I do know that Ford and GM builds cars in Mexico. My point was they are still the most American car company.

I'm not even about to start the debate on which is better JAP or American so im leaving that alone.

But i always like a good debate about which is the more American car company. Cuz so many people think that cuz toyota has a plant or 2 in the U.S. they are this all mighty American company, which is a joke. Last time i looked i think ford alone has around 14 plants.

 

So true WW.

 

Now Toyota has 54 deaths related to their issue's as current as last month. It has also come out that GM has steering problems, the power steering motor goes out every now and then. Not a big deal if you've ever drove an older vehicle that has no power steering. It has lead to several crashes and only 1 injury. GM is recalling something like a million cars, not surprising with the Chevy Cobalt being one of them. What a tossed together POS, everything rattles around in it like the car is about to literally fall apart going down the road.

 

My wife had a Cobalt. It was 'ok', just not much room. It got really good fuel mileage. It was in the upper 20's/mpg, in town. The Cobalt replaced the Cavalier, but not much better of a car.

 

Really? upper 20s is good for a subcompact? 25 years ago, I had a full size LTD with a 400 cu in V8 that got 34 highway and 26 overall.

I also know a couple of people that had Ford pickups, F-250 and F-350 with fuel injected 460 engines that got more than 30 pulling campers, back in the early 90s. ( I didn't believe it when I first heard about it, so I asked the shop manager at the local Ford dealership. He said the engineers had no idea why, but about 3 out of 7 of those trucks were getting more than 30+ mpg. They were not advertising it because they could not predict which ones would get it, and which ones would not.)

I don't see any of the subcompacts getting good fuel economy unless they can get 45 or 50 mpg. Compared to what we used to be able to get years ago, these new ones are gas-guzzlers. Down-size the car, reduce the horsepower, and don't get any better fuel economy?

I'd like to have someone explain to me why I have never been able to get the fuel economy with a front-wheel-drive that I was always able to get with a rear-wheel-drive. I honestly think the American Public is being taken for a ride when it comes to cars.

To be honest, you can spend $20,000 on a new car, or spend one third of that restoring a pre-80's car and have three times the car out of it. You've also got far less "CRAP" on it to fail.

 

WW I could be wrong on FWD vs RWD fuel economy but I believe it's because with RWD you have less resistance in pushing the car, your already using it's own weight to help keep the vehicle moving. With FWD you will burn more fuel because it's pulling the vehicle with more resistance. Think rolling resistance there, you can't use the vehicles own weight to help go down the road because the FWD wheels are dragging the weight behind them like an anchor.

 

no way is a 460 getting anywere near 30mpg. Just sayin

 

That was almost word for word what I was going to say! If we're both wrong.... it's YOUR fault! :lol:

 

I had a 1975 Malibu with a 400 big block. On the highway, with cruise set, I got over 35mpg simply because the engine didn't have to work whatsoever to maintain the speed. In town was a completely different matter - I was lucky to see 10mpg then. But, I was a lot younger then with a foot that weighed more than it does now.

 

I know one guy up in WI that's still hanging on to his '91 F-250 because it's still getting him 34 mpg while pulling his fifth-wheel camper. He's had the body patched, and parts replaces because of rust, but he won't get rid of it because there is nothing else available that will match the fuel economy. He says that without the camper, he gets 37 or 38. For the last 10 years, the only thing it does id pull the camper. And, he says he's going to preserve it till he has no use for the camper anymore.

A couple of the people, up there, that had them and got traded them in are sorry they ever thought of doing that. Nothing matches the fuel economy. Not all of them did that, but there were some that did.

I had asked a dealership about it, and still took it with a grain of salt. Then I had a chance to ride with one guy down to MS and back to WI. It ended up being a 2000 mile round trip. He fueled up once (36 gallon tank) and got back to WI with almost half a tank left. You do the math. And, the truck was stock from the factory. No "add-ons".