New Truck in Town vs GM Units

[cardude2000]

I'm digging the front end of the navigator for sure. Blows the quad headlight 'design' of the Tahoe out of the water for sure and at least on par with denali/escalade.

 

[brendon444]

I agree from the side looks like suburban due to the high belt line of today’s SUVs. As far as interior the Expedition is up a few whole pegs. Nothing looks
cheap about it. The platinum is easily nicer than my denali.

Looks nice. But I don't see it. Looks comparable. Wouldn't say it's better. Will go look in person. I also own a 17 f150 with 3.5 ecoboost so i'm not biased either way.

 

[cardude2000]

Looks nice. But I don't see it. Looks comparable. Wouldn't say it's better. Will go look in person. I also own a 17 f150 with 3.5 ecoboost so i'm not biased either way.

I dont like the look of the expedition interior over the tahoe. The lincoln is another story IMO. Leaps and bounds over my denali and light years better than the melting angry transformer face that is the interior of the escalade. But like you said, need to see in person.

 

[swathdiver]

They sound like a vacuum cleaner and that 3.5L needs a lot of boost to get it to go. I'm not a fan of turbo or supercharged V6 engines. Yes, I have had two of them.

I used to own quite a few vacuum cleaner sounding Buicks years ago. 231 cubic inches was great for a 3,500 pound car. Using even less displacement to move near twice the weight goes against the thinking of my formative years.

I'm digging the front end of the navigator for sure.

Now this one doesn't look half bad, even though the grill seems to mimic an Alfa Romeo.

If we can shed these onerous and ridiculous government mandates and regulations the engines would be much better IMO and the trucks would be lighter!

 

[cardude2000]

I used to own quite a few vacuum cleaner sounding Buicks years ago. 231 cubic inches was great for a 3,500 pound car. Using even less displacement to move near twice the weight goes against the thinking of my formative years.



Now this one doesn't look half bad, even though the grill seems to mimic an Alfa Romeo.

If we can shed these onerous and ridiculous government mandates and regulations the engines would be much better IMO and the trucks would be lighter!

Engines are better, faster, stronger than they’ve ever been before and get great mpg AND are exponentially cleaner. Not to mention how much safer they are...

What auto safety regulations would you opt out of if you could?

Agree on the grill btw.

 

[swathdiver]

Remember when Jeeps were Jeeps? No airbags, no gigantic cushioned rollbars, etc. Chrysler is not allowed to build an exact copy of a 1980 CJ-8 and sell it, such would be against the law. Consider today's camaros and challengers to their ancestors, they weigh many hundreds of pounds more. My truck weighs 5,900 pounds empty and its 1980 ancestor weighed 4,809 empty.

A 1990 Cummins 1-ton we used to have got 26mpg with a full load. Today's trucks get nowhere near that because of the stupid emissions requirements cutting their economy to less than half. A 1985s Buick LeSabre would get 35mpg on the highway, heck, one of my Buick GNs got 26mpg and made 425 rwhp and passed emissions. My father's Isuzu I-Mark got 62mpg.

The insanity of of our computerized charcoal and cannistor purge systems I'd do away with. Leave it simple and mechanical and able to be removed without affecting engine operations like the old days. CAFE standards would be done away with too. If someone wants a gas mizer, let them buy it. Don't force AFM/DOD on us to please Washington.

I never heard of a catch can before coming to this forum after buying my first truck with an LS engine. Way back when when we wanted to keep those Jimmy Carter oil deposits out of our intakes we simply put breathers on the valve covers, blocked off the heater lines going to our intakes and threw all that garbage away. The cars ran so much better and got better gas mileage. Anyone here remember the air pumps from the 1970s and 1980s? Another nightmare. Remember all those vacuum lines and when one would crack and leak it choked the car to death and emptied the poor owner's wallet. I removed all that crap, gutted the cats and still passed emissions through proper tuning, not to mention making the cars more driveable and powerful and economical. One had to conclude that those blokes in Washington didn't have a clue and were enriching their buddies by making us pay for all that garbage they passed into law and regulations. Rant over.

 

[cardude2000]

Remember when Jeeps were Jeeps? No airbags, no gigantic cushioned rollbars, etc. Chrysler is not allowed to build an exact copy of a 1980 CJ-8 and sell it, such would be against the law. Consider today's camaros and challengers to their ancestors, they weigh many hundreds of pounds more. My truck weighs 5,900 pounds empty and its 1980 ancestor weighed 4,809 empty.

A 1990 Cummins 1-ton we used to have got 26mpg with a full load. Today's trucks get nowhere near that because of the stupid emissions requirements cutting their economy to less than half. A 1985s Buick LeSabre would get 35mpg on the highway, heck, one of my Buick GNs got 26mpg and made 425 rwhp and passed emissions. My father's Isuzu I-Mark got 62mpg.

The insanity of of our computerized charcoal and cannistor purge systems I'd do away with. Leave it simple and mechanical and able to be removed without affecting engine operations like the old days. CAFE standards would be done away with too. If someone wants a gas mizer, let them buy it. Don't force AFM/DOD on us to please Washington.

I never heard of a catch can before coming to this forum after buying my first truck with an LS engine. Way back when when we wanted to keep those Jimmy Carter oil deposits out of our intakes we simply put breathers on the valve covers, blocked off the heater lines going to our intakes and threw all that garbage away. The cars ran so much better and got better gas mileage. Anyone here remember the air pumps from the 1970s and 1980s? Another nightmare. Remember all those vacuum lines and when one would crack and leak it choked the car to death and emptied the poor owner's wallet. I removed all that crap, gutted the cats and still passed emissions through proper tuning, not to mention making the cars more driveable and powerful and economical. One had to conclude that those blokes in Washington didn't have a clue and were enriching their buddies by making us pay for all that garbage they passed into law and regulations. Rant over.

Deaths per 100 miles driven has been cut IN HALF since 1980. Thats astounding progress. I have friends that died in those ****** old jeeps. Yeah they looked cool until they met an oak tree. So I'm cool with airbags and other do dads that have added a few pounds to jeeps.

To be fair I dont know much about diesel but I do know that the Engines today are more powerful (how much HP/Torque did that cummins have?) and get better MPG (dodge diesel trucks get 22MPG). A 2018 Buick Lacrosse gets 35MPG and has 310 HP. THREE HUNDRED AND TEN.

I'm glad the engines are cleaner and cars are safer.

But as we generally do, we can agree to disagree.

And BTW, the 1985 buick got MAYBE 18/22 MPG, nowhere near 36.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=539

Edit: I’ll also add that the new Cameros drive/handle MUCH better than their dinosaur counterparts.

 

[swathdiver]

People and companies should have a choice as to what to make and buy without government interference. Personal responsibility, not government mandates should be the rule and not the exception.

Yes, many of the very latest products are putting out nice power with good mileage compared with thirty years ago, but it took them near thirty years to catch up. I once drove an '85 LeSabre from New York to Florida and got 35 mpg at 72 mph average for the whole trip. Our 3300 Buick in a '93 Olds Ciera got over 30 mpg on the highway as did our '94 Olds 98 Regency with the 3800, that one got 25 around town and 32 on the highway. I could even squeek out 32 mpg from my GN by turning the fuel pressure down.

The old Cummins made 160 hp so if the new ones are finally at 22 mpg that's great. My buddies 2012 Dodge diesel didn't get half that. Curiously for diesel powered trucks, they sure do make more power but their GCWR is generally lower than yesteryear until recently. My 1988 F-Superduty had a GCWR of 33,000lbs. The aformentioned Dodge Cummins, 26,000 lbs.

Radial tires are so much better than the old bias ply, that has helped save lives and improved the ride and handling like the old camaros and mustangs.

 

[cardude2000]

People and companies should have a choice as to what to make and buy without government interference. Personal responsibility, not government mandates should be the rule and not the exception.

Yes, many of the very latest products are putting out nice power with good mileage compared with thirty years ago, but it took them near thirty years to catch up. I once drove an '85 LeSabre from New York to Florida and got 35 mpg at 72 mph average for the whole trip. Our 3300 Buick in a '93 Olds Ciera got over 30 mpg on the highway as did our '94 Olds 98 Regency with the 3800, that one got 25 around town and 32 on the highway. I could even squeek out 32 mpg from my GN by turning the fuel pressure down.

The old Cummins made 160 hp so if the new ones are finally at 22 mpg that's great. My buddies 2012 Dodge diesel didn't get half that. Curiously for diesel powered trucks, they sure do make more power but their GCWR is generally lower than yesteryear until recently. My 1990 F-Superduty had a GCWR of 33,000lbs. The aformentioned Dodge Cummins, 26,000 lbs.

Radial tires are so much better than the old bias ply, that has helped save lives and improved the ride and handling like the old camaros and mustangs.

I’d agree that people should be able to do what they want (buy flame throwers, get married to whomever they want etc) but a car that blows up when it’***** or is unsafe at speed or pollutes the air is an infringement on other people’s rights so that’s a tough one. Should the govt have building standards for homes? How about highway safety regulations?

As far as 30 years to catch up? The Buick today has almost 2x the HP and MPG than the one you are noting (your super special driving techniques aside). And its exponentially safer and cleaner. I’ll admit the the American cars took a while to figure it out (much longer than the imports) but that’s on them. Much of the safety and MPG advances has been driven by consumer demand vs govt intervention. In fact govt mandates on safety usually only get put into place once most vehicles have a particular feature already. Example: blind spot detection, lane departure warnings, ESP etc are all safety advances that the govt has not mandated yet. They’ve all been driven by market forces.

.

 

[UrbanSuburban]

I agree completely, people should have the choice. The regualtions that were forced on to car companies and by definition us consumers have not done what they were supposed to do. I am old enough to remember the Chrysler 'Lean Burn' 318 and 360, what pos they were, once you removed the crap, they would run pretty well. Of course you would still need the odd Ballast resister in the glovebox. I had also two Chargers, 68 and 73, one with 440 and the other 400, 4 wheel drum brakes on the 68 would scare anybody today, Cars are so much better in driveablility department. Emmissions nearly did in Cars in the 70s and 80s, Diesels are now having that moment since the early 2000's, Ford had to get rid of their excellent 7.3 for a POS 6.0 in order to meet emission standards, look what that got them. Ask any Real Truck driver, Freightshaker, or Kenworthless how great the emission are, they will probably be at the lounge at the PACCAR dealership. That is why there are still so many brokenback macks on the road.