Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-16-2005, 07:34 PM   #21
Rivet Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by 59toaster
Not sure when a front wheel drive v6 intrepid became a full size. I always considered it a Mid size. Full size car to me usually means rear drive V8 like a Marquis or a Crown Vic. There are exceptions but thats what I think a full size car is.
Working for the Big Three I have learned that a full size car is not based upon power train specs. It is based upon interior room.
The Intrepid is rated as a full size sedan. Auto Trend Weekly rates it as a full size even. Growing up in the 70's and 80's this was not my idea of a full size car either. The Intrepid's wheelbase is not mmuch less than that of the Crown Vic or Marquis.
The Marquis and Crown Vic of today has about the same wheelbase as the older ones from the 80's. It is still built on basically the same platform.
They are good for towing. Nice low center of gravity and a frame too boot! Too bad it is going bub-bye soon. If it weren't for municipalities it would be gone already.
Anon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 08:13 PM   #22
Aluminut
 
Silvertwinkie's Avatar
 
2004 25' Safari
. , Illinois
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by pattersontoo
Working for the Big Three I have learned that a full size car is not based upon power train specs. It is based upon interior room.
The Intrepid is rated as a full size sedan. Auto Trend Weekly rates it as a full size even. Growing up in the 70's and 80's this was not my idea of a full size car either. The Intrepid's wheelbase is not mmuch less than that of the Crown Vic or Marquis.
The Marquis and Crown Vic of today has about the same wheelbase as the older ones from the 80's. It is still built on basically the same platform.
They are good for towing. Nice low center of gravity and a frame too boot! Too bad it is going bub-bye soon. If it weren't for municipalities it would be gone already.
You saying Ford is gonna nix their body on frame cars like GM did in '96?

I own 2 copies ('96) of those last body on frame cars GM made. Had three, but after 25 years of use, one just finally wore out, or I should say the body did....engine still ran like a top and burned no oil.
Silvertwinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 08:22 PM   #23
Rivet Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie
You saying Ford is gonna nix their body on frame cars like GM did in '96?

I own 2 copies ('96) of those last body on frame cars GM made. Had three, but after 25 years of use, one just finally wore out, or I should say the body did....engine still ran like a top and burned no oil.
It is sad to say it but yes they are.
I get a trade publication every week that has all of the auto news in it. Living near Detroit you are bound to do work for an auto company sooner or later.
The only thing keeping that body afloat right now is municipal sales. Police cars and what-not.
I know what you mean about the old GM body-on-frame cars. The last set of them was built right outside of Detroit in Willow Run. My buddy used to be an engineer at that plant. GM is not going to produce the Bonneville after this model year either. Not that anyone tows with the current Bonneville anyway. I figure if you can't tow with it all it can be is a grocery-getter.
I almost cried when GM stopped production of the Safari/Astro vans. Now I have to go to a full size van.
I wonder if you can tow with that Dodge Magnum or Chrysker 300? Just a thought. I wouldn't do it even if I could. If I got a Magnum it would be for messing around in anyway! It would look cool towing my 1977 20 foot Minuet! I will have to do that up in PhotoShop and see how it looks!
Anon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 08:27 PM   #24
2 Rivet Member
 
1970 27' Overlander
Colo Spgs , Colorado
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 89
John

In reading a trailer tow test dated in 1956 the V8 powered Mercury ( same type of car used with Lucy ) was abile to get just over 90 mph w/o the ( twin axle 26' A/S ) trailer. Some ten years later with a tow test they used a 383 powered four door sedan Dodge that pulled the big dual axled AS faster than the Mercury could muster up running solo.

What vehicles are shown in the 1959 AS brochure and ads for towing the Silver Bullits? If you ( Don ) do not care for the low end 59 Chevy that may have the optional 283 and two speed powerglide, how about a 59 Buick or the 59 New Yorker with a 413. Both cars have a trunk big enough to throw in a Honda generator.

And you never did say what year of trailer that you have.

Rodger & Gabby
Rodger with a D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 08:35 PM   #25
Retired.
 
Currently Looking...
. , At Large
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 21,276
Angry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie
You saying Ford is gonna nix their body on frame cars like GM did in '96?

Yup, afraid so, Eric. The next generation Crown Vic is going to be on the Five Hundred platform. That is, front wheel drive, unibody, V6, etc., etc....
Terry
__________________
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
Terry
overlander63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 09:07 PM   #26
Aluminut
 
Silvertwinkie's Avatar
 
2004 25' Safari
. , Illinois
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,477
You know, it's no secrect that I'm not a Ford person, but I have to say, I am a bit taken back by Ford's decsion to nix it. I would have picked up a Marauder if it had something other than the 4.6L. If they only put the 5.4 in it...... I always took some comfort in the fact that Ford didn't loose their heads too and nix body on frames.....what a total shame. Folks will have to pry the keys out of my cold dead hands to get me to part with my final GM body on frame cars.

Sad, sad day (at least for me). The whole world has gone mad!
Silvertwinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 09:15 PM   #27
Rivet Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie
You know, it's no secrect that I'm not a Ford person, but I have to say, I am a bit taken back by Ford's decsion to nix it. I would have picked up a Marauder if it had something other than the 4.6L. If they only put the 5.4 in it...... I always took some comfort in the fact that Ford didn't loose their heads too and nix body on frames.....what a total shame. Folks will have to pry the keys out of my cold dead hands to get me to part with my final GM body on frame cars.

Sad, sad day (at least for me). The whole world has gone mad!
I know what you mean.
You gotta look at it from their point of view too. The average plant that produces cars has got to be profitable.
If no one buys what they make then there are a lot of union brothers and sisters that are out of work. Not to mention the enormous loss the company takes from shuttering a plant. They have to find something that sells. The same reason GM nixed the Safari/Astro vans. Those sure tow good and they last forever!
I hate to see the body-on-frame cars go too. The whole reason they are going is nobody buys them. SUV's, trucks and mini-vans. That what sells now.
I bought a Durango back in 1998. The first time I sat in it I thought, "Man this seems familiar". It was because it was a lot like sitting in my Dodge Aspen wagon that I had as a kid! To me, the SUV's are nothing more than station wagons on truck frames. They look good and they sure are nice, but wasn't your dad's old wagon just as nice? Minus the new technology that is...
Anon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2005, 09:33 PM   #28
Rivet Master

 
, Minnesota
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,721
Images: 59
If anyone wants a mid 90's GMC Astro Van with high miles cheap, let me know. Has the tow package but was never used as a tow vehicle. Has 177,000 mi, body is in good shape, and lots of the mechanicals have been replaced.

It's located in Rhode Island. I think it would sell for $3800.
markdoane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 06:33 AM   #29
Aluminut
 
Silvertwinkie's Avatar
 
2004 25' Safari
. , Illinois
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,477
You know, not sure about Ford's deal, but GM had it. When they came out with the Impala SS, they had the sales and they did it with very little marketing (or overhead production costs since they took a fair amount from the existing parts bins). They built something that folks actually wanted. When they halted the B-Body line on December 13, 1996 in Arlington, TX, I heard rumors it was for more profitable trucks. Makes sense, but when you know they made up to $10k profit per truck, and offer rebates up the wazzo, makes you wonder how much profit is actually being made on the trucks lately....let alone resale value down the line......

On a side note, I had someone offer me $1k less than what I paid for one of my '96 Impalas recently....this is only about 9 years after I picked it up off the showroom floor.
Silvertwinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2005, 03:22 PM   #30
Retired.
 
Currently Looking...
. , At Large
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 21,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie
You know, not sure about Ford's deal, but GM had it. When they came out with the Impala SS, they had the sales and they did it with very little marketing (or overhead production costs since they took a fair amount from the existing parts bins). They built something that folks actually wanted. When they halted the B-Body line on December 13, 1996 in Arlington, TX, I heard rumors it was for more profitable trucks. Makes sense, but when you know they made up to $10k profit per truck, and offer rebates up the wazzo, makes you wonder how much profit is actually being made on the trucks lately....let alone resale value down the line......

On a side note, I had someone offer me $1k less than what I paid for one of my '96 Impalas recently....this is only about 9 years after I picked it up off the showroom floor.
The sevice manager where I work had an Impala SS clone, with the LT1 engine, it has 130,000 on it, and he wants to part with it for $6000.00, if you want another one. It is a nice Florida car, no rust nice paint and interior, runs very good. It would make a good tow vehicle for a Bambi, or maybe a Classic 22.
Terry
__________________
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
Terry
overlander63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2005, 05:38 AM   #31
Aluminut
 
Silvertwinkie's Avatar
 
2004 25' Safari
. , Illinois
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by argosy20
The sevice manager where I work had an Impala SS clone, with the LT1 engine, it has 130,000 on it, and he wants to part with it for $6000.00, if you want another one. It is a nice Florida car, no rust nice paint and interior, runs very good. It would make a good tow vehicle for a Bambi, or maybe a Classic 22.
Terry
HA! I already qualify for a Pre-Owned GM dealership sign for the front of our house. So I'll have to respectfully decline.
Silvertwinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which tow vehicle for a 19' Bambi? Jay_Iski Tow Vehicles 50 02-21-2017 07:12 AM
Which is best tow vehicle Van or Sedan? Mr Jody Hudson Tow Vehicles 10 10-06-2016 09:14 PM
F250 tow vehicle or flatbed? Cheryl Tow Vehicles 19 08-23-2007 01:58 PM
Tow Vehicle Options wlanford Tow Vehicles 10 05-23-2005 12:18 PM
1975 Cadillac Eldorado as Tow Vehicle overlander64 Tow Vehicles 9 11-04-2002 07:04 AM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.