Why I hate Chevy.

[156n3rd]

This will be riddled with nothing but adverse, negative opinon. Why? Because I am sick of other people's swagger and feelings of superiority when it comes to cars. That's why I hate Chevy. When it comes to make believe NASCAR, I relish with every non-Chevy win. Its the Monte Carlo, cookie-cutter NASCAR YOU MUST ALL HAVE ONE LOOK LIKE THIS attitude they have. Imposing thier bs on everyone because it makes it simpler for them. Then, there are pick-up trucks. Chevy p-u's don't even look like trucks. The GMC nose is okay, but that stupid gold bow-tie has got to be a Toyota gold badge copy if there ever was one. Gold trim on cars is over done, unwlecome and tacky. And Chevy truck owners just assume that everyone else drives one and if the drive a Ford, well, those just suck to them. They never bad-mouth Dodge because of the Almighty Hemi. Living legend!!!!! And just look at the Malibu and Monte Carlo. They are a real representative reason why U.S. cars suck. They are memebers of the LY family. Ugly, Beastly Ghastly, Fugly and on and on. GM is so out of touch with it's so-called main stream offerings that someone should take them over just to stop them from making more ugliness. Ever sit in a new Impala or Monte Carlo? They are still living high in the mid 1980's. I do not hate all Chevy cars from all production years. There are many cool and great ones. But Chevy of now is just plain pooop. They turn me off. They make me sick. They mean nothing and they make others look very very good. It's just like music of today..........with all the technology out there......is that the best they can do? :shrug: :huh: :blink: :P

Edited March 26, 2006 by Frank J. Raniere

[marc-o]

So you hate Chevy fans then... or NASCAR?

[156n3rd]

Isn't is obvious? I'm nuts. :blink:

[classicford]

Nascar is nothing more than a joke anymore, I associate it and Chevrolet in general with rednecks, 90% of Chevy (maybe excluding camaro owners) owners probably don't even know what DOHC means or stands for, or that all Vortech's are is just an intake/head improvement (whoopdie-do- Edelbrock can accomplish that)

 

Chevy can't even make an OHC engine, having pushrod V6's in this day and age is pitiful, and a Modular V8 is lightyears ahead of the "glorified-but why?" small block. Their only OHC engine, the Northstar, can't even be made cheap enough to put into an affordable vehicle.

 

Speaking of the ugliness of GM products, GMC has a new fullsize SUV (don't know the name) with a front end that is hands down the most retarded thing I've ever seen. Look at all of GMC's SUV's and you'll know which one I'm talking about. For that matter, all of Chrysler/Dodge's vehicles look like some sort of sick caricacture of what they were really meant to be, the 300 and the Calibur are great examples. At least Ford still has clean styling, the Fusion and Mustang are great, and the Explorer, F-150, and Escape are OK. I'm terribly biased though.

[kenp77]

Frank:I am going to turn your crank just a bit more have been reading upon the new chevy trucks gmt-900 and it sounds to me like they have copied ford a ton, fully boxed frame, powere rack and pinion steering, widened track, a bit deeper box not quite as deep as ford and I am sure when it gets here will see many more linkness. One more interesting thing was reading a bit on the new tundra on there box dimensions and went out and measured the depth of my 04 f-150 tundra is exactly same depth!!! Don't flip out on me now :happy feet:

[156n3rd]

When it comes to anything Toyota, this not much I can say because their sales numbers cannot be denied. However, they are in bed with gee em and this is what happens when aggressive, power hungry swaggering companies get together and tell you what you want. Then you're stuck with what they build you. Alfter saying that, I must contradict myself by saying that after visiting a local auto show, Toyota products felt much better than many of the Generals offerings. How can these two actually do things together when the outcome is so different? But I'm stuck here because these two companies control so goll darn much.

I don't necessarily connote Chevy/GMC trucks with rednecks because I'd hate to say that northerners are a better class of people. We are all shoved into this same living space and we should try to make it together. That's just a philosophy, an opinion and a feeling. Everyone has their own take on that.

Here is another example of what I mean about Chevy trucks owners. I work in a hospital and know many people there. I used to work with a very good person who happens to own a Chevy pick up. We were discussing the fact that the hospital bought a new vehicle for the security personnel to use. They were using a late '90's Taurus, which, supposedly, everyone abhorred. Now, they bought a dual cab Colorado. And my friend said that "yeah, and it's an expensive one too". Right there, he tipped his hand as usual, meaning that he can identify with the greatness and smartness that was made to purchase a Chevy because he has one too and that makes him look good too. Hogwash! The prevailing brand of support vehicles purchased by this hospital has been Ford for many years. They did purchase a couple of Astro vans (the very last year they were available because they were AWD), but they replaced an AEROSTAR! and two Windstars. They also use full size Ford E vans for shuttle service.

Okay, that's enough hatred and mistrust for now. I just feel that the marketing stratedgy for Chevy hits buttons that evoke this almighty Amurcan bs. That's rich since Chevrolet is a French name. Everyone wants to be number one and they all say they are the best. I urge everyone to watch the movie GUNG HO. It's a crappy flick but the message is clear. We have much to learn. Now, you can all dance upon my carcass and tell me what a fucking asshole I am for writing this shit. Fine. It is a burr on my ass and I'm just trying to scratch it off. :angry:

[bec5150]

I usually don't complain about my cars unless they are unreliable. A steering wheel and a seat and I don't require much more. But if there was one vehicle that I ever owned that I continually said "WTF" all the time, it was the ill designed 1989 S-10 Tahoe I had.

 

To start with, it was the "upscale" model, which meant it had cloth interior, chrome here and there, and the V-6 engine. The V-6 was the 2.8. What a POS!!! Less torque than most 4 cyl engines, they chose to saddle the engine with a 3.42 rear gear. 2.8L's and it wouldn't turn 2000RPM at 70MPH. Honest to God, in a hard rain I had to shift to fourth as it wouldn't pull itself down the road. It handled horribly. Looked under the truck to discover that the front sway bar was MISSING!!! Yes, it was an option that year. I got one from the junk yard to put on. Overheat? All the time.

 

My second truck was my 2002 Ranger, and you all know how happy I am with that. But about six months ago, I went and test drove a Colorado. Guess what? 2.7L four, with a 3.42 rear gear again. And again, the damn thing wouldn't go down the road in 5th. And it also had the dorky shift light, just like my 89.

 

The price? About 5 grand higher than what I gave for the Ranger. I said that to the salesman and he said "but you drive a Ford and they, of course, are not as good." I told him that I could hook on to that Colorado and pull him around the parking lot. I told him if he gave me a Colorado tomorrow I would just trade it in on a new Ranger. Then I looked up the Colorado on the internet and they are a POS with mechanical problems all over the place.

 

Hate Chevy. When it comes to their little trucks, I sure do!!

[NJSteve3]

I usually don't complain about my cars unless they are unreliable. A steering wheel and a seat and I don't require much more. But if there was one vehicle that I ever owned that I continually said "WTF" all the time, it was the ill designed 1989 S-10 Tahoe I had.

 

To start with, it was the "upscale" model, which meant it had cloth interior, chrome here and there, and the V-6 engine. The V-6 was the 2.8. What a POS!!! Less torque than most 4 cyl engines, they chose to saddle the engine with a 3.42 rear gear. 2.8L's and it wouldn't turn 2000RPM at 70MPH. Honest to God, in a hard rain I had to shift to fourth as it wouldn't pull itself down the road. It handled horribly. Looked under the truck to discover that the front sway bar was MISSING!!! Yes, it was an option that year. I got one from the junk yard to put on. Overheat? All the time.

 

My second truck was my 2002 Ranger, and you all know how happy I am with that. But about six months ago, I went and test drove a Colorado. Guess what? 2.7L four, with a 3.42 rear gear again. And again, the damn thing wouldn't go down the road in 5th. And it also had the dorky shift light, just like my 89.

 

The price? About 5 grand higher than what I gave for the Ranger. I said that to the salesman and he said "but you drive a Ford and they, of course, are not as good." I told him that I could hook on to that Colorado and pull him around the parking lot. I told him if he gave me a Colorado tomorrow I would just trade it in on a new Ranger. Then I looked up the Colorado on the internet and they are a POS with mechanical problems all over the place.

 

Hate Chevy. When it comes to their little trucks, I sure do!!

 

Interesting comments on the S-10. My brother has a 1988 model - 4cyl, 5sp, MS - pretty basic truck. I've borrowed it time and again for light hauling errands, or when I've had a car in the shop for a spell (e.g. Taurus headgaskets). Positives - Light, durable - about 170k local miles - decent ride, actually goes along nice at about 65 on the highway, or with a bed full of wet mulch. Negatives - loud as heck, interior falling apart, seat bottom mashed, and as pointed out in the post I'm replying too, sometimes at highway speed you have to downshift to 4 just to run it back to cruising speed, then back into 5th. A slight incline or a headwind on the turnpike, and your shifting arm gets tired! All that said, I appreciate having a truck around when I need it.

[tim kakouris]

wow. i only hate the "chevy rednecks"...you know, those that think anything chevrolet has made is somehow superior to any other car on the road, even corsica's or beretta's.

 

other than that, i like 'em.

 

and the ohc comment...those CURRENT pushrod engines are MORE than competitive with the worlds ohc motors.

Edited March 27, 2006 by tim kakouris

[FAST LS1]

Chevy can't even make an OHC engine, having pushrod V6's in this day and age is pitiful, and a Modular V8 is lightyears ahead of the "glorified-but why?" small block. Their only OHC engine, the Northstar, can't even be made cheap enough to put into an affordable vehicle.

 

OHC is an older technology than OHV, some of the first engines ever produced used OHC's.

Ford's modular V8 is light years ahead in terms of complexity, it lacks in every other

category compared to GM and DC's OHV engines.

 

The mod motor:

- costs more to manufacture

- requires more machining

- has more moving parts

- is physically larger at 4.6l than GM's 7.0l smallblock or DC's 6.2L.

- gets worse gas mileage

- produces less hp and trq.

- weighs more than comparable v-8 engines in it's class

 

Lets not even talk about Fords automatic transmissions, they are lightyears behind a comprable GM unit,

and still lag behind DC's heavy duty transmissions.

 

I may drive a GM, but I call it like I see it, not how I feel about xxx company.

Edited March 27, 2006 by FAST LS1

[wildosvt]

OHC is an older technology than OHV, some of the first engines ever produced used OHC's.

Ford's modular V8 is light years ahead in terms of complexity, it lacks in every other

category compared to GM and DC's OHV engines.

 

The mod motor:

- costs more to manufacture

- requires more machining

- has more moving parts

- is physically larger at 4.6l than GM's 7.0l smallblock or DC's 6.2L.

- gets worse gas mileage

- produces less hp and trq.

- weighs more than comparable v-8 engines in it's class

 

Lets not even talk about Fords automatic transmissions, they are lightyears behind a comprable GM unit,

and still lag behind DC's heavy duty transmissions.

 

I may drive a GM, but I call it like I see it, not how I feel about xxx company.

 

A typical GM owner response. Lets do talk about Fords transmissions. Who is still running a 4speed automatic exclusively? :cough-cough-GM-cough-cough: Talk about OLD tech! It fits their OHV...

 

 

LS1 and Camaro's price didnt help it sell now did it?

 

HP does not sell a vehicle. If that was the case F150 would have never been the truck KING! :bowdown:

[FAST LS1]

A 4-speed that was used by Bently, BMW and countless others because it's so good.

Ford's standrad 4-speed couldn't even handle the Lightning's output, and had to be

upgraded to the F-250's transmission.

 

Also GM now has a 6-speed auto in the Corvette an upcomming Escalade. Where's

Ford's 6-speed tranny that can handle 400+hp in rwd applications?

 

Wait, Ford can only make 400+hp if they supercharge their engines

Edited March 28, 2006 by FAST LS1

[tim kakouris]

this always turns into a debate about engines. it's not engines. it's a brands personality. gm has great engines. ford has had moments of brilliance, but hey, it's strong points are not usually in it's engine bays.

 

GM is fords equivalent in the world as far as american owned automobile companies. there are many other companies out there that need hate thrown on them before you begin heaping it on GM.

[CurtisH]

The mod motor:

- produces less hp and trq.

- weighs more than comparable v-8 engines in it's class

Let's see - my Mustang GT has a 4.6L Mod Motor. It generates 300 HP and 320 lbs of torque. Oh yeah, on regular gas. Has Chevy got anything of similar size (talking cubic inches here) that beats it. Don't think so. Guess all of Chevy's small V8's are under powered, huh.

 

Ford can't match Chevy in cubic inches right now, at least not in a V8 configuration. Otherwise, this would never be mentioned. The mod motors are displacement limited. That is their only reall drawback.

[FAST LS1]

Let's see - my Mustang GT has a 4.6L Mod Motor. It generates 300 HP and 320 lbs of torque. Oh yeah, on regular gas. Has Chevy got anything of similar size (talking cubic inches here) that beats it. Don't think so. Guess all of Chevy's small V8's are under powered, huh.

 

I hate to quote hp/liter because it's not a true testament to an engines overall design, but sadly GM's OHV engines produce more hp/liter than Ford's 3V 300hp4.6L = 65.21hp/liter. The 6.0L in the Vette makes 400hp/6.0L = 66.66hp/liter the even larger LS7 makes 505hp/7.0L at 72.14hp/liter. The main point I would like to make is the 7.0L in the Vette is physically a smaller engine, that weighs less, with less moving parts, it makes more power, and gets equal or better gas mileage as the Mustang GT.

OHC's advantage is in the ability to rev an engine higher. Ford doesn't even rev their OHC engine's as high as GM's huge 7.0l LS7, and only comes close to the Hemi's redline. Why continue to implement an OHC technology and not exploit it's number one advantage?

[classicford]

A 4-speed that was used by Bently, BMW and countless others because it's so good.

Ford's standrad 4-speed couldn't even handle the Lightning's output, and had to be

upgraded to the F-250's transmission.

 

Also GM now has a 6-speed auto in the Corvette an upcomming Escalade. Where's

Ford's 6-speed tranny that can handle 400+hp in rwd applications?

 

Wait, Ford can only make 400+hp if they supercharge their engines

 

Ford has a 6 speed RWD transmission. If they choose to put it ina 400+ HP vehicle (by the way, it is TORQUE output and not horsepower that transmissions are built to handle) it's not hard to upgrade gears, valvebodies etc. etc. What fun is a 400+ HP engine with a slushbox anyways?

 

The MOD makes its' torque lower than a Vortec, by about 500+ RPM. It's a superior engine, and Chryler's Hemi is still superior to the CSB. That engine is an over-glorified POS that only has an advantage of displacement over the MOD. A similarly sized MOD will produce more power and get better gas milage (with a similar tranny) than the CSB.

 

By the way, since Ford's 6.2L+ V8 is being put into production, we'll see about those supercharger remarks. Just be ready to eat your words when a pair of DOHC heads find their way onto that engine. In the mean time, the old Windsor still beats the CSB.

 

If a CSB was limited to no more than 305 ci, the 4.6L would eat it alive in a performance shootout... :

 

In the mean time, ricers like Nissan, Toyota, and Honda are the companies everyone should be laughing at...

[FAST LS1]

The MOD makes its' torque lower than a Vortec, by about 500+ RPM. It's a superior engine, and Chryler's Hemi is still superior to the CSB. That engine is an over-glorified POS that only has an advantage of displacement over the MOD. A similarly sized MOD will produce more power and get better gas milage (with a similar tranny) than the CSB.

 

Again, how is the mod motor superior when,

 

The mod motor:

- costs more to manufacture

- requires more machining

- has more moving parts

- is physically larger at 4.6l than GM's 7.0l smallblock or DC's 6.2L.

- gets worse gas mileage

- produces less hp and trq.

- weighs more than comparable v-8 engines in it's class

 

By engine statistics it does everything worse than the GM OHV engine.

 

I know Ford has an automatic 6-speed for FWD cars, but I'm not aware of a 6-speed for high trq/hp rwd applications.

[classicford]

I hate to quote hp/liter because it's not a true testament to an engines overall design, but sadly GM's OHV engines produce more hp/liter than Ford's 3V 300hp4.6L = 65.21hp/liter. The 6.0L in the Vette makes 400hp/6.0L = 66.66hp/liter the even larger LS7 makes 505hp/7.0L at 72.14hp/liter. The main point I would like to make is the 7.0L in the Vette is physically a smaller engine, that weighs less, with less moving parts, it makes more power, and gets equal or better gas mileage as the Mustang GT.

OHC's advantage is in the ability to rev an engine higher. Ford doesn't even rev their OHC engine's as high as GM's huge 7.0l LS7, and only comes close to the Hemi's redline. Why continue to implement an OHC technology and not exploit it's number one advantage?

 

LOL! Why don't you show the HP/Liter of a 4/8L or 5.3L?? Maybe because it will be LESS? Most Chevy guys love to pick on Ford's with smaller engines....The few Chevy guys I respect don't mouth a car with a different setup alltogether.

 

Again you're comparing a purpose-built performance car with 427cid against a production car with 281cid. The 'Vette might get as good gas milage as the Mustang at idle....

 

A DOHC Cobra revs to 7,000 RPM, a conservative redline at that. The Mustang GT revs to at least 6,000 RPM, and that's a production engine, not something being purpose built for high performance like the LS7. A MOD can easily rev to 9,000+ RPM with minimal improvements. We don't have to bother with rockers, rocker girdles, pushrods....

[CurtisH]

I hate to quote hp/liter because it's not a true testament to an engines overall design, but sadly GM's OHV engines produce more hp/liter than Ford's 3V 300hp4.6L = 65.21hp/liter. The 6.0L in the Vette makes 400hp/6.0L = 66.66hp/liter the even larger LS7 makes 505hp/7.0L at 72.14hp/liter. The main point I would like to make is the 7.0L in the Vette is physically a smaller engine, that weighs less, with less moving parts, it makes more power, and gets equal or better gas mileage as the Mustang GT.

OHC's advantage is in the ability to rev an engine higher. Ford doesn't even rev their OHC engine's as high as GM's huge 7.0l LS7, and only comes close to the Hemi's redline. Why continue to implement an OHC technology and not exploit it's number one advantage?

If you want to quote hp/liter, then look at the 2000 Cobra R. It produced 71.3 hp/liter and that was 6 years ago. I'm sure Ford has learned a few things since then. I believe it's redline was 6500 rpm. I stand by my original opinion - the mod motors are not under-powered. I never questioned the compact design of the Chevy, but that was not the point of my original message.

 

By the way, what does the 7.0L in the Vette weigh? I believe the Mustang's 4.6 is 420 pounds "dressed".

[FAST LS1]

LOL! Why don't you show the HP/Liter of a 4/8L or 5.3L?? Maybe because it will be LESS? Most Chevy guys love to pick on Ford's with smaller engines....The few Chevy guys I respect don't mouth a car with a different setup alltogether.

 

Again you're comparing a purpose-built performance car with 427cid against a production car with 281cid. The 'Vette might get as good gas milage as the Mustang at idle....

 

A DOHC Cobra revs to 7,000 RPM, a conservative redline at that. The Mustang GT revs to at least 6,000 RPM, and that's a production engine, not something being purpose built for high performance like the LS7. A MOD can easily rev to 9,000+ RPM with minimal improvements. We don't have to bother with rockers, rocker girdles, pushrods....

 

The 4.8L and 5.3L are truck engines, they make 285hp and 295hp.

Ford's truck 4.6L only makes 231hp.

 

"The spec sheet tells us the GT gets 17 MPG in the city, and 25 on the highway."

 

"The ZO6 EPA reports 16 mpg in city traffic and 26 mpg on the highway."

 

The LS2 which is a production engine rev's to 6500rpm. The point is it's an OHV engine, and it revs as high or higher than Ford's OHC engines. The main benefit of OHC is better valvetrain control, to allow higher rpm's. Ford's engines don't utilize this key atribute of the OHC technology. If it isn't being used why stay with an OHC setup that costs more to manufacture, has more parts that can break, and doesn't perform as well as other OHV engines it directly competes with?

[marc-o]

I hate to quote hp/liter because it's not a true testament to an engines overall design, but sadly GM's OHV engines produce more hp/liter than Ford's 3V 300hp4.6L = 65.21hp/liter. The 6.0L in the Vette makes 400hp/6.0L = 66.66hp/liter the even larger LS7 makes 505hp/7.0L at 72.14hp/liter. The main point I would like to make is the 7.0L in the Vette is physically a smaller engine, that weighs less, with less moving parts, it makes more power, and gets equal or better gas mileage as the Mustang GT.

OHC's advantage is in the ability to rev an engine higher. Ford doesn't even rev their OHC engine's as high as GM's huge 7.0l LS7, and only comes close to the Hemi's redline. Why continue to implement an OHC technology and not exploit it's number one advantage?

 

While we're talking about hp per liter why dont we all kiss Honda's ass? They have an engine that makes 120hp/L without forced induction. Clearly better. :rolleyes:

 

I agree that Ford is totally missing out in the sense the 4.6L V8 isn't what it should be (ability to rev, power output), but keep in mind it's in a very competitive package in terms of price, design and reliability. Yes that true for the Vette as well, but at twice the price. And if Ford made a Mustang that revved to 7,500rpm, would that still really be a muscle car? Would a 25k car putting out 400+hp still be truly affordable (the car might be, insurance probably wouldn't). In context, the 4.6 is absolutely perfect for what it's for.

 

Sure GM has taken OHV engines farther than anyone thought they could go, but I still firmly believe that purely an accounting decision backed up by terriffic engineering. I have no doubt if the LS7 had a DOHC V8 it could turn an extra 500-1000rpm and probably make at least 50hp more. Of course that doesn't mean the car would be any better, as it would raise the centre of gravity. Then again if that was really a concern we'd simply use boxer engines like Porsches or Subarus. Point is, GM has done well with their OHV engines, they're not hallmarks of elegance, design or reliability. As far as I'm concerned, GM still hasn't found the elusive package of style, powertrain and drive quality. The Corvette is an exception rather than the rule, and nothing of it translates into anything else in the GM lineup - other than a sleek roadster with no trunk and an overpriced, overweight aussie carryover.

 

So back to the topic, I hate Chevy too. Especially since some idiot in a Cobalt parked in my building's parking space, so now I have to go to the visitor's parking lot until he gets warned or towed (honestly what kind of stupid...). Especially since a friend of mine's 2001 Venture had the cylinder head crack at 60,000 miles. The EPA can say whatever it wants about fuel consumption, I know a 3800 V6 gets absolutely shitty mileage unless you're on the highway doing 65mph on cruise control.

Edited March 28, 2006 by marc-o

[156n3rd]

After reading all the stuff here about ohv's and ohc's and all the other stats related to engines, I just want to say this. You people have really jumped all over this! But there is another reason why I hate GM. It has to do with all those trolley lines they bought up to sell buses. They totally fucked up the energy time continuum and made us into oil gorging monsters, instead of just having mass transit do the work so we could play with our hot rods and bikes. But really, it's because when someone chooses a product, they want people to think they have made a smart choice. When you begin to spew data and make it sound like you have a PHD. of engines and transmissions, it puts up a barrier between people. Some people buy a Chevy because daddy did. Some buy a Ford because it's a Mustang or F-150. It's just that personal. People have been mentioning the Corvette, which I think is the biggest blob of over-weight, over-priced old technology on the planet. I don't care what it has underneath, it's a wedge of melting cheese in the sun. It looks out of proportion when compared with the first 10 years of model production. I don't care how fast it is, that stupid Bow Tie just proves that they do it on the cheap. Then, they make you pay for an image. Could you imagine a modern version of the '63 split window Vette? It would be an instant success and it would sell because there are many people who'd snap one up if it were production priced, not inflated because of melting cheese looks and size. But there is still and underlying facet of this story, and that is that Ford always Philadelphia Eagles the power of their engines. It's CHOKE CITY. But then, that's why they sell after market shit so you can fix it. As I said earlier, I'm nuts. I wish Ford built their own version of the PTCrusier. I wish they'd bring over the Euro Focus. I wish they'd make a Continental with suicide doors. I wish they had a car as cool as the 49-51 Merc. I wish the Ranger was a throw-back design that looked cool, was tough and couldn't be touched by the competition. Just for the hell of it.

[ebritt]

Lets do talk about Fords transmissions. Who is still running a 4speed automatic exclusively? :cough-cough-GM-cough-cough: Talk about OLD tech!

 

 

Yes let's!

 

Ford trannies have a nasty habit of imploding on command.

Taurus-AXOD and it's many incarnations. Transmission shops love the taurus, it keeps them in business. Their words not mine!

Explorer-reincarnation of the trans from the Bronco II. Junk! pure and simple. Ford dropped them after many burnt out. The new 5 speed auto? Crap! I have one...had to replace it.

Ranger-5 speed good tranny, automatic? Junk. Burns up due to poor cooling.

 

Maybe a 4 speed auto is outdated, but when it lasts longer than the "new tech".........

 

[marc-o]

As I said earlier, I'm nuts.

 

:happy feet:

 

I'm with you on that one... cause I agree with everything you said!

[matthewq4b]

Well considering it took Chev a decade and change to finally match the Mod motor it is not saying much. Remember the 4.6 is now 16 years old. The New SBC is how old? I should bloody hope so it can out perform the 4.6. Considering the New SBC has well over a decade of development on the 4.6 it does out perform it like it does.

 

And Chevs Transmissions And trans axels are nothing to write home about either. They were better than the Taurus Marginally. And just Marginally. Only thing was the Marginally better tranny's were used in everything and not just a couple models like Ford. Since GM quit making RWD's cars altogether in 96 save for the vette, every thing got them.

 

Rule number one when buying and selling cars Do not buy any Taurus Sable or ANY FWD GMC.

 

 

The reasons I hate Chev's-GMC

 

Doors that you can not open from inside unless unlocked.

Ball joints on Chev trucks, They had to finally copy the 96 F 150's to figure out how to do that right.

Electrical problems on everything and I mean on everthing they build.

Some of the cheapest ass interior's and materials to ever come out of any auto manufacturer Chev-GMC still has not figured out how to make UV resitant plastics that so not start turning to dust after a few years.

Side post-terminal batteries (that needs no explanation).

One side cut keys, again needs no explination. What pain in the ass those things are espesially when they get worn then break off in the lock, cause there so thin to begin with.

Cruse control on the turn signal stalk, who's brain trust was that?

ABS brake sytems with out a separate vaccum bootser and that can not be rebuilt and cost thousands to replace plus have a dedicated firewall that will not accept a conventional booster-master cylinder setup.

Talk about a great way to insure a still decent vehical has to be replaced.

All in one wiper-window washer motors.

350 diesel, Thanks for holding deisels back in autos here for 30 years and counting.

4.1L V8 worst V8 to ever be built by any body. And no after market rebuild parts either to repair that piece of crap .

 

 

I could go on but you get the picture.

 

 

Matthew