By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
-juice
Bob
-mike
-juice
Just wonder if Subaru is taking right course here. If they are looking to move upscale, why offer rebadged versions of your product to a company which is considered by the general public to be more upscale/cachet? Isn't that just thickening the competition in the area you are trying to enter?
Then in a few years, after Saab establishes itself as an AWD manufacturer, it will put out its own product, and people will buy the new Saab instead of switching back to Subaru.
Of course, I would have thought that selling rebadged Hondas and Acuras would have helped Isuzu... Funny thing is, I read once that used Honda Passports were selling for about $2k more than Rodeos with the same age / mileage / equipment. It will be interesting to see how the market perceives the Saabaru.
either www.landroverusa.com/future or if that doesn't work you can try www.landroverusa.com and hit "What's next"
For the 7 seater, it's Acura and Lexus.
-juice
Since GM owns Saab and Subaru, you'll see GM suck out the good technology from Subaru and Saab and when the companies become less profitable due to GM strangleholds on thier marketing and sales, they'll take the AWD technology and boxer engines and stick em in cavaliers and luminas and you will not see saab or subaru around any longer.
-mike
GM owns 20%+ of FHI, however they are the single largest stock holder.
GM owned 45% of Isuzu and managed to strangle-hold them and their marketing efforts.
-mike
"Doesn't FHI hold controlling interest, or did GM buy them out?"
I think GM is up to 22% ownership of FHI, but that's a swing vote in any boardroom.
So far Subaru has managed to reject the 7 seater GM platform, that probably is why Saab gets the 9-7. I bet that would have been Subaru's.
-juice
Seriously, there are pics floating around that you could probably find with a search. The steering wheel looks similar to the STi's, the HVAC controls look like the XT's.
http://www.saabusa.com/main/US/en/index_flash.xml
-Dennis
Bob
-juice
To ease off the GM bashing for a moment, I recently had the opportunity to drive an Envoy at GM's "Autoshow in Motion" and it is not sporty, but it is not a bad driving SUV. Plus, the inline 6 is actually not a bad engine (DOHC, 24 v, variable valve timing)and is perfectly adequate for the non-stretched 5 passenger version. My gut feeling was that the Envoy is one of the more solid GM vehicles out there, and it felt less like a rental car than most. Even the new Caddies still feel like rental cars to me, with lots of hard plastic and such.
As a side note, if you get an opportunity to go to the "Autoshow in Motion" if it hits your town, check it out. It is a pretty gutsy move by GM, putting their product out there to be driven along with their key competitors. There were no Subies out there, but I have started lusting for a Nissan Titan. Driving a 3/4 ton Duramax was fun also.
-mike
-mike
Go to "Photos & Multimedia" at the top, and "Breaking News > Xterra news." Lots of pixs & info.
Bottom line: it's much like the new Frontier mechanically. 4.0 V6 from new Pathfinder/Frontier, solid leaf sprung in the rear from Frontier. 5-spead auto or 6-speed manual. Enhanced (?) 4WD.
If you like the current Xterra, you will love this new model. If you don't like the current Xterra, you probably won't like this new one either. Styling is evolutionary, but with the new Nissan truck face. It's much better looking than the out-going model IMO.
I like the step on the rear bumper *side* to aid in accessing the roof rack
Bob
However, electronics gremlins and other reliability issues might be the key to making typical Saab customer feel right at home with the 9-7.
That is, until they get used to living with a 9-2!
~c
-mike
-Frank P.
Ken
The issues of GM interference/persuasion in its offshore subsidiaries are quite interesting. Historically they have adopted a much lighter touch than Ford who believe Detroit wisdom is right for the whole world. It may explain why they make such consistently poor vehicles with only occasional bright lights like British Fords of the past few years. However, there have been some absolute shockers including the Granada in Britain and the AU Falcon in Australia. The latter has the ugliest backside ever to adorn a motor vehicle amongst other sins.
The application of the US model to the global business is evidenced by Ford's attitude to their European subsidiaries, Volvo, Land Rover, Jaguar and Aston Martin. These are lumped together as a group and Ford seeks to market them in other markets, much as they mismanage their brands in the US.
Culturally, this is a reflection of the narrow world experience of many US citizens. Americans are, on average, less traveled and less aware of the world than their fellow humans in Europe, Canada or Australia. Without travel and exposure to different cultures and business practices, you learn only the narrow rules of your home. That lack of experience translates into assumptions of how foreigners will react that are dreadfully wrong.
I work for a Southern USA based corporation and was recently horrified to discover that most of the head office staff had not left their home state, much less possess a passport. One of the funnier nights of my life was watching a Southern Redneck coping with multi-cultural Melbourne. With minimal cultural experience, he floundered wonderfully. He only visited once and is now gratefully (for him and us) returned home. We have recurrent problems where the corporate requirements of Australia (which has a tight regulatory regime) conflict with US business practices. Bluntly, many Americans are certain that their way is the best (no, only) way and it will work as well in Iraq as in Alabama. It comes as a complete surprise when it fails.
The lack of understanding of the foreign environment translates to mistakes over product design and specification for foreign markets. Whoever imagined that the Chrysler Neon would sell well here? Americans are not unique here. Nissan famously exported (for a short time only) a sports car whose ride height was too low for many Australian driveways. A visiting Japanese engineer would not believe that many people expected to drive their sports car up gravel driveways with grass tussocks growing between the tyre tracks. It did not sell well!
GM has a much longer tradition of foreign offshoots producing vehicles more suited to their local markets. I suspect that stems from a cultural difference where Ford set up its foreign operations as clones of Detroit whereas GM generally acquired existing operations with a connection to the local heritage. I ponder whether such a distinction could continue for 80 or more years but it certainly seems the case when contrasting Holden and Ford in Australia. If you happen across it, try reading Alfred P Sloan's "My Years with General Motors". I seem to remember the topic of foreign subsidiaries forming some part of his discussions.
There have been some standout models from Opel in Germany and occasionally from Vauxhall in the UK. The 1990's Cavalier was pretty much the standard mid range executive car when I was in Britain and it was a quite pleasant and reliable vehicle. There was also a lovely coupe, the Calibra which I think hung off the Cavalier's underpinnings.
In Australia, Holden have produced several excellent vehicles, particularly the Commodore that commenced manufacture in 1978 based on the Opel Senator chassis. It has been more a case of evolution rather than revolution but the Commodore has been a consistently good car since first introduction.. One peculiarity of the Commodore is that its well developed basic chassis and rear wheel drive mean that it can be modified to fairly small run variants including coupes (Monaro/Pontiac GTO) utilities, crew cabs, hatchbacks and any number of other models. There is not a massive R&D component committed to new chassis development and hence the amortized cost of that development is minimized, reducing the costs that must be absorbed on each car produced. Much of the technology is now being exported to other GM companies. Effectively, through concentrating very hard on refining a sound basic design, Holden has developed a niche technology superiority that it is now exporting to other GM divisions.
Saab has been more problematic. It was effectively starved of a new chassis through lack of funds when GM bought in and saved the day. The old Saab 9000 (now 9-5) was built off a common platform with Fiat Croma, Lancia Thema and Alfa 164. They were all nice cars but the only ones that now stick in my memory were the Alfa and Saab, which had markedly different characteristics.
The GM answer for the smaller Saab 900 replacement (now the 9-3) was to share the underpinnings from the Vauxhall/Opel Cavalier replacement, the Vectra. That is an excellent chassis to which Saab adds their own spirit but it seems to be a break from the great Saabs of the past. In this case however, there appears to be a net technology input to Saab, rather than the export coming from Holden.
GM had initially bought into Isuzu as a very competent manufacturer of small truck and diesel engines. The range of vehicles it produced were something of a bonus, particularly the Trooper which is a better than competent 4WD. However, Isuzu has only a limited range of 4wd vehicles mostly powered by Diesel engines. SUVs are essentially a non-core activity for Isuzu who make 16million diesel engines each year. Its not surprising that GM influence should be more pronounced here as the vehicle manufacturing volumes are too small to warrant a large development expenditure. However, there is not a huge technology transfer either way, as far as I can figure it. Where Isuzu engines are used, they are effectively direct imports from Japan, installed as a unit.
The contrast with Subaru is interesting. Subaru make fabulous chassis, have a Unique Selling Proposition with their boxer engines and All Wheel Drive and are known for quirky design. The attraction for GM in acquiring a share in the company is the opportunity to export that technology and the knowledge around it to the rest of the group. From Subaru's perspective, there are significant scale economies from accessing components through GM's purchasing arrangements, particularly where there is little value that quirky Subaru design can add. Subaru's volumes are sufficiently large to re-invest in new technology and there are buy-ins from other GM entities that could make the proposition particularly attractive. If Subaru remains robust as Holden and Opel and, to a lesser extent Vauxhall have, then there is little to fear.
Cheers
Graha
"Culturally, this is a reflection of the narrow world experience of many US citizens. Americans are, on average, less traveled and less aware of the world than their fellow humans in Europe, Canada or Australia. Without travel and exposure to different cultures and business practices, you learn only the narrow rules of your home. That lack of experience translates into assumptions of how foreigners will react that are dreadfully wrong."
Yea no kidding. We've all got the headlines in front of us this morning. Thanks for the reminder.
Bob
Owen
-mike
GM's in-line six engines are nice, they're just wrapped around one big electrical gremlin.
New XTerra looks good. They put the new family nose on there.
I also liked the original, but the face-lift with that gray grille kinda made it look like it was wearing glasses (current model).
So that's a nice improvement. Look how high the door handles are in the 2nd row. You have to be 6' tall to open that door.
It gets the VQ engine? Interesting, wonder if it'll require premium. The old 3.3l did not, but most VQs do.
M45 is a huge, huge improvement. There was a lot of room for that, though. Now it's actually handsome. The tail could be better, but it's OK. The C pillar is a little too Maxima, but again, much better than now.
You look at those pics of the Grand Cherokee, and it just looks odd. XTerra looks rugged, LR3 looks modern, the Saab looks soft/svelte, but the Jeep just looks bizarre. The Hemi is going to be the only selling point.
-juice
Only disappointments for me are: It doesn't have the "Auto 4WD" mode that the '05 Pathfinder has, nor does it get the IRS from the new Pathfinder. I'm sure those items are MIA due to costs, as the Xterra is priced to attract younger, less affluent customers.
Even so, I find it to be a very attractive product, and not just because of styling. I think it has much of the appeal of the old Cherokee and Rodeo.
Bob
Doesn't seem like it, look how much the rear wheel well intrudes on the rear door.
-juice
From the Nissan news site:
The 2005 Xterra’s wheelbase has been extended two full inches for a smoother ride and greater interior room, yet the overall length is only two-tenths of an inch longer due to a reduced front overhang – which enhances maneuverability in off-road hill climbing and trail situations. The Xterra’s width has also been increased by 2.5 inches, while height has increased 1.9 inches.
Bob
-juice
Bob
-mike
-juice
They're not saying the increased wheelbase results in less overhang. They're saying in addition to the increased wheelbase, there is (also) less overhang.
I doubt a 2" increase in wheelbase will hurt its off roading capability.
Bob
-juice
One thing I noticed about the previous Xterra is the high loading floor on the cargo area, even as compared to most other body on frame SUVs. That's why the Xterra does not have impressive cargo space for a "real" SUV and it seems like it would make it "tippier" than other similar vehicles due to the higher center of gravity. Plus, it makes it harder for older doggies to climb in and out, which is a concern for many pet owners such as myself.
I'd be interested to know if they managed to lower the floor (and center of gravity) without reducing ground clearance.