- This topic has 46 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Ah, yes Toyota, a name that brings millions of Americans peace of mind. They know that if they buy a Toyota they are getting reliability and a guarantee of quality workmanship. Toyota and Lexus banners brazenly boast “LOWEST PRICE OF OWNERSHIP!!” and the masses are all too eager to eat that slogan up.
I’m here to tell you that today’s Toyota is not your parents Toyota — their quality has quietly been declining since 2007 in my opinion. In the shop I am constantly baffled by the issues newer Toyota’s are having. Prius’s and Highlanders are burning tons of oil at 50,000 miles, Prius’s are having weird electrical issues, transmissions are shifting oddly clunky for how old the car is. The Scion brand especially have more problems than you would expect. The FRS especially is plagued with a few gremlins such as faulty injectors, which STILL haven’t been hammered out by Toyota/Subaru. I’ve also seen a few cars leaking oil with less than 75,000 miles.
Has anyone else been noticing this shocking downward spiral in Toyota’s quality?
-
Replies
-
I’d take a Camaro with the proven LS3 over any turbo car, I have an LS powered vehicle now and it’s never failed me (knocks on wood).
Toyota really dropped the ball on the FRS it could have been so good. It’s made for the market of kids in high school or weekend track warriors , yet is underpowered and over priced just like the joke of a civic si that Honda keeps pumping out. The kids want turbos and power hence how many genesis, focus st and Mazdaspeed 3’s are on the road today. Toyota needs to up the quality and get back in to the performance game, it’s been more than a decade since the last celica and supra. :angry: but I’m just a tech what do they care for what I say?
[quote=”Kevin_1500″ post=127872]I’d take a Camaro with the proven LS3 over any turbo car, I have an LS powered vehicle now and it’s never failed me (knocks on wood).
Toyota really dropped the ball on the FRS it could have been so good. It’s made for the market of kids in high school or weekend track warriors , yet is underpowered and over priced just like the joke of a civic si that Honda keeps pumping out. The kids want turbos and power hence how many genesis, focus st and Mazdaspeed 3’s are on the road today. Toyota needs to up the quality and get back in to the performance game, it’s been more than a decade since the last celica and supra. :angry: but I’m just a tech what do they care for what I say?[/quote] Put an FRS or BRZ next to me on the drag strip…I will leave it whirring it’s engine on the line. The FRS makes what power it has WAYYY high up in the RPM range. Not even it’s 4.10 gearing in the rear can compensate for it’s lack of grunt. The TORQUE my engine makes low end plus the power it makes mid to upper range is more than twice what the FRS makes at 6k RPMS. That’s just my engine too…nevermind my gearing. Pretty sad when my 41 year old heavy duty gas truck can beat a modern “performance car” Ain’t no replacement for displacement. All Toyota had to do was increase displacement a bit and add forced induction. Instead they stuck with a wimpy 2.0L that doesn’t have the balls to get off the line.
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=127889][quote=”Kevin_1500″ post=127872]I’d take a Camaro with the proven LS3 over any turbo car, I have an LS powered vehicle now and it’s never failed me (knocks on wood).
Toyota really dropped the ball on the FRS it could have been so good. It’s made for the market of kids in high school or weekend track warriors , yet is underpowered and over priced just like the joke of a civic si that Honda keeps pumping out. The kids want turbos and power hence how many genesis, focus st and Mazdaspeed 3’s are on the road today. Toyota needs to up the quality and get back in to the performance game, it’s been more than a decade since the last celica and supra. :angry: but I’m just a tech what do they care for what I say?[/quote] Put an FRS or BRZ next to me on the drag strip…I will leave it whirring it’s engine on the line. The FRS makes what power it has WAYYY high up in the RPM range. Not even it’s 4.10 gearing in the rear can compensate for it’s lack of grunt. The TORQUE my engine makes low end plus the power it makes mid to upper range is more than twice what the FRS makes at 6k RPMS. That’s just my engine too…nevermind my gearing. Pretty sad when my 41 year old heavy duty gas truck can beat a modern “performance car” Ain’t no replacement for displacement. All Toyota had to do was increase displacement a bit and add forced induction. Instead they stuck with a wimpy 2.0L that doesn’t have the balls to get off the line.[/quote]
The FRS was never meant to be a drag racer, it is a canyon carver. It’s center of gravity is extremely low, and it has damn near close to a 50-50 weight distribution. It has an impressive independent rear suspension set up giving the car a planted feeling when you’re going around corners. You get supercar like handling from a sub 30,000 dollar vehicle. The issue is that is one of the ONLY redeeming features of the FRS/BRZ. I hear that engine block can handle insane amounts of horsepower, and that the engine itself responds to forced induction very well in its stock configuration — simply put it’s an easy car to tune. The issue is; who wants to spend 27k, only to then void the warranty by making modifications? For the price you would spend massaging power out of this car, you could probably buy a Porsche Cayman.The main issue here is that as an everyday driver it seems like it would be extremely boring. You can’t drive it to its full potential unless you’re on a curvy mountain road or on a racetrack, and even then you’re at a severe disadvantage if the car is in its stock configuration. It has crappy economy tires, akin to something that you would find on a Prius, and it doesn’t particularly have a good power to weight ratio. As you mentioned before, the engines torque figures are beyond pathetic for a “performance” vehicle. Toyota really missed the mark on this one.
[quote=”Kevin_1500″ post=127872]I’d take a Camaro with the proven LS3 over any turbo car, I have an LS powered vehicle now and it’s never failed me (knocks on wood).
Toyota really dropped the ball on the FRS it could have been so good. It’s made for the market of kids in high school or weekend track warriors , yet is underpowered and over priced just like the joke of a civic si that Honda keeps pumping out. The kids want turbos and power hence how many genesis, focus st and Mazdaspeed 3’s are on the road today. Toyota needs to up the quality and get back in to the performance game, it’s been more than a decade since the last celica and supra. :angry: but I’m just a tech what do they care for what I say?[/quote]
Here is the thing about performance vehicles, Kevin. They usually aren’t volume sellers unless they are an iconic brand such as the Mustang or Camaro. They are usually used as beta testers for new technologies. For example the new Mustang was essentially used to test the capabilities of Fords new independent rear suspension. That technology is going to trickle down to other vehicles in the Ford line-up.Another reason why performance vehicles are important is to build, and maintain brand loyalty. They are giant advertising pieces for companies. How many people actually went out and bought a Supra or NSX? Not as many as these companies would have liked i’d venture. Many corporate bean counters would consider the number of these cars sold as being “underwhelming”, especially when compared to Civics or Camry’s. Hence why these two cars don’t exist anymore.
The issue here is that these cars are the ones that reeled in young new car buyers. They captured our attention, and imagination, they brought attention to the brand itself, and perhaps got people into new cars even if they weren’t NSX’s or Supras. These kind of cars, and the technology that went into them perhaps even spurred us technicians to get into the field.
The corporate bean counters are starting to kill off these cars and its leading to apathy. People only see their cars as appliances, they don’t care for anything else. It is also starting to narrow down possible talent pool in our trade, the backbone of the car dealerships. I maintain that even though performance cars are not volume sellers, that they are just important to auto manufacturers.
[quote=”Pithy Radish” post=127917]People only see their cars as appliances[/quote]
That is the most accurate statement of the decade right there, It’s sad really, people only care about what they will do when they get to where ever they need to be. nobody cares about the drive anymore. I personally enjoy just hopping in the truck and cruising back country highways with the windows down, to me investing $30-40 in gasoline and enjoying an entire day is still alot cheaper and enjoyable that anything else i can do for that priceI understand how people feel about Toyota quality going down….. A lot of it is deserved…. A point I like to make is how much of quality is truly in the mind of the owner and how much is really there…
My point is, is that Toyota has had quality issues going much further back…. Lets set the way back machine to:
The 1MZ-FE engine with “Oil-Gel” issues
The folding tacos (Rusted out Tacomas)
Rust issues denied on Non-Tacomas (which look like tacomas from underneath)
Oil burning engines… in the 90’s…
Transmission issues (SUVs)
My point is that there has always been “something” there… some are better than others… and I do not deny current problems and issues….
The example I will use is called MAD Magazine comparison……
For us who read it when we were kids, MAD magazine was the best in which decade??
A. The 1950’s,
B. The 1960’s
C. The 1970’s
D. The 1980’s
E. The 1990’s
Pick which decade….
Well , what is your answer?.
Simply stated, the best MAD magazine decade is the decade when you first picked up a Mad magazine (probably between when you were 8-12 years old) and that is when you think MAD magazine was the best…
This works similarly when we get nostalgic about the good old days (which weren’t always good) when things were:
Built better,
People had pride in what they did
Before all those government mandated things…There is nothing new under the sun….
As always this is just My humble opinion…
🙂
-Karl
[quote=”ToyotaKarl” post=128461]I understand how people feel about Toyota quality going down….. A lot of it is deserved…. A point I like to make is how much of quality is truly in the mind of the owner and how much is really there…
My point is, is that Toyota has had quality issues going much further back…. Lets set the way back machine to:
The 1MZ-FE engine with “Oil-Gel” issues
The folding tacos (Rusted out Tacomas)
Rust issues denied on Non-Tacomas (which look like tacomas from underneath)
Oil burning engines… in the 90’s…
Transmission issues (SUVs)
My point is that there has always been “something” there… some are better than others… and I do not deny current problems and issues….
The example I will use is called MAD Magazine comparison……
For us who read it when we were kids, MAD magazine was the best in which decade??
A. The 1950’s,
B. The 1960’s
C. The 1970’s
D. The 1980’s
E. The 1990’s
Pick which decade….
Well , what is your answer?.
Simply stated, the best MAD magazine decade is the decade when you first picked up a Mad magazine (probably between when you were 8-12 years old) and that is when you think MAD magazine was the best…
This works similarly when we get nostalgic about the good old days (which weren’t always good) when things were:
Built better,
People had pride in what they did
Before all those government mandated things…There is nothing new under the sun….
As always this is just My humble opinion…
🙂
-Karl[/quote]
As always, excellent post. Where you been man? Haven’t seen you round here as much.Compter glitch .. duplicated my relpy for some reason .. this one left blank, Dont see an option to delete a post.
I’ve red through the posts so far, and here is my opinion …
I own a ’91 Toyota MR2 Turbo. It’s not a beater, or track car. It’s pretty much restored now. I’ve always liked the body style (poor mans ferrari they say). I disagree with the negative comments regarding turbos. I can only speak for myself. The MR2 is a fantasic little sports car, that can make insane amounts of power (with suporting mods) It makes almost 250HP now. Heck, even a stock MR2 turbo is faster than a new FRS. I cant speak for new Toyota quality, but that ’91 MR2 just goes, and goes. Yeah, it has its few issues due to age but nothing that isnt an easy fix. Read all the positive reviews from former owners on the net and you’ll see.
I also own a ’94 Corvette. Again, same thing, low milage, excellent condition, rock solid engine. That generation had an optispark distributor issue and body flex when the targa top is removed. Yeah and a few quirks due to age but nothing major. The Chevy 350 though just goes and goes. And the get up and go is a kick in the pants. Fun car. It’s been very reliable.
I also own a 2003 first year model, KIA Sortento SUV. The only thing is that it wont go into 4wheel low anymore. Might be because I never used 4 wheel low that much. I hear with 4×4 systems you have to use them once in a while or they get issues. BUT at 120K miles the engine is rock solid .. never burns any oil, at idle it purrs like a kitten, and open throttle has a nice growl. Everything else, works on the car. No squeaks or rattles, still very tight. Very reliable. I’d have no problem driving from LA to Miami in that car.
Now that said, I take very good care of my cars. Change the oil at 3K miles without fail, flush and replace all fuids on regular basis. Only use top tier gasoline in my cars. I’m not saying that is the cure all for the failures some here have noticed with inherent manufacturer defects on newer cars, but in my case my diligent care has prolonged the quality and reliablity of my cars.
I think the later model cars were built much better, as my two ’90s vehicles have been great. But not all early cars were troble free. Mercedes Benz with their “green” wire insulation that disapears at 80k – 120k miles, or porsches with timing belts that need changing every 30k miles.
Its a mater of doing resarech and picking and choosing the select good makes and models from years that were better cars. At laeat for me it has worked so far
[quote=”TCC” post=130029]I’ve red through the posts so far, and here is my opinion …
I own a ’91 Toyota MR2 Turbo. It’s not a beater, or track car. It’s pretty much restored now. I’ve always liked the body style (poor mans ferrari they say). I disagree with the negative comments regarding turbos. I can only speak for myself. The MR2 is a fantasic little sports car, that can make insane amounts of power (with suporting mods) It makes almost 250HP now. Heck, even a stock MR2 turbo is faster than a new FRS. I cant speak for new Toyota quality, but that ’91 MR2 just goes, and goes. Yeah, it has its few issues due to age but nothing that isnt an easy fix. Read all the positive reviews from former owners on the net and you’ll see.
I also own a ’94 Corvette. Again, same thing, low milage, excellent condition, rock solid engine. That generation had an optispark distributor issue and body flex when the targa top is removed. Yeah and a few quirks due to age but nothing major. The Chevy 350 though just goes and goes. And the get up and go is a kick in the pants. Fun car. It’s been very reliable.
I also own a 2003 first year model, KIA Sortento SUV. The only thing is that it wont go into 4wheel low anymore. Might be because I never used 4 wheel low that much. I hear with 4×4 systems you have to use them once in a while or they get issues. BUT at 120K miles the engine is rock solid .. never burns any oil, at idle it purrs like a kitten, and open throttle has a nice growl. Everything else, works on the car. No squeaks or rattles, still very tight. Very reliable. I’d have no problem driving from LA to Miami in that car.
Now that said, I take very good care of my cars. Change the oil at 3K miles without fail, flush and replace all fuids on regular basis. Only use top tier gasoline in my cars. I’m not saying that is the cure all for the failures some here have noticed with inherent manufacturer defects on newer cars, but in my case my diligent care has prolonged the quality and reliablity of my cars.
I think the later model cars were built much better, as my two ’90s vehicles have been great. But not all early cars were troble free. Mercedes Benz with their “green” wire insulation that disapears at 80k – 120k miles, or porsches with timing belts that need changing every 30k miles.
Its a mater of doing resarech and picking and choosing the select good makes and models from years that were better cars. At laeat for me it has worked so far[/quote] From my experience and my opinion, anything made from 1998 back is typically superior in quality to anything newer. It is hard to compare anything 90s or before to anything made after. Quality and durability..to put it lightly… are no longer manufacturers primary concerns. To make a serviceable vehicle like they made in the 90s or before would seriously cut into their profit. They WANT you to buy a new car nowadays every some odd years. They ain’t made like they used to be..that is a fact.
In regards to turbos, most of us here come from a techs perspective here. Our points that turbos do not increase gas mileage and put extra stresses on the engine are also facts. A turbo or SC, in my humble opinion, is for performance applications only. There is no reason to have one on a 4 cylinder daily driver. As I’ve said previously, a NA engine will always be better for a daily driver and for longevity sake. Plus, if you TC or SC a V8 or V6, you will make ALOT of power…more than a 4 cyl can even hope to imagine. This is why I never got the import guys. Why spend 30k on a motor, when you can make the same power with a NA V8 stock?[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=130039][quote=”TCC” post=130029]I’ve red through the posts so far, and here is my opinion …
I own a ’91 Toyota MR2 Turbo. It’s not a beater, or track car. It’s pretty much restored now. I’ve always liked the body style (poor mans ferrari they say). I disagree with the negative comments regarding turbos. I can only speak for myself. The MR2 is a fantasic little sports car, that can make insane amounts of power (with suporting mods) It makes almost 250HP now. Heck, even a stock MR2 turbo is faster than a new FRS. I cant speak for new Toyota quality, but that ’91 MR2 just goes, and goes. Yeah, it has its few issues due to age but nothing that isnt an easy fix. Read all the positive reviews from former owners on the net and you’ll see.
I also own a ’94 Corvette. Again, same thing, low milage, excellent condition, rock solid engine. That generation had an optispark distributor issue and body flex when the targa top is removed. Yeah and a few quirks due to age but nothing major. The Chevy 350 though just goes and goes. And the get up and go is a kick in the pants. Fun car. It’s been very reliable.
I also own a 2003 first year model, KIA Sortento SUV. The only thing is that it wont go into 4wheel low anymore. Might be because I never used 4 wheel low that much. I hear with 4×4 systems you have to use them once in a while or they get issues. BUT at 120K miles the engine is rock solid .. never burns any oil, at idle it purrs like a kitten, and open throttle has a nice growl. Everything else, works on the car. No squeaks or rattles, still very tight. Very reliable. I’d have no problem driving from LA to Miami in that car.
Now that said, I take very good care of my cars. Change the oil at 3K miles without fail, flush and replace all fuids on regular basis. Only use top tier gasoline in my cars. I’m not saying that is the cure all for the failures some here have noticed with inherent manufacturer defects on newer cars, but in my case my diligent care has prolonged the quality and reliablity of my cars.
I think the later model cars were built much better, as my two ’90s vehicles have been great. But not all early cars were troble free. Mercedes Benz with their “green” wire insulation that disapears at 80k – 120k miles, or porsches with timing belts that need changing every 30k miles.
Its a mater of doing resarech and picking and choosing the select good makes and models from years that were better cars. At laeat for me it has worked so far[/quote] From my experience and my opinion, anything made from 1998 back is typically superior in quality to anything newer. It is hard to compare anything 90s or before to anything made after. Quality and durability..to put it lightly… are no longer manufacturers primary concerns. To make a serviceable vehicle like they made in the 90s or before would seriously cut into their profit. They WANT you to buy a new car nowadays every some odd years. They ain’t made like they used to be..that is a fact.
In regards to turbos, most of us here come from a techs perspective here. Our points that turbos do not increase gas mileage and put extra stresses on the engine are also facts. A turbo or SC, in my humble opinion, is for performance applications only. There is no reason to have one on a 4 cylinder daily driver. As I’ve said previously, a NA engine will always be better for a daily driver and for longevity sake. Plus, if you TC or SC a V8 or V6, you will make ALOT of power…more than a 4 cyl can even hope to imagine. This is why I never got the import guys. Why spend 30k on a motor, when you can make the same power with a NA V8 stock?[/quote]I agree turbos don’t improve gas millage, as that is not their purpose. They were meant to provide extra power beyond the limits of the NA engine. For NA four cylinders that are turds, it provides much needed and better acelleration typically for merging, passing, and what have you without increasing engine size. You’d never ride a turbo at full throttle at full boost constantly. When up to speed, off boost, you can cruise at the four cylinders non boosted good gas millage. On my MR2 Turbo if I stay off boost, I can get 20-28 mpg city and 30-33mpg highway -but that’s NOT because it is turbocharged.
One reason compact imports became so popular is that Detroit couldn’t make a decent, high performance compact car to save their life. From the 70’s to the 90’s ameican sports cars were boats. Think 1972 mustang Mach 1 – a ship on wheels. The Corvette at one time (think 1st and 2nd generation) They got it right – Small compact hotrod. The problem was they were gas hogs all the time, and some barely made 200hp. They tried again with the Mustang II but that looked too pinto-ish.
The Japanese filled a niche market that was lacking in American cars – A compact car that looked cool, performed well, that had the abilty to go fast but also get decent gas millage. Like Datsun 280z and first gen 300zx, to name a couple.
Fifty years later they try again with the new 2015 Chrysler 200. You know what they’re calling it? AMERICA’S IMPORT!
@ TCC: I believe you misunderstand the difference between a muscle car and a sports car. The mustang back in the day was a muscle car equipped with a V8. Until the Arab oil embargo, that’s what we, the market demanded. The embargo happened in 73′ in october if I recall correctly. Muscle cars were made for BIG straight line power. Gas mileage was of no concern. The top V8s were making horsepower in the 400s and 500s as the engines were rated lower due to insurance. People liked the land barges…until the crisis. We are not comparing apples to apples here anyways. If you think a mustang is big, look up a 60s Lincoln Continential. A muscle car was never meant to have gas mileage, it was never made to take corners. It was made for power and speed in a straight line..drag racing. After the gas crisis, emissions requirements became ever more prevalent and crippled the power and mileage of detriots V8s. Unleaded gas required detuning as well. 1975 was when cats became standard and required. The corvette is a completely different animal…it is a sports car. The vette you refer to is the C2 as in the stingray, and yes it was a magnificent machine. I specialize in domestics as well as American muscle. You gotta look at dates and facts if you want to be taken seriously. Good power with a 4 cyl can be made with direct injection, VVT among other technologies. Forced induction is unnecessary on a non-performance app.
EDIT: The last of American muscle was in ’74, it was the Pontiac 455 SD. After that…the muscle car era was over 🙁 . I have countless old books on the muscle car era. The cars back then…they just had something about them. Government regulation, the safety lobby(Ralph Nader), and rising fuel prices effectively caused the demise of the greatest American cars ever made. As Neil Young put it, “it’s better to burn out, than fade away.”
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=130078]@ TCC: I believe you misunderstand the difference between a muscle car and a sports car. The mustang back in the day was a muscle car equipped with a V8. Until the Arab oil embargo, that’s what we, the market demanded. The embargo happened in 73′ in october if I recall correctly. Muscle cars were made for BIG straight line power. Gas mileage was of no concern. The top V8s were making horsepower in the 400s and 500s as the engines were rated lower due to insurance. People liked the land barges…until the crisis. We are not comparing apples to apples here anyways. If you think a mustang is big, look up a 60s Lincoln Continential. A muscle car was never meant to have gas mileage, it was never made to take corners. It was made for power and speed in a straight line..drag racing. After the gas crisis, emissions requirements became ever more prevalent and crippled the power and mileage of detriots V8s. Unleaded gas required detuning as well. 1975 was when cats became standard and required. The corvette is a completely different animal…it is a sports car. The vette you refer to is the C2 as in the stingray, and yes it was a magnificent machine. I specialize in domestics as well as American muscle. You gotta look at dates and facts if you want to be taken seriously. Good power with a 4 cyl can be made with direct injection, VVT among other technologies. Forced induction is unnecessary on a non-performance app.
EDIT: The last of American muscle was in ’74, it was the Pontiac 455 SD. After that…the muscle car era was over 🙁 . I have countless old books on the muscle car era. The cars back then…they just had something about them. Government regulation, the safety lobby(Ralph Nader), and rising fuel prices effectively caused the demise of the greatest American cars ever made. As Neil Young put it, “it’s better to burn out, than fade away.”[/quote]
Well …. if you want to get into semantics, the original meaning of “Muscle Car” meant taking a SMALL CAR and putting a large displacement engine it. (Reference: Peter Henshaw, Book Muscle Cars). Some people will still argue the point that a muscle car is a TYPE of of sports car, just built with different characteristics and purpose. But we can debate terms all day long ad nauseam, but that wouldn’t get us anywhere.
No, I completely know and understand the difference between the two categories of cars and what their pros and cons and purpose were/are. And Yes I do know the Mustang Mach 1 from ’71-’73 was a departure in size and style from pre and post generation Mustangs, and YES those particular years it was a big muscle car. I know, I had one. Other model years of the Mustang especially the Mustang II were not big cars.
I’m fully aware of the incredible HP cars were producing before regulations forced American automakers to comply. My point was, American auto makers were having a hard time making power while complying with such regulations. The Japaneses were already doing this. Yes, a turbo charged first generation 300zx wasn’t for everyone but they filled a gap that “certain” American drivers wanted and needed.
The OIL CRISIS or embaro began in October of 1973 and was lifted/ended in March 1974, with again another oil shock or crisis later in the decade around 1978/1979.
The point i was trying to make is that American auto makers were under fire for not anticipating the trend toward smaller, fuel efficient cars, not learning much from the ’73 oil crisis. Japaneses auto makers were already building these cars. American auto makers failed to get either the COMPACT ECONOMY CAR segment or the COMPACT SPORTS CAR segment correct, or as good as it COULD be, and what consumers wanted and demanded. This still continues to this day and Japanese auto makers still have the lead in those two categories.
As a side note: American auto makers tried with the Chevette, Dodge Omni, Plymoth Horizon, Ford Pinto, AMC Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega. – BLAH! All SOUL CRUSHING for those who appreciate style and taste.
But then in the late 1980’s Pontaic finally did something AMAZING! They introduced the Pontiac Feiro GT- The first, American, compact, six cylinder, rear engine, two seat, exotic-looking, car that got 30MPG highway! (although even the GT was never really known for being a speed demon). Once they were on tract with something that PEOPLE WANTED, and they FILLED a void, they KILLED the project! – many reasons but mostly because they feared it would cannibalize sales from the Corvette.
Then again in 2006 Saturn did something AMAZING! they introduced the Saturn SKY! and then later with the turbocharged Saturn Sky REDLINE — A hot, smaller, convertible, exotic-looking, sports car that was also fuel efficient. with up to 300HP (with the GM tune) from a turbo FOUR cylinder. Highway cruising it can get 30MPG. Well, we all know what happened to Saturn.
See, my point? American auto makers HAVE the ability to make an AWESOME small/compact sports car but they just can’t stay with it! The Japanese for example have honed their skills in this segment for many, many years and have continued to do so and that’s why they dominate the category.
The 2015 Corvette is probably, in my opinion, the ONLY true American “sports car” (Chevrolet’s term) left that combines handing, exotic style with decent highway fuel economy, that can be daily driven and slice up the twisty mountain roads. But that’s only one. The Japanese have many.
I agree with some that the “tuner” movement has made the import car segment a bit immature, but that doesn’t negate the fact that import cars in the true sense, like from Italy (Ferrari), Japan (NSX) are beautiful cars, that still have power and handling, some even with decent fuel economy.
The last point I was trying to make before, that you glossed over, — American auto maker realize how IMPORTANT the IMPORT car segment actually is, and the necessary gap it fills, and that America really doesn’t have anything to compare to it – hence the 2015 Chrysler 200 dubbed “America’s Import”.
REALLY? I mean It’s a okay car, but, eh, not even close to an import.
[quote=”TCC” post=130123][quote=”Chevyman21″ post=130078]@ TCC: I believe you misunderstand the difference between a muscle car and a sports car. The mustang back in the day was a muscle car equipped with a V8. Until the Arab oil embargo, that’s what we, the market demanded. The embargo happened in 73′ in october if I recall correctly. Muscle cars were made for BIG straight line power. Gas mileage was of no concern. The top V8s were making horsepower in the 400s and 500s as the engines were rated lower due to insurance. People liked the land barges…until the crisis. We are not comparing apples to apples here anyways. If you think a mustang is big, look up a 60s Lincoln Continential. A muscle car was never meant to have gas mileage, it was never made to take corners. It was made for power and speed in a straight line..drag racing. After the gas crisis, emissions requirements became ever more prevalent and crippled the power and mileage of detriots V8s. Unleaded gas required detuning as well. 1975 was when cats became standard and required. The corvette is a completely different animal…it is a sports car. The vette you refer to is the C2 as in the stingray, and yes it was a magnificent machine. I specialize in domestics as well as American muscle. You gotta look at dates and facts if you want to be taken seriously. Good power with a 4 cyl can be made with direct injection, VVT among other technologies. Forced induction is unnecessary on a non-performance app.
EDIT: The last of American muscle was in ’74, it was the Pontiac 455 SD. After that…the muscle car era was over 🙁 . I have countless old books on the muscle car era. The cars back then…they just had something about them. Government regulation, the safety lobby(Ralph Nader), and rising fuel prices effectively caused the demise of the greatest American cars ever made. As Neil Young put it, “it’s better to burn out, than fade away.”[/quote]
Well …. if you want to get into semantics, the original meaning of “Muscle Car” meant taking a SMALL CAR and putting a large displacement engine it. (Reference: Peter Henshaw, Book Muscle Cars). Some people will still argue the point that a muscle car is a TYPE of of sports car, just built with different characteristics and purpose. But we can debate terms all day long ad nauseam, but that wouldn’t get us anywhere.
No, I completely know and understand the difference between the two categories of cars and what their pros and cons and purpose were/are. And Yes I do know the Mustang Mach 1 from ’71-’73 was a departure in size and style from pre and post generation Mustangs, and YES those particular years it was a big muscle car. I know, I had one. Other model years of the Mustang especially the Mustang II were not big cars.
I’m fully aware of the incredible HP cars were producing before regulations forced American automakers to comply. My point was, American auto makers were having a hard time making power while complying with such regulations. The Japaneses were already doing this. Yes, a turbo charged first generation 300zx wasn’t for everyone but they filled a gap that “certain” American drivers wanted and needed.
The OIL CRISIS or embaro began in October of 1973 and was lifted/ended in March 1974, with again another oil shock or crisis later in the decade around 1978/1979.
The point i was trying to make is that American auto makers were under fire for not anticipating the trend toward smaller, fuel efficient cars, not learning much from the ’73 oil crisis. Japaneses auto makers were already building these cars. American auto makers failed to get either the COMPACT ECONOMY CAR segment or the COMPACT SPORTS CAR segment correct, or as good as it COULD be, and what consumers wanted and demanded. This still continues to this day and Japanese auto makers still have the lead in those two categories.
As a side note: American auto makers tried with the Chevette, Dodge Omni, Plymoth Horizon, Ford Pinto, AMC Gremlin, Chevrolet Vega. – BLAH! All SOUL CRUSHING for those who appreciate style and taste.
But then in the late 1980’s Pontaic finally did something AMAZING! They introduced the Pontiac Feiro GT- The first, American, compact, six cylinder, rear engine, two seat, exotic-looking, car that got 30MPG highway! (although even the GT was never really known for being a speed demon). Once they were on tract with something that PEOPLE WANTED, and they FILLED a void, they KILLED the project! – many reasons but mostly because they feared it would cannibalize sales from the Corvette.
Then again in 2006 Saturn did something AMAZING! they introduced the Saturn SKY! and then later with the turbocharged Saturn Sky REDLINE — A hot, smaller, convertible, exotic-looking, sports car that was also fuel efficient. with up to 300HP (with the GM tune) from a turbo FOUR cylinder. Highway cruising it can get 30MPG. Well, we all know what happened to Saturn.
See, my point? [b]American auto makers HAVE the ability to make an AWESOME small/compact sports car but they just can’t stay with it! The Japanese for example have honed their skills in this segment for many, many years and have continued to do so and that’s why they dominate the category.
[/b]
The 2015 Corvette is probably, in my opinion, the ONLY true American “sports car” (Chevrolet’s term) left that combines handing, exotic style with decent highway fuel economy, that can be daily driven and slice up the twisty mountain roads. But that’s only one. The Japanese have many.I agree with some that the “tuner” movement has made the import car segment a bit immature, but that doesn’t negate the fact that import cars in the true sense, like from Italy (Ferrari), Japan (NSX) are beautiful cars, that still have power and handling, some even with decent fuel economy.
The last point I was trying to make before, that you glossed over, — American auto maker realize how IMPORTANT the IMPORT car segment actually is, and the necessary gap it fills, and that America really doesn’t have anything to compare to it – hence the 2015 [b]Chrysler 200 dubbed “America’s Import”.
REALLY? I mean It’s a okay car, but, eh, not even close to an import[/b].[/quote]
I’ll address what I bolded that you said in order and then this thread should really get back on topic:
1. Yes that was the original definition. Smaller car(for the time which was not all that small) and a BIG V8(V8 being key here). Then the auto manufacturers decided to get into the game producing the GTO, Chevelle SS, Shelby Cobra GT500, Nova, Trans AM, etc. These cars were aLL “small” for the day. As I said, a “land barge” was stuff like the Continental, Caddy Eldorado, etc…you known the full size cars of the time. Most of the muscle cars were actually subcompacts(again this is relative to the time). Size is relative.
2. Yes, but you know what American Manufacturers do even better? V6 and V8 power. That’s what American car buyers wanted. Hence the SUV craze and the resurgence of the Camaro and Challenger. The goal is to stick with what you do best, and that’s what they did. Most Americans like BIG. Japanese have always done SMALL. The Japanese are still failing in the full size truck segment for this reason.
3. I’m sorry, I missed that the first time around. If you have been following Chrysler and their slogans, you’d know that they weren’t trying to be an import. “Imported from Detroit” was the first slogan of the new Chyrsler in 2011. The whole idea was about American pride and manufacturing…not to be like the imports. The “America’s Import” thing has nothing to do with trying to be like an import, but rather due to the merger between FIAT and them to become FCA. Hence, there is a lot of Italian engineering in the brand now(Alfa Romeo) and the slogan is for more than just the 200, it’s for the entire lineup.
In conclusion, perhaps you should try driving an American car again, if not just for a test drive. They have come a long way. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Now let’s get back on topic…Toyota quality decline.
Americans did try their hand at economy cars, staring in 1960. Each of the makes had them, and none were spectacular. To clear the air Muscle cars were always intermediate bodied cars with larger engines, than say a regular passenger car intermediate. Mustangs and Camaros were considered pony cars at the time, as were Chrysler A bodies, Mustang was a rebaged falcon, Fords economy car, valiant was same as Cuda, dart ect., and Camaro was thrown there later as the original Gm economy car, the Corvair was horrible in every way and not worth the company doing anything with. Chrysler did something in 1970 that neither of the other companies did, and that was to make an compact car designed for their biggest motor, E body, but continuing on making the A body, where its roots really were. Chrysler sent themselves into banrupcy by replacing a the good A body car that had been the same design for about 16 years and spending a whole lot of money on their F platform which was heavy, ugly and ureliable. They never recovered from this.
The ONLY sports car that was back domestic was the Corvette (Cobra doesnt count, it was a fluke). GM through the entire 1960s was always saddled with not being allowed put a full sized engine in an intermediate bodyshell. Yes, a few cheated, but this was a general rule. A 10 lbs per horsepower for GM was always their general target. Oldsmobile actually got themselves in a bit of bind in 1968 by only having one big block, for all models and having to make a poorly engineered hybrid engine simply to comply with some corporate regulations. People always fault the Gemini/Vega project from GM, but if you read further into this, one will know that corporate bean counters and designers were at odds, and the product ended up being ill-concieved. People also fail to realize than in the 70s imports were not required to meet the same emissions standards and domestics, and the powertraines in 70s japaneses cars were admittedly better, but the body shell from say a Corolla, or B210 was no better or worse than that of a Pinto or Vega. Remember something, those cars were also rear wheel drive. I am speaking from experience here, I was there and spent much time around ALL of them. The X GM body was an entirely different can of worms, however and that is the car that really got domestic cars on a downward spiral. Unless it was a fullsize land barge, once the frontwheel drive became the primary sellers, domestics simply could not compete. I still hate domestic FWD cars unless barges with 4T60/80s. Unlike the cute little RWD domestics in the 70s, these domestic FWD cars were just awful. At this point in history, imported cars from Asia were indeed better cars if they were FWD Kcars were mitisubishis in spirit thus not a true domestic. That all changed later however. That being said, Gm in those years still made a good rear wheel drive intermediate with the G body and muscle cars DID in fact come back in 1985-1986. Had a brand new GN buick in 1986 with a 3.8 turbo as well as 300ZX of the same vingtage with a turbo 3.0 liter, and know first hand the faults and strengths of each — for a different post. I spent many years with my own Foxbody projects and it was quite easy to forget about the bunch of Z cars and other asian cars I had before hand one I dove head first into Aero nose foxbodys with literally unlimited peformance potential.
The Y body and F bodies GM soldiered on, but once again, saddled by corporate regulaons were never up to par until sometime about 15 years later. Many moons ago I figured out what Gm did to make these cars subpar. Ford had a pretty nifty fox body starting in 83, and that car got better with time, but when the new series camaro came out in 1993, that car had lost any advantage it had. Currently there are two sports cars from the US that are well known, Corvette and Viper, which are both becoming obscure weathy peoples toys and seldom seen, say compared a few decades ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.