Yeah, mine is doing better than my I6 in the old Trailblazer. Gearing helps.
Don’t forget, davesmopar has a binary gas pedal…
I feel the need…the need for speed!
Yeah, Toyota trucks are NOT known for great gas mileage… 
Sad part is, I don’t drive it hard like all my other vehicles, most of the time my 2 Pitts are in the back seat area with their heads out the window, I am careful with my fur babies… The recent tune didn’t seem to change the MPG any for the good or bad…
I would be getting much better MPG if I was still working and driving 16-25 miles one way to the work place(s)..
Similar was said about what I consider my fave F-bodies: the 1982-1990ish Firebird and Camaro.
As 12 year olds we “Knight Rider” fans were ga-ga over that Firebird, whenever we saw that platform out on the streets. It never looks old!
Same for the fictional MiG-31 that Clint Eastwood’s character stole in the movie ‘Firefox’
How such a futuristic coupe body could have that much flex is beyond me. Was that just a GM thing, or the best they could do at that time?
Can’t forget about the notorious (GM) G-Body Shuffle…
If you know, you know…
Google it and watch some videos…
But a close cousin was sold in the US… the Cadillac Catera! We had a couple of those as test cars, too. By the time the Catera came along, the design was getting a bit antiquated. The V6 had issues… more than the old inline OHC 6 the Senator used for 20+ years.
1 Like
The 3rd Gen F bodies structure was much better than the B body Caprice… but… the big tires and stiff springs combined with the T tops cause structural shake. It was on par with the Fox body Mustang, it’s direct competitor, but less stiff than it should have been.
1 Like
I’m an ‘X-er’ - I prefer dialogue, conversation!
Wow, I thought the opposite!
Semi-related:
In 1991 I purchased an estate sale car, what would become my second Buick '81 Century, a limited sedan, last model year before the RWD A-body would be redesignated G. 4,160 mils on the OD of a 10 year old car!
After a month or two driving it, I noticed a lot of squeaking from all about the cabin. I didn’t think of it until one day, when auditioning the stereo from different seating positions, that the weatherstripping(on the doors and not on the body in those cars) was barely making contact with the door frames. I mean, I could fit my THUMB between the door and the frame of the body.
About a year later, I discovererd that the strike posts could be moved, and so I purchased a star-bit, and ratcheted loose the strike posts. I used a rubber mallet to move them all inward, about 1/8"inch at first, and tightened.
It actually made an audible improvement: I heard less of the outside, and more of the new stereo I had installed! And less squeaky-squeaky when going over bumps.
So inward the strike posts went, another 1/8th inch. Now the doors took some more effort to shut, almost a slam, but I notice something when driving this car, especially at speeds over 40mph: Something different about the steering, and about how the car absorbed road imperfections etc.
It was ‘tighter’ more ‘together’. More, dare I say ‘German’! Not quite a 7-series, but still, better than before I did that thing with the doors. Around that time I also had Monro(e?) shocks installed. Very stiff compared to the OE shocks but they worked in over a few weeks of driving time.
The car tracked as straight as a laser, and responded quickly to directional inputs. Bonuses: I could hear every note on the radio, and the heat and A/C were more effective in their respective seasons.
Was the GM body/chassis-flex, be it on A, B, or F-body models, intentional, to give a better ride or something? And why were the doors, especially the rear doors, aligned so far out that the weather seals barely contacted?
Yes, pretty much. The old A-body cars were body on frame as were the B body cars. That provided two layers of isolation for road noise and the big squishy tall sidewall tires added another layer. It made impacts softer for they tended to ring. Shock valving in some cases was there to damp the ring and not so much the initial bump. The cars were designed to ride soft. Handling was secondary on those cars.
The 3rd Gen F body was a full unibody car unlike the 2nd Gen F car. The 2nd Gen cars had a rubber mounted front subframe… sort of a half-frame. The 3rd Gen was designed to handle so it stiffness was important but they did not go as far as most would have liked… bean counters and weight minders… The front suspension was a hybrid strut, like the Mustang, with the springs off the strut not around it. Not a good system. And the solid axle remained. The big glass hatch did not help structure much. But they were more than a match for the Mustangs in showroom stock racing. The Camaros bested the Mustangs consistently.
The Car and Driver quote in the ad was from their January 1983 edition. A lot has changed in the ensuing 43 years.
1 Like
I think I still have the “muscle memory” of leaving the driver’s door ajar when putting the car on a hoist. If you lifted the car and the weight wasn’t supported at the suspension, there was enough body flex that you couldn’t open the doors.
Didn’t take too many mods to get that Mustang to catch up, but it would start to flex as well. ‘89 Mustang LX 5.0 Had trouble with it leaving gas on the ground at the 1/4 track. Turns out the body was twisting enough at launch that it would flex the filler neck out of the gas tank grommet.
2 Likes
+1
Consider that the Caprice was “competing” with the likes of Peugeot’s putrid sedans, AMC’s lousy Gremlin and the equally-awful AMC/Renault Alliance, the decidedly mediocre Ford Tempo, and GM’s own disastrous “X” cars.
1 Like
But the Gremlin looks better with a high rise manifold and blower than the Caprice does.
1 Like
Oh heck yeah, you can take almost any 2 door car and put big and littles on it with a big engine and make it look cool…
If you get it, you get it, if you don’t you won’t…
2 Likes
If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth1.8 million words per minute… You have to see it to understand what the G-Body does on launch and down the track some…
I could tell you what the space shuttle looked like going from launch to orbit, but seeing it for yourself is sooo much better…
So as much as I enjoy the dialogue, sometimes you just need to see a video in order for the dialogue to start…
BTW, we are the same age… lol
1 Like
The B Bodies, especially near the end, had notoriously poor assembly and fit and finish.
GM was more interested in changing the Arlington plant over to produce much more profitable Tahoes.
@Old-Days-Rick I’m impressed you’re willing to talk realistically about quality
That’s a good first step
Next, you’ll be talking about the superiority of discussing brakes
1 Like
I have an older mindset though, I guess! (ages don’t matter)
I googled a recipe for something, and the first whole page is: AI toilet paper on top, followed by a dozen how-to videos. By the next page, the recipe results start appearing.
I don’t need a video to learn how to make a cheesecake. I just want a recipe I can read (remember reading, folks?) and scroll down through, step by step.
Then print out if I like the recipe.