Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Also, question for you- in post # 404, you state that "The G6 and Aura will both have the 224hp 3.5L OHV V6, although the G6 has a standard 4 cylinder engine". Which models of the G6 will have the 224 horse 3.5L OHV V6, and when? as it stands, none do...
Aside- Its interesting that you state the new GMC Acadia will blow the Highlander/Pilot out of the water. I indeed agree it looks like a VERY impressive vehicle- but shouldn't it be? The HL/Pilot have been hugely popular and are at minimum 4 year old designs, no greater than 2 model years away from replacement. It will be then that the Acadia sees a true challenge. What is GM fielding NOW that competes on par with the best crossovers? The SRX, indeed, but in a very different class. That leaves... the Rendezvous?
~alpha
The G6 gets the engine for 2007 as does the Malibu (217hp) and I believe the Impala. I'm pretty sure I stated this engine was available for the 2007 MY. FYI, the 2007 G6 is already in production and should be at dealerships soon.
The Rendevous is 5 years old and thus is not competitive with the newer Pilot, Murano, Freestyle, etc. While the Pilot has been out for about three to four years, it was updated for 2006 just like the Accord and is generally thought to be one of the best crossovers in this price range. We all know no model stays on top for more than a few years so it's quite possible the 2009 Pilot will be better than the Acadia, but that is several years away. You can always look ahead to guess when a far off model will supplant a top model on sale today. That isnt just the case with GM products, that is with any vehicle in any class. BTW, I consider the Equinox and Torrent to be competitive crossovers even though they need more power. They are large and have great versatility. For 2007 they are getting stability, navigation, 4 wheel disc brakes and upgraded interiors. They are slower than the Rav4 and likely the sante Fe with 3.3L V6, but other than that they are pretty nice.
"I have never seen anything that suggests that V6 models make up the majority of sales for the Camry, Accord and Altima. That is just 100% incorrect."
Neither have I, nor did I make that claim.
My direct quote was
"I live in a small town called Philadelphia too, and despite your claim that Camry XLE V6s and Accord EX V6s arent very popular, those are actually the most popular of the V6 trim lines for those models, easily outselling the LE/SE and LX V6 models, respectively."
I will attempt to further clarify by adding emphasis (capital letters). Please note that I am not intending to shout:
The XLE and EX models OF THE V6 EDITIONS of the Camry and Accords are the most popular trim lines OF THE V6 EDITIONS.
I recognize this was a long time ago, but that statement was made in reference to one you made, claiming that high end Camrys and Accords are rare. They aren't that rare...
Please read more carefully next time.
FWIW, the published number that I read in either C/D or M/T was that Toyota is forecasting a 60% run rate on 4 cylinder models. Meaning, the V6 and Hybrid will make up 40% of sales.
~alpha
GM's product renaissance still has a way to go and they're still shooting blanks on too many of their high volume models. Examples: Cobalt, Malibu, G6, LaCrosse.
They still don't have a mid-size sedan that's on equal footing with the Accord, Camry or Passat. I hope the Aura will finally be that sedan.
I know you know the answer to that but with me the merits of the vehicle come before brand loyalty or country of origin.
As for the nav discussion, no one has pointed out one of the biggest benefits of it, the ability to list the nearest restaurants, hotels, ATM, golf courses, etc. no matter where you are. IMO most people who put down navs are ignorant of its features.
I really hope GM can fix its act and I think its starting to become profitable again. It will take some time to really see what happens but its a start. I think the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave are great examples. Crossovers that get good gas mileage and have a ton of room.
The cars they need to focus on though. If they can do what they did to the Corvette to the rest of their sedans then they will be as highly regarded as other brands. I also agree with your comments on the navigation system.
Also don't forget the rest of the people that put down navigation systems either can't afford it or don't understand it.
I've been looking through this thread and can find no "put down" of Nav.
It's also amazing that you know everyone on this thread so well that you can determine they either can't afford it or don't understand it. Mighty big assumption. I can think of many other reasons why one may, or again, may not want Nav.
I did see a discussion about an optional less expensive alternative to Nav without a screen, but no "put down".
Please direct me to the specific "put down" so we can see how we have been misguided.
And, as someone who has a $25k plus home stereo system, a $5k watch, and has three custom made bicycles, I think I certainly could afford a Nav System a lot better than most anyone else posting here.
Thing is, when I travel places where I am not familiar with the roads, I fly there and rent a car. The car in my garage, on the other hand, would only be used to drive places with which I am totally familiar.
I buy things that I can use, not just because they seem neat. If I rent a car, in some circumstances, I pay extra for one with a Nav System. If I buy a car, given the way I drive, Nav Systems seem a complete waste. Especially so when you compare what people charge for them as opposed to what a great portable GPS system runs.
For delivery or sales people who are always in their cars, the mark up for a GPS may be worth it. If you are like me (and I like to think I am fairly normal) the car at home drives places you go to all the time and occaisionally to places you may need help finding. In my case, money is better spent on a hand held GPS that I can use when not in the car as well.
If Ford and GM want to win customers back from Toyota and Honda they also need to equip their products with the same or better (OPTIONS) as their competition and NavSys is one of those options. Notice I said Options. And for the slow ones that means optional!
The Gm turnaround is in progress, but whomever said their newer products are duds is wrong. The G6 just had its best month ever without many incentives. They sold over 17k in June. The Lacrosse hasnt been too great, but the Lucerne, Impala and HHR are doing well. Same goes for the H3 in spite of high gas prices. The Vue is also another successful GM vehicle. I would argue that the impala and G6 are competitive with the Accord and Camry and to say they are not is being disingenious. The Camry has some exclusuve features, but for the average family who isnt considering the top of the Line XLE the Impala is very competitive. The G6 has more power than the Accord, is better looking, offers 18" wheels, Onstar, remote start and a panoramic roof. Even though the Accord is older I would say the G6 is a pretty good match in terms of performance, size and styling.
I agree 100% but most import lovers (aka domestic haters) do not practice what you are preaching. The bottom line is people like you believe any and every GM product is guilty until proven innocent. I dont like cars based on who has the increasing marketshare or what my friends/coworkers might think. When you are open minded and look and the facts you have more options. To most closed minded import lovers the midsize market begins and ends with CAmry and Accord. Thats fine, but there are other nice cars out there, many of which cost less and look better.
If you dont think the G6 is competitive why in the world are you hopeful that the Aura will be? They are the same car with different interiors and exteriors. HAndling, space and performance will be the same. In other words, you might as well cross the Aura off your list now and go check out a Honda.
Rather, people come to dealers looking to buy a certain car on criteria having nothing to do with Nav systems, where, I suspect high pressure sales people then bedazzle customers into buying gadgets they do not need and will rarely use.
Likewise, I suspect many people wind up buying Onstar and XM radio services from GM when they go to buy cars with those features. I do not think that people originally go to the dealer because they heard the cars come with Onstar, XM, or Nav.
In each case, given the cost of the options, and the cost of reasonable alternatives, I believe the consumer winds up paying far more then should in almost every circumstance.
Also, as pointed out above, some people have jobs or lifestyles where a nav system is arguably not a luxury. (Although I would point out that some high end GPS telephone match car nav system performance for less money even with the phone service.)
I just think the market of people for whom nav is a deal breaker is fairly small.
Think about it, Even though Toyota has admitted (not in exact words) that building hybrids is not profitable, they convinced people that they could save money buy going into debt just to save a few bucks on gas. And Toyota was so good at it that they have sold enough hybrids to be profitable because of volume.
Belive me im a GM fan but they should have been building better cars many many years ago. Starting now when their reputation as been damaged so badly is not a bad thing (because its never to late for change) but the catch is convincing consumers that GM is serious about making quality vehicles that meet or exceed anything offered by their competition.
Thats GM and Ford's biggest challenge.
About the navigation system I think its been around long enough to be offered on all mid priced vehicles ($20K-$30K) and I think at this point their is no excuse that you can't find it on a option list on any vehicle in this price range or higher.
Some people don't need it and thats fine but other people need it because they suck at navigating and don't want to hassle with maps. Just because you don't need the feature doesn't mean you should criticize the option and the people asking for the option.
At one time people that wanted to save money or for whatever reason criticized power windows/locks/steering, ABS, Automatic Transmissions, and even cars with electric starters but as time passed they because normal features (or at least options)even on the cheapest cars.
More power? Which G6 would that be?
Better looking? In your opinion.
Onstar? You said yourself that the navi is more convenient.
Navigation is more convenient FOR GETTINF DIRECTIONS, but a nav system cannot do the other things Onstar can do. As I said, if Toyota offered this feature it would be considered the greatest thing ever. Onstar has been around for 10 years and people dont give GM their due for developing this technology. Acura wouldn't use it if it wasnt worth something. How is Onstar a useless gimmick but Navigation is a key feature that will make or break the decisions of buyers?
Anyway, Saturn finally update the website for 2007 so we can see some pics of the Aura and get more details. There is only one pic that shows the silver metallic interior and its not even a full picture. Almost all the interior pics show the morocco brown interior with the wood trim.
I will be dissapointed if the aura turns out to be just a "re-skined" G6. Judging from the close to production concept car i saw at the Chicago auto show last year, the car will use much higher quality materials inside and outside and will have a world class engine to propel it.
This car appears to be targeted at me. Those who appreciate fine engineering all the way around.
The Aura will get the 3.6 DOHC V6.
As I said, if Toyota offered this feature it would be considered the greatest thing ever
You really believe that? It's this mentality that makes me suspect that you're all about the brand (GM) and not the merits of a particular car.
How can you say this? For OnStar all you do is push the button and say what you want to a real live person and they do everything for you.
nav is too expensive for most folks buying under $30k cars.
Yes, those that can afford over $30k can afford to have the pretty screen.
i had the same attitudes that a lot of you folks seem to have had until my friend got a car with one.
and most people who have navs are very satisfied and swear they won't buy another car without one.
since i don't travel a whole lot i personally don't have the need for one. like it or not, the top model aura is in a market (just short of near luxury) where it's competition has the nav as an option.
Onstar just won't due. if it did, Cadillac wouldn't just stick with it and not offer Onstar.
BTW the one I ordered is supposed to be built sometime later this month
I also noticed they released the Vue Green Line very good price at $23k but what upsets me is that its only FWD and not optional AWD. The Escape Hybrid you can get optional AWD but the Vue you can't and I think that is stupid. Guess they figure most people will be using them in the city and won't need AWD. I would still like to see it as a option though because its worth its weight in gold during bad weather.
There is no way the G6 GTP with 252hp and 6speed isnt on the same footing with the Accord. The only advantage the Accord has is navigation, which is a big deal to many people apparently.
If Toyota offered Onstar and GM did not the press would be all over GM for being behind the times. Whenever GM steps up and does anything not being done by Toyota or Honda it gets no press. But when Toyota develops something (such as hybrids) it is typically praised as another example of their industry leadership. BTW, if Onstar is so useless why do Acura and Lexus use the service? Lexus uses it under a different name because they don't want people to think they are using GM technology. Everyone was beating GM up over 4 speed autos and now that they are using them more you dont hear anything about it. Honda doesnt have one 6 speed auto in production and yet you will never hear a complaint. Toyota only uses a 6 speed in one model while GM will have 6 speeds in 5 non Cadillac models by early 2007. Hyundai and Nissan dont have any 6 speeds on the market and Chrysler is just about to launch their first in the Sebring and Pacifica. Ford buys all of their from suppliers like ZF and Aisin.
See for yourself!
-Cj
The car sounds just amazing. Way to go GM, finally a car to replace my Intrigue with???
I don't recall reading any info on the G6 getting the 3.6l. I also checked Pontiac's website last week and they had the 3.5l and 3.9 listed but nothing about the 3.6l. So you can see my confusion. Upon further review I do see that the G6 will get the 3.6l in 2007 (but is it available now?). I shouldn't have doubted you guys.
I see the Aura having a more sophisticated suspension than the G6. I know the G6 and Aura share the same platform but that doesn't mean they'll drive the same. Does the Malibu drive like the Opel it's based upon in Europe? And by reading the road test from the link above it looks like I may be right.
"...but GM can also justify a base price slightly higher than either the G6 or Malibu by delivering a far superior ride and better dynamics in almost every sense."
I have to disagree about the interior quality of the Aura being at the same level as the G6. Not the Aura I saw last Winter at the Chicago Auto show.
The Aura and G6 GTP will drive the same. People are really down on the G6 for whatever reason and dont want to acknowledge the facts. Read the C&D comparo that featured the GTP several months ago. The acceleration, braking and handling were very impressive and close to best in the test even though the car finished last. They also said the 3.9 V6 was refined. The G6 maintains the 3.9 for 2007 but only with the manual tranny or the convertible. The G6 was initially deemed a flop by the press because it only launched with one engine and body style. GM said from the start that all the models had to be in the lineup for the car to match or exceed Grand Am sales and now that is finally happening. This car (nor Aura) doesnt have a torque steer problem.
The G6 and Malibu are all on the same Euro derived platform so it's not like only the Aura is "Euro tuned". The only differences are in wheel sizes and suspension tuning. The Malibu is tuned for a cushier ride compared the the Opel Vectra or Aura. The suspension layouts, rigidity and most everything else are common amongst these cars.
Dont get me wrong, I like the Aura a lot but dont be fooled by all the suddenly positive reviews that suggest this is all new car or concept. Saturn's image isnt as bad as Chevy or Pontiac so the press is much more likely to give the Aura its due then the G6. One of the Canadian reviews posted here suggests the Aura looks dramatically different (and better) than its Pontiac cousin but that is complete BS. The overall shape of the cars is almost identical. Only the details are different.
your vehicle by chance wouldn't be a G6? you already have a built in excuse for the aura being rated as a better executed car then the g6, the press. heck, you won't even concede the aura having a higher quality interior.
1 the Aura is bigger(not much more)
2 the aura is heavier so the handling may not be the same.
The best way to look at the g6 and aura is like comparing the Sky and Solstice. Sure the solstice is cheaper (and feels the part too) and from a MSRP standpoint is a better deal. IMO the SKY is the better deal since the interior seems so much cleaner and better looking but thats my opinion. Personally i'd take a miata 1st just because of the ease of the top and the abundance of storage (top up and down) which is great for a 2-seat roadster. Gm needs to offer a power top before either appeal to me.
Back on topic
Which looks more appealing to you, the Aura
or the g6
ps: Whoever said something about the g6 and Aura only having a 4 speed auto is dead wrong. For 2007, the g6 GTP and aura xr both have 6speed shiftable automatics.
-cj :shades:
The Aura imo is a far better car than the g6. The aura xr has many more features than the g6 gtp. The aura has heated seats and mirrors standard while the g6 doesn't even have the heated mirrors. The g6 doesn't have power seats either. I love all the AURAs features but it all comes at a cost.
All the auras extra features and slightly longer length all add to its heft so i already expect for the performance to suffer a bit. While it isn't a bad car, it already has a flaw and thats its weight. The panoramic sunroof is nice too but in 3 years, i yet to see a g6 owner with it vs a scion tc whose owners always seem to have it open. I guess its just a standard feature thing.
Gm finally has a hybrid to compete against the camry hybrid. The Aura green line is the first hybrid to go against the camry evenly. Sure the altima is there but its only to be in 8 states. I'm not even going to mention the accord. Hopefully gm doesn't mess up like honda by making a v6 hybrid. I already see a flaw in gms plan as there is no 4cyl aura to begin with. I guess thats an advantage of the g6. On the Aura hybrid, i hope that gm makes a CVT or use the 6 speed. I bet gm goes cheap again and only offers the four speed auto. Only time will tell.
To sum it up, those looking to purchase a g6 or aura must make a decision; The cheap, sporty, and somewhat economical g6 or the luxurious, sporty, and handsome Aura. Which is worth the $$$?
-Cj :confuse: