G Body top ten list - bad things

[ssn696]

11. Why is it there are reproduction grilles for every A/G Malibu/El Camino model year EXCEPT 1980? The 1981 is a bolt-on, but I prefer the 80.

 

[ssbrewskyaz]

10 - It’s an 80’s era car. Fit, Finish and Consumer Quality were all undiscovered measurable attributes. We don’t care about that today; everybody that restores a car, over restores a car. The fit and finish on the cars we build is better than it ever was day one back in the day.

9-2 - It’s a “tweener” car, too new for any significant reproduction parts and too old for GM available stock parts.

1 - They’re all Metric, They’re called metric cars, there’s just something un-American about that IMO. The car isn't un-American, the measuring system is. ...

:arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

 

[bill]

10. Doors 50lbs heavier than the hinges were built for
9. too much plastic
8. poor fit and finish
7. v-6 was a great engine .... just had a crappy ecm and trans hooked up to it
6. people dont know what it is
5. oldsmobile is gone....hyundia isnt
4. sunroof w/out wind deflector...wtf?
3. brakes suck
2. seats suck
1. leaks from windshield seam

but I still look at it and smile...or cry.....

 

[hotwheelsboy28]

You guys have made great suggestions on good and bad aspects of the G body I don't think I have anything to add except that you think it's bad when someone gets your body style name wrong? I have a 1980 Buick Lesabre coupe, a B body and people more than once have called it a Regal( I removed all the badges off it). I don't get it, it's a much larger car length wise and width wise. Guess they are'nt into cars like we are, when I started driving their wasn't many cars that I could'nt recignize in the dark just by the headlights in the rearview, but that's a different story nowdays hard to tell a Ford from a Honda at times. I love the 70's and 80's cars other years too , we love them or we wouldn't spend so much time effort and money on them but it's nice to vent e'r once in a while.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

It is not the ECM that holds the V6 back (I am assuming n/a?), it is the crappy cam, heads, CR, exhaust, 2bbl carb, trans, and rear gearing.

 

[bill]

It is not the ECM that holds the V6 back (I am assuming n/a?), it is the crappy cam, heads, CR, exhaust, 2bbl carb, trans, and rear gearing.

maybe so....but I hate computerized engines....so Im gonna blame the BOT...lol

 

[King_V]

The V6 wasn't really all that horrible . . I mean, it's not going to impress anyone. On the other hand, the extremely low RPM of peak torque, and fairly broad torque band is pretty good - consider - peak torque at 1600 RPM, peak horse at 3800 RPM. Yeah, it's not going to rev, but that's a wider-than-average peak torque to peak hp spread for a carbureted engine.

I do recall my 1984 Regal 4dr. Had 2.41 gears and the THM-250, which means it did NOT have the lower 1st gear of the THM-200 to help it compensate for that lame rear axle. I pushed my friend's full-sized van with it when his van wouldn't start.

I didn't push the engine, though But I just let it idle. Fairly soon, the car and van were rolling along at t he same speed that the car itself would've done. I was a little surprised at that.

Hey, I know it's not MUCH to brag about, but the 231 needs whatever kudos it can get!