Car Lust--1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass
I love slick sports coupes and sedans, and high-horsepower, high-testosterone muscle cars get my blood churning, so my fixation with seemingly mediocre 1970s American cars must seem a little strange. Sports coupes, sports sedans, and muscle cars all tend to combine style, power, and athleticism; in the popular eye, 1970s American cars bring only gauche style and flabby, anemic performance to the table.
Certainly, it was a dark time in the automotive world, with tightening emissions restrictions, an awful fuel shortage, plunging power levels, and an odd predilection towards baroque styling elements. But when people give me a hard time about my 1970s car infatuation, I point to cars like the 1973 Oldsmobile Cutlass as examples of why I find them so compelling.
It's easy to focus on the tacky cars of the 1970s, (I'm not immune) but what gets lost is the fact that there were a lot of strong, cleanly styled typical American cars during this period that looked good, ran reliably, and made a lot of people happy.
I find the '73 Cutlass particularly good-looking, with its scalloped fenders and delicate detailing. It's a distinctive look without crossing the line to busy. The Cutlass was also a sweetheart of a car mechanically--not a hot rod, but a comfortable, stylish cruiser with an plush ride and a torquey 350 V-8.
In a way, the Cutlass is a proud representative of a sweet spot in American car history. In the same way that Kleenex knows how to make facial tissue, Detroit just knew how to build large, V-8-powered, rear-wheel-drive cruisers. That knowledge was hard-coded into the DNA of every major American car company. The major disasters came when the Big Three had to step outside of that comfort zone to try something new.
The '73 Cutlass was more reliable, better-executed, and more satisfying to drive than the jumbled messes that came immediately after it when Detroit fumbled with small engines and front-wheel-drive. The Cutlass was a particularly good example of how good a typical American rear-wheel-drive car was before GM lost the playbook.
With its understated looks, its well-tested engineering, and throwback driving dynamics, the Cutlass would certainly be welcome in my garage--if only I could find one.
This particular example is owned by Frank Alfter, is in gorgeous like-new condition and is currently in storage.
--Chris H.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Rob: I got exactly what you were saying.
Please take a moment to look at yourself. You've all but started a flame war with another commenter, announced to the whole world that you "support vandalism, prejudice, hatred, and vulgarity," admitted to flipping off total strangers on the road and leaving nasty notes on windshields, and, not to put too fine a point on it, copped to other public conduct that could easily have gotten your mugshot and arrest report on half the humor websites on the Internet, under the "Idiot of the Day" category.
All this over . . . what kind of car you drive?
Regardless of the merits of the critique of SUVs--and I agree with a fair bit of what Mochi says above--you going off on a foul-mouthed red-faced tirade in some SUV owner's face will likely never convince a single SUV owner to get a smaller vehicle. (If anything, you'll have the opposite effect. The UAW clown who gave me an earful about my CRX back in the day did not exactly convince me to look at Chevys.) It will, however, blacken your soul.
Your soul is too valuable for that.
Bullet on April 10, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Rob, I get the anger, hate, and all the reasons behind it. I'm a regular reader but rarely write in. I've really liked all the comments I've read on this blog, yours included. I like the calm and friendly tone that people use. I like the humor. Not a lot of flaming. Nice bunch of people.
I like trucks. Real trucks. I like station wagons too. Heck I think mini-vans are great, they get the job done. To me you can have a utility truck or a truck with a cap and be a good citizen. Technically that's the origin of the SUV. Mochi is right most people don't need the SUV they own. Most SUV owners would not go for a real truck, 'cause it aint flashy and soft. There's a boat load of vanity there. I'd feel like a girly-boy if I was driving around in a car with air conditioned seats, a radar system, and a video monitor.
I see little ladies and business execs driving their Lexus SUVs while they talk and text on their cell phones. I see these same SUV upside down on highways all the time. They are freeking dangerous. 15 years ago I hardly ever saw car accidents where cars were upside down. Not today, flipped vehicles are common place and often they are SUVs because of the high center of gravity. People forget that the cars they drive are dangerous weapons, SUV or family sedan alike. But an SUV has way more potential to do harm because of the weight and height.
You are right and you got your anger. You wanna take a dump on someone's hood that's your business. Not sure I want to read about it though, kind of creates a bad picture in my head. Personally I think your SUV tickets are a better way to get your point across and your anger out. I think what I'm saying, and I think what Mochi and a few other people are getting at, is we can disagree, and make good points, and still be civil. Good ideas stand on their own. Seems to me like the SUV tickets reflect better on the great point you are making. Thanks for the good point you make.
One more thing, a station wagon is more than good enough for family, camping, and trailer alike. So far as I can see there still is no good argument for an SUV over a wagon (if you have a family) or a truck.
Steaming Pile on April 10, 2008 at 01:20 PM
@mochi: "The good news is that all these old cars, even the huge ones, are looking better and better to me."
I bet they don't get driven daily, either. I know if I had a '73 Cutlass, I wouldn't be subjecting it to the rigors and road salt of a northeastern winter, that's for sure.
Thanks for backing me up on my 90%-10% argument. It should have come to no surprise in the 90s that eventually we'd be up to our armpits in Middle Eastern sand and the price of oil would soar to $110+ a barrel. The idea that one day my son might be asked to participate in Bush's BS war so other people can waste gas really, really pisses me off, and compared to that possibility, I'm not terribly worried about the feelings of some farmer who drives a Suburban around his spread for a living, let alone somebody who "needs" one to haul around all his shit when he goes camping.
Mochi Mochi on April 10, 2008 at 03:01 PM
No problem Steaming Pile. There are a lot of great points that are being made in this discussion. Cookie The Dog's Owner, OldCarGuy, BigRig, Rob of SVX fame, David Drucker (who I know is an aficionado of station wagons) are all great contributors - as is Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame (Nathan where are you?). Certain cars evoke a lot of passion. The mini-van, the firebird, the SUV. That's just how it is. And we try to all voice our opinions and make our points in the best ways we can. That's one of the great things about Carlust. The dialog.
If I lived in a freezing climate I'd consider a seat heater. If I lived in an interminably steamy climate I'd consider seats with A/C - I hate humidity. If I needed to haul stuff I'd get a wagon - possibly with A/C seats. So if I ever move to Florida you can plan on seeing me driving about in cool comfort in a Volvo Turbo Wagon. I'd probably make it a tuner... can you get a cherry bomb exhaust, screaming eagle hood decal, and a jacked rear end for a Volvo wagon? But I'm kind of old fashioned and I can only take so much luxury so I'd probably have to strip the insides of the Volvo, add a roll cage and 5-point harness.
The funny thing about old cars is that once they reach that point where they are no longer in fashion, they drift in limbo for a while. Then they get picked up either by collectors (who want to restore them and never drive them), or folks who are short on cash (and need cheap transportation to get to the multiple jobs they need to make ends meet.)
I've been looking at craigslist and ebaymotors lately. It's really interesting to see what happens to formerly shiny luxury cars. Makes me wonder what will happen to our current fleet of rockets, cruisers, luxury yachts, and SUVs. Will there be a CarLust entry for the Navigator or the Escalade in 2038, when we are peddling to work in hydrogen/solar hybrid SmartCars (with A/C seat options :)
Steaming Pile on April 10, 2008 at 03:38 PM
@mochi - you mean like Nick Nolte's POS sky blue Cadillac?
Anyway, you'd be surprised when the subject of SUVs comes up, even on the most heavily-moderated lefty websites, some wiseacre is always going to post something like, "well, I need my SUV for X, Y, and Z." It always happens, and it's completely irrelevant to the subject of suburban keeping-up-with-the-Joneses weenies who buy them, drive to work every day - alone - and then pamper the things on weekends like they're priceless jewels like the '59 Caddy (which I would still want even if the price of gas went to fifty bucks a gallon and all I could do is look at it and polish the chrome).
The other thing that irks me is that once some automaker starts making a few bucks on a particular kind of vehicle, everybody else has to retool to produce ONLY that kind of vehicle to the exclusion of all else. The television industry did this with Seinfeld a decade and an half ago, and Survivor after that, but I digress. A lot of really kewl development in other genres of cars went by the wayside in the wake of the SUV craze back when SUVs were easy money. Hell, Ford shitcanned a perfectly good midsize sedan so they could turn it into a pavement-only SUV. Just think what car manufacturers could have rolled out if they weren't so busy thinking up ways to make 50s technology seem up-to-date.
I could never figure out why so many people bought them. They're ugly, they eat gas like a school bus, they're handle like shit; they're just like 70s cars, only without the thing that made 70s cars cool. You know; the thing that brings people to this blog. Perhaps it's just as well that I see so many of them languishing in used car lots on my way to work. The big one I pass every morning recently rearranged his stock to put the small cars up front where people could see them. I guess he's tired of seeing people look at all those big trucks and driving off.
Anyway, it's time I let someone else post. I've said quite enough about the subject. I guess that's what Chris gets for not posting anything new, so we hijack his last post and just make stuff up as we go along. Later, dude.
Rob the SVX guy on April 10, 2008 at 10:13 PM
@ Cookie: No, it's not over 'just what kind of car they drive'. That's what you don't understand. If it was guaranteed NOT to affect me, I wouldn't care. But it DOES affect me. I've had a close family member go to physical therapy for years after being rear ended by an SUV. My nation's economy is collapsing, which isn't helped at all by our current situation in the middle east. I have had members of my old high school killed over in Iraq. Do you think some jackass in his H2 is helping that situation?
Most importantly, people who CHOOSE to drive an SUV CHOOSE to endanger my life. I see them all the time yapping on cellphones driving their 2 ton monstrosities, and I've already shown you the statistics. If I'm in my 89 accord and I get creamed by an SUV, guess what? I'm probably dead or maimed for life. If I get hit by another car, I'll probably be okay. So their CHOICE offends me, purely because they show zero regard or respect for MY LIFE and the lives of people who surround me. They just don't care. In my eyes, it's a small price to pay when I flip them off, leave tickets on their windshield, and occasionally shit on their hood if they are threatening my life and the lives of others on a daily basis for ZERO freaking reason.
One other thing: Have you EVER seen an H2/Escalade/Navigator use it's turn signals? I haven't. And you can bet your ass if my wife ever gets hurt by someone in an SUV, they will have a very limited lifespan. Period.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on April 11, 2008 at 05:58 AM
Rob, I say this in the spirit of friendship: the rage isn't going to change a single SUV driver's mind. Screaming red-faced rudeness is not persuasive. You are only hurting yourself, and doing much more damage than the statistical risk of collision with a large vehicle is doing to you.
OldCarGuy on April 11, 2008 at 06:54 AM
Rob the SVX guy said, “Also, to Oldcarguy: Your needs are very shallow at best. Station wagons can hold many adults and 2 large dogs just fine, and my dad used to tow his 35' boat with... wait for it... wait for it... a 1972 Cadillac Eldorado. You say you need to go offroading... for what exactly? Now see if you can wrap your brain around this concept: Most people have no need whatsoever for owning an SUV, and try to come up with reasons why the 'need it'. You don't need it. 30 years ago, people did tons of things, and most didn't have SUVs. You are full of shit.”
Thank you for you illuminating comments.
I owned station wagons. I’ve also owned sports cars, economy cars, and other earlier versions of “SUVs.” The station wagons capable of towing had large V-8 engines. None of them ever achieved gas mileage above the low teens. Nor did your dad’s Eldorado. When is the last time you saw a late model station wagon with a V-8? The only vehicles manufactured today with a significant towing capacity are pickup trucks and SUVs. As for offroading and 4WD, most of the offroading I do is recreational backcountry camping. Also, 4WD is sometimes, but not always, necessary to pull the boat and trailer out of the water, particularly if the ramp is not well maintained. Numerous people whose cars I’ve pulled out of the snow seemed to appreciate it as well. I can’t (nor do I need to) defend OTHER’S choices for driving an SUV, any more than I can (or need to) defend the owner of a pickup truck who never hauls anything, or the owner of a Porsche or other high performance car who can’t legally drive the car anywhere near its capabilities. (I like both pickups and sports care, by the way.) They have made choices based on their wants, the free market and their ability to pay, as have I. Generalizations about people, whether based upon their race, the clothes they wear, the language they speak, or their ride, are dangerous and shallow and quite often simply wrong. Oh, and I use my turn signals.
Mochi Mochi on April 11, 2008 at 09:17 AM
OldCarGuy said: "Just be aware that when one generalizes one will at times be dead wrong."
Dead on. I am as guilty as any one of generalizations. Generalizations can be useful for understanding larger trends but they can get us in trouble if we hold them as inflexible standards. I think there are arguments that carry more critical weight than others, and there are valid ways to evaluate those arguments. The question of utilization of a vehicle is valid and does carry weight. But just as an argument can be made about under-utilized SUVs, the same argument could be made about owning a Ferrari.
For all the grace and power, a Ferrari can be considered a form of wretched excess. Sure I love looking at them. But let's be real, who needs a car that can exceed 160mph to drive around the city and pick up groceries. I consider a Ferrari to be a dangerous weapon. I'm guessing that most Ferraris have performance capabilities that exceed that of most of their owners (a generalization and an assumption, but I think it is valid) that's not good. The good news is that there aren't thousands of Ferraris in the hands of 16-21 year old males driving about the streets every day.
I've clearly stated my positions regarding the problems of SUVs. From status, to danger, to under-utilization. But I don't consider it a sin or a moral failing. One of my dearest friends owns what is typically called an SUV - although it is also classified as a compact. She loves it. It is small and spartan - it is more of a truck than an SUV but it has a completely integrated bed so its an SUV. She drives it with great care and caution. She bought it used for a couple of grand because she likes Chevys, and it was well suited to hauling equipment and camping, and it was cheap. The gas milage is not great, she hates that. I'm not going to condemn my friend because she owns and drives a small SUV. That would be silly. She's also really smart and researched her choice of cars before buying this old roller. She actually does a good job of utilizing this car and drives it sparingly to not burn up a lot of fuel.
To further emphasize the point. This car gets is frequently used in rural areas where +80% of the roads are unpaved - that height and ground clearance are needed. My civic or a station wagon would have a really rough time just getting up her driveway. Trying to drive my civic through these areas would ruin the suspension I love so much and result in an undercarriage ripped to pieces by rocks.
The fact that she bought an older car as we all know reduces waste an ecological damage associated with new car production. Overall I can't find any fault with this arrangement. And in this case the exception does indeed disprove any rule. My friend calls this her truck and differentiates it from SUV, but acknowledges that it technically is an SUV.
The US is still very big. There are areas where it makes no sense to own a truck or a sport utility vehicle. There are other areas where it makes a lot of sense to own something that has real ground clearance and durability. So I'm still opposed to luxury SUVs that get run around the city - it just seems wasteful. But there is no way that I could ever support an argument that says there is not place for trucks and real utility vehicles.
Rob the SVX guy on April 11, 2008 at 09:44 AM
I'm not against ALL trucks or SUVs either, but again... studies have shown time and time again that 95% of all SUVs never leave the road, EVER. This means that 95% of all SUV owners would be fine in a minivan. Sure, there are some people who actually need them, but what did people like them do 30 years ago? Did they all drive broncos? Or what? Somehow, I think, people just managed without them. I tow my boat with a car with less than 100hp. Sometimes, when backpacking, I drive for miles and miles on unpaved rural roads, in my fwd econobox. It's even lowered a little. Can I do 35 on washboard gravel and rocks? No. I just go slower, and it works fine. I go camping with my 60lb dog and my wife, and we fit in our tiny accord (smaller than today's civic) without any problems. If I had kids, I'd get a station wagon. Problem solved. Fact is, I have not met one person who actually NEEDS an SUV like they say they do. Almost all of them would be better off with a compact car and a beater truck to haul/tow things with.
Mochi Mochi on April 11, 2008 at 11:34 AM
30 years ago we had offerings from International Harvester and Jeep. These along with a variety of trucks, were used for tough driving and hauling. They were honest and they were few.
Utility in general is a good evaluation of a car. I get a lot of utility out of my Civic - sometime 100%. It is optimized for the driving I do.
I think we can agree that 90-95% of the SUVs out there are not anywhere near maximum utility. Maybe we need to distinguish between Honest Utility Vehicles (HUVs), which are in a minority, and then all the other branches of this vehicle type. For instance Non-Utility Vehicles (NUVs), Urban Poser Vehicle (UPVs), and Ego Booster Vehicles (EPVs), and Luxury Poser Vehicles (LPVs - including Beemers, Lexii, and Cadi).
I think most of us can agree these more targeted vehicle types are pretty repugnant.
Steaming Pile on April 11, 2008 at 01:15 PM
I guess you could say that my Scion xA is also optimized for the driving I do. The hatchback configuration and fold-down rear seats make it flexible enough to haul whatever crap I might need to haul, within reason. With the rear seats up, there is just enough room behind them for a half-dozen bags of groceries. I can put them in there and be reasonably assured that when I get home, they will not have rolled around loose the whole trip from the store.
The high roof means that six-footers like me can drive in reasonable comfort. So can three other adult passengers. I get 35 honest MPG pretty much regardless of how I drive. The stereo plays MP3s from data CDs I burn on my home PC. It's so short, you wouldn't believe the places I can parallel park without breaking a sweat.
This is utility, my friends.
Anthony Cagle on April 12, 2008 at 11:28 AM
"studies have shown time and time again that 95% of all SUVs never leave the road, EVER."
Which means absolutely nothing really. How many Porsches go on a track? Who needs to go 0-60 in less than, say, 8 seconds? Who gets to decide who needs what kind of vehicle? Usually it's the socialists because we're told they know better. Are you gonna come after my modified Mustang next? Maybe we should outlaw any car or truck that someone deems "unnecessary".
It's a fool's game, played only by fools.
Steaming Pile on April 12, 2008 at 02:27 PM
@Tony Cagle - Why not just promote the IDEA of sensible automobile purchasing? Would that satisfy the "holy shit this is creeping socialism" test? Does everything have to be about the loony left-wing socialist hippies versus the sensible, freedom-loving conservatives? Would we or would we not be better off if we were encouraged (by means other than $4 gas) to consider fuel economy when buying a new vehicle? Sure, you can blow me off and get yourself a 10 MPG f***-you-I'm-driving-what-I-want-because-I-want-it-mobile anyway, but who does it hurt when people like me point out the adverse consequences when people make decisions like this in large groups?
Who did it hurt when President Carter went on TV and asked us to conserve energy? Did he also ask Congress to pass laws MAKING us do it? No. He did, however, appeal to our patriotism (a rather "conservative" thing for a Democrat to do) when he asked us nicely to do it. I'm sure it made an impression on at least some of us, too. Nevertheless, he got crapped on for pointing out the obvious, only to be proven dead right in the end.
So you can call me a socialist all you want. I'm going to continue to speak my mind, and if you don't like it, tough cookies.
Rob the SVX guy on April 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM
@ Cagle: Somebody call the WAAHHHHMbulance, because all I'm hearing from you is whining/crying. Guess what? New flash: We already have laws that dictate what you can and cannot buy from an automaker, and we already have laws that say what is and isn't road legal. You cannot drive 'whatever you want' in the United States, nor can automakers sell 'whatever they want'. They have to meet regulations, and road going vehicles have to meet certain specifications. You already live in what you whine about being a 'socialist' society, since your government limits your freedom in respect to what you can drive and buy, and what you can't.
And I love sports cars. The difference is I don't see every boring business major marketing douche dropping their minivan for a porsche 911. And if they did, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem, since a car with higher performance (acceleration, braking, handling, response) is going to be SAFER on the road if driven about the same as something else, purely because its specs give it an advantage to AVOID an accident. Sports cars also at least help push the boundry of technology, which trickles down into everything else eventually, while SUVs just try to sell us technology from 30-40 years ago, with about the same MPG and safety features. No thanks. SUVs are retarded, and the people who buy them even more so. They handle like ass, they brake like ass, they are extremely slow, they suck gas, they aren't safe, they have crap response thanks to their huge sidewalls, and the people buying them in droves are getting them because they don't want to be in a minivan. They're lame.
Anthony Cagle on April 13, 2008 at 04:23 PM
"I hate SUVs with a passion though, freakin worthless vehicles."
"But SUV's go beyond the pale. They are an expression of the worse excess and lack of imagination that has ever been conceived. They are a plague and an abomination."
"I look at them and think fat, wimpy, candy-ass wanna-bees cars for sissies."
"And it's always the people who drive those monstrosities who sport those asinine yellow ribbon magnets and voted for Bush in 2004 AFTER anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew he was bad news for the country."
"I've literally pooped on the hood of an H2 before. I will do so again. SUVs are a complete joke. . ."
"Sure, you can blow me off and get yourself a 10 MPG f***-you-I'm-driving-what-I-want-because-I-want-it-mobile..."
Sure, nothing here but rational, reasoned discussion. Hmmmm. . .who's doing the whining?
But yeah, the above is just like Carter going on TV and asking us to conserve energy. Really. I remember his (almost) exact words were: "Gimme a break. You f***ing candy-ass losers just want your sissy 100 watt bulbs and 78-degree rooms to make up for your small d**ks. Turn 'em down because if you don't I'm gonna come over and s**t on your front porch. Thank you."
See, I used to be a primo SUV-basher -- which is, in fact, far different from simply "pointing out the adverse consequences" of vehicle choices -- but I finally saw what an arrogant cuss I was being, more or less just projecting my own class prejudices onto an easy target. Plus, once you stop picking and choosing whatever numbers you can find to make your predetermined point, things are a lot less clear than those with an agenda want you to believe.
Crash statistics are a bear to interpret (I know; I'm a public health statistician). MPGs are all over the map. It's just not that simple, and the above quotes make it quite clear that some of you have WAY more invested in this than some sort of dispassionate analysis of a set of clear and unambiguous facts.
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame on April 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I didn't even realize this SUV war was going on until Chris did a post about it. I just wasn't interested enough in what appeared (without clicking on the comments link, at least) appeared to be a long discussion about an old Olds Cutlass.
But here are my thoughts on SUVs:
People like big cars.
But the govt made big cars pretty much impossible through CAFE standards. Since people wanted big cars, they flocked to the closest thing (SUVs), and Detroit responded by making more of them, and by doing things to increase their attraction. It's not "evil" Detroit, nor is it "stupid/vain" people.
Me? I don't like SUVs/trucks that block my sightlines while driving; especially because tinting rules allow pretty much opaque back windows for SUVs/trucks, but not for cars.
And for as much as I lust after bunches of different sporty cars, I recognize that at the end of the day, vehicles are just choices to move people, and I want to do that with as little waste as possible...so I like cheap, used, zippy little Japanese cars. As such, I've never wanted an SUV.
I *did* like my 2001 CRV quite a bit, though. It held lots more than a Civic, and sat 5 more comfortably (more upright room), and I routinely got 27 mpg city in it (why is it Honda is the one company that seems to routinely out-perform the sticker fuel economy ratings?!?!)
Still, I face a 5-person family (hopefully soon) situation, and if we have company, taking 2 cars everywhere is both annoying and extremely wasteful. I also want to buy a pop-up trailer and go camping.
A 70s-era behemoth station wagon would be awesome for those things...except that gas mileage in single digits would be extremely wasteful in these days. But (**and please don't forget this**): They Don't Make Them Anymore.
I looked into mini-vans, and while they can have towing packages and people have testified their minivans have towed just fine, I've also seen some who retracted that when their minivan died 2 years later. And there also many who said from the first that their minivan couldn't handle towing.
Part of that is because engine size/power is only about 1/3 of what you need to tow. The other 2/3 being adequate suspension and heavy-duty cooling. Oh, and add in an engine tuned for low-end torque.
So a Honda Pilot is far more appropriate for towing stuff than a Honda Odyssey, despite an identical engine.
Add in that the Pilot actually holds one more person, and that the gas mileage is nearly identical, and I have a no-brainer: I need to purchase a Honda Pilot to meet my needs.
Bonus thoughts:
-Although most people live in cities, I was raised in a small Montana town. That's 5000 people right there that could make a strong case for needing an SUV, and there are probably 100 similar towns in the state. Add in ten times as much for all the states with mountainous areas, and you have a strong market for SUVs right there.
Before SUVs, most rural dwellers were limited to making do with trucks (not quite adequate for passengers) or Subarus/Eagles (not quite adequate for hauling).
-According to one report I read (no mood to Google for a link), the vehicle that uses the least energy over its entire life is...a Hummer! H2, I think. It may use more gas mileage, but its simplicity in construction and durability means it lasts longer and costs far less to make. In fact:
-Bonus made-up fact you can circulate as if it were true: For every Prius made, 3 people will contract cancer due to the hazardous materials used in its batteries! But baseless rumors aside, the Prius (and other hybrid) batteries are *very* bad for the environment.
-If you have to be angry at people for waste, maybe the place to get angry is how all the horsepower gains of the last decade have gone into making sedans faster and heavier, rather than MPG improvement. So that person driving the Accord is choosing a car that is far more dangerous to me driving my 1990 Toyota Corolla!!!! Rob, no offense, but it sounds like your hatred of SUVs is inductive rather than deductive.
Rob the SVX guy on April 15, 2008 at 02:52 PM
Nathan, that article you read about the hummer was extremely flawed for many reasons, here's the main problem: the life expectancy of the vehicles in which they compared.
1. Life expectancy. GM guessed that the H2 on average, would last 300,000 miles. That is a complete joke. Most vehicles do not make it that far, as society has devalued them to the point where they are generally in the junkyard before that happens. Toyota guessed that the Prius would last 150,000 miles. Now, which marque tends to have more older high mileage vehicles on the road? Oh. Toyota. GM's stuff generally falls apart.
2. Also, they did NOT include a normal sedan in that so called 'paper', which would have easily beaten both the Prius and the H2. Why? The average sedan is fairly efficient, lasts a long time, and is not a complex vehicle like the prius. It was an extremely biased viewpoint that is masquerading as research to back up a pre-existing opinion. One may accuse me of the same, but no. I have a soft spot for Jeep Cherokees. After reading a lot of material, the classic Jeep Cherokee is an amazing vehicle. It's about as safe as a passenger car, does not suffer from rollover problems, and is relatively efficient for what it is, as well as very capable.
Also, I wrote a paper about the environmental impact of things like SUVs, AND hybrids. Turns out they're both complete losers, in terms of their impact to our ecosystems. Best thing to do? Keep older cars on the road longer. If you are interested in the subject I can email you the paper, or put it online.
Jason Carpp on December 03, 2008 at 12:22 AM
GM's intermediate-sized cars from 1973 on were the ugliest cars I've ever seen. The Oldsmobile Cutlass, the Buick Skylark (Regal) and the Chevy Chevelle were the least attractive GM cars I've ever seen.
Fragile Stump on August 15, 2009 at 09:49 AM
What a wonderfully literate blog. You people really have a way with words.
Regarding SUVs, I like them only because heavy-chested women like them. They don't have to bend over and get backstrain from putting in or getting out infants and groceries.
Honda CR-Vs, GMC Acadias, and Chevy TrailBlazers are nice stylish examples.
maxie66 on April 30, 2010 at 05:09 AM
I happen to have a 1974 version of this car with 470,000 miles on it. I dont happen to agree with the "unreliable" comments and uneducated "leaf spring axle" stories. These cars had a 4 link. Fords of this era are not comparable to GM's. That is why GM had 60 percent market share. It is when GM and the other manufacturers started to lighten things up and change things that they got off track. The reason I still own and drive this car is that the newer ones dont offer anything I want. I prefer mechanical simplicity to complication. I work as a technician on the new computerized disasters. You can have them. This car rides like a Cadillac and starts everytime, runs smooth. If I want to go fast I get in my 1966 Pontiac with a 455 / 3.42 axle with overdrive and blow most of the other cars off the road. (this also is dead reliable by the way.
tomm on June 18, 2010 at 02:40 PM
GM had a good thing with Oldsmobiles, they were reliable, which made them popular and they had high resale. No, not all old cars are junk just because 'enthusiasts' say so.
But, as end of the article states, GM lost its way. The diesel started the decline of Olds, and then the old boxy cars were around too long. By the time the 'new generation of Olds' came, no one cared anymore.
GM should have made the Olds V8 its 'corporate' motor, and not waited forever to update the line.
Ron on September 19, 2010 at 11:25 AM
This was my first car, except brown with a white top and white interior.
John on December 21, 2010 at 07:34 PM
I owned a 73 Cutlass supreme for over 5 years 1983 to 1988. It was my first car and I loved it. It was faster than the Irocs Zs and Mustangs and Corvettes during this time. The car got a lot compliments and it was unique. My car had factory dual exhaust,buckets,console and floor shifter. My Cutlass was a real sleeper and if the A/c still worked and I didnt get so many tickets driving it I would not of sold it. A real classic.