GM has had their gas powered engines running pretty well. They are still fairly new in the Diesel market (if you don't count their pre-duramax diesels, which were terrible).

The duramax is a bad ***** if you get one that runs right. Once they get it right they'll be at the top.

They are still too expensive though.

SQ

 

Cadillac is building world class vehicles these days. Their stable of vehicles is as good as it gets across the board.

 

Looks like Chrysler has started a trendof big haunches and gunslit windows.

 

How quickly they forgot the Citation/Cimmaron debacle, eh? Cimmaron, the absolute least worthy car to ever wear the Cadillac badge.

 

HAHA....the Cimmaron........when the brakes locked up all you had to do was push up on the kick panel under the dash! The clips that held the panel up would fail causing the panel to fall down a couple of inches when the brake pedal was depressed, then when you took your foot off the brake the panel would hold it there for you. Lot of burned up brakes from that damned panel.

How about the HT4100 engine.......you know.....that wonderful piece of engineering! Reliably blew out the side of the block at 30,000 miles. No matter what your problem was with the engine......the service guy always asked the same question......."For a replacement, you want an iron block, or another one of those?"

 

Hmmm....I had to Google that engine as I'm not familiar with GM engine designations. I had a 1987 Olds Cutlass Ciera as a company car back in, well, 1987, and it blew out the side of the block with about 36,000 miles on it. Apparently not the HT4100 though, so it must have been another GM jewel!!

 

Lots of those Buick designs look like they could be from Chrysler, because of the somewhat retro style. Actually, they SHOULD be Chryslers.

It still horrifies me how badly the brand has been managed. As I'm sure most of you can relate, the Xfire still turns heads four years after its launch. Every time I pass a 300, I'm again convinced that it's the most impressive looking 4 door on the road - equal parts class and masculine presence, with some nice iron under the hood. The PT Cruiser has become an icon and I STILL wouldn't mind owning one (esp. the 6-speed turbo), and even the Pacifica is sharp in proportion for a family hauler, and offers distinctive style. I've always been an import buyer, but Chrysler was the first domestic in a long time to try something different - truly romantic designs with quality Merc mechanicals - and it should have worked. I'm still pissed about it. The problem was not the cars.

 

I can't believe it.......I hate to say it.....but I'll fess up anyhow!

I agree with pretty much everything Mediacritic just said! (Except for the buying import stuff but that's another thread! )



BTW.....haven't seen you here in a while.....hope everything's alright.

 

I also agree with Mediacritic and I even think the Charger was done right. The Charger is not beautiful, or stylish, but it does have presence.

 

real Chargers only have 2 doors!

 

Naming the new Charger the "Charger" may have been a mistake, or maybe not. The old Chargers had big V-8s, performance, and a certain mystique about them. So do the new ones - they just also happen to have four doors. The new Chargers have captured the essence of the old ones perfectly, and I think this is proven by the ebbing of the criticisms of the four doors.

Should Chrysler have given the car a different name? On the surface, yes. But Chrysler is in the business of selling cars to make money and coming up with a new, never used name may not have generated as much interest, and resulting sales, as recycling an old one. So what old name should be resurrected? It should evoke images of past glories and yet not be so distant in time that the name has been forgotten. This strategy worked for the 300 - yes it was quite a leap from the 50s to the 80s to reuse the 300 name, but this worked out with the 300C name of today. But what do you call the Dodge version? Diplomat? Polara? So bringing back Charger actually makes sense. And most importantly, the current car meets the performance standards of the prior one. After all, can you imagine naming a little FWD four banger "Charger"?

Just reread the above checking for spelling and grammar errors (never helps since I absolutely can't spot them on a monitor) and had an idea for another name. I thought that maybe Chrysler could have gone with a Plymouth name - maybe Duster or even Satellite. Oh well, too late now.

 

Everything is cool. I've just been extra busy. Thanks for asking.

MC

 

Yea, GM has their s**t together. They just posted a $$ 38 BILLION dollar loss for 2007. I still see them as having very common cars for very common buyers. Dont say it, I've had GM cars for years and they were very good. But where do we/they go from here.

 

They did post a big loss......but meter that with the 37.6 billion in write offs that they could no longer carry on their books and it's not such a bad thing.

 

There isn't much common about the Cadillac line. And the "V" vehicles are outstanding.

 

Biggest piece of craps I have ever owned was a toyota Camary and a honda accord............Most reliable was a 2002 Ford F150( 250,000 miles zero problems) and a 2005 Mustang GT(35,000 miles and zero problems) To each his own
I guess................

 

Those ain't your grandpa's Buick's! I like the Wildcat too. That rear window is very 67 Corvette'ish. One of the 4 doors looks like a Mercedes.
Interesting to see if any of them make it to reality.
Pat

 

They won't. See my post #7 in this thread. GM killed the platform those were going to be built on and is sticking with FWD for the foreseeable future, except for the Corvette, Camaro, G8 and the Cadillac CTS & XLR.