chevy Y U no love Z's?

[woody90gtz]

I wouldn't say that the new cars aren't better. From a technical stand point they are. I love the style of the older cars and I'm not a big fan of Chevy's look the last 5 years or more, but the technology has come a long way. The Cruze gets 42mpg with a 1.4L turbo in a 3100lb car and a 100k powertrain warranty. The low end grunt is surprising. It's a 1.4! I'd be curious what it would be like with a few more psi.

Anyone here who has done a 3x00 swap can tell you the new technology is a good thing. All my cars may be old, but I've swapped in new tech because it's worth it.

[Rettax3]

I guess 'new' is a relative term! I'm not considering the 3x00 as new for the purposes of this discussion, but I don't consider them better than the MPFI engines either -LIMG is all I'll say on that.

And I wasn't referring to engines specifically when I was saying that the new cars aren't better, I was more addressing the chassis or 'platform' as we've been discussing them. I fully admit that I cling to the past, and dislike change for its' own sake, but I don't think that there is necessarily anything wrong with that.

As for the new engines though, the old engines have been around long enough to show their weak-points, their flaws. Until the new engines are old, how do you know what is wrong with their designs?

(Not at all directed at you Woody
As for MPG, I remain unimpressed, it took them how many decades to finally improve? My '88 Camaro got a steady 26.5 MPG on the highway, regardless of cruising speed, with a TBI 350 with ~300k miles on it (yes, I know Camaros didn't come with TBI 350s ) (now with a heavily ported CFI manifold, I don't know what it gets for MPG, but it is much faster ). That was better than most newer (non-economy) vehicles up until a couple of years ago, and with a 350, c'mon! The Ford Mustang of just a few years ago was rated at 19 or 20 highway MPG with the V-6 and auto trans, 17 in the city, IIRC... We have a 12-year-old car that gets 40+ MPG, no it doesn't weigh 3100 pounds, but it is 12 years old, with 210+k miles! The auto manufacturers have only gotten better with MPG because the government has been mandating improvements. Watch 'Who Killed the Electric Car' from Discovery channel, then tell me that GM is such an environmental proponent. The new Ford Hybrid C-Max is only good for 47 MPG, and it only gets that if you keep it under 63 MPH.

No, the really good stuff is either already here (if you like old cars) or is yet to come (if you want real improvements over old cars). Just my opinion...

[Rettax3]

It's a 1.4! I'd be curious what it would be like with a few more psi.

Oh, and BOOOOM! comes to mind... -Sorry.

[woody90gtz]

EPA has changed the way it figures MPG too. Cars always get better than what the sticker says. Tiffany's Sube is rated for 29 and it actually gets about 32 highway. And I got 33mpg once with my 3100. I'd be curious to see what a "42mpg" Cruze will actually get on the highway. I'm guessing 45 or better. And those Ecotec engines are pretty rugged. You could probably add another 5psi with no issues.

And you can't forget the weight penalty on new cars. With all the safety regs the cars get heavier and heavier. That 4-banger Cruze is 400lbs more than my v6 Beretta, and the new Camaros are what, 700lbs more than your third gen?

[themadness]

one thing that sticks out to me in newer cars is the poor quality materials used and the lack luster assembly methods. case in point my mom has a 2009 yukon that has been back to dealership for electronics software crashes, pieces above the headliner falling off, and body trim attached with cheap 2 sided tape that lets the trim piece curl up. a few years a go she had VW toureag(sp?)....aka the "turd-egg" that literally died on a 4 lane hi way due to electronics malfunctions. the dealership said every sensor in it went out at the same time for some reason.

my father in law had two 2002 cavs that were stiff and uncomfortable. seat foam was thin, lots premature fading and ripped back seats. his '05 malibu isnt much better either.

my 94 base and 95 i had when i was 17 are the most comfortable vehicles i have ever been in. but i'm a bit partial. either an almost 20 year old car versus post 2000 models that hold up with fewer quirks is testament to willy nilly production practice and corner cutting.

[Rettax3]

EPA has changed the way it figures MPG too. Cars always get better than what the sticker says. Tiffany's Sube is rated for 29 and it actually gets about 32 highway. And I got 33mpg once with my 3100. I'd be curious to see what a "42mpg" Cruze will actually get on the highway. I'm guessing 45 or better. And those Ecotec engines are pretty rugged. You could probably add another 5psi with no issues.

And you can't forget the weight penalty on new cars. With all the safety regs the cars get heavier and heavier. That 4-banger Cruze is 400lbs more than my v6 Beretta, and the new Camaros are what, 700lbs more than your third gen?

Yeah you are right on the EPA ratings, I guess -but I think it has more to do with how you drive the car than what the car quote-unquote should get...
I also agree about the Ecotech being tough -that engine has been around long enough to prove itself. My niece has an Ecotech Cobalt with a couple of hundred thousand miles on it, and the problems it has are not engine-related (the PCM went insane then died though, so chalk another one up to madness' electronics issues complaint-list.
But the notes regarding the heavier cars (and you seem much better educated on that than I am) supports my complaint regarding the newer cars being too complex. A lot of the weight has nothing to do with safety issues, and more to do with gadget electronics, eighteen cup-holders, leather seats and power accessories, which is fine if you don't mind trading weight for comfort. It really is just personal preference and they are all perfectly vaid, but I tend to like simpler, less-optioned older cars not made by Ford.