Ford & Chevy have one car

[Lovebug]

People can buy whatever they like. Crossovers are NOT SUVs. They are the yoga pants of transportation. Talk about silly!

Crossovers are for people who don't know the difference between unibody vs body on frame construction. Probably don't know the difference between front and rear wheel drive... especially when hauling heavier loads.--- and who only need a reliable sedan, but they like sitting a little higher in fat looking goofy "SUV looking" contraption. There is NOTHING utility about a crossover, unless one is looking for extra back seat space for more yoga pants.

We have long known that SUVs and pickup trucks--- which sit higher have always had a higher occurrence of rollovers. But that is what comes with a UTILITY vehicle. Sedans are far...far... less likely to rollover, especially in a single car accident. So, why on earth would anyone want to raise a sedan, add more height and upper weight simply for some silly style desire, and make these vehicles less safe? Especially for the type of drivers who are attracted to them; many of which already have poor driving skills.

I see more crossovers in solo spin outs and rollovers than any other type of vehicle. If you need a utility vehicle buy a truck or SUV. If you just need something to haul groceries and kids backpacks then look for a station wagon, or some goofy mini van.

What's wrong with minivans. The work well for Great Danes.

 

[RF667799]

Once upon a time, from the 1920's up until the late-1940's, nearly ALL automobiles large and small, were designed like today's crossovers.
This 1947 Dodge isn't really all that different from a modern crossover in terms of the body layout, is it?

View attachment 67435532

I've been around boating most of my life. I can remember when the parking lots at boat ramps were filled with predominantly cars being used as tow vehicles. That car could have towed a good size trailer. "Crossovers" are usually more limited. Boat ramp parking lots are full of pickup trucks these days.

 

[Super Chief]

What's wrong with minivans. The work well for Great Danes.

Get one of these. Way cooler to be seen in. Will haul great Danes, or 500 cases of Girl Scout cookies too if one prefers.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Funny, then, how numerous Japanese, Korean, and German manufacturers can meet these requirements yet American brands somehow can't.

The absolutely correct response to that industry-crafted, bullshit talking point.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Get one of these. Way cooler to be seen in. Will haul great Danes, or 500 cases of Girl Scout cookies too if one prefers.

Will also kill you in a 30 mph collision... but maybe worth it... super cool...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I've been around boating most of my life. I can remember when the parking lots at boat ramps were filled with predominantly cars being used as tow vehicles. That car could have towed a good size trailer. "Crossovers" are usually more limited. Boat ramp parking lots are full of pickup trucks these days.

Oh to be sure, it's likely a 1947 Dodge could have indeed towed a boat, but at speeds of maybe 45-50 mph and you might not want to be behind it if you're in a hurry.
What's changed is really how fast everyone goes these days. For example, the speed limit on most LA freeways is 65 mph but as an Angeleno I'm here to say that's really just a suggestion because aside from rush hour NOBODY does 65 on any LA freeway...N-O-B-O-D-Y.
And once you cross something like Beach Blvd on the 405, everyone is doing AT LEAST 75 or even 80.
I'm serious, I've even watched cars pass CHP cruisers doing 15-20 over the limit and they don't even bother with it unless they're driving like a moron.

And a 1947 Dodge doing 75 or 80 just isn't happening, boat or no boat, at least not for more than a few miles.
The official top speed of those cars is 78 mph according to Automobile Catalog dot com.

And in 1947 that was perfectly okay because the typical speed limit on what used to be called "turnpikes" was 45 or 50 mph, with 60 being considered a rip-roaring pace.
Yes, the old lead sleds were bigger and heavier but while they may have had sufficient torque to do towing chores, they lack the horsepower to be practical on today's highways if they're pulling something.

I remember when a lot of people used cars to tow as well, but they were typically something like a Mercury Commuter station wagon, which usually boasted a 390 c.i. V8 with advertised power of 270 hp and 403 lb-ft of torque, and a handy 118 mph official top speed.

I think what handicaps some of the smaller crossovers isn't the power, it's the fact that the body itself, which is UNIBODY instead of chassis on frame, cannot adequately deal with the stresses of towing anything more substantial than a small U-Haul trailer or a jet ski. The larger crossovers can handle a boat...MAYBE. Again, it's the lack of a proper frame and the smaller size.
You could tow a small boat, like a Boston Whaler but you're not going to be able to hook up to a cabin cruiser, today's crossovers are just too SMALL at any rate regardless of how much power they might have.

But what I was getting at is the fact that designers have basically begun to copy the general layout of the old lead sleds of the early 20th century, only in a much smaller size.

 

[phoenix2020]

There is no similarities in design. One is a body on frame, the other a unibody. One is front wheel drive, the other real wheel drive. One is automatic transmission, the other standard transmission.

You must not know much about automobiles if you think they are the same.

A crossover does not have a "room interior". Crossovers are designed to look like larger SUVs and that is all. They are styling trend, and really lame one. Why buy a crossover instead of an Accord or a Camry I wonder?

This is simple. Crossovers tend to provide elevated driver position and improved ingress/egress that many people—especially older drivers—enjoy, while still maintaining most of the driving dynamics of a traditional sedan. The form factor also allows for increased suspension travel, making it easier to package adaptive and air suspensions. Finally, crossovers tend to enjoy moderately higher profit margins than most sedans.

 

[RF667799]

Oh to be sure, it's likely a 1947 Dodge could have indeed towed a boat, but at speeds of maybe 45-50 mph and you might not want to be behind it if you're in a hurry.
What's changed is really how fast everyone goes these days. For example, the speed limit on most LA freeways is 65 mph but as an Angeleno I'm here to say that's really just a suggestion because aside from rush hour NOBODY does 65 on any LA freeway...N-O-B-O-D-Y.
And once you cross something like Beach Blvd on the 405, everyone is doing AT LEAST 75 or even 80.
I'm serious, I've even watched cars pass CHP cruisers doing 15-20 over the limit and they don't even bother with it unless they're driving like a moron.

And a 1947 Dodge doing 75 or 80 just isn't happening, boat or no boat, at least not for more than a few miles.
The official top speed of those cars is 78 mph according to Automobile Catalog dot com.

And in 1947 that was perfectly okay because the typical speed limit on what used to be called "turnpikes" was 45 or 50 mph, with 60 being considered a rip-roaring pace.
Yes, the old lead sleds were bigger and heavier but while they may have had sufficient torque to do towing chores, they lack the horsepower to be practical on today's highways if they're pulling something.

I remember when a lot of people used cars to tow as well, but they were typically something like a Mercury Commuter station wagon, which usually boasted a 390 c.i. V8 with advertised power of 270 hp and 403 lb-ft of torque, and a handy 118 mph official top speed.
View attachment 67435827
I think what handicaps some of the smaller crossovers isn't the power, it's the fact that the body itself, which is UNIBODY instead of chassis on frame, cannot adequately deal with the stresses of towing anything more substantial than a small U-Haul trailer or a jet ski. The larger crossovers can handle a boat...MAYBE. Again, it's the lack of a proper frame and the smaller size.
You could tow a small boat, like a Boston Whaler but you're not going to be able to hook up to a cabin cruiser, today's crossovers are just too SMALL at any rate regardless of how much power they might have.

But what I was getting at is the fact that designers have basically begun to copy the general layout of the old lead sleds of the early 20th century, only in a much smaller size.

I only used that old car as example, because it's what you posted. I towed my first ski boat with a '76 Grand Prix.

Anyone towing faster than 65 mph should check the speed rating on their trailer tires.

 

[phoenix2020]

They now have numerous electric vehicles and “crossovers” or “compact crossovers”.

They also don’t have any new station wagons!!! The horror.

I regret the impending demise of the wagon. At some point I am going to make a boneheaded decision and purchase a RS6 Avant before the form factor is gone forever.

 

[Rexedgar]

Many moons ago, I remember a Sunday comic panel. I forget who the cartoonist was. There were two characters watching a seemingly empty highway and commenting, “ cars got so big on the inside and so small on the outside that they became invisible!”

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Define SUV today? When I think of an SUV I'm thinking like a Jeep Wagoneer, Tahoe, Escalade, Yukon. Anything that is a crossover or a mini-mid size "SUV" is really just a sedan or compact car the sits higher, and is styled to look like an SUV for IDIOTS to buy. So, those are in fact the car models today. All of those silly monkey see monkey buy lamemobiles, that no self respecting adult would own. Either buy a sedan, or buy SUV (full size), or buy a truck.

Who would be caught dead in something like this?

The GMC Terrain I own right now is, I believe, the best car I've ever owned.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There is no similarities in design. One is a body on frame, the other a unibody. One is front wheel drive, the other real wheel drive. One is automatic transmission, the other standard transmission.

You must not know much about automobiles if you think they are the same.

First, the 47 Dodge I showed has a three speed "Fluid Drive" and not a stick.
Second, I said the LAYOUT, not the internals. I didn't say that they were the same.
But sure, I don't know anything about cars, so I cordially invite you to quiz me.
Ask me ANYTHING about cars, anything.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I regret the impending demise of the wagon. At some point I am going to make a boneheaded decision and purchase a RS6 Avant before the form factor is gone forever.

I think I am kinda with you on this one, the station wagon was a useful design, and I missed the chance to get one of those Dodge Magnum surf wagons when they came out.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What's wrong with minivans. The work well for Great Danes.

I love our Pacifica.
Okay maybe "LOVE" is too strong a word, but let's just say I am impressed that a six thousand pound BRICK ON WHEELS can outdo a stock 72 Camero RS in acceleration and get between 23 and 30 mpg on the freeway, and handle like a sedan around corners.
Yes, SIX thousand pounds because ours is handicap equipped, with the electric slide out wheelchair ramp and the ten inch drop on the floor to accommodate headroom for the wheelchair passenger.
Adding the handicap option gave our Pacifica an extra 850-900 pounds to lug around.



Where our minivan kinda sucks is in the city, where it guzzles around 16-19 mpg, but still for a 6000 pound pig, it's hard to complain.
We could not get a hybrid because the hybrid battery would sit right where they have the underbody wheelchair ramp mechanism.
No stow and go seating either.

 

[noonereal]

Did you know that Ford and Chevrolet only offer one car model each?

The Mustang and Malibu, the rest are SUVs and trucks.

https://www.ford.com/

Site Maintenance

Lincoln stopped offering cars years ago. Not sure if the have brought one back now or not. An SUV really is a "better" horse and wagon than is a car. Just not fun to drive like the old Lincoln LS or BMW 5 series. The Q 45 was a fun drive as well.

 

[noonereal]

That is incorrect, the are not building what sells, they are selling what the obama era cafe rules mandated they sell or shut their doors and go out of business, the same rules the epa and the dems fought tooth and nail to prevent trump from ending.

The obama era cafe rules put extreme mpg demands on vehicles, and had a wierd part where wheelbase was the determining factor on how lenient the rules were enforced. To meet these rules for most cars meant making cars extremely expensive and failure prone, while the wheelbase rules meant larger suv's and trucks could basically avoid these changes.

These cafe rules meant small fuel efficient cars became too expensive to make and meet cafe rules while trucks and suv's got a pass. The obama era rule democrats fought to the end to protect punishes car makers for making small fuel efficient cars and promotes them to build inneficient suv's and trucks as everyday transportation for the masses. This rule made the average mpg worse not better and if someone cared about greenhouse gasses would be against such a rule.

Got it.

It was the black mans fault.

 

[grip]

Lincoln stopped offering cars years ago. Not sure if the have brought one back now or not. An SUV really is a "better" horse and wagon than is a car. Just not fun to drive like the old Lincoln LS or BMW 5 series. The Q 45 was a fun drive as well.

I like the way cars handle, over SUVs and trucks. They're lower to the ground and corner better, but crossovers are easier to get in and out of.

 

[noonereal]

I like the way cars handle, over SUVs and trucks. They're lower to the ground and corner better, but crossovers are easier to get in and out of.

Agree
You can't have fun driving a truck or SUV unless it's off road stuff.

 

[reflechissez]

People can buy whatever they like.<silly rant snipped>

Good

 

[Super Chief]

First, the 47 Dodge I showed has a three speed "Fluid Drive" and not a stick.

Well.... yes and no, but first off, not all 47s came with "fluid drive" those were an option that was available. The standard models came with a manual (3 on the tree), and MANY people preferred those even despite the "fluid drive" option, which was more technically a torque converter drive. If the car you showed in the photo had a 'fluid drive", then great, but do you actually know how they worked? "Fluid drive" was basically a torque converter drive. There was four gears; two in the low (L) range, and two in high (D) range. To go from 1st to 2nd, or from 3rd to 4th, you only needed to lay off the throttle and the torque converter slipped into the higher gear within each respective range. If you came to a stop, it would go back to the lower gear within that range you were in. However, if you needed to shift from L to D you still needed to use the clutch either going up or coming back down. Yes there is a clutch, and yes you could even use it within each drive range.

So to say there was no stick, is not correct. These were not automatic transmissions, you still needed to shift from the L to D range, or into R by depressing the clutch.

Second, I said the LAYOUT, not the internals. I didn't say that they were the same.

I am baffled by this. Cars then were much more "round" or curvy before the late 50s and early 60s. But the car you showed is in fact a SEDAN. It is not panel truck, not station wagon, not utility vehicle. It was a sedan.

But sure, I don't know anything about cars, so I cordially invite you to quiz me.
Ask me ANYTHING about cars, anything.

Nah, I think you've already sort of indicated that I don't need to ask you for information. Not if a you think a late '40s sedan is like a modern crossover LOL.

 

[Super Chief]

Will also kill you in a 30 mph collision... but maybe worth it... super cool...

Maybe, maybe not. They certainly did not have crumple zones to attenuate energy. But in those days before seat belts, most people were killed when their bodies slammed into hard interior surfaces.

Anyone who thinks that they are not likely to be killed driving around in a Honda CR-V that is t boned by a 1957 GMC panel truck.... well, good luck with that.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well.... yes and no, but first off, not all 47s came with "fluid drive" those were an option that was available. The standard models came with a manual (3 on the tree), and MANY people preferred those even despite the "fluid drive" option, which was more technically a torque converter drive. If the car you showed in the photo had a 'fluid drive", then great, but do you actually know how they worked? "Fluid drive" was basically a torque converter drive. There was four gears; two in the low (L) range, and two in high (D) range. To go from 1st to 2nd, or from 3rd to 4th, you only needed to lay off the throttle and the torque converter slipped into the higher gear within each respective range. If you came to a stop, it would go back to the lower gear within that range you were in. However, if you needed to shift from L to D you still needed to use the clutch either going up or coming back down. Yes there is a clutch, and yes you could even use it within each drive range.

So to say there was no stick, is not correct. These were not automatic transmissions, you still needed to shift from the L to D range, or into R by depressing the clutch.





I am baffled by this. Cars then were much more "round" or curvy before the late 50s and early 60s. But the car you showed is in fact a SEDAN. It is not panel truck, not station wagon, not utility vehicle. It was a sedan.

Nah, I think you've already sort of indicated that I don't need to ask you for information. Not if a you think a late '40s sedan is like a modern crossover LOL.

I'm aware of how they worked.
Maybe you might want to inquire about the tried and true method of unsticking a Hudson wet clutch if it's been sitting for too long?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am baffled by this. Cars then were much more "round" or curvy before the late 50s and early 60s. But the car you showed is in fact a SEDAN. It is not panel truck, not station wagon, not utility vehicle. It was a sedan.

Yes and if you put one side by side with what we call "crossovers" the appearance has some similarities. I never said it was a truck or a station wagon.
I also never implied that I thought crossovers were a good thing either.

Nah, I think you've already sort of indicated that I don't need to ask you for information. Not if a you think a late '40s sedan is like a modern crossover LOL.

Yeah okay SuperChief, but I still cordially invite you to test me on ANYTHING you want regarding cars.
You blew the chance to quiz me about Dodge fluid drive by attempting to go the pedantic route.
Maybe you're afraid to quiz me, now that you made the mistake of implying I don't know anything about cars.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Maybe, maybe not. They certainly did not have crumple zones to attenuate energy. But in those days before seat belts, most people were killed when their bodies slammed into hard interior surfaces.

Anyone who thinks that they are not likely to be killed driving around in a Honda CR-V that is t boned by a 1957 GMC panel truck.... well, good luck with that.

Yes and no, your Honda driver may suffer however if you want to witness a matchup between two vehicles that are of the same approximate stance and height, the results are quite different.
Car versus car, not car versus four wheel drive panel truck.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Or here ya go, @Super Chief ---- what is something that all modern cars HAVE today but the original 265 Chevy V8 did NOT have?