General Motors discussions

andres3 · April 2007

And, you know, people apparently are continuously gullible in the used car market also where used and pre-driven Hondas usually sell for more than GM models of same model year and class of vehicle. People are so stupid to buy Hondas when they could buy GMs for less and use the
left-over cash to buy a 1080P HDTV 50 inch Plasma that Jessica Simpson suggests.

Except that the Used Honda will cost you pennies to keep running for years and years, and miles and miles, but the GM product might cost you thousands and thousands, and not only do your savings go!!!

but now you've bought that fancy TV,

so now you are in debt when the $2,500 bill from the mechanic comes in. So add 17% credit card debt to your payments and the GM car ends up costing you tons more than the Honda.

nippononly · April 2007

from the article you linked:

" Lutz saying "small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here," and you can't build small cars here at a profit. . . . "

This kind of crap always cracks me up. Toyota and Honda can, but GM can't. Maybe GM should build them in Mexico like Ford does.

As for the fuel economy thing, even if they abandon the RWD platform for the next Impala and go FWD, it's not like that model is a fuel economy champ. They need to lighten it considerably and give it some more efficient powertrains. Would that be that much easier to do with FWD as opposed to RWD? How much does the extra differential and drive shaft weigh?

Or should I read between the lines, and infer that there will be no more high-performance GM sedans if the government goes ahead with its 4% per year improvement mandate?

m1miata · April 2007

Two weeks or less? I thought is was 6 to 8 weeks. Must take longer to get one in California. They can get some from other dealers, when available. That's OK, they had the car I wanted (actually two different colors), in the right package, available at the dealership of Honda, and they gave me the better deal.

Those on the lot of Saturn had pin strips and window etchings for security. They try to get some extra bucks there, but will quickly back off the ad-on price when challenged on those two items. I think they would rather sell the fully loaded cars. That said, the month I bought my car, Saturn sold something like 4,000 Auras. Not too many. Oh well.
Loren

nippononly · April 2007

"Must take longer to get one in California"

The dealer I was talking to was in Fairfield California.

m1miata · April 2007

Oh no! Sounds like a vast left wing conspiracy to me. Call up Hillary, she knows all about them there conspiracy problems.

Seriously, if they can not produce the RWD models, it looks like zero new cars going forward. This is not good. They will likely get the rules bent a little, or a modified time line to go by. Killing GM right now through legislation would not be a wise move. But then again, a lot of questionable calls by our government lately.

The article said they would have to increase the gas mileage 30%. Maybe the six bangers, with taller sixth gear trannies, and some added aluminum in there shall overcome the problem. Or not

Can they drop some trucks and SUVs to get the total number up? More hybrids? Anyone in the know here on this subject that feels they will be able to match the new mileage standards and get the larger RWD cars to market?
Loren

m1miata · April 2007

Guess different dealers tell people different stories. They always like to seal the deal within a day, so I suppose I was told a longer period.

grbeck · April 2007

Lutz's statement doesn't make sense.

According to the article, "The new Camaro (due in 2008) and Impala sedan (2009) are meant to help GM out of its profit rut, but both are built on GM's large RWD platform and Lutz doesn't see a way to get 30% better gas mileage without a serious amount of investment (which would be passed on to consumers).

"Lutz declared it's too late to stop the Camaro, but said "anything after that is questionable," apparently including Camaro derivatives and the Impala sedan."

I didn't think that this platform would be profitable without the sedan derivatives. As it is, GM has been having trouble keeping the reborn Camaro in the Mustang's price range. If the Camaro were to be the only North American GM vehicle built off this platform, that task just got a whole lot harder. If what Lutz is saying is true, wouldn't GM scuttle the entire program - not just the higher-volume sedans?

I don't see how this program works without both the Camaro and the Impala, unless the Camaro just got a whole lot more expensive.

harrychezt · April 2007

Been reading "future vehicles" sites, on like intellichoice.com's, for a few years. It appears that 65-75% of their predictions, comments, on future vehicles happen(we see a production car fitting the description they put on their site).

Well, as little a 3-4 months back, they had said the Reno would have a sporty model added to the line-up, and the Forenza would be re-worked(by Suzuki).
Looked the other day, and all that was up for future vehicles was a possible Verona update, and a "new, sporty sedan"( SX4?) for 08.
http://www.intellichoice.com/future/future/year/2008
They do mention "Aerio redesign"( true, but redesigned into the 07 SX4, so the name is off, and the year is off, just as "Chery" cars coming is off).
Anyhow, the stories about Forenza/Reno being re-worked, or even all new, Gone!
What Gives?
Forenza/Reno is Suzuki's Largest Selling Name . Has been for 3 years.
So, are they replacing the Forenza/Reno with the SX4 sedan( and maybe a hatch version, to replace Reno?).

From what I have heard is the Swift will be here, by not until 2010(next redesign).
Then a truck...Frontier(Nissan) rebadged for Suzuki, by 09.
After this... who knows?
The SX4 sedan coming out in the Fall is the size of the Forenza(or larger, but seems to have less"comfort features").

Anyone out there have ANY ideas?

At the auto show this year, they had the XL7(which had been out already, not a new vehicle),
with a "movie projector screen" on top of the car, and rigged so you could watch movies, like a mini-outdoor theater, from inside the car, IIRC.

Anyone from Edmunds know what Suzuki's future plans are?
Care to guess?
I give up.
Everyone knows that next year, Toyota will have a new Corolla.
Suzuki? Who knows what they will do next!
Kind of hard to form any plan/idea of what will be out when it is time to by a car, when even the dealerships have little clue.

tc/no

nippononly · April 2007

What he's saying is the Camaro would sell in relatively small numbers, so the amount that it pulls GM's fuel economy average DOWN would be small.

The amount of Impala sales is much larger, so it is more important it make good EPA numbers. And it is easier to accomplish that goal using the FWD platform it is already on.

I think he is missing the bigger picture: they should be focusing on producing more small and frugal models. Then 100K Impala sales per year wouldn't be as important.

tlong · April 2007

Lutz sounds the alarm: GM puts RWD drive vehicles on hold

1. Look at that picture. Lutz is the epitome of a washed up old guy who is earning far too much while delivering far too little.

2. GM has spent 30 years pi**ing around making poor strategic choices and it's always easier to blame somebody than themselves

1970's - "We can't put all that emissions equipment on cars" - Honda comes out with CVCC, a real innovation
1980's - "The Japanese are being unfair" - GM begs for import controls and then fails to put out competitive product
1990's - "Airbags will cost too much" - Chrysler makes them standard
1990's - "We're going to make $$$ on big SUVs" - Toyota and Honda look farther ahead than the next quarterly report and work on hybrid powertrains
2000's - "We can't build high mileage cars" - waaaaa waaaa waaaa

This is so disappointing, but so typical. I really thought they were starting to be innovative. They ought to serve crackers with their fine whine.

tlong · April 2007

Lutz's statement doesn't make sense.

I suspect he's blowing smoke. Easier to get the government to back off than improve the fleet mileage. After all, the middle east needs our $$$.

msfoster · April 2007

My first car was a 1960 Bonneville Convertible, this car is the only reason I bought my 99 Suburban and it's the only GM vehicle I've had that has served me well. And it had over 200,000 miles on it when I got it!
1975 Chevy Monza with a factory 262 ci v-8 and a four speed was my second car. A v-8 in the middle of the gas crisis era in an economy car. Very tall rear end gears a 4 cylinder sized clutch and a gas guzzler v-8, really bad reliability combo. I wonder if any engineers told the marketing people how bad an idea this was before they built it? If you know much about Monzas you know the rest of the story.
In spite of the bad Monza experience I bought a 1987 Chevrolet S-10 extended cab 4x4 with the 2.8 v-6. Let's talk slow and gas mileage that was worse than my 99 Suburban's and four, yes FOUR, transmissions in 45,000 miles and no trailer pulling. BTW that truck made a diesel Vanagan owners day as he blew me away at stop light. Man that diesel smoke from those old VWs is nasty.
So on to my next attempt at being a loyal GM customer a 1991 GMC Sonoma two wheel drive 4.3 v-6 pickup. Great truck they made points back until the transmission went out at 50,000 miles and I was holding the drivers door handle in my hand one day when trying to get in. Gobs of power and 18 mpg compared to no power in the 87 and 12 mpg! Don't ever believe anyone who says no power equals fuel economy.
You all are figuring I was done and in a way I was I bought my first Japanese engineered car, built in Canada and sold at Chevy, a Geo Metro. A bad fuel economy week was 42 mpg! Friends called me Mario when I was driving a 42 mpg week. Factory tires wore out at 77,000 miles, great car but very Japanese and the last vehicle out of the Generals fleet until I bought my Suburban a few months ago. BTW the worst vehicle I ever owned was a 90 Acura Legend Honda hadn't figured out how to make reliable accessories at that point. Rock solid drive train but I soaked a lot of money into accessory repair.
Where my story is unusual in the number of tries GM got at winning me back, most would have bailed after the four transmissions in the 87 S-10. My story is not unusual in having problem plagued cars. GM is going to have to earn back trust by building great vehicles that just don't break in major or minor ways. If the Suburban treats me well my next new vehicle may well be another GM car. If not they've lost me for good. And that goes for most return and new buyers to GMs fold (same goes for Chrysler and Ford).
The only consider Japanese cars folks either fought what I have or know people who have. Who afterall wants a transportation headache? Especially when living in a nation that is hostile at best to the idea of mass transit. If the car is broken life becomes a real hassle. My wife is a Japanese only kind of person and with the dome light problem in my Suburban she is already complaining I shouldn't have bought it. Sorry my dear but so far it's a lot better than that 90 Legend.
Since the big three American companies fought hard to kill mass transit in this country in the 1950s the first thing they can do to recover is start realizing the necessity cars are. If they fully think about that, it will go a long way to building cars people will confidently buy.

msfoster · April 2007

GM has been here before when they invested billions in redesigning their fleet in the 80s. I remember a Toyota executive complaining his company couldn't compete with that kind of investment. Talk about wasted effort. From what I've seen GM is doing a better job of it this time. I sure hope they realize they are running out of chances.

1487 · April 2007

"I never said that Honda didn't offer ANY discounts. I said it does not offer direct-to-customer rebates, or incentives at the level that GM needs to in order to move the metal. Both of which are true. "

I will state this again, you have to compare incentives offered relative to the pricing of the vehicles sold. Of course GM spends more incentive money than Honda, they have far more vehicles that sticker over $30k. If you remove GM's trucks (which are very expensive) from the calculation GM's incentive spending would probably be less than half of what it is now. This is a simple concept and I don't understand why you continue to ignore this.

"Anything that GM offers in that category, for starters. "

That is your opinion, I think the Aura is better than the Accord and others do as well. Motorweek and Automobile think the Aura is superior. I think the G6 is just as good as the Accord. I'm sure you will start talking about resale value now because thats what Honda fans always fall back on when there is nothing concrete to support their theories. Based on performance, size, pricing, features, styling, etc. the Aura is superior to the Accord. Sorry, but the Accord is midpack at best now which it should be after 5 years.

1487 · April 2007

"And why do people buy vehicles "based on brand?" Because the brand has earned a positive image - either for reliability, overall competence, or performance. (The first two drive sales in the family sedan market.) "

Thats fine, but as you know (I think) the industry is dynamic and new models are always coming out. I have no respect for people who try and dismiss a model based on its badge without regard for performance or price. There was a time when Asian midsize sedans were clearly superior to what GM offered. That time is over. I dont care what Saturn used to produce or how much better the Accord used to be than the last saturn midsize sedan. As of right now, the Aura has the performance and styling to meet the Accord head on. Honda has made good cars and will continue to do so, but the notion that people shold never consider other brands simply because HOnda isnt making bad cars in nonsense. Thats why we have competition and dozens of nameplates in this market. People who love imports dont like change and their whole mantra is "why look at anything else when Honda makes reliable cars?". To each is own, I have no desire to own the same brand of car for my entire life.

1487 · April 2007

"And how did the brand get that positive image? By producing vehicles that uphold it. "

This is pure BS because import fanboys will make excuses when the time comes. Look at the Camry with tranny problems for example. All the people who ran to Toyota and Honda due to bad experiences with domestic products 20 years ago will tell you "I'm not going to support a manufacturer who sold me a problematic product" will have excuses galore for Toyota now and will most likely buy another Toyota product. The bottom line is GM (or Ford) dont get second chances with most import leaning customers but Toyota and Honda will always get the benefit of the doubt. I remember reading on the Camry forum that people were trading in their '07 camrys for other Toyotas after tranny problems. Why in the world would you go back to Toyota after they sold you a brand new model with a flawed tranny?

1487 · April 2007

"This is so disappointing, but so typical. I really thought they were starting to be innovative. They ought to serve crackers with their fine whine. "

Please relax. Lutz makes one statement and the GM bashers are all over it. He spoke with no certainty and he is known for blurting out stuff that is somewhat confusing or misleading. Maybe he does it on purpose. Please stop overreacting until GM officially tells us that the RWD are cancelled. Lutz was making a statement for effect, the RWD cars will come. The W platform is leaving after 2009 so they have to produce new sedans to replace them. We already know the G8 is coming here, now we need the Impala and a Buick.

"1990's - "We're going to make $$$ on big SUVs" - Toyota and Honda look farther ahead than the next quarterly report and work on hybrid powertrains "

More revisionist history. In the late 90s and early 2000s the Asians were rushing to get into the pickup and SUV game as fast as possible. Sorry, but Toyota's commitment to hybrids doesnt mean that Asian companies as a whole bravely decided to commit to saving the planet while the big 3 turned out nothing but gas guzzlers. Prior to the gas price hike of 2005 the Asians were going full steam ahead into the last area of Detroit dominance. Remember the Titan? Sequoia? Pilot? Perhaps the Tundra? Armada? Ridgeline? Oh wait, those cant be from Asian companies because they arent 4 cylinders or hybrids. what was I thinking?

lokki · April 2007

You can say that people should ignore 30 years of bad GM products because they're "just fine now, trust me", but many people were burned more that once, and almost as many were burned more than twice by GM's blunders of the past.

Although I can't speak for your family, in mine, it's pretty hard to ignore your father and your uncles. My father and my uncles never owned any Fords because of the problems my Grandfather had with his '48. He didn't die cursing Ford, but only because he probably had other things on his mind.

Nobody in my generation will be able to buy a GM without catching a lot of flack till my father and my uncles are all dead.

History DOES matter.

Right now, Toyota and Honda have a good history. It'll take another generation before nobody buys them because of their current problems.

You just have to deal with it, and quit complaining. The history has been written, and if you've read some of the Time Magazine articles I've posted recently from the '70's and '80's, I think you can see that the move to Japanese cars was not an entirely illogical move on the part of the American public.

grbeck · April 2007

1487: I will state this again, you have to compare incentives offered relative to the pricing of the vehicles sold. Of course GM spends more incentive money than Honda, they have far more vehicles that sticker over $30k. If you remove GM's trucks (which are very expensive) from the calculation GM's incentive spending would probably be less than half of what it is now. This is a simple concept and I don't understand why you continue to ignore this.

I ignore this because it is a red herring. Here's a thought - compare incentives on the Impala and Cobalt to those offered on the Accord and Civic. GM's incentive spending is still higher, even though the price point is the roughly same. So your explanation quickly evaporates.

1487: That is your opinion, I think the Aura is better than the Accord and others do as well. Motorweek and Automobile think the Aura is superior. I think the G6 is just as good as the Accord. I'm sure you will start talking about resale value now because thats what Honda fans always fall back on when there is nothing concrete to support their theories. Based on performance, size, pricing, features, styling, etc. the Aura is superior to the Accord. Sorry, but the Accord is midpack at best now which it should be after 5 years.

When did Automobile proclaim the Aura as superior to the Accord? Is it in the latest issue? I haven't received that one in the mail yet.

Car & Driver has placed the Accord ahead of the Aura, and so has Consumer Reports. Their results are as valid as anything you have posted.

Car and Driver and Autoweek have placed the Aura ahead of the Camry. That is true. It is a considerably better looking car than the Toyota, and the new Camry's interior displays fit-and-finish glitches.

imidazol97 · April 2007

>Although I can't speak for your family, in mine, it's pretty hard to ignore your father and your uncles.

From your post I conclude you are not able to observe current vehicles for yourself and make a decision as to what will serve your overall cost goals to purchase and then to own for yourself?

>History DOES matter.

How do you feel about the history of sludge in Toyotas? How about the transmission problems they currently are experiencing that's widespread with people ending up with replacement transmissions and lemon buybacks. And posts are showing dash rattles. I can search other discussions here if you need. Things have changed at Toyota.

How do you feel about the history of transmissions at Honda through the recent decade. Extending warranty (what happens when the warranty runs out) admits to a problem. Rattles. Driving leads and problems with rough riding Accords. Seat problems. A poster on Edmunds didn't buy another Honda and bought a Camry instead (good luck to him).

Is history a selective memory item or is it revisionist history?

grbeck · April 2007

1487: This is pure BS because import fanboys will make excuses when the time comes. Look at the Camry with tranny problems for example. All the people who ran to Toyota and Honda due to bad experiences with domestic products 20 years ago will tell you "I'm not going to support a manufacturer who sold me a problematic product" will have excuses galore for Toyota now and will most likely buy another Toyota product. The bottom line is GM (or Ford) dont get second chances with most import leaning customers but Toyota and Honda will always get the benefit of the doubt. I remember reading on the Camry forum that people were trading in their '07 camrys for other Toyotas after tranny problems. Why in the world would you go back to Toyota after they sold you a brand new model with a flawed tranny?

Toyota's rise and GM's fall didn't happen over night.

Chevy started to show quality control problems in the mid-1960s (do some research on the failing motor mounts that affected MILLIONS of V-8 Chevys built from 1965-69). Fit and finish on Chevys declined noticeably around 1965.

Fortunately, the rest of GM's divisions were still pretty good (because they had more autonomy in those days), but with the big downsizing efforts of the late 1970s, the divisions lost more control over their products, and their quality declined, too.

And then there was the Vega, the Oldsmobile Diesel, the X-cars and the Cadillac V-4-6-8.

I say this not to justify anyone refusing to buy a GM car today because of past quality problems. It's ridiculous to equate the Cobalt with the Vega, or to tar new Cadillacs with the legacy of the crappy variable displacement V-8.

I rehash these problems because GM remained a powerhouse through the mid-1980s, even though the rot started to show up 20 years earlier. Customers gave GM PLENTLY of second chances in the 1970s and 1980s.

If Toyota messes up to the extent that GM did, it will fall farther and faster than GM did, because today we have the internet to spread word of problems much more quickly, and people's standards are MUCH higher (and their tolerance levels for problems much lower) than they were in the 1960s and 1970s.

grbeck · April 2007

imidazol97: How do you feel about the history of transmissions at Honda through the recent decade. Extending warranty (what happens when the warranty runs out) admits to a problem. Rattles. Driving leads and problems with rough riding Accords. Seat problems. A poster on Edmunds didn't buy another Honda and bought a Camry instead (good luck to him).

My parents would have been thrilled if GM had extended the warranty on their 1999 Park Avenue for the faulty intake manifold gasket. That way they wouldn't have had to pay four figures to have the engine fixed.

But GM didn't even admit to a problem, even though this is a widespread malady with many GM V-6s.

They are now considering a new Lucerne, so I guess it is not only import loyalists who have the capacity to forgive and forget.

imidazol97 · April 2007

>new Cadillacs with the legacy of the crappy variable displacement V-8.

Do you feel Cadillac should be lauded for improving the technology to introduce variable displacement into a production engine? Should Cadillac be praised for the technology in the lighter 4100 motor? --I understand each had problems in the real world either from application or from engineering errors or unsolvable problems for that design.

grbeck · April 2007

In the case of the variable displacement engine - no. It was poorly conceived, and Cadillac quit after one year. So even GM management must have regarded this new technology as both a stopgap measure and a deadend.

As for the 4100 engine - it was a good idea with an initially poor execution, but GM did work to improve it, and made it into a respectable engine.

The big problem was that GM put it in the old, rear-wheel-drive cars because the downsized C-bodies were not ready for production. It was clearly overtaxed in that application.

imidazol97 · April 2007

>import loyalists who have the capacity to forgive and forget.

Agree.

I would like to have seen the UIM gasket deficiency addressed properly. They handled it like the 3800 Ford motor problem. If your parents paid $1000 +, they got taken. The fix should have been $300-400 including labor. Did the repair guy lay on parts that weren't needed?

bumpy · April 2007

What a crybaby.

First off, build the cars 10% lighter, put the dual-mode 6-speed hybrid tranny in every single one regardless of trim line, offer the 2.9L V6 turbodiesel here, push the gas V6 models hard, and finally (this one will prompt some howls) add the CAFE fine in really big numbers to the sticker price of every car and truck that falls short of the CAFE target.

1487 · April 2007

"You can say that people should ignore 30 years of bad GM products because they're "just fine now, trust me", but many people were burned more that once, and almost as many were burned more than twice by GM's blunders of the past. "

Only one problem, the only way I "know" that everything GM has made in the last 3 decades is junk is because people like you tell me so. I dont doubt that GM quality was worse than Toyota in the past, but I do doubt that the majority of products GM made were pieces of crap that fell apart after the warranty. My experiences tell me otherwise and when I see tons of GM products that are over 10 years old on the road I question how much junk GM really made. Let's suppose than 25% of GM's vehicles experienced significant problems in the first 5 years of ownership. That is unacceptable and GM deserved to lose sales for that type of performance. That said, it means that 75% of GM products (including the last 3 my parents owned) were relatively reliable. Part of this is an age thing and to be honest I dont have much recollection of the "bad ol days" of GM products. Sorry, you just have to accept that and realize that there are millions of car owners out here that are too young to have GM horror stories to share from the 80s. GM's poor engineering in the 70s and 80s is ancient history to me. If I was 40+ maybe I would be joining in the obsessive GM hating and unabased Asian car worship, but I'm not so I don't.

1487 · April 2007

"I think he is missing the bigger picture: they should be focusing on producing more small and frugal models. Then 100K Impala sales per year wouldn't be as important. "

I think you should check out GM's product plans before making such generalizations. The Astra, Malibu hybrid, GMT900 hybrid, Vue hybrid and next gen Cobalt are all on the way. The Aveo isnt going anywhere and as far as I know the Vibe is here to stay as well. The Corsa is also coming by the end of the decade. Where did you read that Lutz stated all of GM's future products would be V8 powered large cars? Did he ever say that developing RWD cars was being done at the expensive of small cars?

imidazol97 · April 2007

>the only way I "know" that everything GM has made in the last 3 decades is junk

Agreed. It's popular culture, it's media attitudes, and it's revisionist history.

I can cite my own 1977 Cutlass with 350 4-barrel. Great car. Well-balanced for snow. Fairly efficient for fuel. Much better to ride in than the dreadful foreign offerings such as VW Rabbit. I gave a coworker rides to work when his Rabbit wouldn't, well, rabbit.

A 1980 Cutlass with smaller V8 and smaller size. Slightly better mileage. Still great but smaller size meant more wind wander in crosswinds which I didn't like for highway driving. Those are two cars with 3 decades of history. So what? I did have to replace the water pumps on 1980 260 Cu. In. motor. I learned not to buy Nationwise rebuild water pumps even with lifetime warranty. I did my own replacement. If I bought reman Delco I wouldn't have had to replace a 2nd time.

I can go on through the 3 decades of history, but it probably wouldn't change any of the closed minds who think that there is nothing but junk from GM's history. Closed minds don't change.

1487 · April 2007

"GM's incentive spending is still higher, even though the price point is the roughly same. So your explanation quickly evaporates. "

Incorrect. GM's SUVs always have the highest incentives. The incentives on the Cobalt have been relatively small for quite some time now but the Civic is newer so I would expect it so sell for closer to MSRP. I fail to see how my argument evaporates if the big rebates on are GM's larger, more expensive vehicles and GM has far more of those vehicles than Honda. The incentives on most GM cars is under $2000, some are much lower than that figure. Check it out for yourself.

"Car & Driver has placed the Accord ahead of the Aura, and so has Consumer Reports. Their results are as valid as anything you have posted. "

CR? Please, no comment. C&D? they compared a V6 Aura to a lighter, more efficient Accord 4. They have not compared the XR to the Accord V6 and I suspect they wont until the Accord is new. Plus, C&D openly admits they have a love affair with the Accord and think very little of it's competition. If you look at that recent test there isn't much reason for the Accord to finish ahead of the Altima or Aura, both cars beat it in performance, had more features, looked better, etc.

Automobile said they liked the handling and overall package of the Aura better than Camry or Accord in their new car issue last October. Autoweek said they preferred the Aura to the Camry and the Accord wasnt even invited since it's old. Obviosuly they believed the Camry is better than Accord which means the Aura was better than both. Please stop the Accord loving, the car is not best in class. Even if it's better than the Aura, it's not better than Camry or Altima. I mean, it's pointless to try and make rational arguments if you're an unconditional accord fan who sees no fault in the car and believes after 4 years its better than all the newer competition.

1487 · April 2007

"Toyota's rise and GM's fall didn't happen over night.

Chevy started to show quality control problems in the mid-1960s (do some research on the failing motor mounts that affected MILLIONS of V-8 Chevys built from 1965-69). Fit and finish on Chevys declined noticeably around 1965. "

Ancient history, times change. You are talking about things that happened a decade before I was even born. AS proof that things change drastically over decades consider than from 1941-1945 we were at war with Japan and hated their guts. Now we admire their culture and their products and feel US methods and idealogies (pertaining to business and manufacturing) are clearly inferior. Your arguments about swearing off US cars due to sins of the 60s and 70s is similar to the people who woudlnt buy foreign cars for 30 years after WW2 ended.

But hey, maybe you're right about basing car decisons on quality reputations from 40 years back.

nippononly · April 2007

Now 1487, don't jump down my throat just because you and grbeck are having this ongoing dispute.

I was only trying to read between the lines, and I may have the wrong interpretation.

But they are talking about mandating a 3-4% per year fleet fuel economy improvement, and I am saying that could just as easily be achieved by shifting the sales mix 4% per year towards small gas-sippers as it could be accomplished by major engineering revisions in the large cars.

Someone else has suggested that Lutz may have just been making those remarks as a political move to stave off such a government mandate. That may well be the case, rather than my interpretation of his remarks.

And the GMT900 hybrid, while a laudable effort, is only one segment of the market, right? If instead of shifting the sales mix, they are going to try and improve fuel economy across the board, then there are about 15 other classes of GM vehicles that will need to be improved as well. Malibu hybrid will use the Vue and Aura hybrid system, making them the models with the least improvement in fuel economy (and least extra cost to the customer in dollars) in the midsize class. They will need to get gen-II out in a hurry. The Astra and Cobalt are marketed as GM's small cars, yet really aren't that small, and their fuel economy is not near the top of the class. That may be easier (less investment needed) to improve than the fuel economy in other classes. The Outlook/Acadia is still pretty low on the FE scale, although about par for the course in their segments.

They should be able to extract significantly better fuel economy from their crossovers, IMO, than from their large BOF trucks and SUVs, yet we see that because of rampant weight gain the FE of the crossovers isn't that much better. A massive weight loss program could go a long way to improving that situation.

I have been reading in Autoweek about several of these little Chevy concepts, Trax and a couple of others, from the Daewoo division. That's a really good idea - get more variants of attractive fuel-sippers out there, and sales will pick up and balance out the large V-6 and V-8 powered cars.

lemko · April 2007

Geeze, I've owned MANY GM cars that were manufactured within the last 30 years:

1979 Buick Park Avenue
1979 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency
1987 Chevrolet Caprice Classic
1988 Buick Park Avenue
1989 Cadillac Brougham
1994 Cadillac DeVille
2002 Cadillac Seville STS

If these cars were crap, then DANG!!! The new GM cars must REALLY, REALLY be AWESOME!

1487 · April 2007

"My parents would have been thrilled if GM had extended the warranty on their 1999 Park Avenue for the faulty intake manifold gasket. That way they wouldn't have had to pay four figures to have the engine fixed. "

Sorry to hear that. the 3800 is a widely used engine and I didnt know that these failures were widespread. Interestingly enough, CR has found 3800 equipped vehicles to be reliable. My parent's car has the 3800 and there have been no problems after 90k miles.

1487 · April 2007

GM's large crossovers have best in class fuel economy in spite of their weight. Compare their mileage to the similarly heavy toureg, SRX, ML350 and Q7. The FWD crossovers are much better.

The astra is rated at 27/35 under current EPA standards, not best in class but better than most competitors.

GM has hybrid pickups and lambda crossovers coming in the future.

"Malibu hybrid will use the Vue and Aura hybrid system, making them the models with the least improvement in fuel economy (and least extra cost to the customer in dollars) in the midsize class."

Dont understand this statement. The Aura GL gets the same mileage as the Accord hybrid even though the Accord has the more complex system. The Altima hybrid has great EPA ratings but C&D got about 24mpg in real world driving. The Malibu I-4 with 6 speed will get best in class non-hybrid economy of 22/31. Accord and Camry are less than that under 2008 standards.

1487 · April 2007

lemko,

How many of those rides lasted more than 50k miles without an engine rebuild? Come on, be honest with us. I guess you got lucky 7 times.

gpk · April 2007

Unless you have a family member working at the GM plants who cares. GM will go on because of the die hard loyalist.
Why is it when you go to a Honda or Toyota board no one mentions GM. People buy what they want just leave it at that.
I feel no sympathy for the big 2.5. A lot of there image issues have been self inflicted. If I want a truck I would consider a GM but not for a car.
GM is turning their act around but they need to go further. Get rid of the redundant models. I think that the Aura is a step in the right direction. Now they need something that can compete in the compact class. They need to compete effectively in all of the classes that are currently on the market.

As far as the Accord well I have owned two, they are OK cars. I wouldn't say they are the best but they are average. I really do not see anything out in the market that I feel is a phenomenal product. I currently drive a Honda Civic it gets good gas mileage is quiet and comfortable just what I look for in a car. Which ever automaker meets my future needs I will buy from. Right now Honda is the only one. I think that Honda needs to improve a few things but right now the balance is where its at.
Instead of bashing the imports GM needs to realize what they are doing and copy it after all thats what the imports are famous for.

gpk · April 2007

:confuse:
With a 6 speed auto thats the best they can do?
The Malibu I-4 with 6 speed will get best in class non-hybrid economy of 22/31.
I just do not understand how people consider 22/31 good mileage thats pathetic. Dont get me wrong I think its dismal that all cars cannot average at least 30/40. With all the advancements in HP ratings someone should have been thinking about gas mileage. :sick:

m1miata · April 2007

You seem obsessed with how well Honda is doing compared to GM. This is a prime example of GM's thinking over the years. They got so focused on the competitions efforts, they forgot how to be innovative, and class leading with their own fleet of car.

As for the Aura, it is an alright car in the XE compared to other four cylinder cars in class, and it is a pretty darn good performer in the XR model, which is closer to the Japan competition. It is however not really a better car than the Honda Accord SE, all things considered. On the balance of its strength, vs, weakness, it may good choice when looking for a GM car, it could be considered an equal, but not an overall better car. Value wise, it is less a return on the dollar over the years. As for looks, that is subjective, and thus a nil factor. Well, there are some cars, like the current Malibu which do stick out like a soar thumb.

You refer to the Accord as being mid-pack. Interesting to note how well your so-called mid-pack rated car does in reviews against the newest of new car designs. Of course the Aura is yet another G6 and thus has a couple years on her now. The Camry is brand new, which is good and bad, as little kinks have to be worked out, unlike the older Accord design, which has had some time on the clock. Did not car so much for the New Altima CVT transmission and overall feel. And the location of the emergency foot brake is worse than the Aura. Actually, both should use a hand brake.
Loren

grbeck · April 2007

The dealer had to rebuild the engine. The coolant had leaked internally and ruined the bearings, from what I understood.

This GM dealer has been in business for decades, and treated my parents well before, so I'm not inclined to believe that they were gouged. It is a Buick-Cadillac-Pontiac dealer loacted in a rapidly growing small town, so if its practices were shady, word would have gotten around by now.

Overall, my parents aren't complaining...they still like GM and are satisfied with the comfort, reliability and performance of their Buick and would buy a Lucerne. They just aren't looking for a new car right now.

I agree that if GM had stepped up to the plate and paid for the relatively easy fix by replacing the intake manifold gaskets prior to failure, the whole problem would be a big non-issue.

And unlike the Ford 3.8 V-6, at least the GM engine isn't a dog even when it is running.

m1miata · April 2007

My Accord V6 gets 29 MPG. I would think the Malibu i4, with 6 sp. should really get around 34 or 35 MPG on the freeway. I'll take the power difference. And I think after the engine is broke in more, my MPG should go to 30 MPG or better.

The hot New Malibu will the one with the 3.6 V6, though gas mileage will be what, 28 MPG freeway? Well worth it for power over that four banger. I would stick with V6 in domestic cars.
Loren

lemko · April 2007

Absolutely no major problems. Shoot, if ANY car I owned needed an engine rebuild at that early mileage, I'd dumped it faster than a handful of hot rivets.

According to the posters on Edmunds, I must be the luckiest guy in the world! With my luck I should hit the lottery every time, would clean out Vegas, Atlantic City, Reno, and all other casinos, and my horse would win every time at the track.

m1miata · April 2007

Typical failure is after 70K miles.

Loren

grbeck · April 2007

1487: Incorrect. GM's SUVs always have the highest incentives. The incentives on the Cobalt have been relatively small for quite some time now but the Civic is newer so I would expect it so sell for closer to MSRP. I fail to see how my argument evaporates if the big rebates on are GM's larger, more expensive vehicles and GM has far more of those vehicles than Honda. The incentives on most GM cars is under $2000, some are much lower than that figure. Check it out for yourself.

But GM's incentives on a particular model are still higher than on comparable Honda mddels, which is my point.

1487: CR? Please, no comment.

Just because you disagree with a publication's test results does not make it invalid. You'll have to do better than that.

1487: C&D? they compared a V6 Aura to a lighter, more efficient Accord 4.

And whose fault is it that GM does not have a competitive, more efficient, four-cylinder engine available in the Aura?

It isn't Car & Driver's fault. The magazine only test cars, it does not design or manufacture them. The magazine can only test the cars that the manufacturer makes.

1487: If you look at that recent test there isn't much reason for the Accord to finish ahead of the Altima or Aura, both cars beat it in performance, had more features, looked better, etc.

The testers had a reason, and since they actually drove all of these cars, I'm inclinded to trust their judgment.

1487: Automobile said they liked the handling and overall package of the Aura better than Camry or Accord in their new car issue last October.

I missed that...thank you.

1487: Autoweek said they preferred the Aura to the Camry and the Accord wasnt even invited since it's old. Obviosuly they believed the Camry is better than Accord which means the Aura was better than both.

No, the Camry is new, and the Accord isn't, which is why it was tested against the Aura and not the Accord. Plus the Camry is the number-one seller in its segment, and among all passenger cars in general. That is what is obvious.

1487: I mean, it's pointless to try and make rational arguments if you're an unconditional accord fan who sees no fault in the car and believes after 4 years its better than all the newer competition.

I don't believe it...I know it because independent testers have reached those conclusions.

grbeck · April 2007

I brought that up to show that GM's problems didn't happen overnight, and customers DID give GM many second chances. It wasn't as though GM was making world-class cars one year, and complete junk the next.

And the quality problems were not spread throughout GM's lineup. Many customers were well aware of this.

For instance, during the mid-1970s, the Vega's problems were very well known. My parents wouldn't touch one...but they happily bought a 1976 Oldsmobile Delta 88 (and had no major problems with it for over 100,000 miles).

Unfortunately, GM went to common drivetrains and components among the divisions, which robbed them of their identity and ensured that quality problems would hit ALL of the divisions. It did save money in the short run, but over the long haul it has been a disaster.

As for why people swear off domestic cars - I can't help why they do it. But, in a free society, that is their right.

GM exists to serve and satisfy customers.

Customers do not exist to keep GM in business or make sure that a UAW member never loses his or her job.

After many years, GM management appears to be figuring this one out. The UAW I'm still not sure about...

m1miata · April 2007

If statistically, GM cars on the average, over a three decade period are on par, or better than the Japanese / other brand cars, why do you think they are losing sales each year? Is this some sort of a vast right wing, or is that left wing conspiracy, Hillary has warned the world of.

No, no, no, just look at the real history. It would be revisionist history not to ignore one misstep after another over the years. We got to this point in history in this sad shape for some reason.

Face the facts, build the cars people will want going forward, and get on with it. Desirable cars, at the right price, which are reliable, is what is needed, and not trying to re-write history, or blame the competition when you shoot yourself in the foot.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.
Loren

lemko · April 2007

I don't know. All I know from my experience is that GM works for me. Just because they're losing sales, etc. etc. doesn't mean anything to me personally unless things get so bad that I can no longer buy a new Cadillac or Buick. Then, I'm going to be exponentially furious. Heck, I'm still mourning Oldsmobile.

Desirable cars, at the right price, which are reliable, is what is needed...

True, and is exactly what I find at my Buick or Cadillac dealer.

One good reason I won't buy Asian cars is because they are so gosh-darn ugly! I do not like Lexus' new styling direction. I liked 'em better when they were aping the last generation Mercedes S-Class. Infiniti? GROTESQUE!!!

They can't even get their truck styling straight. The Ridgeline is a pseudo-truck with a mish-mash of lines that makes an Aztek look good. The Tundra's front end reminds me of one of those big pig-rhinoceros guys that acted as Jabba the Hut's henchmen.

m1miata · April 2007

Yeap, most all cars make it to 50K miles. The best make it to 200K or 300K without fail. What I found, over the years with GM, everything but the engine internals, became the problem. While they may not pull the heads on the '87 3.8V6, they replace the mass air flow sensor, programmable manager something or other thing, and a crank case sensor. And the transmission blew. The rear view mirror fell off. The handle to the parking brake pulled off. The paint went bad. The windshield had a whistle to it. We are talking a $20K car, which would be closer to $30K car these days. Pretty nice car, other than it not running properly. Got decent gas mileage. But alas, was worn out in three years time, and had all too many problems in every year.

I would say move on, and concentrate on better cars going forward. Seems though that people want to re-write the history. I don't care to sugar coat history, it was what it was, so get on with the new stuff. The old cars, even when running 100%, were not up to the times. People started demanding the handling, the quality, and feel of the modern car. The Cobalt seems to me like a New Old car. Let's see the New, new stuff.
Loren

m1miata · April 2007

The CTS look seems to work in its size class. The STS seems to be in need of a complete new look. The slightly altered, then enlarged CTS to build the STS doesn't work.

Buick still seems more like yesterday. I guess that is OK for some, but it seems like they are stuck in a rut. For a nice smooth ride, they can deliver. In 2007, it seems like they have to be more into the future however. I liked the looks of the last Aurora, and feel it is more modern a look than is the LaCrosse. The last Camaro is a looker - very sleek looking. But time marches on, and I am afraid we are looking in the rear view mirror.
Loren

rockylee · April 2007

If Lutz, shuts the door on the new RWD cars GM, is finished in my estimation. The only solution with these CAFE issues is the 2-mode hybrid to get mileage up ? What else can they do ? The new RWD's were the automobiles that were going to really give GM, some distinction and the Feds shut the door on GM, well at least from my perspective. Will people buy a V8 hybrid Impala ? Maybe or maybe not as some in the public have not given the hybrid engine it's faith as they fear it could be a cost issue as far as repairs go down the road.

Is Putz folding to soon is the question ? :surprise:

My Velite, might of just received the final nail in it's coffin.

:sick:

Rocky

General Motors discussions

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles