Pontiac's death - the GM backlash?

[jpd80]

I wish I was given the choice.

I wish you were too, I believe the Falcon could evolve into the family man's alternative to a Mustang.

Just because you have a family doesn't mean you have to put away your toys.

 

"Falcon - Mustang bred."

[silvrsvt]

I wish you were too, I believe the Falcon could evolve into the family man's alternative to a Mustang.

Just because you have a family doesn't mean you have to put away your toys.

 

"Falcon - Mustang bred."

 

Isn't that what the Tarsus SHO is all about

[jpd80]

Isn't that what the Tarsus SHO is all about

Turbo Falcon could most likely be had stateside for the same price as G8, $30,000.

I doubt you'll get a Taurus SHO South of $36,000 but good luck all the same to the SHO.

I'm not trying to pick a fight here..

Edited May 4, 2009 by jpd80

[Bored of Pisteon]

I guess Pontiac's death had a lot to do with the city it was named after as well. It's so bad, the state of Michigan might take it over. The local sheriff's department is already doing some patrols because the local police force was disbanded from what I understand. That city is so bad off you might as well call it NORTH DETROIT.

[Bored of Pisteon]

What are the Pontiac "fans" so mad about?

 

Pontiac has been pretty much dead since the 70s... after then, they built few cars that weren't Chevys with more plastic and a twin kidney grille.

 

The only thing that was "Pontiac" about any current cars was the Pontiac badge. Other than that it was a ragtag collection of Chevys (G6 = Malibu basically, Montana is an Uplander, Torrent is Equinox), Daewoo (G3), Holden (G8), Toyota (Vibe), and one unique car, the Solstice.

 

Really don't see what is worth getting upset over with those cars gone...

 

I meant to insert that quote INTO MY ABOVE REPLY about "Pontiac has been pretty much dead since the 70's..."

[630land]

Some fans are mad since they want to see others buy new Pontiacs, and they think it should be the only GM brand sold. I used to be a big Pontiac fan, but I've known since I was 8 that GM cars were similar. To think that a Ponitac is "better built" and that 'people will look up to me more' because of the name is silly. And to think that Chevy is 'the enemy' is what killed them, too.

[Bored of Pisteon]

Some fans are mad since they want to see others buy new Pontiacs, and they think it should be the only GM brand sold. I used to be a big Pontiac fan, but I've known since I was 8 that GM cars were similar. To think that a Ponitac is "better built" and that 'people will look up to me more' because of the name is silly. And to think that Chevy is 'the enemy' is what killed them, too.

 

Like I said before in past threads, I think the best thing for GM right now is to take the black capsule. The top three missteps that led them down this path:

 

#1. Hiring Roger Smith back in the 1980's

#2. Downsizing some of their styles and nameplates back then also.

#3. MOST IMPORTANT--> Getting rid of Traditional RWD. When they did that back in 1996, that kept me off of their dealer lots still to this day.

[PREMiERdrum]

Nice piece we did today on a classic LeMans Sport Coupe that drove over an overpass and onto I-71. Miraculously, the driver survived:

http://10tv.com/live/content/local/stories...sh.html?sid=102

[Bored of Pisteon]

"I imagine that's what may have spared his life," Sachs said. "I don't think that a car made today would hold up that well."

 

AT LEAST SOMEBODY HAD THE GUTS TO TELL THE TRUTH!

[timmm55]

"I imagine that's what may have spared his life," Sachs said. "I don't think that a car made today would hold up that well."

 

AT LEAST SOMEBODY HAD THE GUTS TO TELL THE TRUTH!

 

It's an opinion, not a fact or "truth" as you put it. Actually I doubt it. Between crumple zones, air bags and roll over requirements, I can't imagine a 60s/70s hardtop doing better than todays cars.

 

Look at the death rates per 1000. They've gone way down since the 70s.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

It's an opinion, not a fact or "truth" as you put it. Actually I doubt it. Between crumple zones, air bags and roll over requirements, I can't imagine a 60s/70s hardtop doing better than todays cars.

 

Look at the death rates per 1000. They've gone way down since the 70s.

 

Gotta say l would be crapping myself if l was driving a Lincoln Continental and l was about to hit a Toyota Yaris head on, all that best quality plastic on the Yota flying everywhere and it might make dimple of the Continentals chrome bumper irons & all those airbags popping might damage my hearing.

 

If the crumple zones work OK on the Yaris the Yota owners should be sitting on the back seat with the engine on the lap.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds

[timmm55]

Gotta say l would be crapping myself if l was driving a Lincoln Continental and l was about to hit a Toyota Yaris head on, all that best quality plastic on the Yota flying everywhere and it might make dimple of the Continentals chrome bumper irons & all those airbags popping might damage my hearing.

 

If the crumple zones work OK on the Yaris the Yota owners should be sitting on the back seat with the engine on the lap.

 

OK, with weights similar, in a barrier crash which would you rather be in: a 71 Mark III (5003 lbs) with Sure-Track (early ABS on the rear wheels only) or a Lincoln Aviator (4900 lbs) with dual front air bags, 4 wheel ABS, crumple zones, side curtain air bags, etc. etc????

[timmm55]

If the crumple zones work OK on the Yaris the Yota owners should be sitting on the back seat with the engine on the lap.

 

Actually, .....no. On modern cars worldwide engines are designed to "submarine" under the passenger compartment (except possibly China).

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Actually, .....no. On modern cars worldwide engines are designed to "submarine" under the passenger compartment (except possibly China).

 

Size - Weight - length of frontal crush zones are the most important in factor sustaining few injuries or indeed death in any crash.

LINK

 

Size and weight and long length crush zones of an old Lincoln Continental front and back would offer much better crash protection than a shiny new its fantastic its made from plastic Yaris typical modern Barbie car.

 

 

A Vehicle size protects its occupants, bigger vehicles have longer front ends and longer crush zones - The longer the crush zone the longer the vehicle crushes the lower the forces on the occupants inside.

 

Many years ago l witnessed a 30 MPH head on crash between between a very old Mk1 Ford Granada and a new Mini, the Mini put a 6 inch v in the bumper pushing it back as far as the radiator, the driver of the Grandad (Granada UK nickname) got out a bit shocked with no injuries, both the Mini occupants were killed crushed by the weight of the engine & impact. Since the l have always liked brought cars with hidden inner beauty like the Capri that has a looooooooooooooooog front bonnet & loooooooong front crush zone. Old Capri's Granada's and Volvo Estates (Stationwagons) are still the most sought after cars for use in banger racing destruction derbys but l bet they would be no match for some old big detroit iron.

 

 

A modern its fantastic its made from plastic Toyota Yaris is a deathtrap

LINK

[timmm55]

OK, with weights similar, in a barrier crash which would you rather be in: a 71 Mark III (5003 lbs) with Sure-Track (early ABS on the rear wheels only) or a Lincoln Aviator (4900 lbs) with dual front air bags, 4 wheel ABS, crumple zones, side curtain air bags, etc. etc????

 

You didn't answer my question. I'm well aware of weight/size advantages. New cars are safer, mass being equal.

[Mark B. Morrow]

You didn't answer my question. I'm well aware of weight/size advantages. New cars are safer, mass being equal.

 

 

I'm sure you're right given 37 years of technological innovation, but part of me can't help thinking that the 7' hood and the 300 lb of fenders and bumpers on a Mark III would give the Avaitor a real run. As to which car would be repairable afterwards, the Mark III wins hands down.

[timmm55]

I'm sure you're right given 37 years of technological innovation, but part of me can't help thinking that the 7' hood and the 300 lb of fenders and bumpers on a Mark III would give the Avaitor a real run. As to which car would be repairable afterwards, the Mark III wins hands down.

 

Absolutely! New cars are pretty much made to absorb and fold up....but leave the passenger compartment more or less intact. Newer cars get totaled more frequently....but the % of survivors has gone up.

[syrtran]

 

 

I'm sure you're right given 37 years of technological innovation, but part of me can't help thinking that the 7' hood and the 300 lb of fenders and bumpers on a Mark III would give the Avaitor a real run. As to which car would be repairable afterwards, the Mark III wins hands down.

The '66 doesn't even have a frame, it's a unibody car. In a frontal collision, the entire front subframe - with engine - would likely end up in the passenger compartment.

 

As to the Mark III, its very stiff frame, and complete lack of crush zones would make it very dangerous to its own occupants. The front wouldn't crumple, and the passengers would stop almost as quickly as the front bumper. As they say, "It's not the fall, it's the sudden stop at the end." Your body would probably look okay, but your internal organs would resemble [insert favorite gelatinous substance here].

[RichardJensen]

Not to mention the whole issue of accident avoidance....

[PREMiERdrum]

Well, in the specific case I linked to, the man had a heart attack and went unconscious, losing control of the car. I think in this particular instance the car had a part in the survival - that's a pretty nasty fall to take, especially to land on the side. Similar accident in the same spot 2 years ago or so, IIRC it was a 2001-2006 Taurus, the driver was killed.