Author Topic: Motor Trend Car of the Year..and the winner is...................... (Read 7274 times)

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2009, 07:17:48 pm »

I agree with Mitlov, the Genesis should have been COTY. It's more relevant to far more people.

Schmengie · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2009, 08:11:05 pm »

To put the MT COTY award into context, Google 'worst cars ever'. You'll see quite a few COTY winners, like the '71 Vega, the gawd-awful '74 Mustang II, the '77 Caprice, the biodegradable '83 Renault Alliance and I could go on. What an honor to be part of this distinguished group.

Greg B. · « **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2009, 10:36:50 pm »

Quote from: Schmengie on January 10, 2009, 08:11:05 pm

To put the MT COTY award into context, Google 'worst cars ever'. You'll see quite a few COTY winners, like the '71 Vega, the gawd-awful '74 Mustang II, the '77 Caprice, the biodegradable '83 Renault Alliance and I could go on. What an honor to be part of this distinguished group.

Actually the '77 Caprice was a very good car indeed. Not sure where you found such a reference.

Honda Owner · « **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2009, 10:39:27 pm »

Quote

Actually the '77 Caprice was a very good car indeed.

They were excellent cars. The 1977-79 B and C bodies were, in my opinion, the last truly excellent cars GM made. When they came out, they were head and shoulders better than anything else made by the Big 3.

Schmengie · « **Reply #24 on:** January 11, 2009, 01:37:51 am »

Quote from: Greg B. on January 10, 2009, 10:36:50 pm

Quote from: Schmengie on January 10, 2009, 08:11:05 pm
To put the MT COTY award into context, Google 'worst cars ever'. You'll see quite a few COTY winners, like the '71 Vega, the gawd-awful '74 Mustang II, the '77 Caprice, the biodegradable '83 Renault Alliance and I could go on. What an honor to be part of this distinguished group.

Actually the '77 Caprice was a very good car indeed. Not sure where you found such a reference.

OK, I'll admit the Caprice was a personal choice. A friend of mine had one that he bought new and I thought it was a real heap. Cheaply made, lousy on gas and strangled by the crude emission controls of the day. IIRC he had the 305 V8 engine and it made less than 150hp, woefully inadequate for such a big car. I think the other COTY 'winners' I mentioned still make my point though.

tpl · « **Reply #25 on:** January 11, 2009, 05:29:09 am »

Quote from: Honda Owner on January 10, 2009, 10:39:27 pm

Quote
Actually the '77 Caprice was a very good car indeed.

They were excellent cars. The 1977-79 B and C bodies were, in my opinion, the last truly excellent cars GM made. When they came out, they were head and shoulders better than anything else made by the Big 3.

I drove a Caprice just once in late '77 Mtl to TO and back. Just a rental and far far bigger than any car I'd buy for myself but I agree. It appeared to be a very good car, quiet, smooth, handled well.

Honda Owner · « **Reply #26 on:** January 11, 2009, 11:59:41 am »

The 350 versions were much better than the 305. The Canadian built 350s were quite powerful for their day.

I have a soft spot for these cars. In 1979 my dear departed dad factory ordered an Impala with F-41 suspension and the 350, along with a/c. I took my driver's license test on it. It was a real revelation compared to the hulking Fords and Chryslers of the day.

That said, the car was a quality control disaster: the paint job was awful and the dash top was stoved in. Mechanically, it was as solid as a rock.

Seafoam · « **Reply #27 on:** January 11, 2009, 12:30:23 pm »

Quote from: Honda Owner on January 11, 2009, 11:59:41 am

The 350 versions were much better than the 305. The Canadian built 350s were quite powerful for their day.

I have a soft spot for these cars. In 1979 my dear departed dad factory ordered an Impala with F-41 suspension and the 350, along with a/c. I took my driver's license test on it. It was a real revelation compared to the hulking Fords and Chryslers of the day.

That said, the car was a quality control disaster: the paint job was awful and the dash top was stoved in. Mechanically, it was as solid as a rock.

Didn't those 305's go through camshafts?

Honda Owner · « **Reply #28 on:** January 11, 2009, 01:21:54 pm »

Quote

Didn't those 305's go through camshafts?

No, that was the 305, which had cast camshafts. The shaft on the 350 was forged.

What the 350 did go through was gas and plenty of it.

barrie1 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 11, 2009, 06:27:53 pm »

Again that was camshaft design for the times and the emmisions of that time period. The end lobes, usually No.1 lobe or front of the cams in the 305's were soft and did wear early but around a $150.00 bought a new cam and the same amount of money installed it which cured the problem. They were fine after that. There was 3 grades of the cam for fuel milage as well back then which were factory chosen as well by the buyer for power or milage. That may have explained the amount of power in the one you drove.

Schmengie · « **Reply #30 on:** January 11, 2009, 06:46:54 pm »

Quote from: barrie1 on January 11, 2009, 06:27:53 pm

There was 3 grades of the cam for fuel milage as well back then which were factory chosen as well by the buyer for power or milage. That may have explained the amount of power in the one you drove.

Not really. My friend's '77 Caprice had lousy acceleration AND awful fuel economy. Did they have a special cam for that too?

Honda Owner · « **Reply #31 on:** January 11, 2009, 10:13:18 pm »

Quote

Again that was camshaft design for the times

Wrong, Barrie. The 305 had a cast cam, the 350 was forged. The front lobe gets the least lubrication, hence it wore the fastest. The same engine was also plagued with fibre timing gears and two bolt main bearings.

The 350 was a much better engine.

Quote

There was 3 grades of the cam for fuel milage [sic] as well back then which were factory chosen as well by the buyer for power or milage. [sic]

The buyer of a B body could not specify the cam he wanted. The Canadian cars had more lax regulations and thus made significantly more power.

And yes, by today's standards, neither car was terribly powerful and yes, the both sucked gas.

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #32 on:** January 14, 2009, 04:04:30 pm »

The 1976 is the last of the really large Caprices. From 1977 onwards, they were the squared off "downsized" version. Impalas were the same car but with a lower spec.

tpl · « **Reply #33 on:** January 14, 2009, 04:17:33 pm »

That picture doesn't do justice to the neat look of the newer car compared to the land yacht looks of the old one.

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #34 on:** January 14, 2009, 08:36:26 pm »

Quote from: tpl on January 14, 2009, 04:17:33 pm

That picture doesn't do justice to the neat look of the newer car compared to the land yacht looks of the old one.

Weellll Excuuuuse ME!

rrocket · « **Reply #35 on:** January 14, 2009, 08:41:31 pm »

Geezus.....looks like you could fit a couch back there.

Had an old friend who had an old 70's Lincoln Town car. Back seat was BIGGER than a sofa....and comfy as hell. Downside was the car got like 8 MPG....

Some of those old car are downright cavernous on the inside...

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #36 on:** January 14, 2009, 08:54:36 pm »

Growing up, a neighbour had a '76 Fleetwood Talisman. Biggest damned car I've ever seen.

Similar to this one. Enormous interior and trunk. It had a 500cu. in. engine

rrocket · « **Reply #37 on:** January 14, 2009, 08:56:23 pm »

Easy-peasy to parallel park huh?

Sir Osis of Liver · « **Reply #38 on:** January 14, 2009, 09:13:03 pm »

Quote from: rrocket on January 14, 2009, 08:56:23 pm

Easy-peasy to parallel park huh?

I can just imagine the carnage at Florida flea markets, when all the blue hairs were jockeying these things into position!

Ex-airbalancer · « **Reply #39 on:** January 15, 2009, 07:37:04 am »

Here the car my parents had when I was 16
http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/classic_car_commercials_buick_05.htm