Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The 1970-71 Ford intermediates had A-pillars that were finished with a separate, full-length body-colored panel. The seams where this panel meets the roof are clearly visible.
Interestingly, for its all-new 1972 intermediates, Ford used a finished pillar with no visible seams, while GM picked up the separate panel with seams for the A pillar on its 1973-77 "Colonnade" intermediates.
GM and Ford were downsizing their line-ups at different rates in the late 1970s - GM was the clear leader in this regard - so their offerings didn't match up as neatly as they did in the 1960s and early 1970s.
The Fairmont/Zephyr were replacements for the old Maverick/Comet, and thus were supposed to be inexpensive compacts. They competed with the Nova. (This got even more jumbled when GM replaced the old, rear-wheel-drive compacts with the new front-wheel-drive X-cars in April 1979.)
The 1978 GM intermediates were supposed to be new-age intermediates, and thus more expensive and more "premium" than the Fairmont/Zephyr.
Even though the cars were roughly the same size, the first Fox-platform cars weren't direct competitors with the GM intermediates.
That didn't happen until 1980, when the Fox-based Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7 appeared to take on the Cutlass Supreme/Regal/Grand Prix/Monte Carlo, followed by the 1981 Granada and Cougar.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/01/gm-regains-its-crown-as-government-car-- of-choice/
Hey, at least they're good at something, right?
The new slogan “Find New Roads“, is said to resonate better with consumers across the globe. "
I sort of like the new slogan, the old one sucked. Although even the new one doesn't mean much, but at least it suggests that you can drive the car!
I understand your point here, but your comparative selections aren't really appropriate, except maybe for Nissan.
Chevrolet isn't by any stretch of the imagination in the luxury vehicle market, which is exactly where BMW, MB, and Audi target their products.
Having owned both "Everyman" and "Luxury" vehicles, I can tell you from personal experience that the quality I might find acceptable in a S-10 pickup would be totally unacceptable in a BMW 328.
VW is in the competition car-wise, but doesn't offer pickups, a large segment of Chevrolet sales. Vw should be on the same level if one is rating quality and construction.
And Subaru is definitely in a "niche" market and doesn't even come close to being a market-wide player. Most buyers of Subarus are not your typical GM car buyer. AFAIK, every Subaru has a boxer engine, so it has limited variance within individual model power trains.
Nissan is perhaps a suitable target comparison, since it offers a similar product lineup in cars and it sells pickup trucks.
IMO, its like comparing the sales of handbags by Walmart and Gucci. Walmart will always sell more due to price, and most buyers of high-line Gucci handbags aren't the least bit interested in what handbags Walmart has on the shelf.
Topping the sales charts for the feds was the Chevrolet Malibu, with 4,341 sold at an average transaction price of $15,778.
That price seems a bit below market value, as its the average price. The current base price listed on the Chevrolet web-site is $21,995.
Things really got jumbled up in the late 70's, as GM was really the only manufacturer to offer a truly new downsized intermediate platform, with the '78 Malibu et/al. Ford and Mopar just took their compact cars, restyled them a bit, and tried to pass them off as intermediates.
In 1978, Consumer Reports actually got rid of their "intermediate" category for cars. Everything was either "subcompact", "compact", or "large". "Compact" included the Nova, Granada, Fairmont, Aspen/Volare, and Diplomat/LeBaron, but also the newly-downsized Malibu and company. "Old school" intermediates, such as the Fury/Monaco, Cordoba, LTD-II/Cougar and Thunderbird were actually grouped in as "large cars", along with the Caprice, Impala and the old mastodons like the Newport/New Yorker and the full-sized Ford products.
Actually, I wonder if they dropped the "midsize" category in 1977? That year, when they tested a Caprice sedan, they compared it to an LTD-II, a Cutlass Supreme, and a Fury or Monaco. They called them all "large" cars, and said that nobody needed anything bigger, so they refused to test anything like an LTD, Marquis, Gran Fury, or Newport/New Yorker, etc.
I guess you could argue that Ford never came up with a truly new "downsized" intermediate until the 1986 Taurus/Sable? And since Chrysler started basing everything off of the K-car, a compact, for them a "new" intermediate wouldn't arrive until the 1993 Intrepid/Concorde? Those were marketed as full-sized cars by that time, but I think the EPA classified them as midsized, because they came in slightly under the "full size" threshold.
That was for the fiscal year ended September 30, so those would have all been the old style Malibu. Unless they were dumping ECOs into government fleets, which could be possible. We ended up getting a Fusion hybrid or two, although my project ended up with an Impala.
Also, the government doesn't have to pay sales tax on those cars, so that will keep the transaction price down lower, as well. I remember back in 1996 or so, we got five Oldsmobile Achievas for $65,000 total. Or, $13K apiece.
I thought that was pretty cheap at the time. But, adjusting for inflation, and considering what a major improvement the Malibu is, $15,778 is dirt-cheap in comparison!
When the 1977 GM full-size cars debuted, they were huge critical and sales successes. Everyone knew that Chrysler and Ford would have to follow suit, given the success of those cars and the pressures of CAFE. The GM cars made everything else seem outdated.
Consumer Reports may have wanted to make a statement by not testing anything larger than the GM full-size cars, but all of us knew that the Ford and Chrysler offerings were ultimately obsolete products biding their time.
The first Taurus, ironically enough, did the same thing to the contemporary GM and Chrysler offerings that the 1977 GM full-size cars did to their competitors - make them look old-fashioned and obsolete. In 1986, GM's competitors in this class were the four-year-old A-body Celebrity/Century/Cutlass Ciera/A6000, while Chrysler was still peddling stretched K-cars.
No, exactly the opposite.
I'm far more likely to accept minor issues on a $300 Hotpoint refrigerator than a $3000 SubZero refrigerator, therefore I'm far more likely to complain or respond to a survey with an issue on a higher priced product than a base-line, economy product... As I suspect most people are as well.
Besides, typically a higher priced vehicle has far more options, which means far more potential things to break and cause problems.
The iDrive controller will NEVER be a problem on a Malibu...
Sales tax really isn't a factor at all, as it isn't included in any new car pricing on its web site.
I guess as a taxpayer, I appreciate the low cost of he vehicles. As a GM co-owner, I'm not so appreciative...
I disagree.
A recall for a missing tire pressure label isn't in the same league as a leaking fuel line fitting causing fires.
I'm betting most folks would react differently to those 2 problems.
Can you honestly say you would see 2 airline's problems equally if one had complaints of tight seating and the other had known severe maintenance issues?
I doubt it.
So, it IS all about how we react to it. Cars aren't any different.
I don't think the 2012's ever got as cheap as $16K...I think more like $17-18K I think the botched launch of the 2013 ECO-only model might have actually helped dealers clear out the 2012's. People probably saw the price of the ECO, the small trunk, and how fuel economy really wasn't all that, but then it made the 2012 look like a screaming deal.
I think Fitzmall was pushing the V-6 model, with leather and a sunroof, for around $22-23K.
Of course, that's quite possible, and it was never my intention to imply otherwise.
What concerns me the most is how surveys, ratings and numbers get thrown around as if they are always empirically significant, when in fact, they aren't.
When products or services are of like quality and price, ratings can be quite useful and accurate.
My favorite misapplication of numerical data is the hysterically overused "Our organization has over XXX years of combined experience in blah, blah, blah". It's a totally meaningless number by itself.
IBM has how many years of combined experience in computers?
Yet computers have only been in existence for roughly half a century.
Example: You have the choice of flying across the Atlantic on one of two airliners. Jet 1 has 3 pilots, each with 2000 flight hours. Jet 2 has 300 pilots, each with 20 hours of flight time. Both airliners have the same total experience on board.
Which one would you select? Without knowing that additional information, its impossible for one to know there's any difference at all.
That being said, who here likes cars being reviewed after 3 years? That's just the warranty period, I'm much more interested in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th years.
Malibu launch proves New GM is not any better than Old GM in the car department.
Most of the competition beat Malibu except the Optima, Prius, Outback, C 200 and Passat.
It was #6....despite the incentives and the fleet sales.
Regards,
OW
Not too good a showing for America.
Regards,
OW
"Runs Deep into..."
Regards,
OW
Nah. JD Powers is more "we'll slice and dice the data until it says something good about your product."
I just can't understand why the top global auto manufacturer doesn't have a #1 mid-sizer that blows away the competition in their home market! That should happen every year, just like the 3'er for the Bimmer brand in the ELLPS category!!!
Mind-boggling, even for me, who can't think complex to save his life!
Go Kia! :shades:
Regards,
OW
You may be in for a surprise concerning the Malibu. I know most everybody here thinks CR is important.
A 1LT was rated higher in total points than an Optima, Subaru, Altima, and Passat.
Exactly. I wouldn't even consider a car I couldn't trust to 60K+ miles. I've only ever gotten rid of a car once under 100K, and a couple have gone over 200K. My current one is still pretty sprightly at 130K and counting.
I want to know how a car holds up over the longer term. Somebody else can buy cars every three years, eat the depreciation, and power the economy. Doesn't have to be me. :shades:
This.
GM just pulled a Honda (like the recent Civic refresh). Difference is that Honda can afford the mistake, GM is much more fragile.
Maybe it will convince some buyers to come into the showrooms...
I just can't understand why the top global auto manufacturer doesn't have a #1 mid-sizer that blows away the competition in their home market!
Saw Motorweek tonight (it apparently was a rerun) and they rapped Malibu on two counts. Poor rear seat legroom - they showed it. Poor gas mileage, only 22.4 mpg. This was a turbo that was tested.
Another car tested, in the ultra luxury ultra expensive segment, was a Bentley GT Turbo V8 with 500 HP and weighing 5000 pounds. It got 20.7 mpg per the testers. The show DID NOT compare the Bentley to the Malibu.
I know this is apples and oranges, but how embarrassing is it to GM that their Malibu got only 1.7 mpg more than the heavier and much more powerful Bentley.
People watching this Motorweek show probably wondered why the Malibu did not return far, far more mpg with a 4 cyl engine than the Bentley with a 500HP turbo V8.
I still believe it needs more rear legroom. But it's not a t*** like most people here have said without so much as getting within three feet of one.
Apparently, nobody told Benz, BMW, Audi, Subaru, Nissan, Mini that.;)
Maybe it will convince some buyers to come into the showrooms...
Perhaps this is why it might not....
For US Automakers, Where Does Broken Trust Go?
So GM, consuming taxpayer funds, wiping out many dealers, investors and paying NO compensation, may need to look beyond BP to judge how long potential customers might hold grudges.
Regards,
OW
More info please?
This may shock you but there are mainstream cars out there that people pay sticker for. Or more, in some cases.
In fact, I tend to avoid new and desirable models, even when they were Chevys, for that very reason.
I echo the post above that the post-warranty era matters more to me.
Will be interesting to see if Chevy's good scores hold up in their longer term survey. I don't see a reason to think they won't. The trucks last forever and it is sales weighted.
Well that's not the only piece of data they can sell to the car companies. Ever read the disclaimers at the bottom of a car commercial:
"What we are claiming is base on JD Power data of white vehicles with tan interiors registered in Tiny Town, ND."
JD Power can pull out any piece of data on a vehicle and help the car maker create an ad around it.
"Most appealing" is always kind of laughable to me, I'll admit that.
I mean, it's not like the cup holder broke.
They also dinged Hummer when owners complained about gas mileage. Hummers use gas very, very reliably.
They're measuring different things than CR, that is for sure.
JD Powers measures problems as "things gone wrong." It can be a defect or a design issue in the view of the person reporting the problem.
Ford was dinged for Sync. Hummer was dinged for poor fuel economy. Porsche was dinged for dusty brake pads. All of these were reported as "problems" by JD Power although they all worked as designed.