Quote:
Originally Posted by nh500sl
I had to drive a 07 Impala at work today. The car had somewhere near 5,000 miles on it, but I was ever so glad to get back into my 1983 Mercedes. I had to feather the pedal to take off so it would not spin the front wheels. Who would want something like this. The interior felt cheap. The uphostery was cheap and unacctractive.
I know that I have had three cars from 1983 a 1983 Volvo 244 turbo, a 1983 Mercedes 500 SL AMG and a 1983 BMW 633 CSI. I would rather ride a motorcycle everday then drive one of these soalless fwd econoboxes. I know that I'm talking about high end cars but hey they are 24 years oldr then this other stuff that some refer to as cars.
No wonder GM is in trouble. I think that the 1994 -1996 impala SS was actually an interesting car, I woudn't buy it, but for what it was it was decent. So now they have taken that same name and turned it into a Camry. I guess the camry is not a terrible car, I would just fall asleep at the wheel drving it.
Again I ask why the move to FWD. and Furthermore, why do people go for it?
|
Ok. I drive a 2007 Impala into a time machine and take it back to a Chevy showroom circa 1983. What would the 1983-era sticker price be for a car like the 2007 Impala? A new 1983 Chevy Celebrity, decently equipped, would retail for about $9k; Throw in the extra safety equipment and slightly larger size of the Impala, and I say that MSRP would be $11,000.
Now, we take this $11,000 Chevy and compare it to a 1983 Mercedes 380SL, which retailed for about +/- $40k. It's not quite apples and apples is it? I would hope that the Impala had a cheaper quality interior, or else MB is really taking the consumer for a ride.
02-22-2008, 12:13 PM
Hybrid Mode
