I'll say this. American cars from the malaise era are my absolute favorite cars. So if it is happening or going to happen I'll probably like it.
I'll say this. American cars from the malaise era are my absolute favorite cars. So if it is happening or going to happen I'll probably like it.
In reply to Nick Comstock :
I am a card carrying member of the Malaise Motors FB group. It's fantastic. They just had their first "Malaise Daze" auto show out in California, and are planning more nationwide!
In reply to alfadriver :
Thanks for the info and insight. Could you give some examples of give away cars? (Ford or otherwise). I don't spend any of my time thinking like a big OEM, so the idea never entered my mind.
I reckon that is almost impossible.
Or it would have to be a very broad definition of malaise. Even the worst cars out right now are still worlds better than stuff was then.
But Ford's CUVs and trucks get better gas mileage than ever before. Oh..wait, that's that other thread.
T.J. said:In reply to alfadriver :
Thanks for the info and insight. Could you give some examples of give away cars? (Ford or otherwise). I don't spend any of my time thinking like a big OEM, so the idea never entered my mind.
Fiat 500e off the top of my head:
Tom_Spangler said:SyntheticBlinkerFluid said:I feel like the last Malaise era was the early 2000’s, like pre bailout. Every American manufacturer was making E36 M3ty cars. Almost every car was rental grade quality, even the fun cars. Junk interiors, virtually the same horsepower since the mid 90’s, E36 M3ty mileage and a general “No berkeleys Given” attitude from the manufacturers, especially from the General.
In cars, maybe, though I'd argue there were bright spots (Focus, CTS-V, Mustang, a few others). In trucks, no way. Compare a mid-2000s truck or SUV to a mid-90s one, it's night and day in terms of quality, NVH, driving experience, horsepower, towing capacity, etc. And even then, trucks outsold cars.
I'm with Eric, no other period can be compared to the 70s, and while the Americans were the worst offenders in that era, nobody escaped unscathed from the emissions and insurance changes. I'd argue that we've been in a golden era since the mid to late 80s.
Yeah I’m not talking about trucks, maybe except Chrysler products, because they had the worst interiors out off all the trucks.
As for the couple cars you posted, they still weren’t great in the terms of interior quality. The Mustang GT still had under 300 hp until 2005 and had the same interior since 1994. The Focus at that time was a good car, but was still affected by chronic interior fatigue, and the CTS-V, while a rocket, still was affected by GM’s inability to make an Luxury interior that wasn’t reminiscent of a plastic parts factory.
SyntheticBlinkerFluid said:As for the couple cars you posted, they still weren’t great in the terms of interior quality. The Mustang GT still had under 300 hp until 2005 and had the same interior since 1994. The Focus at that time was a good car, but was still affected by chronic interior fatigue, and the CTS-V, while a rocket, still was affected by GM’s inability to make an Luxury interior that wasn’t remenksof a plastic parts factory.
To me, the apex of early/mid-2000s American car crapitude was the first-gen Ford Focus that did not have room for anything resembling an adult human foot in the rear footwells, as pointed out by Jeremy Clarkson (and tested IRL by myself).
Regulatory hurdles raise the bar, industry cries doom and gloom, and then some amalgamation of two things happens: 1. Industry successfully lobbies the bar back down either outright or through a series of exemptions and loopholes, and 2. Industry quietly hits the numbers, hopefully without you noticing that their initial bluster was undergirded by the fair certainty that they could do it if they had to. A third thing which is not in contention also occurs regardless. The rich stay rich. Congress, heads of regulatory agencies, the oem CEOs, board members, you name it.
Stubbornly consistent historical precedent suggests that you could basically distill the regulatory question down to two choices: A. give a bunch of engineers who chose to be engineers for a living less job-related stress, or B. give every new-car buyer a more efficient and less polluting vehicle for practically no more inflation-adjusted money than the one they bought last time.
TGMF said:If the Obama era CAFE standards are maintained I don't see how the current crop of non hybrid vehicles has a chance to hit the target. 54.5MPG CAFE by '26 is a big big jump from where we are with our truck heavy purchasing ways. The technology to make trucks viable, at least at current sales numbers, doesn't even seem to exist.
They were rescinded earlier this year, further steeping the downward spiral of American automotive irrelevance as European and Japanese automakers strive to get more efficient while American automakers say "eh, berk it, let's just make more trucks"
Ford announced earlier this year that they will stop making cars except for the Mustang. Also the Focus but it sounds like they are turning the Focus into a truck. Do you think that they care, at all, about efficiency anymore?
I remember being inside a 2002 or 2003 GMC Jimmy when it was three years old. The interior was complete garbage. Every single interior plastic panel was semi-lose and rubbing on each other and making a heck of a racket. Ever watch the show Cuban Chrome where they DIY finish the interior panels of 1950s cars by wrapping vinyl? They do way better.
Rear foot wells aside (which I know I sat in, I'm 6'5" and don't recall anything remarkable), the first gen Focus was a European design, but also a class leader in it's day. Compare to the Cavalier/Sunfire...
T.J. said:Are there really impending changes to allowable emission levels in the US? First I have heard of it. Surprising.
An oil baron is in charge of the EPA. This is known as the fox being in charge of the henhouse.
alfadriver said:Wally said:alfadriver said:Not sure I would call it a "malaise" era- the way I remember the 70's, all cars sucked, not just the ones from US manufacturers. Even Alfa's lost 20-30hp.
True, few cars sold today are more than a couple tweaks away from late 70s Ferrari levels of power.
Apparently the US version of the 308 had 227 hp. I don't actually know of any v6 that makes that little. The perfornace engine in a Fusion makes 40 more.... And the Focus RS is someting around 100 more.
I think I blew Da Boss's mind when I pointed out that EVERYBODY's base-model V6 made horsepower in the same ballpark as the LS1. That 3.6l V6 that Chrysler/Fiat/Jo/Saff/Bridge is putting into everything including minivans and fleet trucks is in the 320-330hp range. The GM 3.6 that is used in a buncha stuff? Same thing. Ford?... all the newer Fords we see are four cylinder, but dang it's neet to see a huge sedan with a 1.5l turbo engine with a water/air intercooler integrated with the intake manifold.
(carefully notice Firefly reference. Yes, I am a dork.)
Knurled. said:alfadriver said:Wally said:alfadriver said:Not sure I would call it a "malaise" era- the way I remember the 70's, all cars sucked, not just the ones from US manufacturers. Even Alfa's lost 20-30hp.
True, few cars sold today are more than a couple tweaks away from late 70s Ferrari levels of power.
Apparently the US version of the 308 had 227 hp. I don't actually know of any v6 that makes that little. The perfornace engine in a Fusion makes 40 more.... And the Focus RS is someting around 100 more.
I think I blew Da Boss's mind when I pointed out that EVERYBODY's base-model V6 made horsepower in the same ballpark as the LS1. That 3.6l V6 that Chrysler/Fiat/Jo/Saff/Bridge is putting into everything including minivans and fleet trucks is in the 320-330hp range. The GM 3.6 that is used in a buncha stuff? Same thing. Ford?... all the newer Fords we see are four cylinder, but dang it's neet to see a huge sedan with a 1.5l turbo engine with a water/air intercooler integrated with the intake manifold.
(carefully notice Firefly reference. Yes, I am a dork.)
Firefly reference!!! Shiny!
Knurled. said:TGMF said:If the Obama era CAFE standards are maintained I don't see how the current crop of non hybrid vehicles has a chance to hit the target. 54.5MPG CAFE by '26 is a big big jump from where we are with our truck heavy purchasing ways. The technology to make trucks viable, at least at current sales numbers, doesn't even seem to exist.
They were rescinded earlier this year, further steeping the downward spiral of American automotive irrelevance as European and Japanese automakers strive to get more efficient while American automakers say "eh, berk it, let's just make more trucks"
Ford announced earlier this year that they will stop making cars except for the Mustang. Also the Focus but it sounds like they are turning the Focus into a truck. Do you think that they care, at all, about efficiency anymore?
Trucks? More like a 40+mpg CUV. More room than a car and just as efficient. Sometimes, I think y'all read what you want and not what's written.
I have to admit, I have a pretty negative outlook on this subject.
Power power power, sure. But weight weight weight.... The 300hp Camry weighs 3500lbs (almost exactly 2000lbs more than the first generation Corolla) , and really that's not even what the majority of people are buying these days. Even Alfa decided to build a crossover instead of the Guillia wagon and crossovers suck.
Sure we're making improvements all over the place (in safety, fuel economy, output etc etc etc) but as far as cars go, we're just adding more and more gadgets to bigger and bigger vehicles in an attempt to polish a turd. I really think the writing is on the wall as far as consumer grade gasoline/diesel internal combustion is concerned (I mean, when the GERMAN engineers have to cheat to meet requirements, you KNOW E36 M3's about to go down). How and how quickly the new technology is implemented will be the biggest factor in deciding whether or not we're all doomed to suffer from a pool of new/sucky cars while manufacturers scramble to catch up with the new technology.
If legislation pushes electrical vehicle tech fast and dry, it's gonna hurt for a bit.
Quick follow up:
Have you ever noticed how everything air powered gets replaced with something electrical? The vacuum wipers of yesterday get electric motors today. The rats nests of the 80's are replaced with electronics. The big air compressor under our hoods is being replaced with an electric motor... It'll just be one more good noise gone from automotive racing (right up there with double de-clutching, burble and pops whilst dragging a gear, and an uncorked V12)
In reply to GameboyRMH :
If the new regulations remove whatever incentives lead to a company selling cars at s $14k loss per unit, then maybe they are a step in the right direction.
In reply to Knurled. :
That did not answer ny question. From what I have gathered we are referring to slowing the increase in CAFE standards and not actual emissions, and there are no plans to allow dirtier new cars in the US, just ones whose fuel efficiency will nit be improving as fast as some like.
Knurled. said:They were rescinded earlier this year, further steeping the downward spiral of American automotive irrelevance as European and Japanese automakers strive to get more efficient while American automakers say "eh, berk it, let's just make more trucks"
Ford announced earlier this year that they will stop making cars except for the Mustang. Also the Focus but it sounds like they are turning the Focus into a truck. Do you think that they care, at all, about efficiency anymore?
To avoid spreading misinformation, I need to speak up about this post. Nothing has been rescinded yet. There's been talk of it, and the current EPA leadership is planning on revising standards that run through 2025, but that process could take up to a year, and that's without court battles. The CARB states sued the EPA this week to retain the current standards, so the court battles have already begun.
Also, Ford isn't going to quit making cars. They're going to stop developing cars for the North Amercian market, which means no redesigns. The current cars will continue to be sold through 2019-2022 depending on the model. From there, Ford will continue to make/sell cars for other markets. The Focus isn't being turned into a truck. It's just a slightly lifted Focus Hatch. Frankly, it seems like the kind of vehicle that a lot of people here would love:
T.J. said:In reply to alfadriver :
Thanks for the info and insight. Could you give some examples of give away cars? (Ford or otherwise). I don't spend any of my time thinking like a big OEM, so the idea never entered my mind.
Super duper cheap Rangers on the truck side. And the super cheap Escorts on the car side. Neither of which ever made money- but their losses were offset by other cars that made a lot of money. For the most part, that can't happen anymore since vehicles are judged totally on their own.
STM317 said:Knurled. said:They were rescinded earlier this year, further steeping the downward spiral of American automotive irrelevance as European and Japanese automakers strive to get more efficient while American automakers say "eh, berk it, let's just make more trucks"
Ford announced earlier this year that they will stop making cars except for the Mustang. Also the Focus but it sounds like they are turning the Focus into a truck. Do you think that they care, at all, about efficiency anymore?
To avoid spreading misinformation, I need to speak up about this post. Nothing has been rescinded yet. There's been talk of it, and the current EPA leadership is planning on revising standards that run through 2025, but that process could take up to a year, and that's without court battles. The CARB states sued the EPA this week to retain the current standards, so the court battles have already begun.
Also, Ford isn't going to quit making cars. They're going to stop developing cars for the North Amercian market, which means no redesigns. The current cars will continue to be sold through 2019-2022 depending on the model. From there, Ford will continue to make/sell cars for other markets. The Focus isn't being turned into a truck. It's just a slightly lifted Focus Hatch. Frankly, it seems like the kind of vehicle that a lot of people here would love:
I'm going to quote this to repeat it again. Just because an announcement was made to roll back the standards does not mean they are actually rolled back. It takes as long of a process to end them as it did to put them into place, so there will have to be a lot of hearings, mostly public, to let people talk. And I actually know that there will be lawsuits preventing the roll back, too. Which I do very expect to land in the "CO2 needs to be controlled" camp, given that's entirely how it got into the EPA's system in the first place. Yes, the government was sued to control CO2- and that shifted the control from NHTSA to the EPA. That WHOLE thing was court mandated based on the Clean Air Act.
All other emissions standards are not being changed, also. So there's going to be a gradual roll down to a fleet average of SULEV30 for cars and light trucks.
The rest of the world (other than China) is largely bound by their signing of the Kyoto Treaty. And for the most part, everyone is failing- the bias toward diesel seems to have backfired in a very bad way. China is quickly ramping everything down- CO2 and gas emissions.
Interesting that this conversation took the efficiency route. My initial impression reading the headline was that a new malaise era is upon us secondary to bloated government crash standards. It's my personal view (and, really, I've no evidence to back this up, so take it with a grain of salt) that government safety regulations are actually impeding safe driving. High belt-lines, safety nannies, and interior gadgets are continually isolating the driver from their environment. If you sit in a cocoon with minimal visibility and massive blind spots then, of course, you won't see that person barreling down the highway as you change lanes. Sure, when you get into that accident, crash standards make it that you're more likely to walk away. But, ultimately, if we improved driver's-ed classes and taught our young people (and reeducated some of us who've been driving for years) that the path to safe driving is actually through mindful human-vehicle interaction I think we'd have much safer roads and more engaging vehicles.
Can someone in the industry explain to me why side impact standards have driven the belt line higher? I'm not convinced that this is true. Why? My head can impact that window sill or the window regardless of sill height. I don't get it. I still think a lot of it is just follow-the-leader styling rather than engineering.
As for whether or not we're about to have another malaise era, I say it's already started. I used to spend my Sunday morning prowling car lots. Now I drive by most dealerships and write off most of their product line as uninteresting appliances. Copycat styling on sedans, no interesting small cars, fewer and fewer stick shifts, massive trucks styled by Wurlitzer and prices north of what I paid for my first house. Last lot I visited was the local Mazda store to see what Miatas they had in stock.
penultimeta said:Interesting that this conversation took the efficiency route. My initial impression reading the headline was that a new malaise era is upon us secondary to bloated government crash standards. It's my personal view (and, really, I've no evidence to back this up, so take it with a grain of salt) that government safety regulations are actually impeding safe driving. High belt-lines, safety nannies, and interior gadgets are continually isolating the driver from their environment. If you sit in a cocoon with minimal visibility and massive blind spots then, of course, you won't see that person barreling down the highway as you change lanes. Sure, when you get into that accident, crash standards make it that you're more likely to walk away. But, ultimately, if we improved driver's-ed classes and taught our young people (and reeducated some of us who've been driving for years) that the path to safe driving is actually through mindful human-vehicle interaction I think we'd have much safer roads and more engaging vehicles.
IMHO, the safety standards are being less driven by NHTSA and more by the IIHS. IIHS are the ones who do all of the far more public crash testing, and really advocate the huge numbers of air bags. They also do some very different tests than NHTSA.
And the IIHS is very much not the government. They are your insurance companies.
You'll need to log in to post.
