ITT: Vehicles as appliances
Pic related. I drove my grandfather's Century for a few months and it couldn't be more dull, both in aesthetics and handling. Bland interior too
>>14132711
That's the point of it
>>14132711
And the ting is, it's the nicest car you have ever driven. Ironic isn't it?
>>14132714
I know, it was built to be bland and I accept that. I'm not complaining any more since I have a better car but that doesn't change the fact that it's the opposite of an enthusiast's car
>>14132717
>projecting
we can pretty much put 90% of anything usdm in this slot from 1987 to 1999.
first offense:
chevrolet celebrity, featuring a 2.4L 4 banger than couldn't even make 100 hp
I drive a 1999 Century during the winter, as we have very harsh, cold, and snowy winters here. From an enthusiasts point of view, it is definitely very dull, boring, and bland. But as an appliance vehicle it has served me very well. I haven't done anything but oil changes in the 2+ years that I've owned it. It sits for 6 months of the year and only gets started once every month or two during that time, and always fires up right away. Very comfy, very roomy, and does surprisingly well in 2ft of snow. I've never had an issue with getting it started, even in -40°C weather. That fat ugly car has far exceeded any expectations I had from an $800, fifteen year old GM.
>>14132803
This looks like the most boring car ever created by man.
>>14132845
Yeah, it's reliable as hell.
GM cars run like shit longer than most cars run at all.
>>14132803
sticking with government motors, we move on to this visual obscenity
the Chevrolet Cavalier wagon, where the visual styling was like someone took the Celebrity and washed it in hot water.
with a more tuned (comparatively) 2.0 4-cyl but still under 100hp. Strangely, you could get a 2.8 v6 that had fuel injection for GMs first time in transverse setups.
>>14132914
fail for no pic...
>>14132803
>>14132914
As I think jeremy clarkson said once when reviewing some 80's american cars, how did they get this few horsepower out of an engine of that size. It's literally an accomplishment.
forever and always
>>14132916
and just to prove losing Pontiac meant the visual soul left GM, here' is the Sunfire version of the same car.
Its ugly as sin too, but you wouldn't accuse it of being boring by comparison. especially in 87-88.
My dad had a 98 century. Thought it was the most beautiful car ever. Put 300k on it with no major problems. It survived several moves from the Midwest to the south to the west and was a consistent second driver.
My sister killed it finally after he gave it to her when her friend demolished her S-Type.
I drove it to university for half a year and thought it was too comfy and detached for its own good. Made me sleepy. Was fun to take that thing on trail roads in the desert though.
K for king of the appliance car
>>14133038
and here comes the ol diamond, we were just about to come to you...
the company that gave us the dodge daytona also provided us with this... appliance of the year 1981
you'll be please(unnerved) to note, time did not wear down and reveal anything other than a lump of car with bench seating over the next 8 years
it was an early example of major parts sharing with Mitsubishi instead of the previous badge engineering only. they took the v6 of the starion and made it transverse...
>>14132929
Is it weird I see lots of niggers in these?
Literally only the XV20.
>>14132711
My 2000 LeSabre is a glorious daily driver. The Century came with the 3.1 which just didn't have enough torque, but the LeSabre with the 3.8 is a great daily. 30-40 MPG highway depending on elevation changes, it is comfortable, quiet, and has a great overdrive gear ratio. Drive the dishwasher to work and back, save the fun for the weekends.
My 2006 Sentra
Boring, the car. However, it's been stupid reliable for me. 130K miles, spends a lot of time parked now that I've got my SS. I recently changed the O2 sensor, it's the first part to fail on the car outside of stuff that needs routine maintenance. It was like a $50 fix too, so not too bad. Averages 35 ish MPG, and is surprisingly good on snow.
>>14133417
you're not getting anywhere near 40mpg from a 3.8 dude
>>14132803
They don't make them like they used to.
>early 90's usdm
Meh.
Their v8's sucked until the lt1/ls1 came along and then they go and kill their last i6 that i gave a shit about
RIP AMC 4l
pretty ironic i get better fuel econ in a fucking 6litre ls than a 4 banger and 6 banger
>>14133456
I drove from Alabama to Louisiana in the middle of the night once and got 37.
>>14132711
checked good highway car
>>14132803
They were still better than their japanese and german competitors of the time
>>14132711
My friend had a '96 Regal. We were going to the casino taking a left hand exit onto another highway, his tires started squeeling at like 35mph. I take that exit at 60mph+ with no fuss in my Focus. He about shit a brick the first time I did it with him in the car.
Every CUV
![1983-cressida-1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HMwmfQM.jpg "1983-cressida-1[1].jpg")
Is the 1980's objectively the worst decade for cars?
>>14133079
I want one of these with the hemi
>>14137668
For normal sedans and stuff, yes.
There's plenty of nice looking '80s sports cars though.
>>14137668
at least 80s cars had character even if they were shitty, 90s and early to mid 2000s cars are just utterly forgettable
>>14137668
>>14138160
>>14138180
Boxy 80's sedans turn me on
>>14138197
Don't lie to me, its just the ae86 that you like
>>14137668
No boxy cars look the best
>>14138680
>>14138197
>Until you own one
>Cooling issues
>overheating
>blown head gaskits
Sure it was my first car and i flogged it but those 5me's where not that great and HEAVY as fuck
>>14132875
Its stablemate, the Pontiac 6000, was slightly more attractive and had respectable performance for its time in STE trim.
Everything Oldsmobile made from 1980 to the mid '90s except the Toronado Trofeo and '91+ Ninety-Eight was completely indistinguishable from a Buick and/or Pontiac.
It wasn't until the '95 Aurora that Oldsmobiles looked unique again--and of course Olds was canned just a few years later
>>14133690
Yeah there's no way you got that kind of mpg with a 3800.
It doesn't matter what the computer said, it was wrong.
>inb4 I manually calculated it
You did your math wrong. I used to own a car with a 3800 and it wouldn't come close to that kind of milage on the freeway. 25mpg was expected
>>14140740
I'll be sure to let the Louisiana Department of Agriculture know that their gas pumps are calibrated incorrectly.
>>14140740
That's total horse shit. The fucking thing is rated at 30mpg highway, and the EPA mileage is conservative. I would routinely get ~32mpg on my commute to work on I-16, getting 35 or more if you on a flat road in OD is not really out of the question.
>>14132711
Did you remember the comfy? Better cherish that comfy bc it's going away from affordable cars.
>>14138180
Unreliable, piss poor economy, even worse build quality, yet worse power, ugly styling, sloppy handling, etc. There was no character, unless mediocrity is character. It was an era where the big three were going "fuck you you'll buy it anyways."
>>14140740
What are gear ratios. What car did you own?
>>14132803
Well let's be real here. That car was from 1980 to the late 80's. It had between 90-140hp depending on engine model. The corolla 4 door from the same time was rocking about 68-93 depending on engine. So yeah, all cars sucked.
My mom had one of these. Most basic car we ever owned, but the dodge neon was close.
>>14132914
>the Chevrolet Cavalier wagon, where the visual styling was like someone took the Celebrity and washed it in hot water.
Both the Celebrety and Cavalier styling of the 80's were meant to look like shrunken versions of the Impala. That styling is part of the reason that both their firewalls were further back than necessary, cramping the passenger compartments.
> a more tuned (comparatively) 2.0 4-cyl but still under 100hp
The 2.0 in the Cav and the 2.5 in the Celebrity were completely unrelated. The 2.0 was a single bank of the (new for the time) 2.8 v6, bored out and stretched to 4 cylinders. It shares internal dimensions with the 3.0 v6 that would come out a couple years later.
The 2.5 on the other hand, was half of a 1960's era Pontiac V8 design. It's primary attributes were reliability and a wide, flat powerband,with a torque peak down at 2500 rpm and HP peak up at 4000 rpm. Revving over 4000 rpm was not advised, as there were no balance shafts and the vibrations would shake the car to pieces. The cavalier 122 engine had an even wider powerband, with torque peak at 2400 and HP peak at 4800. While the 122 also had no balance shafts, the vibrations were not nearly as bad thanks to it's lower displacement. Typically engines under 2.2l don't need balance shafts.
The wide powerband was necessary as the engine was almost always paired to a wide-ratio 3-speed automatic and steep final drive, which would nearly make it to freeway speeds before hitting 4000 RPM and shifting out of 1st gear.
>Strangely, you could get a 2.8 v6 that had fuel injection for GMs first time in transverse setups
GM never planned or expected for the 2.5 to be widely used. Their original plan for their compact and midsize ranges, was that they would be sold with the new V6 engines over 80% of the time, and that the 4-cylinders would be only for fleet cars or extreme strippers. But dealership orders came in with the numbers completely reversed; everyone wanted a 4-cyl.
>>14140925
Cool
![images[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/Fo0vbS8.jpg "images[1].png")
My wife's 2013 Ford Fiesta is the most straightforward A to B machine I've ever driven. With it's high MPG, barely adequate power, okayish interior, and minimal interface and display, it is the perfect car for those that want to be bothered with their car as little as possible.
>>14138180
Those 90s cars are becoming more and more likeable compared to the pseudo-angry bloated shit that`s popular nowadays.
>>14140740
Regal fag with a 3800 as well.
I think I get 20 at best.
Dont care, that engine is fun and bulletproof
