Future cars odds & ends
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by IZ28
Bring back the B-Body.
Bring back the B-Body.
about ruggedness, but all they really do is soften up the suspension bushings so their cars don't fall to pieces on unpaved roads. "Squidgy handling" is Australian for "tough."I knew that the B-body was dead before GM killed it in 1996:cry;, just like I knew the F-body was dying when I bought my Z28. Both cars were well engineered and represent awesome performance value. A 1994 Impala SS
, or even a LT1 Roadmaster
, can still burn 2002 Marauder. Maybe the Camaro is coming back, but full-sized, body-on-frame cars are dead at GM
. GM is willing to sell us some rebadged Holdens for a substantial premium over what the Aussies are paying. I guess some people are glad and willing to fork over their hard earned cash, but I'm underwhelmed.
If the B-body was resurrected, I'd buy in a heartbeat.
It sooner buy a Hyundai
than a Holden, though.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Originally posted by redzed
All jokes aside, the B-Body had an excellent suspensions setup (with the W41 package) and a big, rigid frame. In comparison, any Holden Commodore/Monaro or "GTO" is just a disposable unit body. The Australians talk about ruggedness, but all they really do is soften up the suspension bushings so their cars don't fall to pieces on unpaved roads. "Squidgy handling" is Australian for "tough."....If the B-body was resurrected, I'd buy in a heartbeat. It sooner buy a Hyundai than a Holden, though.
All jokes aside, the B-Body had an excellent suspensions setup (with the W41 package) and a big, rigid frame. In comparison, any Holden Commodore/Monaro or "GTO" is just a disposable unit body. The Australians talk
about ruggedness, but all they really do is soften up the suspension bushings so their cars don't fall to pieces on unpaved roads. "Squidgy handling" is Australian for "tough."....If the B-body was resurrected, I'd buy in a heartbeat. It sooner buy a Hyundai than a Holden, though.
but with all due respect I don't think you really know what you're talking about. If you'd like to place a bet on what handles better, a B-body Impala SS or a Monaro, I'm willing to take that bet.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 358
From: AU
redzed confuses me sometimes.... he has mood swings, one day he is praising holdens and how great they are , and other days he is dragging them through the mud... LOL
anyway, he is entitled to his oppinion, have you lived in australia redzed ? because you sound like youre talking from experience.
anyway, he is entitled to his oppinion, have you lived in australia redzed ? because you sound like youre talking from experience.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Redzed, as a BMW fan, I'm amazed you consider unibodies throwaway. The B-body chassis dated back to 1977 had a live axle, things I know you tend to slam. Especially with the 4200 lb weight of the last Impala SSs.
Though I had only a short time behind the wheel of the Monaro, I did get to ride in one for quite a while, and it rode very solid. The Commodore I had a few years ago tracked as solid on uneven roads as the SC I had at the time, and if anything was suspended tighter than the cars we have here. It's not soft bushings, it's a solid chasis with a well tuned suspension. Car & driver compared a Commodore SS to your BMW M5. August 2001, should you dare to look it up.
The Commodore and Falcon line of cars made there are structually tougher than what we have here, and hold up extremely well. Holdens have replaced our B-bodies as GMs flag bearers in the middle east. Wanna know why? Because they are far tougher & more durable than the Impala, or any of the cars we now are stuck with in the US.
I know you hate Holdens, and will probally never take the time to check it out yourself, but I think if you ever did, you just might change your mind.
Though I had only a short time behind the wheel of the Monaro, I did get to ride in one for quite a while, and it rode very solid. The Commodore I had a few years ago tracked as solid on uneven roads as the SC I had at the time, and if anything was suspended tighter than the cars we have here. It's not soft bushings, it's a solid chasis with a well tuned suspension. Car & driver compared a Commodore SS to your BMW M5. August 2001, should you dare to look it up.
The Commodore and Falcon line of cars made there are structually tougher than what we have here, and hold up extremely well. Holdens have replaced our B-bodies as GMs flag bearers in the middle east. Wanna know why? Because they are far tougher & more durable than the Impala, or any of the cars we now are stuck with in the US.
I know you hate Holdens, and will probally never take the time to check it out yourself, but I think if you ever did, you just might change your mind.
Last edited by guionM; Dec 8, 2002 at 09:56 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,647
From: At car shows and cruise nights!
What are our B-Bodies doing out there when they should be here?? So many people would want them and it would allow GM to take over their market again.
Last edited by IZ28; Dec 8, 2002 at 10:21 PM.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by guionM
Redzed, as a BMW fan, I'm amazed you consider unibodies throwaway. The B-body chassis dated back to 1977 had a live axle, things I know you tend to slam. Especially with the 4200 lb weight of the last Impala SSs.
Unitbodies have a "life expectancy" in northern climates where salt is in use on highways. There might be holes developing in the floorpan of a body on frame car, but the vehicle is still basically sound. In a unitized bodied car, the end comes when the a suspension mounting point collapses - throw the car away when the strut come through the sheet metal. (1991 and later B-bodies are some of the best rust-proofed cars GM ever put out, even after a decade of salt exposure you don't have to worry about perforations.)
As far as the B-body handling, the steering was exceptional for a big car, assuming you had the right suspension package and the steering had been properly assembled.
You had a well located rear axle, but the important thing was the double wishbone front set up.
Though I had only a short time behind the wheel of the Monaro, I did get to ride in one for quite a while, and it rode very solid. The Commodore I had a few years ago tracked as solid on uneven roads as the SC I had at the time, and if anything was suspended tighter than the cars we have here. It's not soft bushings, it's a solid chasis with a well tuned suspension. Car & driver compared a Commodore SS to your BMW M5. August 2001, should you dare to look it up.
I read that Car and Drive article, although it was a comparison of two exclusive, ultra-performance oriented sedans. I have heard that the mainstream Australian products are a bit mushier, something that shouldn't be neccessary for durability.
The Commodore and Falcon line of cars made there are structually tougher than what we have here, and hold up extremely well. Holdens have replaced our B-bodies as GMs flag bearers in the middle east. Wanna know why? Because they are far tougher & more durable than the Impala, or any of the cars we now are stuck with in the US.
The middle-eastern market liked the B-bodies because of... the powerful airconditioning. I can assume that Holdens also have this feature.
Wealthy oil emirates have nice straight paved roads and none of the climate problems we have in the Northeastern U.S. Middle eastern sales don't prove anything more than testing in Death Valley would.
I know you hate Holdens, and will probally never take the time to check it out yourself, but I think if you ever did, you just might change your mind.
Redzed, as a BMW fan, I'm amazed you consider unibodies throwaway. The B-body chassis dated back to 1977 had a live axle, things I know you tend to slam. Especially with the 4200 lb weight of the last Impala SSs.
Unitbodies have a "life expectancy" in northern climates where salt is in use on highways. There might be holes developing in the floorpan of a body on frame car, but the vehicle is still basically sound. In a unitized bodied car, the end comes when the a suspension mounting point collapses - throw the car away when the strut come through the sheet metal. (1991 and later B-bodies are some of the best rust-proofed cars GM ever put out, even after a decade of salt exposure you don't have to worry about perforations.)
As far as the B-body handling, the steering was exceptional for a big car, assuming you had the right suspension package and the steering had been properly assembled.
You had a well located rear axle, but the important thing was the double wishbone front set up. Though I had only a short time behind the wheel of the Monaro, I did get to ride in one for quite a while, and it rode very solid. The Commodore I had a few years ago tracked as solid on uneven roads as the SC I had at the time, and if anything was suspended tighter than the cars we have here. It's not soft bushings, it's a solid chasis with a well tuned suspension. Car & driver compared a Commodore SS to your BMW M5. August 2001, should you dare to look it up.
I read that Car and Drive article, although it was a comparison of two exclusive, ultra-performance oriented sedans. I have heard that the mainstream Australian products are a bit mushier, something that shouldn't be neccessary for durability.
The Commodore and Falcon line of cars made there are structually tougher than what we have here, and hold up extremely well. Holdens have replaced our B-bodies as GMs flag bearers in the middle east. Wanna know why? Because they are far tougher & more durable than the Impala, or any of the cars we now are stuck with in the US.
The middle-eastern market liked the B-bodies because of... the powerful airconditioning. I can assume that Holdens also have this feature.
Wealthy oil emirates have nice straight paved roads and none of the climate problems we have in the Northeastern U.S. Middle eastern sales don't prove anything more than testing in Death Valley would.
I know you hate Holdens, and will probally never take the time to check it out yourself, but I think if you ever did, you just might change your mind.
If GM of North America wanted to generate faith in their Australian products, they should have started by importing $20,000 Commodore sedans and wagons. A $35,000 Monaro coupe is just too much of a gamble for a cautious buyer. After all, it isn't like buying the first 1990 Lexus LS400 - Toyota had already proven itself in this country. I hope time proves me wrong, but I'm not about to be a guinea pig.
Until GM gets serious about RWD domestic production, I'd be just as happy with an old B-body.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,215
From: Coppell, Texas
Unitbodies have a "life expectancy" in northern climates where salt is in use on highways. There might be holes developing in the floorpan of a body on frame car, but the vehicle is still basically sound. In a unitized bodied car, the end comes when the a suspension mounting point collapses - throw the car away when the strut come through the sheet metal. (1991 and later B-bodies are some of the best rust-proofed cars GM ever put out, even after a decade of salt exposure you don't have to worry about perforations.)
As far as the B-body handling, the steering was exceptional for a big car, assuming you had the right suspension package and the steering had been properly assembled. You had a well located rear axle, but the important thing was the double wishbone front set up.
I read that Car and Drive article, although it was a comparison of two exclusive, ultra-performance oriented sedans. I have heard that the mainstream Australian products are a bit mushier, something that shouldn't be neccessary for durability.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by Sixer-Bird
Okay, so the middle east doesn't provide a decent durability proving ground for the V car. But, the snow and ice they get in the European market would demonstrate the V's ability to hold up to inclimate weather.
It should, but I doubt more than a handful of HSV-style performance models will ever be sold in Europe. We won't know for sure until the GTO comes stateside. Here's hoping...
You're comparing apples to oranges here. Saying a B-body with the top-of-the-line suspension is a better handler than the "mainstream" V car is rediculous. Let's compare the Commodore with the right suspension.
Okay, so the middle east doesn't provide a decent durability proving ground for the V car. But, the snow and ice they get in the European market would demonstrate the V's ability to hold up to inclimate weather.
It should, but I doubt more than a handful of HSV-style performance models will ever be sold in Europe. We won't know for sure until the GTO comes stateside. Here's hoping...
You're comparing apples to oranges here. Saying a B-body with the top-of-the-line suspension is a better handler than the "mainstream" V car is rediculous. Let's compare the Commodore with the right suspension.
I also doubted the handling prowess of the Australian GM products. I'm sure the GTO will have upgraded suspension settings, but it had better be downright brilliant for $35k.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Originally posted by Ude-lose
down right brilliant ... compared to what ?? a ford car , a gm car, a *** car , or a european car ? tell me ...
down right brilliant ... compared to what ?? a ford car , a gm car, a *** car , or a european car ? tell me ...
In short, it should be an all singing, all dancing miracle of suspension engineering.
