NeonLX

I remember what a Big Deal it was when Caddy introduced the 500 CID V8 in 1970. Jeepers creepers, 550 lbs.-ft. of torque!!!

Ahhh, so THAT'S how they did it. Very interesting. Until now, I didn't realize that the 2006 version of the 3.5L is altogether different from the 2005 and earlier versions... Thanks for all the info!

I like the wood look inside of cars. It warms up the interior. I'm really growing weary of the brushed metal look that's so popular right now. Makes the interior look cold and unfinished to me. And I'm also getting tired of gray tones. I like some color to liven things up. Of course, I'm an old guy and it seems like only yesterday that I was cleaning lint out of the button depressions in the velvety upholstery of my Olds 98 Regency :P

I'm most interested in the overall functionality of a car, as well as the value, performance and comfort. The dash in my Caravan is supposedly of "lower quality" than that of a Honda Odyssey, according to the auto rags anyway. But my Caravan also cost thousands less than a comparably equipped Odyssey, it has about the same amount of room, and I think the front seats of the Caravan are way more comfortable than the Odyssey's as well. But the Odyssey owners can revel in the fact that their dash appears to be of higher quality. :)

Saw a 1975 Buick Estate Wagon WITHOUT the usual packing crate trim. It's in surprisingly good condition, at least body-wise. Also saw a Cobalt sedan on the way to work. They are surprisingly rare around here; not sure why. Cobalt coupes are even scarcer.

Right. I'm guessing that at some point, the castings had to be changed though because the bore AND stroke have both been increased signficantly since the 2.8L days (assuming the 3.9L is based on the old 2.8L, of course). The 2.8L started out as a very compact engine in the first place and I've seen what they looked like inside. I just can't imagine there was a lot of meat in the block for larger bores and/or lots of room for a larger crank to twirl around within... I guess I'm curious if there's someone who knows where I could find a good history of these engines...I'm not that familiar with them.

What a steaming pantload. The car rags, including Consumer Reports, will describe a buzzy engine in an Asian-brand car thusly: "...the well-crafted engine exhibits a delightfully zesty note that fairly begs the driver to engage in playful antics with the accelerator". The same exact engine in a domestic brand would be described as, "crude and agricultural; a continuous assault on the ears". I haven't subscribed to a car magazine in years, though I do occasionally read them at the newstand in the grocery store. Consumer Reports blew what little credibility they had some years ago when they tested beer. Yes, they tested BEER. I mean, they claim to be solely objective--but by its very nature, beer-tasting is a very subjective endeavor (I should know, I'm kind of an expert :) ). Anyhoo, sorry I blew up.

Cool! BTW, here's my other current ride, though my wife drives this one about 95% of the time:

Phooey, there goes a double-post. Sorry; I got a message saying things had timed out while trying to post.

The old 216 wasn't a drag racing engine but it did have good low-end grunt. You could take off from a dead stop in 3rd gear with not much clutch-slipping. Of course, the 4.11 gears helped here :) Hey, lookit here--I got an image to post in my sig line!

Question about the 3900 V6--is it a descendant of the old 2.8L V6 that came out in the X-cars circa 1979? If so, how in the world did they punch it out to such a large displacement? :blink:

Wow, that's sad. The 3800 V6 is one of the best V6s on the market as far as I'm concerned--durable, powerful and quite fuel efficient. Up until recently, my mother-in-law had a 1996 Buick Riv with the SC 3800. That car powered up like a V8 but you could still pull 29-30 MPG on the highway. It's a shame to see the 3800 go, along with the Jeep 4.0L inline six--two of my favorite engines.

Heh. My 1999 Voyager was ethanol (E85) compatible; so is my current 2002 Caravan. <_< I first started using ethanol blend in my vehicles back in the 1970s (though it was only a 10% blend). It was a big deal in the corn growing regions of the midwest. Best part was, it kept your fuel line from freezing during the winter.

Heh. That 194 CID six could really snap your head back with all that torque, couldn't it? Or did they test the Nova SS with the standard 153 CID four-banger? :blink: I remember seeing 1960s Impala SS models with standard sixes under the hood. After 1961, most of them probably came with the low compression 283 V8 with 2V carb (at least up thru '67). The first SS, in 1961, had the hi-po 348 V8 as standard and the 409 made its debut as an option in that model mid-year (though the 409 was theoretically available in other full-sized models that year too). After '61, the SS lost some of its exclusivity and was more of a package of options like bucket seats, grab rail over the glovebox, fancier wheelcovers, etc.

Wow, I love that toy Corvette! I remember seeing those when I was a kid but that was a LONG time ago. :( I collect sales brochures and dealer promo models. My brochure collection takes up a good part of my workroom down in the basement. I've got mainly "domestic" brands from the 1950s up to the present, with some pieces as far back as 1925 (Durant!). I also have a few dealer books, including one for the 1949 Buicks. My oldest promo model is a 1950 Plymouth. I've got some nice GM promo models, including a '63 Olds Starfire, a '69 Grand Prix, a '70 Bonneville convert,'73 Caprice, and several early 1970s Firebirds, Camaros and GTOs. I've collected some matchbooks that the dealerships used to hand out too; mainly AMC and Chrysler from the mid-1960s. My wife thinks I'm completely nuts for collecting this stuff, but on the other hand, she's happy that I don't collect actual cars (though I would if I could!) :P

Unfortunately, the place where I've got my JPGs stashed won't allow me to hotlink to them... <_< . And I apparently can't "upload" any of the photos to the forum site. Hey, wait a sec...Here are two pix of my old '52 Chevy on a now-defunct website: http://www.geocities.com/namastefolks/52Chev.html

The Caravan/Town & Country doesn't necessarily excel in any one area, but it does a whole lot of stuff very well. The one big achilles heel of these vehicles, the dreadful A604/41TE tranny, has been improved greatly over the years. Sure, there are vans on the market that can accelerate better or hold a higher resale value, but when taken as an entire package, the DC minis are still mighty good vehicles.

Hey HarleyEarl, is that a '59 Eldo Brougham in your "sig picture"? I like how that model predicted some of the 1960 styling, and the roofline & windshield design of the *1961* Caddies... I've always loved the GM specialty cars like the '63-'65 Riv, '66-'70 Toronado and the '67-'70 Eldorados. I really liked the '71-'73 Rivieras (I just saw a '72 for sale about 80 miles from here).

Heh. Maybe they could have resurrected the old Rambler aluminum six from the early 1960s :blink: Back in August, we rented a new Grand Cherokee Laredo with the base 3.7L V6 and I was surprised that it was at least adequate in that heavy vehicle. We drove it in the mountains of Colorado and it could keep right up with traffic. It was also reasonably smooth and quiet in spite of my heavy foot. So maybe I don't "dislike" the 3.7L as much as I did at first :) I have a real soft spot in my heart for Jeeps; I learned to drive in a '48 Willys CJ2A.

I'll grudgingly admit to liking the Liberty. I was royally PO'd when they pulled the plug on the old Cherokee though. My biggest beef against the Liberty was the fact that they replaced the old 4.0L AMC inline six with the hacksaw 3.7L V6 ("hacksaw" because it's based on the 4.7L V8 with two cylinders lopped off). I loved the old inline six because of its monstrous torque down low in the rev range, plus its durability. All that and the fact that it goes back to AMC, which in my opinion built the best inline six in the biz for many years (the old 199/232/258 mills were great for their time). But the new Liberty is superior in most respects to the old Cherokee. It's certainly put together better . And it looks like a Jeep. But the exhaust note of that V6 still doesn't sound "right" like the old 4.0L six did... :(

DC really needs some work on their car powertrains. The standard 2.4L in the Stratus is a real groaner and the 41TE transaxle saps what little power the engine makes. The 2.7L V6 is a little more lively but again, it's having to twirl through the power-robbing 41TE trans. Neither engine delivers very good fuel economy either, compared to the Malibu anyway. If they can keep the weight down on the next-gen Avenger/Sebring, the 3.5L will do pretty well--but let's hope that they have a better tranny in the works too. The probable 4.0L V6 may turn the car into a real mover.

Soon as I figure out how to post pix to the forum... I love 1959 Buicks. Especially those L O N G Electra 225 models. I also like the '59 Olds and Pontiac, though the Caddy was a little too extreme for me that year. I wouldn't mind a '59 Chevy Biscayne like my buddy's former car--his had a hi-po 348 V8 and a three-on-the-tree stick shift. '61-'62 Cadillacs are another favorite for me. A friend of mine had a '62 Coupe DeVille and it had power vent windows! The height of luxury, eh? :) My '72 Regency was something else. It was a very rare car--a limited production model to celebrate the 75th Anniversary of Oldsmobile. I'm not sure how many they actually made but it was less than 5000. It had a clock in the dash designed by Tiffany's and a sterling silver key ring with a special jewel-like key head. It also had all the luxury features standard, like 60/40 power seats, power windows, tilt-wheel, etc. I bought it second hand and like an idiot, I sold it a few years later back when the gas prices started to rise in the late 1970s. Wish I had it now.

Anyone compared the 3.6L with the 3800? I'm guessing that the 3.6L comes into its own when you really nail the accelerator but in "normal" driving, the 3800 has plenty of guts. Personally, I like the proven durability and the good fuel economy of the 3800 and I'm guessing I wouldn't miss the extra high RPM oomph of the 3.6L...but I could be wrong...

When I first saw an '06 Impala, I had to look at it for several seconds to figure out what it was. The basic sillhouette looked familiar but most of the styling cues were missing. It had kind of a generic quality, almost like a Honda Accord or the new Sonata. I'm probably in a minority here, but I was sad to see the Taurus-like taillights on the new model in place of the round ones used on the previous Impalas. That being said, I have to say that I think the Impala is one of the best car values out there. Even the base V6 has more than adequate power and it gets excellent fuel economy. The interior is roomy and quite comfortable. The styling, while not "standout", is certainly pleasant...

I like the SS series as well. Of course, I'm so old that I remember when they first started putting the SS package on Impalas and what a big deal that was. We'd actually stop to look at one if it was parked along the street or in a parking lot. Jeez, a full-sized car with bucket seats, a grab rail over the glove box, and knock-off wheelcovers! I hope they can generate the same level of excitement as they did back in those simpler days.