Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

GM News, New Models and Market Share

1…617618620622623…631

Comments

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    I might add, the Chevrolet Caprice (an Impala with better trim) was voted among the "Ten Best Cars in the World" in 1983 by Car and Driver--in the seventh year of the platform.

    Owned a Chevrolet Caprice Classic station wagon loaded with all all options for about 8 years. It did have a front bench seat. It served very well for the utility function. It did have a number of quality/reliability issues including a bad camshaft, bad paint, etc. I liked the fabric upholstery in that it looked good and wore very well.

    I did like some of its features, such as the tailgate that was hinged two ways and of course the ability to transport 4x8 material.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2013
    It did have a number of quality/reliability issues including a bad camshaft, bad paint, etc. I liked the fabric upholstery in that it looked good and wore very well.

    My dad's '79 Caprice wagon wasn't very good either. I just remember as a kid hearing my dad cuss at it with continual problems. I remember it being basically brand new and leaving us stranded quite often. Ironically, that was his last Chevy.

    I guess that's why I have such negative views of 70's and 80's domestic cars. I was around all of the bad ones. The first car I remember my dad having that was reliable enough to go 100k + was his '92 Crown Vic and he put 230k miles on it. Probably more than his 3 previous cars lasted combined.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    I think the first Taurus pretty much lost its shine after around 1991 or so. I believe the 1992-95 refresh was propped up a bit more by fleet sales, and for 1996 they were practically dumping them into fleets, because the retail buyers were balking.

    Still, it was a strong seller for awhile. According to Wikipedia, the last year it broke 300K was 2003, and then just barely. That was down to 248K in 2004, 197K in 2005, and 175K in 2006. Since then, the nameplate has not broken 100K in any given year.

    As for the Impala, I'd say it, or rather the full-sized Chevy in general, was pretty much the benchmark full-sized car right up through 1991. In 1977, the Caprice started outselling the Impala, but they were really the same car, just one being a nicer trim level, and slightly different front and rear. The Impala nameplate was dropped after 1985, but the trim level carried on as a base Caprice. For 1986 it started using the same front and rear as the Caprice, but still used the old Impala door panels and seat trim.

    I do think they shot themselves in the foot a bit with the "bathtub" 1991 style, and in 1992 when the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis went aero and got the 4.6, they seemed better done in general. GM gave one final shot in 1994 with the LT-1 350, which was a great performer, but I still think that overall, the Ford products were a bit more practical. Less bloated looking, a bit slicker and more tailored in their lines, and a bit less plasticky inside. But, once the GM cars went away after 1996, I swear Ford just quit trying, and the interiors got cheapened.

    I don't think the new Impala will ever rival the Accord in sales, as I think most buyers will perceive them to be in different size classes. IMO, the 2014 Impala has finally grown into that "tweener" spot, where it's bigger than your typical midsize, but still not as big as your old traditional full-size like a Crown Vic, Caprice, 1981 St. Regis, etc.

    The old W-body Impala, while about as big as some "tweener" cars (I think it was about 201" long), just wasn't laid out all that well inside. It had a big trunk, but a cramped back seat that betrays its optimistic published legroom specs. So, I could see a lot of buyers cross-shopping it with an Accord, Camry, etc, or even the old Malibu. But, the 2014, at least from the little time I had experiencing it, definitely feels more substantial, and like it can finally compete with something like the current Taurus, 300/Charger, Avalon, etc. But, that's still a much more nichey market than the Camry/Accord/et al midsized mainstream market.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    The first car I remember my dad having that was reliable enough to go 100k + was his '92 Crown Vic and he put 230k miles on it. Probably more than his 3 previous cars lasted combined.

    This is kinda sad, but the first car in my family that went way over 100K miles was my stepdad's 1984 Tempo! :blush: It made it to around 160,000, when they traded it on a 1991 Stanza.

    Prior to that, we just didn't keep cars that long. I think Grandmom and Granddad's '72 Impala had about 100,000 miles on it when they sold it to some family friends in 1982. He also had a '76 GMC crew cab that he sold in 1985 or 1986. I don't think it was quite to 100,000 yet, but it was still running well. He just didn't want something that big anymore.

    But, in time, Grandmom's '85 LeSabre made it to about 157,000 miles, and the only reason we got rid of it was because the brakes went out on it, and I didn't really need it, so I didn't feel like getting it fixed. Granddad's '85 Silverado, which I still have, is just over 139,000 miles, but gets driven so rarely these days it'll probably rust out before it hits 140K!

    My '68 Dodge Dart made it to 338,000 miles, but I bought it with 253,000 on it. My '79 Newport made it to about 250,000, but it had about 230K on it when I bought it from the junkyard. Neither of those cars were particularly reliable, in retrospect.

    Oh, almost forgot about Mom's '86 Monte Carlo. After the Tempo gave way to the Stanza, they started using the Monte more for carpooling to work. And the Stanza didn't age all that well, so they depended on the Monte more and more. So, it did have about 179,000 miles on it when they gave it to me in 1998, and I put another 13,000 on it in three months, delivering pizzas, until it got T-boned and totaled. Now that was a nice car, and definitely felt like it had plenty of life left in it, although I'm sure it would be deceased by now, as old age and high mileage would have ultimately taken their toll. I put 45K on the Gran Fury that replaced it, then 150K on my Intrepid, and about 33K on the Park Ave so far, for an additional 228K miles. I dunno if that Monte would have made it to 420K!
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    I don't think the new Impala will ever rival the Accord in sales, as I think most buyers will perceive them to be in different size classes.

    No I don't think it will either. The starting price of the Impala will be a good $5k higher than an Accord. I just don't see a full size car selling in that many numbers, particularly when the base model will be a 4cyl model, the v6 model will start around $30k.

    Depending on how GM manages Impala fleet sales, I'd think if the Impala could sell 1/2 of its current volume, it would be a sales success. I just don't see GM wanting the new model selling to fleets at 10k+ units a month. I'd guess the Malibu will start increasing sales to fleets.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2013
    My grandpa was the main GM buyer in my family. Even considering he drove a lot, he didn't keep any of his big GM much more than 100k miles. At the first sign of problems, he'd trade them in. That was usually around 90-100k. So he usually bought new every 4 years or so.

    I don't remember anyone in my family trading every 2-3 years, I must been born on the wrong side of the tracks;)
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,090
    If Impala gets rave reviews, lots of showroom traffic, wonder if dealers will be loading them up with dealer installed stuff and adding to MSRP and then even putting on a mark-up?

    I doubt that. The last Chevys I'm aware of with added dealer markup were the ZL-1 Camaros. I don't think Impalas are that niche of car. I would expect no deals for awhile when they come out, like the latest Equinox, however.

    Unlike you younger guys (LOL), I do think people will be more curious than otherwise, since it's called "Impala".
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    My grandparents on my Dad's side of the family usually traded every 3-4 years, although there were a few exceptions. They traded a '61 Galaxie 500 on a '63 Monterrey because Granddad wanted that roll-down rear window so he could haul lumber and other long items with it. They also traded a '75 Dart on a '77 Granada, because the Dart kept stalling and the dealer couldn't fix it. Their last car, a '94 Taurus, stayed around until Granddad gave up driving in 2004. They offered it to me but I didn't need it. One of the other Grandkids got it, and I think he gave it to a friend about a year ago.

    On my Mom's side of the family, they traded about the same frequency, until they got the '72 Impala and '76 GMC, which is when they started keeping them longer.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Unlike you younger guys (LOL), I do think people will be more curious than otherwise, since it's called "Impala".

    LOL, well I do expect the Impala to continue as the best selling full size car.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    edited February 2013
    My parents rolled the odometer over on an LTD wagon. I remember that beast like it was yesterday, baby puke yellow...

    They also had a Ford Grenade that I think made it to 110k or so and my grandparents had an LTD wagon with the faux wood door skins that they had forever. I think that thing made it to 100k as well.

    Shoot, in the meantime my dad went thru like 4 or 5 Olds Cutlass Cieras that were company cars (which he absolutely loathed). Those things were always being fixed... :lemon:
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Heck, I'm making a beeline to the nearest Chevrolet dealer when I find out the new Impala has arrived. If it turns out to be "all that," I may have a replacement for my aging Grand Marquis.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,090
    edited February 2013
    I gotta say, I can't recall when I've last been as interested in a new Chevrolet as with this new Impala. I predict it won't be a whole lot different driving experience than the current LaCrosse, although I don't like that 'squished' look over the rear doors of that car and I'm told the Impala has a bigger trunk. I don't see us in the market for a new car for quite a while though.

    Would it have killed them to put three taillights on each side--even under a smoked panel a la '87 Thunderbird? LOL

    This Impala, the new trucks, and the new Corvette are three pretty high-profile new products for Chevrolet, coming out about the same time. I wish them well.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's vastly improved, I think you will both like it.

    The old one may have sold well but not at profitable prices, and mostly to fleets.

    I predict average transactions prices will jump by thousands.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    I wonder if Honda and Toyota could sue the Big 3 for "dumping" cars into the market for years and years at "under cost" so that they drove themselves into a huge bankruptcy and bailout scenario.

    Seems to me they'd have a solid case.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    Shoe's on the other foot now. ;)

    For years the Japanese sold small cars at a loss, to get feet in the door.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,131
    Not to mention, the domestic strategy actually helped the Japanese via lower resale values and often lesser quality competition.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Not to mention, the domestic strategy actually helped the Japanese via lower resale values and often lesser quality competition.

    And it was the domestics' screaming about the competition that put the "voluntary" import quotas in place, which then led directly to the movement of foreign nameplate manufacturing to this country.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    I see GM is again reducing output at the Fairfax, KS plant because they over producing product like the LaCrosse out of there compared to consumer demand. I believe this is the second time recently. So why is GM sinking a major capital expenditure into this plant to expand production? Am I missing something? Hopefully at least, they have a better union environment than the nasty UAW attitude at the Kansas City Ford plant!
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,090
    You left out that the new Malibu is built there.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Hopefully after the refresh they can bump production back up.

    They have too much supply now.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Yeah, I'm curious how they are going to carve out more backseat room in the refresh? I think they stepped on their crank initially coming out with that eco debacle version. Took away trunk space, jacked up the price and really didn't save the buyer much, if anything in annual fuel consumption. I doubt you'd ever get the price differential of the vehicle back, even at $5 gas. Should have waited until they could pump out the 2.5L 4 banger before releasing this version IMO. Of course, Ford may have stepped on theirs with all this turbo emphasis. Turbos make sense in airplanes, but I'm not sure they are worth the premium in an automobile where we're talking torque rather than thrust.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    The C-Max was the biggest disappointment at the auto show. All 3 other family members said No. :(

    Fusion did beat Camry hybrid in CR fuel economy, even if it did not meet EPA numbers.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    One things I've noticed, about all the hybrids, is that it seems the hybrid components don't take up as much trunk space as they used to. So in that regard they're getting better.

    I've also noticed that just about everybody these days uses those big gooseneck trunk hinges, that we used to gripe about not so long ago. At least now though, for the most part they're designed so they don't crunch your luggage!
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Turbos make perfect sense...provided you know how to use one. Which most people don't.

    Turbos are extremely efficient when not operating in boost. Step on the gas, get boost, fuel consumption goes up only as long as you're in boost. Only two problems with this approach:

    1. People don't know this, and dealers aren't telling them. Hence, they are not being driven properly, probably in boost more often than they should be. I say "probably" because...
    2. Most of these turbocharged cars do not have boost gauges, boost lights, or any other indicator to show when the engine is and is not in boost, therefore said generic drone driver doesn't know have the feedback necessary to drive properly anyway.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    They have too much supply now.

    Way to many Malibus sitting on dealer lots. Our local Chevy dealer has 23 Malibus vs 6 Fusions at my local Ford dealer.

    According to cars.com, there are 53k Malibus and about 27k Fusions on dealer lots.

    I thought GM was idled Malibu production, but regardless they are loaded with Malibus.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2013
    Took away trunk space, jacked up the price and really didn't save the buyer much, if anything in annual fuel consumption. I doubt you'd ever get the price differential of the vehicle back, even at $5 gas.

    The Malibu Eco doesn't appear to get any better gas mileage than a standard 4cyl Accord or Camry (not city ratings anyway). How the Accord is rated for 2mpg better in the city vs. the E-assist Malibu is unbelievable. No wonder Eco has sat around collecting dust, it's a joke. Time for GM to give up on E-assist, it hasn't been successful in any car they've put it in. The Regal sales have all but stopped since making the E-assist standard.
  • berriberri Member Posts: 10,165
    Some of what you are saying makes sense. Maybe that contributes to why the turbos aren't in reality showing the mileage and performance advantages they advertise. Two things, besides additional price, give me pause though. I believe the turbos increase rpm which may add wear on the internal combustion engine. I haven't driven a recent turbo, but from what I've read it sounds like spool time and turbo lag have been mostly resolved. However, I wonder whether they had to compromise efficiency to get there. Personally, I'll probably stay away until Toyota and Honda start using them in mass. It just seems to me that they generally have better engineering talent and capability than Detroit. So far they aren't moving that way, so it makes me cautious. Internal combustion engines don't inherently operate like turbines. One other thought, maybe people aren't driving them like you mention because the downsized engines don't have the performance without the turbo kicking in? 1.6L is pretty small by itself in something like a Fusion and I never thought Ford was that good at making efficient, performance oriented drive trains to begin with.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    I believe the turbos increase rpm which may add wear on the internal combustion engine. I haven't driven a recent turbo, but from what I've read it sounds like spool time and turbo lag have been mostly resolved.

    The current crop of low pressure direct injected turbos will produce more power at a lower rpm vs a normally aspirated engine. I know Ford's v6 Ecoboost has a max rpm that is lower than a normal 3.5 v6. Using low pressure turbos means using fairly small turbos which can limit air flow at high rpm. These engines are designed for low rpm torque vs. high rpm HP, so they really don't need to run high rpm.

    I've seen dyno runs comparing Ford's 3.5 Ecoboost vs the 5.0 v8 in the f150. The EB max HP was produced at about 5,200 rpm vs 5,900rpm for the v8. Also max torque output on the EB is around 2500-3000rpm vs over 4k rpm for the 5.0 V8.

    The few DI Turbos I've driven are impressive in their low rpm power delivery and minimal turbo lag.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    I think they stepped on their crank initially coming out with that eco debacle version.

    Isn't the eco just round two of the failed "mild hybrid" system? I mean, it failed the first time, and it failed the second time. It's just not a very good system. And of course, the two-mode hybrids failed as well. The Volt is the only one of their three hybrid systems that is decent technologically, but of course that fails (more than even most other hybrids) on an economic level. So as a business, GM's hybrids are zero for three, whereas Toyota's hybrids are one for one.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Isn't the eco just round two of the failed "mild hybrid" system? I mean, it failed the first time, and it failed the second time. It's just not a very good system. And of course, the two-mode hybrids failed as well.

    I think GM made a calculated error in developing the 2 mode system for the trucks and SUVs. The math may have made sense, but a hybrid car looses little capability vs. the hybrid trucks and SUVs that lost a ton of towing capacity.

    While it maybe true that most 1/2 ton owners don't tow over 6k lbs, I don't think most would willingly give it up just for a few MPG. Not to mention the first models had the hideously huge HYBRID stickers on the sides. Plus the Hybrid is not a cheap option. I just don't think truck buyers are going to pay more money for a more expensive, more complicated, and less capable truck. I think they only sold 3k hybrid pickups in '12 and the new trucks will no longer offer the hybrid.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    GM halts Malibu, LaCrosse production amid mounting inventories
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    That's not surprising and is needed.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,676
    At least nowadays they're able to halt production for a bit. Back in the day, they would have simply kept those assembly lines rolling, dumped a bunch into fleets, and piled on the incentives to keep them moving off of dealer lots.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    At least nowadays they're able to halt production for a bit. Back in the day, they would have simply kept those assembly lines rolling, dumped a bunch into fleets, and piled on the incentives to keep them moving off of dealer lots.

    That's for sure.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,090
    edited February 2013
    Growing up about 40 miles from Lordstown, I seem to remember 'down times' to 'correct' inventories, even 'back in the day'. When Lordstown hiccupped, it was on area TV then.

    I know Studebaker frequently laid off when inventories swelled.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited February 2013
    I'm sure for a variety of reasons, it seems like GM just used more rebates and fleet dumping to attempt to move excess inventory. But the GM of the 90's and 2000's was far different than the GM of the 60's and early 70's. For one thing they didn't have nearly as many retirees to support.

    Currently the auto industry is not in a downturn, sales have been increasing for 3 years straight and is looking to have the best year since 07. Yet GM finds itself with to much inventory? None of the other major manufacturers appear to have that problem.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I'll probably stay away until Toyota and Honda start using them in mass

    Acura just dropped the turbo from the RDX, choosing a big V6 instead. Ironically it's more fuel efficient, too.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Member Posts: 16,090
    edited February 2013
    I've said this before, but as a customer, this doesn't bother me. It means good prices. I won't buy a car at sticker price--never have in 32 years, don't want to start now. But I get your point.

    I know that in the past few years, I've often heard when this maker or another was closing down to 'correct inventories'. GM may have the biggest inventory now, but it hasn't been a uniquely GM thing, even in the fairly recent past.
    2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Toyota just launched the Plug-in Prius, wonder how demand is for that one?

    We have to give it a year and then see how inventory levels are. Basically below 60 days is good, above that means sales aren't meeting forecasts.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    PiP finished out 2012 #2 in sales apparently but January was quite a bit down from December and fell back to #3.

    Model S: 1,200
    Volt: 1,140
    Prius Plug-in: 874
    Leaf: 600

    January 2013 Plug-In Electric Vehicle Sales Report Card

    Plug in has also not fully lanched in all 50 states so numbers should improve...
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    M may have the biggest inventory now, but it hasn't been a uniquely GM thing, even in the fairly recent past.


    GM inventories have been a problem for several years. Why would GM have significantly more inventory than Ford? This is not a recent issue. For the past several years GM has had significantly more days supply than Ford or Chrysler.

    I would expect the the Detroit automakers having more supply than other makes due to pickups. But when you break it down by model, GM consistently has nearly double the inventory.

    I've said this before, but as a customer, this doesn't bother me.

    If you prefer GM vehicles it should concern you a little, if GM can't make a profit they won't be around. Oh wait....
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Oh, I'm sure ZDX inventories are probably worse than Malibu. Guessing the FJ cruiser as well.

    Let me see if I can check....bingo, as of Jan 1, here are some that stood out for oversupply:

    Dart - 141 days
    Fiat 500 - 125
    Regal - 124
    Ridgeline - 119
    Insight - 176
    CR-Z - 235 (da-ha-haaaang!)
    ZDX - 156 (told ya so)
    ILX - 136 (overpriced)
    Sonic - 106
    Malibu - 129
    Corvette - 109 (the old model)
    Camaro - 135
    All Cadillac cars are over 100, average for Caddy cars is 121
    Mazda6 - 115
    Miata - 117
    iMiev - 259 (all Mitsus over 100 they are in real trouble)
    VW averages 106 days, but I know diesels are much less
    Volvo C30 at 132 days, S80 at 113

    I was wrong about the FJ, they must limit supply.

    So Malibu is high but not an extreme case, many others are in far more trouble.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    Toyota did not list each model individually, but the brand only has 38 days supply so no real issue with oversupply.

    Overall GM has 76 days, but a year ago they had 106 days.

    That's a rather huge improvement. They're learning.

    Subaru, BMW, and Hyundai/Kia have the shortest supply and simply cannot build their cars fast enough. That's not a positive - they lack capacity, it's a missed opportunity.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Some of those sell in such small numbers that if each dealer had one, it likely would result in a huge days of supply.

    The Malibu stands out because it sells in relative high volumes.

    Impressive that Ford manages to keep off the list. The Flex and all of the Lincolns hardly sell at all.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Dart's the one really in trouble.

    I sat in one at the auto show and was not impressed. Gotta duck to get in that back seat, and the seats aren't very good.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Overall GM has 76 days, but a year ago they had 106 days.

    Interesting, Wards Auto gas GM at 95 days supply as of January 2013 and Ford at 85, Chrysler 87, Honda 77, Toyota 57, Hyundai 58, and VW at 95.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    End of January, or beginning? A lot can change in a month.

    They also may be measuring differently (at dealers, en route, do they count demos?).

    I sorted by volume, F series has the most, then Silverado, then Ram, then Sierra, as we'd expect.

    Malibu does have the highest supply among cars (57,900), and Cruze is 2nd, but the Accord is not far behind (52,500), Civic also (52,000).
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Dart's the one really in trouble.

    That's a tough market, lots of good small cars to choose from and I don't think the Dart really stands out.

    I wonder how these inventories are calculated? Is it inventory still at the manufacturers facilities or does it include dealer inventories. Looking at dealer inventories, GM is just loaded compared to Ford in general.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Funny, I was wondering the exact same thing (check my previous post).
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    End of January, or beginning? A lot can change in a month.

    I can't say for sure, but they always post the previous months data at the beginning of the following month, so if I were to guess it would be data from the months close. So that definitely could make a big difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles