If the DOD 3.5 has better mileage, hp and torque than a 4, what is the point of making a new 4?
Yes, the larger 2.3 ltr. Mazda 4, and the 2.4 ltr. Honda and Toyota 4s get slightly better mileage than the 2.2 ltr. ecotec. The torque is about the same.
But it would make no sense for GM to spend the money making a larger version of the ecotec when it has a better alternative with the DOD 3.5.
I don't think car-like hatches sell very well. Sorry. 60K doesn't add much to Pontiac's bottom line. $3,000 discounts certainly help keep the factory at capacity.
I think the Vibe is a qualified success. GM is addicted to incentives all around. Also, the MSRP is grossly overpriced, so in reality the rebates are built in.
For instance, price shop an AWD Vibe with a Subaru Outback Sport, I helped someone a very short while ago. The guy had a huge GM rebate, several thousand, and still the Vibe was only about $1000 cheaper at the end.
The MSRP has $5 grand worth of fluff built into it. Prices are more in line with the bigger Outback.
There has been a theory for quite some time that NA consumers will move from their SUVs to more practical, car based vehicles.
Personally, I think this means vehicles such as the Equinox and VUE will enjoy blockbuster sales. But certainly, the Vibe has done what GM asked it to. I doubt highly people are going to move from SUVs to compact sedans.
GM says it hopes about 1/3rd of its Malibu sales will be Maxx versions. Figure GM is aiming for about 250k total Malibu sales. That leaves a little more than 80k Maxx sales. Not blockbuster, but significant. And certainly better for fuel economy if these represent sales that otherwise would have been SUVs.
so of those 80k maxx sedans it sure wouldn't hurt of 20-30000 of them were 4 cylinder for those who want them.
Not everyone wants a 6 cylinder all the time, as they are heavier on the front end. Still no gaurantee that this 6 cylinder DOD is actually gonna pan out to better fuel economy. The Saturn L has been getting as much as 35mpg with the ecotec and that DOD had better live up to the hype if its gonna actually appraoch mileage like that.
Some folks also prefer the simplicity of the 4 cylinder as well.
My point wasn't the Vibe has less power (it does), it was that the MSRP is completely out of synch with reality. Right now an AWD Vibe is close to $22k with typical options, but no way can it compete in that price class.
So you add up a $3000 rebate and huge GM card savings, and still, the price is about where it should have been in the first place. I wish I'd saved the numbers, but you get the point.
Any how, back to the Maxx, even if the starting price is $21k, I bet in a year rebates will kick in and at invoice it'll cost closer to $17k.
-juice
Edit: for reference, the one-price-only Scion xB will MSRP for $14k
Virtually all manufactures and cars have some incentives. GM has more than average no doubt, but car sales are falling with the economy. Why complain about it, it's a wonderful buyers market.
I think the Maxx could sway some small SUV buyers but not people who need full size SUV space.
You guys talking about the SS model becons these questions:
1. if the Maxx turns out to be for me, should I wait for this DOD engine, since it sounds like you all like it better? 2. why on earth would GM announce a second 6 cylinder engine size when it has not even gone into production yet? Why not simply put this DOD engine in from the start?
DOD will not be available until next year. GM needs new product now. The 3.5 available at launch will nevertheless get better mileage than most similar weight vehicles if related GM engines are anything to go by.
If the report is correct, the SSMaxx will not have the DOD V6, it will have the new high output V6 which will also be in some Cadillacs and other high end GM vehicles.
Thanks logic1. Can I assume that the DOD would not get as good gas mileage? I really am not a 6 cylinder driver, and want the best gas mileage I can get. I'm hoping the push rod engine will get me what I desire. Can you guys educate me on the DOD engine vs the push rod's gas mileage?
"Why not simply put this DOD engine in from the start"
to be nice, GM usually waits a year or two after the launch of a new vehicle. Not sure why. Not enough overtime put in over at GM? lol....who knows.
"Why put a pushrod V6 in a brand-new 2004 model? C'mon, it's more than a decade after the market leaders did that! Almost two!"
You're 100% right, but you must be anxious to have a deleted post or to start a fight. Somewhere there's a manufacturing plan that still needs to write off equipment that makes pushrod engines, or something like that. Otherwise, there's not really any reason to NOT switch to what everyone else has going. For trucks, pushrods make sense. Corvette seems to do ok with it too.
"If the report is correct, the SSMaxx will not have the DOD V6, it will have the new high output V6"
Is that true that they would put the high feature motor in the Maxx? I hadn't seen that. If they do that would surprise me.
My enthusiasm for the new Maxx is starting to fade. The new Colorado will have a larger 4 cyl, as well as a 5 cyl, which could make sense in a vehicle weighing 3400 lbs. I have always driven 4 cyl's and my present vehicle develops 180 hp from 1.8L - certainly GM should be capable of designing a modern powerplant. I have not driven a granny tranny since 1974, so that would be a major compromise. If the steering feel carries over from the european epsilon, I could be sold.
that will get gas mileage in the mid-30s. It will emphatically have better gas mileage than the 3.5 that will be on the Maxx at launch. It more than likely will get better mileage than the 2.2 ltr. ecotec would as well.
The I4 and I5 in the Colorado are truck engines, they will not fit in the Maxx.
ateixeira : As much as I like OHC engines, pushrods still do it for me around the city (where I do 75% of my driving anyway). The off the line power is superb! I agree with you on the MSRPs though.
logic : I can wait for the DOD if I know it's coming. In a world of uncertain gas prices I would love to have an even more efficient V6.
Reg : I can see them putting in a smaller version of the 3.6L DOHC going into the CTS this year. Another option is a supercharger.
I know what you mean, I like my OHC engines also. I just think some people think push rods aren't any good because they have been around for a long time. Fact is they are smooth, reliable and efficient with all the refinements that have been made.
Torque is decent, I guess, but with emissions regs and CAFE standards, I'd like to see GM step it up to get power and efficiency up to where competitors are.
The straight 6 engine in the TrailBlazer has good specific output. The new CTS engine looks good on paper at least, too. The Northstar is just looking for a good RWD platform in which to reside.
Ok guys, make it simple for me, Joe Driver: it sounds to me like this DOD engine it the greatest thing since sliced bread. Mileage in the 30's? Can you tell me why I wouldn't want to wait for the DOD? It sounds fantastic!!
ateixeira : DOD = Displacement on Demand. I think the 3.6L DOHC going into the CTS / RDV is suppose to spin off a number of other size variants in the next couple of years. The pushrods meet all emission standards fine though.
Maxx : If you can wait, it certainly sounds good. May be worth it.
Oh, so you think it might be more than a year before I would see the Donald Rumsfeld engine in the Maxx? I can't keep this 626 running forever you know. (8 ^ (l)
DOD will allow the V6 to shut down cylinders when the car is driving on the open highway or at idle and does not need the power from all 6 cylinders.
ateixiera is correct when he notes GM tried displacement on demand before to less than stellar results. That was in the early 80's however. Advances in computer technology should allow DOD to work well.
I have read very positive reports about the DOD engine. If you can wait, it may make sense. You would get the benefit of a V6 when you need it, with the advantage of 4 cyl. gas mileage.
great logic1, thanks. That would give me the gas mileage I desire. As for the Ford 626, yes, I am on my 3rd tranny. Over $3,500 of repairs on my $650 extended warranty. Quite an investment huh? Now the repairs will come out of my pocket. I have the car purring like a kitten, but if it even looks at me the wrong way, it's toast. I'll run it into the ground since the car is worthless to any educated consumer, and I hate duping the idiots. I prefer the Thelma and Louise route; he, he, he
For the first several years that they started making the 626 in America, it was not so reliable. My grandmother had a 1988 626 GT that lasted well over 200K miles.
logic, where are these positive reports? because i have tried very hard to find them, and have seen absolutely no first-hand reports about this engine's performance. A GM PR sheet does not count.
The only pushrod in the past 20 years that I can say is even close to smooth is the 3.8 V6. And that's merely because you don't have to push hard to get marginal performance. If you press hard on the accelerator it's about as civilized as an elephant in a tutu.
Having driven GM cars with the 3.1 and 3.4 engines, I can't honestly believe anyone would say these engines are smooth. That's why I am worried about a displacement on demand engine. If the current pushrods they're likely to be based off of are already raucous, noisy and on-off in their power delivery, how am I to expect a complex piece of machinery which will likely make things even less smooth due to its mechanicals to be any better?
Let's face it - good or bad, GM uses pushrods because they're cheap. They simply couldn't afford to offer the cheap levels of engineering they currently possess, or close to it if the car really had a V6 with 240hp like the Accord. With the Olds Intrigue, I think GM learned its lesson that its core buyers, rental fleets and old people, don't really care that much about the engine. While I don't doubt that the 3.8 at least is a reliable engine (from most recollections the 3.1 and 3.4 are not), I don't think I'd choose it over a smooth DOHC inline-six or V6.
3.1 / 3.4 and 3.8L are all reliable. 3.8L is the best. No doubt they are cheaper to make. Why do you think a 6 cyl Malibu can be sold for less than a 4 cyl Accord? Having owned a 3.1L for many year (91-98) I can tell you I would rather have that then a Honda 4 from the same period. The new Honda 4 just came out this year and is much better with good power. It's a nice engine no doubt (and I don't generally care for 4 bangers)! We will have to see how the 3.5L Malibu V6 will perform and compare.
I saw some pictures and I have to say, the Malibu Maxx is one very attractive car. While I have no need for it, I'd be surprised if it didn't sell very well. There is really nothing like this on the market right now so people looking for something a little different will definitely be interested. Bravo Chevrolet!
dindak, they are sold for less than 4-cylinder Accords. The 3.1 and 3.4 both have had some sets of serious problems... I believe gaskets and eating water pumps are the main problem with the 3.4.
The engine valvetrain and cylinder count alone does not determine the out the door price of the car.
As an example, one can buy a Duratec equipped Taurus DOHC v6 for less than many four cylinder competitors. Yet, a Buick Park Avenue has a pushrod v6 and is many thousands more than the Taurus, but is not any better of a car.
My point being that the lower cost to manufacture the cheaper motor is not really a huge factor in determining the true market value of the car, when the WHOLE car is considered, in the market place.
HOWEVER, if the motor runs and feels cheaper than the competition, then guess what? The 'true market value' (@TM Edmunds) of the car goes down.
As an inverse, the Taurus and Intrigue Shortstar both have more refined powertrains, but it is many other factors that kept the perceived value of them down. In the case of the Taurus, its that its a Taurus and has been in its basic unpopular form since 96. The Intrigue just kinda got lost in the whole shuffle for some reason. too bad, because its a good car that could stand to upgrade the interior some.
The catch here is that the owner of the car with the Intrigue and Taurus will over time believe in the value of the more complex powertrain, thus have your cake and eat it too. Will GM or Ford be able to sell the car for more money because of it? Maybe over time. But the product is better because of it. Investing some more in the cost of the product will pay off over time. Value, not just the cheap Walmart approach.
The Malibus actual sell prices will not have anything at all to do with the manufacturing costs of pushrods or OHC. It has to do with the added value either config brings to the car, and only as a percentage. The biggest factor initially on a new model launch is probably styling, but then eventually brand name and badge snobbery. But a brand can move up the chain if over time the quality of the car improves to the point where folks are willing to start paying more.
I mean, why would anyone really care if their engine was cheaper for GM to make? Who cares about their corporate profits? Look after your own pocketbook. You're only gonna spend 'x' amount for a Malibu or a Chevy anyways. If you spend 30+ on a Park Avenue you think you'd get something more refined than a 3800. I think this same concept has reached the mid class sedans because the Accord and other competitors have plants with more refinement and smoothness that the typical GM pushrod mills in cars even like the Malibu tend to hurt consumer perception of the value aspect.
Its a classic snow job of the highest order. The customer doesn't get passed on the manufacturing savings of using pushrods. The car will sell for the same price regardless, mainly because of other reasons besides engine. Mainly its because it says Chevy on it. GM doesn't sell for less because they are trying to pass the savings on to you, they sell it for less because they HAVE to, otherwise who'd buy it? But cutting costs they are doing it for THEIR pocketbook, not out of some concern for YOUR pocketbook. They are just counting on you to buy their rhetoric and still spend big bucks but be willing to live with the cheaper motor.
magnetophone : Yup, that is the problem with the 3.4/1, but it's no more widespread than Toyota's sludge problem. It happens to some of them. Hopefully the 3.5L will be more like the 3.8L.
Reg : I agree, GM does need to get those new DOHC engines on line but the 3800 with all the refinements over the years is still silky smooth. I hope the 3.5L is just as good. Fact of the matter is, part of the reason GM can sell a V6 Bu / Maxx for less because it does have an engine in it that is cheaper to build. Since 90% of the population only wishes to get from point a to point b with comfort, style and reliability my guess is the Maxx will sell well regardless. I have an Intrigue so I know how good my Twincam Shortstar is. I have said many times I wish GM had expanded the engine rather than killed it. My hope now is that the derivatives of the 3.6 going into the CTS come soon. That said, I would still buy the 3.5L Maxx as is if it's as smooth as a 3.8.
Serious discussion about engines going on here. Got the 3.8 in our Impala and like the zip. Plus a perceived feeling of more security than with the 3.4 for this size/ weight.
I look forward to starting to see many Maxxes and Malibus moving on the road in a kaleidoscope of colors, because I'm getting fatigue from overexposure to the same portrait of the car-- usually taken from slightly above, usually in silver, emphasizing huge headlights that appear to take up 1/3 of the hood. Other vantages make it look a little better. And bigger wheels/ tires would help.
If Malibu and Mal. Maxx sell well and aren't revised after 2 years, it will be like the Grand Prix, and current Malibu: very, very familiar sights on the road, almost boringly so. Agree dark blue shows the car off much better. Happier color than light grey or silver, which I hope gets suddenly very out of style. Dark grey is in now, like on Magnum SRT-8 concept.
Of course they will sell them to fleets. It's a Malibu, the king of the fleet. You may be slightly luckier with the Maxx than the regular Malibu in that respect but remember that GM lives on fleet sales.
Actually I'm intrigued by the Maxx, even though my first impression was of a late 70's/early 80's Corolla wagonback. The styling does seem to have an '80s sort of theme to it, but at least it wasn't hit too hard with the ugly stick like most current models from both GM and others. The front end leaves me cold with the oversized lights but the quarter-panel saddlebags are far less offensive on this than on the sedan version. I'm not too broken up about the pushrod engine but I hope it is a better powerplant than the rough 3.1 and 3.4. And of course the jury is always out on any first-year GM model. Hopefully it will come with something other than a gray interior.
But for me the really scary thing is dropping Camcord-like coin on a car that in its current form is a glut on the market and suffers from heavy depreciation and about zero cachet. I think GM should have dropped the Malibu name since it has very little positive equity associated with it.
Still, I'd be interested in seeing it. When is introduction time?
Quote: "But for me the really scary thing is dropping Camcord-like coin on a car that in its current form is a glut on the market and suffers from heavy depreciation and about zero cachet. I think GM should have dropped the Malibu name since it has very little positive equity associated with it." Agree with your first statement, very well put. But maybe GM is now trying to create a car with more positive equity, to lift up, or live up to, the image of the beach/ place that is Malibu. One thing the name Malibu does evoke is: accessibility.
GM does NOT plan on selling the new Malibu or Maxx to rental fleets. They're going to continue building the old (2003) style Malibu and sell that to fleets under the name "Chevy Classic". I guess the purpose is to maintain profitable fleet sales without watering down the value of the new design. A flood of used "classics" won't affect the prices of new BU's.
Well, they did that for a year when the Impala replaced the Lumina. Then after a year it was dropped for good and now you see Impalas as a mainstay of fleets everywhere. I expect the same in this case.
In the car market, GM depends on big fleet sales. Without them, the volume for their mainstream models has been very weak because the products are very weak. Maybe this will eventually change but I don't see this new Malibu as having that kind of market strength.
Actually, there will be very little (if any) fleet sales initially as the current Malibu will continue production as the Chevrolet Classic, exclusively for fleets. If sales of the new Bu fall off, perhaps they will go to fleets, but not initially. The Classic will do that job thankfully. Maxx is the version that excites me, the sedan is ok, but I need to get something that can cary stuff from the Home Depot economically.
I prefer manuals, too, but I've given up on asking. Even BMW is saying that their SMG tranny may be the only way to shift yourself further down the road.
Here is a headline from AN that summarizes my frustration with current pricing strategies:
GM increases 2003 prices for 6th time General Motors has raised prices an average of $77 on its 2003 cars and light trucks. It is GM's sixth price increase of the 2003 model year
Some say it's a buyer's market, but is it? They increase prices SIX times in a year, all while offering a rebate? Usually a rebate meant they priced it too high to begin with. Now they keep increasing prices to pay for the rebates!
Yup, it's silly, but GM isn't alone though it may be the worst in terms of actual # of times it's been done. List price means very little to me anyway, it's the price paid that's important.
I always thought the Saturn way of sales would catch on, but it hasn't. I guess people just like the negotiating game of getting a "deal".
Comments
If the DOD 3.5 has better mileage, hp and torque than a 4, what is the point of making a new 4?
Yes, the larger 2.3 ltr. Mazda 4, and the 2.4 ltr. Honda and Toyota 4s get slightly better mileage than the 2.2 ltr. ecotec. The torque is about the same.
But it would make no sense for GM to spend the money making a larger version of the ecotec when it has a better alternative with the DOD 3.5.
For instance, price shop an AWD Vibe with a Subaru Outback Sport, I helped someone a very short while ago. The guy had a huge GM rebate, several thousand, and still the Vibe was only about $1000 cheaper at the end.
The MSRP has $5 grand worth of fluff built into it. Prices are more in line with the bigger Outback.
-juice
Personally, I think this means vehicles such as the Equinox and VUE will enjoy blockbuster sales. But certainly, the Vibe has done what GM asked it to. I doubt highly people are going to move from SUVs to compact sedans.
GM says it hopes about 1/3rd of its Malibu sales will be Maxx versions. Figure GM is aiming for about 250k total Malibu sales. That leaves a little more than 80k Maxx sales. Not blockbuster, but significant. And certainly better for fuel economy if these represent sales that otherwise would have been SUVs.
Not everyone wants a 6 cylinder all the time, as they are heavier on the front end. Still no gaurantee that this 6 cylinder DOD is actually gonna pan out to better fuel economy. The Saturn L has been getting as much as 35mpg with the ecotec and that DOD had better live up to the hype if its gonna actually appraoch mileage like that.
Some folks also prefer the simplicity of the 4 cylinder as well.
Bottom line is the choice should exist.
So you add up a $3000 rebate and huge GM card savings, and still, the price is about where it should have been in the first place. I wish I'd saved the numbers, but you get the point.
Any how, back to the Maxx, even if the starting price is $21k, I bet in a year rebates will kick in and at invoice it'll cost closer to $17k.
-juice
Edit: for reference, the one-price-only Scion xB will MSRP for $14k
I think the Maxx could sway some small SUV buyers but not people who need full size SUV space.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it absurd when GM announces 3 price increases per year while all the while rebates are in effect.
Just stop raising prices to begin with! :-)
-juice
1. if the Maxx turns out to be for me, should I wait for this DOD engine, since it sounds like you all like it better?
2. why on earth would GM announce a second 6 cylinder engine size when it has not even gone into production yet? Why not simply put this DOD engine in from the start?
Why put a pushrod V6 in a brand-new 2004 model? C'mon, it's more than a decade after the market leaders did that! Almost two!
-juice
If the report is correct, the SSMaxx will not have the DOD V6, it will have the new high output V6 which will also be in some Cadillacs and other high end GM vehicles.
to be nice, GM usually waits a year or two after the launch of a new vehicle. Not sure why. Not enough overtime put in over at GM? lol....who knows.
"Why put a pushrod V6 in a brand-new 2004 model? C'mon, it's more than a decade after the market leaders did that! Almost two!"
You're 100% right, but you must be anxious to have a deleted post or to start a fight. Somewhere there's a manufacturing plan that still needs to write off equipment that makes pushrod engines, or something like that. Otherwise, there's not really any reason to NOT switch to what everyone else has going. For trucks, pushrods make sense. Corvette seems to do ok with it too.
"If the report is correct, the SSMaxx will not have the DOD V6, it will have the new high output V6"
Is that true that they would put the high feature motor in the Maxx? I hadn't seen that. If they do that would surprise me.
The I4 and I5 in the Colorado are truck engines, they will not fit in the Maxx.
logic : I can wait for the DOD if I know it's coming. In a world of uncertain gas prices I would love to have an even more efficient V6.
Reg : I can see them putting in a smaller version of the 3.6L DOHC going into the CTS this year. Another option is a supercharger.
The straight 6 engine in the TrailBlazer has good specific output. The new CTS engine looks good on paper at least, too. The Northstar is just looking for a good RWD platform in which to reside.
-juice
What's the acronym stand for?
-juice
Maxx : If you can wait, it certainly sounds good. May be worth it.
Cadillac's system from 24 years ago (or so) kind of bombed, but it'll be interesting to see them try again with new technology. I like the concept.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the pushrods didn't meet current standards, just that the standard are tightening up and I doubt many are LEV or ULEVs.
-juice
Any other tranny on that car is OK. Mazda parts are pricey, too. We had a '95 626 V6 5 speed.
-juice
ateixiera is correct when he notes GM tried displacement on demand before to less than stellar results. That was in the early 80's however. Advances in computer technology should allow DOD to work well.
I have read very positive reports about the DOD engine. If you can wait, it may make sense. You would get the benefit of a V6 when you need it, with the advantage of 4 cyl. gas mileage.
logic, where are these positive reports? because i have tried very hard to find them, and have seen absolutely no first-hand reports about this engine's performance. A GM PR sheet does not count.
The only pushrod in the past 20 years that I can say is even close to smooth is the 3.8 V6. And that's merely because you don't have to push hard to get marginal performance. If you press hard on the accelerator it's about as civilized as an elephant in a tutu.
Having driven GM cars with the 3.1 and 3.4 engines, I can't honestly believe anyone would say these engines are smooth. That's why I am worried about a displacement on demand engine. If the current pushrods they're likely to be based off of are already raucous, noisy and on-off in their power delivery, how am I to expect a complex piece of machinery which will likely make things even less smooth due to its mechanicals to be any better?
Let's face it - good or bad, GM uses pushrods because they're cheap. They simply couldn't afford to offer the cheap levels of engineering they currently possess, or close to it if the car really had a V6 with 240hp like the Accord. With the Olds Intrigue, I think GM learned its lesson that its core buyers, rental fleets and old people, don't really care that much about the engine. While I don't doubt that the 3.8 at least is a reliable engine (from most recollections the 3.1 and 3.4 are not), I don't think I'd choose it over a smooth DOHC inline-six or V6.
As an example, one can buy a Duratec equipped Taurus DOHC v6 for less than many four cylinder competitors. Yet, a Buick Park Avenue has a pushrod v6 and is many thousands more than the Taurus, but is not any better of a car.
My point being that the lower cost to manufacture the cheaper motor is not really a huge factor in determining the true market value of the car, when the WHOLE car is considered, in the market place.
HOWEVER, if the motor runs and feels cheaper than the competition, then guess what? The 'true market value' (@TM Edmunds) of the car goes down.
As an inverse, the Taurus and Intrigue Shortstar both have more refined powertrains, but it is many other factors that kept the perceived value of them down. In the case of the Taurus, its that its a Taurus and has been in its basic unpopular form since 96. The Intrigue just kinda got lost in the whole shuffle for some reason. too bad, because its a good car that could stand to upgrade the interior some.
The catch here is that the owner of the car with the Intrigue and Taurus will over time believe in the value of the more complex powertrain, thus have your cake and eat it too. Will GM or Ford be able to sell the car for more money because of it? Maybe over time. But the product is better because of it. Investing some more in the cost of the product will pay off over time. Value, not just the cheap Walmart approach.
The Malibus actual sell prices will not have anything at all to do with the manufacturing costs of pushrods or OHC. It has to do with the added value either config brings to the car, and only as a percentage. The biggest factor initially on a new model launch is probably styling, but then eventually brand name and badge snobbery. But a brand can move up the chain if over time the quality of the car improves to the point where folks are willing to start paying more.
I mean, why would anyone really care if their engine was cheaper for GM to make? Who cares about their corporate profits? Look after your own pocketbook. You're only gonna spend 'x' amount for a Malibu or a Chevy anyways. If you spend 30+ on a Park Avenue you think you'd get something more refined than a 3800. I think this same concept has reached the mid class sedans because the Accord and other competitors have plants with more refinement and smoothness that the typical GM pushrod mills in cars even like the Malibu tend to hurt consumer perception of the value aspect.
Its a classic snow job of the highest order. The customer doesn't get passed on the manufacturing savings of using pushrods. The car will sell for the same price regardless, mainly because of other reasons besides engine. Mainly its because it says Chevy on it. GM doesn't sell for less because they are trying to pass the savings on to you, they sell it for less because they HAVE to, otherwise who'd buy it? But cutting costs they are doing it for THEIR pocketbook, not out of some concern for YOUR pocketbook. They are just counting on you to buy their rhetoric and still spend big bucks but be willing to live with the cheaper motor.
-juice
Reg : I agree, GM does need to get those new DOHC engines on line but the 3800 with all the refinements over the years is still silky smooth. I hope the 3.5L is just as good. Fact of the matter is, part of the reason GM can sell a V6 Bu / Maxx for less because it does have an engine in it that is cheaper to build. Since 90% of the population only wishes to get from point a to point b with comfort, style and reliability my guess is the Maxx will sell well regardless. I have an Intrigue so I know how good my Twincam Shortstar is. I have said many times I wish GM had expanded the engine rather than killed it. My hope now is that the derivatives of the 3.6 going into the CTS come soon. That said, I would still buy the 3.5L Maxx as is if it's as smooth as a 3.8.
I look forward to starting to see many Maxxes and Malibus moving on the road in a kaleidoscope of colors, because I'm getting fatigue from overexposure to the same portrait of the car-- usually taken from slightly above, usually in silver, emphasizing huge headlights that appear to take up 1/3 of the hood. Other vantages make it look a little better. And bigger wheels/ tires would help.
If Malibu and Mal. Maxx sell well and aren't revised after 2 years, it will be like the Grand Prix, and current Malibu: very, very familiar sights on the road, almost boringly so. Agree dark blue shows the car off much better. Happier color than light grey or silver, which I hope gets suddenly very out of style. Dark grey is in now, like on Magnum SRT-8 concept.
-juice
Actually I'm intrigued by the Maxx, even though my first impression was of a late 70's/early 80's Corolla wagonback. The styling does seem to have an '80s sort of theme to it, but at least it wasn't hit too hard with the ugly stick like most current models from both GM and others. The front end leaves me cold with the oversized lights but the quarter-panel saddlebags are far less offensive on this than on the sedan version. I'm not too broken up about the pushrod engine but I hope it is a better powerplant than the rough 3.1 and 3.4. And of course the jury is always out on any first-year GM model. Hopefully it will come with something other than a gray interior.
But for me the really scary thing is dropping Camcord-like coin on a car that in its current form is a glut on the market and suffers from heavy depreciation and about zero cachet. I think GM should have dropped the Malibu name since it has very little positive equity associated with it.
Still, I'd be interested in seeing it. When is introduction time?
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
"But for me the really scary thing is dropping Camcord-like coin on a car that in its current form is a glut on the market and suffers from heavy depreciation and about zero cachet. I think GM should have dropped the Malibu name since it has very little positive equity associated with it."
Agree with your first statement, very well put.
But maybe GM is now trying to create a car with more positive equity, to lift up, or live up to, the image of the beach/ place that is Malibu. One thing the name Malibu does evoke is: accessibility.
In the car market, GM depends on big fleet sales. Without them, the volume for their mainstream models has been very weak because the products are very weak. Maybe this will eventually change but I don't see this new Malibu as having that kind of market strength.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
To me, the Signum is a more attractive car.
Good luck, that will never happen. Too small a market.
Here is a headline from AN that summarizes my frustration with current pricing strategies:
GM increases 2003 prices for 6th time
General Motors has raised prices an average of $77 on its 2003 cars and light trucks. It is GM's sixth price increase of the 2003 model year
Some say it's a buyer's market, but is it? They increase prices SIX times in a year, all while offering a rebate? Usually a rebate meant they priced it too high to begin with. Now they keep increasing prices to pay for the rebates!
It's a silly game, really.
-juice
I always thought the Saturn way of sales would catch on, but it hasn't. I guess people just like the negotiating game of getting a "deal".