defective
intake manifold seal. But even when one of them is running right, its a
loud, rough, rumbly, raspy, obnoxious little paint-shaker.

One must never forget that GM has traditionally been run as much by
inter-divisional politics as by engineering. Chevy has always been the
sales leader, so when gut-check time came in the 70s and 80s and a
furtive (and 20-year overdue) move was made to reduce the obscene
redundancy in the GM engine lineup (3 unrelated 350 CID v8s, 3 455s a
454 and a 500, for example), the Chevy engine family was picked as the
standard v8 (except for Cadillac which became Northstar). In every
measurable engineering sense, the Buick and Olds v8s were better. Even
the Pontiac v8 with all its quirks was fundamentally better. But numbers
won the day, and Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Buick v8s went extinct.

Don't get me wrong- the Gen III version is *finally* a world-class
engine. So is the Northstar. But how long did it take?!?! About 40 years
too long, and we *still* have the crappy Chevy v6s being sold!

 

All Chrysler flathead engines would run forever. I have had three of
them, the current one being the 241ci in my 1940 Royal Coupe.

 

Count Floyd wrote:

Agreed. I've got a 215 flathead in my '49 Plymouth coupe. But it was
overhauled once... in 1964! I have the receipts for that overhaul,
which my grandfather had done. A whopping $160 and change. Its got close
to 300,000 total miles.

The place where I work has a couple of Chrysler flatheads in some old
cranes back in the assembly area, too. They just keep chugging along-
been in regular use since the mid 50s.

 

My 1963 Chev II cost a whopping $2,200.
That was 40% of my years salary.

 

SSR/HHR remind me of Studebaker pickups. Kind of neutral aesthetically IMO.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

All very true. My neighbor's "¾ of a 318" just passed 300K miles with
no major work, and still running fine and passing smog tests.

I also think that the "oil cooking" problem in the 2.7L can mostly be
laid to bad maintenance practices by the owner. I've yet to see one
which the owner properly maintained have a severe sludging problem,
although there can be tell-tale signs of goo up on top of the heads.

 

Ex-g/f's dad (an Olds line mechanic) had a '51 Plymouth for 40 years.
410K miles, replaced two water distributions sleeves, redid the
generator three times and two water pumps...period. He loved Chrysler
products, but would never work for a Chrysler dealership..."the cars
are too reliable," he'd say. "No work!"

 

Hell if they didn't early on. It took GM about 5 or 6 years to figure
out how to cast them without offset journals that would snap in the
middle. Used to see them in the scrap piles in machine shops all the
time circa 1981. After about '83-'84, they got a lot better, but the
idea of an offset journal is dumb to begin with. Making them reliable
was a case of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear on all of them.
Of them all, though, Chrysler's was about the best behaved. Ford's is
so-so...the 4.3 sucks, but not necessarily because of the crank. The
whole engine, like its V8 ancestor, was a dog from Day 1.

Strange reverse idea: The 1960-72 GMC V6 (305/351/401/478) (and its
60° V8 cousins, rarely seen) had a 60° block BUT individual throws for
each crank. Most machine shops catering to car gas engines couldn't
turn a GMC crank; they had to be farmed out to diesel shops. Thus,
this engine could've been any bank angle they wanted (and they indeed
did, with the '63-'68 60° V8, only seen in the 5000 and up GMCs and
equivalent Chevies. Another version seen mostly in Canada and
Michigan: The 702 cu. in. V12, a fave of the Canadian logging
industry, as well as in the Pacific Northwest.

The GMC Vs were known as "The Million Milers." I only got 458K out of
mine before selling it. Just don't EVER exceed 3400 RPM, though.

 

Except that the factory recommended change interval was 7500 miles.

Studied a lot of 2.7's personally have you? How many have you
diagnosed/torn down? (IOW I'm calling bullshit on your implication that
you would have had much real opportunity or reason to study the
internals of a significant quantity of 2.7's - failed or otherwise.

There have been cases of failure where the owner documented maintenance
by the book and the claim for a bad engine were denied. Also some
dealers refused to recognize the existence of Maintenance Schedule A
conditions being possible - which, if DC accepts that as a legitimate
conclusion to the claim request, means that even publishing it would be
fraudulent. It would be one thing to cite in a particular case that the
car was not used in Schedule A conditions, but these were out-of-hand
dismissals without considering the possibility that it could have been
because - in their words - there is no such thing as Schedule A
conditions - the actual usage of the vehicle were not even looked at or
considered.

It is clear that some engine designs are definitely more prone to
sludging than others - to deny that is ignorant. In the bell curve of
combinations of by-the-book maintenance and driving conditions, there
will be definite failures whereas with other engine designs there
wouldn't be. The important thing is that an owner recognize the
prone-ness of that and take extra measures to push their engine closer
to the bottom end of the curve - especially if driving conditions
(short-trip, stop-and-go) warrant it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')