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
GM's interiors are now "ground breaking":
As far as I'm concerned the last GM products to come out with half [non-permissible content removed] interiors were the '03 CTS and '04 Grand Prix. Everything since then has been at least competitive, if not ground breaking.
GM already has a world-class platform:
GM has a world class midsize platform called Epsilon that is surely competitive with the Mazda 6 platform.
The current Civic lacks features, power and style, plus it has the cheapest looking interior in the segment.
The current civic lacks features, power and style. Plain and simple. It has one of the cheapest lookng, plainest interiors in the segment.
The Cobalt SS and Ion Redline are World Class Cars:
I'm pretty sure the Ion Redline and Cobalt SS SC count as world class small cars.
GM's reliability is better than anyone's except Honda's and Toyota's
If GM's reliability is better than everyone short of Honda and Toyota and their build quality is right up there with the best, what are you basing your statement on?
GM will continue to have double the market share of Toyota:
For the foreseeable future GM will probably have about double Toyota's market share
It's silly to compare GM to Nissan:
...to compare GM to Nissan is silly.
Oooh-kaay. Well, the good news is that I'll concede that last point...but probably not for the reasons you want me to.
I think it was a base model. I know it didn't have power windows or mirrors (the only car in the test without them). But it did have ABS and traction control, which only a few others had. I think GM was trying to make the most of our scoring system, where price plays a role but so does feature content. By providing a relatively inexpensive Cobalt that still had ABS and traction control the car should do well in the value equation portion. Plus it was the fastest car so it should do OK in the performance portion (though I know the Mazda3 was faster through the slalom and generated higher Gs on the skidpad).
I'm very interested in the Mazda5. I think the idea of a small people mover with the convenience of minivan-type doors is really cool. We attend a press event for it next week, so expect a First Drive soon.
As a current driver of a GXP, I do want to respond.
I may not be able to make time today.
Karl - any additional comments, before I do?
I see Dan Kahn is the byline on this test, but my understanding is that at least you drive each vehicle Edmunds tests "for the numbers"?
Thanks,
- Ray
Happy GXP driver . .
First, you acuse Karl of 'bias' against GM but from a reading of your posts here and your many posts in other GM forums, it is evident you have a very strong bias TOWARDS GM. Why should Karl's 'bias' be any more unfair than yours?
Second, exactly what do you mean by 'bias'? In my opinion, 'bias' is simply a predisposition to either favor or not favor something unfairly. Karl is exposed to hundreds of vehicles, most in depth, every year. You, I'll assume, are not. Who's to say that any predisposition Karl may have towards GM is unfair? Might this predisposition be based on a past history of disappointment after disappointment? If Karl has developed a 'bias' against GM vehicles, I could see how this might be based on his extensive exposure to GM vehicles in comparison to vehicles from other makes. Yet your 'bias' towards GM is based on......?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=106555/pageId=64900
As with other prior Edmund's LPS comparos, this one has a number of glaring inconsistencies:
1. How can the M35x come second to the 530x on engine performance? It was faster to 60 and faster in the quarter mile!
2. How can it come second on transmission when they describe the automatic on the M35x as "perfect". Oh wait, maybe the editors mean that a standard tranny is better -- but this comparo should compare like cars: only the Bimmer comes with a stick, the rest are all autos, and so autos should be compared.
3. What the does "visibility" measure? And how could the M possibly come last (and by a longshot)?!? I have not read or experienced any visibility problems with the M, and the reverse camera with the trajectory diagram is superb! Surely the LDW (which can be deactivated permanently for users that like it) can also only add to the "visibility".
4. Edmunds' staff continue to quibble with the interior quality and design of the M35x. But after complaining about how stark the BMW cabin is (which it is, dreadfully so), they rank the M35 last! Again there is no consistency. One might have some variation in opinion about design, but most people sitting in the two cabins back to back (as I have one) would feel that the M's is superior in brightness, airiness, etc. It may be only my opinion, but I find the interior design and quality to be superior in the M than in the 5 and equal to the A6. If "soft" windows switches ensure a top-place finish in this category then I think all automakers now know how to ensure an Edmunds comparo victory.
5. If the M is so "ponderous" because of it's added heft as the editors claim, why was it only 0.2mph behind the 530x through the slalom, (a car that the editors describe as being magically responsive on the road)? Why did the M brake to a stop in 11 fewer feet?
6. The data presented in the tables had some errors. A number of tables call the M35x the G35x (one hopes that the data was referring to the M not the G). Also, how can the M35 have the shortest time to the quarter mile, but have the slowest speed at the quarter mile?
7. Finally while penalizing the M for its great weight (which did not cost the car and performance in acceleration or braking), there seemed to be no bonus for its greater interior size. While the RL is a fine car, there is no way that it is more spacious inside than the M, and it was repeatedly described as spacious.
8. The "value" comparison was disingenuous. While I do not have feature sheets in front of me, I have no doubt that the A6 (which was the cheapest of the cars) had far fewer features than the M35x (cooled seats, reclining rear seats, heated rear seats, reverse camera, LDW, Bluetooth, etc.) If similarly optioned, the M35x is substantially cheaper (at least in Canada).
To my reading, it almost seems as if the outcome of the comparo was known in advance: (i.e. "the RL will win, we'll say the Audi is the most luxurious, and we'll of course say the BMW is the best driver's car") and the "data" skewed to match up with that expectation.
The Solstice, to my knowledge, is the first complete Lutz influenced vehicle. Plain and simple - it needs to live up to the hype. It must be as good or better than the new MX-5 (not almost there). The Solstice will set the trend for GM vehicles for the next few years - if Lutz and his team have failed to produce a world class competitive vehicle, GM is in serious trouble.
The current new GM models are without a doubt better than the vehicles they replace. Are they world class competitive? In most cases the answer is no. Very close, but not quite there. GM needs to deliver vehicles that are better than the competition, not just as good. GM keeps telling the public to wait and see what is coming next year - the time is now to deliver.
Just my thoughts.
On a related note - I really like the Cobalt. I have driven various trim levels on numerous occasions. I still say the Mazda3 is an all around better vehicle. The interior and handling are simply better.
I felt he (Karl) was similarly harsh on the Tribeca, unnecessarily so. Perhaps he uses hyperbole for emphasis to make a point.
I bet if he said "the Mazda3 had a slight edge in most categories except straight line acceleration" that there would not have been any rebuttle at all.
Hyperbole, as defined in Dictionary.com:
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton
The book is merely heavy. The Mazda3 does not blow away the Cobalt, but it's better in many categories.
-juice
It seems heavy (and not meant to be sporty), but I checked and it's not much heavier than a Mazda3. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it, especially since you focus more on steering than a lot of car reviewers.
Agreed. Though to hear the salesman talk about it, it is supposed to take the place of the now defunct Celica in Toyota's lineup. Being the owner of a GTS who will need a new car in a couple of years, I drove a tC hoping that it would capture my fancy.
Fat chance (literally).
I'm now considering many other cars (including a Mazda3), none from Toyota, to replace my GTS.
Even though technically it's an Avensis coupe from Europe.
-juice
Some may say lots of things. All I know is that Toyota offers nothing at this time that interests me. Too bad I'm not in the market for a SUV; they certainly have their bases covered there. But sporty? Forget 'sportscar'; what do they offer......the tC and....the Solara?
No thanks.
Let me take your test comments to task:
1."...GXP stickered at $32,600, which is about the same as an Infiniti G35 and a Dodge Charger R/T." GXPs are being bought for $27-29k, much less than the competitors' transaction prices. Sorry about GM MSRP issues; soon this may get sorted out.
2. Talking about wider front wheels/tires than rear: "Usually its the other way around, and the combo simply looks strange." If Honda came up with this idea you'd be full of praise for their inventive thinking. The fronts are wider because that's where the majority of weight is and where the power is applied to the ground. No one seems to complain when RWD do this in reverse and most of the RWD performance cars do. And I defy you to see the front/rear difference if someone had not told you to look for it. Plus, it works. Max lateral Gs went from .83 to .87, better than could be acheived with larger tires all-around.
3. Talking about torque steer: "Hammering the pedal at any speed causes ther car to dart around like there's a drunk behind the wheel." Bull. Yes, you can feel the power going to the front wheels, but it will "dart around" only if you apply power foolishly, like nailing it in the middle of a turn. Powerful RWD cars will break the rear end loose if throttle application is severe. This car handles the prodigious torque output quite well (note the owners on this thread are not complaining).
4. Considering TapShift actuation: "As it is, they're counterintuitive." Says who? I don't think there's an industry standard on this. The GXP upshifts by pressing the paddles rather than pulling them because its quicker that way.
5. "Its braking performance is good but not great." Don't agree. I found the pedal to be firm, short-travel and offered great driving confidence, not to mention fade-free performance on the track.
6. "The GXP just can't compete with its RWD rivals like the Charger." Yes, it can, for those who want/need the all-weather performance of FWD and have less money to spend on a car.
Like I said, you don't seem to "get it" like your readers do, many of whom have gone from mild interest in the product initially to very happy ownership after purchase. Though certainly not perfect, the GXP is an interesting performance alternative for many drivers.
Lexus will get a halo car, but I doubt Toyota will re-enter that segment. Celica was selling poorly by the time they cancelled it.
-juice
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=106555/pageId=64900
After reading the Comparo it really seems to me that the M35x won all the performance, ride/handling, parts of the test. However it fnished last in interior personal preference stuff. So objectively the M35x finished FIRST; however subjectively it finished FIFTH for a final position of THIRD. This is based of course on reading the words written in the report and not the numbers at the end that contradict those words
Lexus 'halo car' = more money than I care to spend.
Toyota is supposedly rumored to be bringing back the Supra to compete in the low $30k market against the RX8 and 350z. But if sales of these coupes continue to fall, I don't know that they'll have the incentive to re-enter that segment. So, on that point I certainly agree with you.
Consider the segment the M35x competes in. These are (in many ways) supposed to be luxuory sedans which won't fall all over themselves on the performance front. In that regards, I don't think buyers of a nearly $50k sedan are going to be that worried about a few 1/10s in acceleration. They will however, be more sensitive to the quality of interior materials and ride comfort.
A lot of quick engines are very unrefined and would get a low score.
FWIW I like the VQ engine, but I like it more at $25k in an Altima than I would in a $50k G35x.
-juice
.... BTW, the GS300 with AWD was about $47K or so.
(why? you may ask ... just spending my un-won lottery money)
But desires and sensitivities are purely subjective!! I for one can't stand the interior of the A6 or the 530xi - both are hideous :sick: Also reliability is a major factor and the German sedans fall way short in that regard as well. Other than objective measurements ALL pros and cons of any LPS sedan are left up the individual; there is no one-size-fits-all. :shades:
Absolutely correct. Which is why I personally, and advise everyone else, to NOT base a car purchase decision based solely on what a reviewer says. And if a reviewer were to dis my favorite car, WHO CARES. I didn't buy it to satisfy them; I bought it to satisfy me.
We all have different tastes. But does this mean that reviewers should NOT offer up their subjective opinions with regards to the cars tested? No, of course not. The problem is that while testers can OBJECTIVELY test many aspects of a car, there are many other aspects of a car which CANNOT be objectively tested, yet we (as the reader) still want information about.
One example of this is noise in a car. A tester can give us db readings at full throttle, idle, and cruise. But this only gives us an idea of the sound pressure. It will give us no clue whatsoever about sound quality. For this, we rely on the SUBJECTIVE opinion of the reviewer. We may or may not agree, that is certainly our right. But at the same time, I want to know if the sound quality was generally 'pleasing' or sounded like nails on a chalkboard.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even though the Acura placed 1st in that test, and the M35x placed 3rd, doesn't automatically mean that the Acura will be desired over the Infiniti by ALL owners. The comparison test simply says that for the reviewers, they preferred the Acura.
Some buyers of the $50K+ sedans, like me, want both the highest levels of performance and quality. I find the quality of the new M at the very least on par with all but may be Audi and design better than most. I find the comparo completely worthless, as it solves for the predetermined result. And the Lexus, which finished last, just recently was placed ahead of M in the Edmunds sports sedan comparo - how do you explain that?
As previously pointed out, an engine's performance isn't all about the acceleration figures. Just like a car's NVH and refinement isn't all about the noise levels in the cabin. I don't know how else to make people understand this if they don't drive hundreds of different cars a year and evaluate them for a living...but it's true.
How can it come second on transmission when they describe the automatic on the M35x as "perfect".
The "perfect" comment was made by the author, the evaluation scores are a combination of every driver in the test (in this case five different people). Obviously the tranny was very good, because the author described it as "perfect" and it took 2nd place in scoring. If that's still not good enough for you...well...too bad.
What does "visibility" measure?
Visility includes blind spots created by the roof pillars, the effectiveness of the rearview mirrors to overcome those blind spots, and any other obstructions that might get in the way (rear seat headrests, long hoods that you can't tell where they end, etc.). The rear camera helps when backing into a parking space, otherwise it does nothing for visibility. LDW can either be thought of as helpful or highly annoying, depending on who you ask. But it doesn't help with any of the items I listed above.
Edmunds' staff continue to quibble with the interior quality and design of the M35x. But after complaining about how stark the BMW cabin is (which it is, dreadfully so), they rank the M35 last! Again there is no consistency.
Not just the Edmunds staff, everyone talks about Nissan interior quality deficiencies...including the Nissan reps I speak to on a regular basis. Even they don't try to defend their interiors as anything approaching superlative. And yes, any manufacturers that figure out the great mystery of using soft-touch plastics on items that you touch a lot inside a vehicle will score better with Edmunds editors than the ones that use Fisher-Price quality polymers. But shhh! Don't tell them! Make them discovery this incredible nugget of wisdom all by themselves!
If the M is so "ponderous" because of it's added heft as the editors claim, why was it only 0.2mph behind the 530x through the slalom, (a car that the editors describe as being magically responsive on the road)? Why did the M brake to a stop in 11 fewer feet?
You're right. I keep forgetting. NUMBERS ARE EVERYTHING WHEN REVIEWING A CAR. In fact, we're going to stop writing stories altogether. From now on when we get a car for testing, I'm going to generate numbers on it and we're just going to post the performance worksheet. That's really the only information that matters anyway.
BTW, it's ponderous because it weighs between 50 and 400 pounds more than every other car in the test, thus making it heavy and ponderous.
Also, how can the M35 have the shortest time to the quarter mile, but have the slowest speed at the quarter mile?
Probably because it's geared to get off the line quickly but runs out of steam on the top end.
Finally while penalizing the M for its great weight (which did not cost the car and performance in acceleration or braking), there seemed to be no bonus for its greater interior size. While the RL is a fine car, there is no way that it is more spacious inside than the M, and it was repeatedly described as spacious.
Well, once again NUMBERS MEAN EVERYTHING. If it's larger and heavier then it must be roomier. There's simply "no way" that Acura was more efficient at using the RL's interior space to maximize room and comfort, right? Just "no way."
The "value" comparison was disingenuous. While I do not have feature sheets in front of me, I have no doubt that the A6 (which was the cheapest of the cars) had far fewer features than the M35x (cooled seats, reclining rear seats, heated rear seats, reverse camera, LDW, Bluetooth, etc.) If similarly optioned, the M35x is substantially cheaper (at least in Canada).
Don't forget that value isn't based on number of features, it's based on number of useful features. We go through all the features on all the cars and then create a very long list. From that list each driver in the story votes on the features they think are most valuable to buyers in this segment. LDW and a rear camera may be neat (or maybe not, depending on who you ask), but I have trouble believing even you would argue that LDW is more important to luxury sport-sedan buyers than satellite radio, DVD navigation, premium sound, a sport suspension and an in-dash CD changer. I see buyers in this segment using each of those features far more often than a rear camera or LDW system.
To my reading, it almost seems as if the outcome of the comparo was known in advance: (i.e. "the RL will win, we'll say the Audi is the most luxurious, and we'll of course say the BMW is the best driver's car") and the "data" skewed to match up with that expectation.
Dude, it's like you were sitting in on our initial meeting for this test. We all sat around mapping out which car we wanted to win, and the only tough part was working the numbers to fit our desire.
OK, I'm kidding. All we really had to do was look at the latest bribery offers from each manufacturer and simply order the cars by the amount of each check.
Now, my question to you:
Do you work for Nissan, or just own several of their products?
"Gee, all these cars were just all really, really neat. We know we have our own opinions, but since they're just our opinions and we know that not EVERYONE will agree with them, we'll just keep them to ourselves. In fact, we don't think it would be too fair to actually pick a winner since we don't want to hurt ANYONE'S feelings, so what the heck, looks like another 5 way tie for 1st place".
We couldn't put the tC in the test because it was a sedan test. We could have included the xA, but we were running out of space at seven cars.
I do agree that the tC feels heavier than the Celica, but I don't think it feels "heavy." We have an automatic verison in our long-term fleet and I was just in it for several days recently. I was repeatedly surprised at how much "oomph" it had, despite being an automatic. It was truly fun to drive. Not Honda S2000 fun, or even last-generation Celica fun, but more fun that I expected for what is essentially a two-door economy car with minimal sporting intentions. If they add the supercharger and a tighter suspension it could be pretty cool.
The visibility is tricky because of the extremely forward placement of the A-pillars, and the head unit is a pain because there's not a knob to be found and I hate using buttons for volume and station tuning. But otherwise I like the car.
Good one. Nice way to end the week!
-juice
No comparison test will ever be universally accepted by 100% of the readers. Car and Driver reworked their scoring system a couple of years back and got slammed for doing it. M/T, Edmunds, R&T, CAR in the UK; doesn't matter. All of them have shortcomings of one sort or another, if we pick it apart enough.
It is an imperfect world in which we live. As my wife likes to say, "Get over it or die pi%%ed".
I'll sometimes make fun of a certain "buff book" because I feel like their comparison tests try to do just that.
My standard issue (highly sarcastic) description of their editorial tone goes something like this:
"Each of these cars is special in their own special way."
Such a helpful position to take when trying to inform a new car shopper, eh?
Thanks for the positive feedback.
In the new issue the RSX has the highest GHI factor even thought the model is in its fourth full year of production and sales have gone down each year.
-juice
Exactly.
Which is why the editors (be they with C&D, MT, Edmunds, etc.) should do their comparison tests the way THEY think they should be done and let the market decide if they have any validity or not. It does no one any good to try to be all things to all people. I'll respect those reviewers who have absolutely no qualms about stepping on some toes.
Of course, if they have editorial problems with MY car, then they are obviously egotistical jerks who wouldn't know the difference between a camshaft and a cantelope if you hit them over the head with'em...... :P
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
It's a question I can only answer for myself, and even then it's not easy. I REALLY like the Honda Accord. I think it's fun to drive (at least as family sedans go), and I know it makes excellent power, has a refined drivetrain and is very comfortable.
But the dealership experience with Honda has been disappointing me for years, and I know I'm not alone in this.
The Hyundai is a solid car in every way, and the dealerships actually seem to want to help you when you go to them.
I honestly don't know which I'd buy right now if I were in the market. I'd probably have to see what the true, bottom line price was on the specific cars in question.
Which would you rather have .. a pleasant buying experience that lasts several hours for an inferior product that you'll keep for many years or an inferior buying experience for a better product?
What I find funny now is that I own 2 Saturns, bought predominantly because the buying and service experiences have been so positive. Do I think that my Saturns are inferior compared to the competition? With one (L300 V6), my answer would have to be a qualified "maybe"; with the other (VUE AWD V6) I would have to say no, as we test drove all the major competitors.
To base current reviews on a history of past disappointment is wrong. That is the entire problem. Each vehicle has to be evaluated on it's merits, it's really that simple. Instead what we have is journalists who have a predisposed notion about a car and then find a way to justify their position regardless of the merits of the car. People like Karl say things like "I was shocked that I liked this car" or "it's better than I expected" when reviewing a GM product that they feel is halfway decent. Those statements show that the car barely stood a chance in the first place because the reviewers mind was mostly made up in advance.
I don't drive as many cars as Karl, but that doesnt make anything I'm saying less relevant. I attend test driving events (going to one tomorrow), I sit in dozens of cars at the auto show, read car mags and I stay on top of the automotive business. I may not have a byline on edmunds, but I'm pretty sure I know what I speak of.
Between the two items I totally missed the GXP, which bummed me out because I was very curious, and I know there are people in this discussion who wanted to hear my thoughts on it. I heard from others on staff, and the messaging was pretty consistent, but I can't say with any authority how I feel about the car because I only saw it once in the parking garage as I was walking in to work (on the day it was leaving).
The consistent message from others on staff was that it wasn't a very good car.
Of course, these people were all
A. Under the age of 55 and
B. Living in California
Some people (ahem-ahem) might consider those grounds for not knowing what they are talking about...
It's amazing you know so much about my bias against domestics. I'm just curious about how you knew? Or were you just lucky with that wide brush you appear to be wielding?
I'm not sure where the whole discussion regarding market share and the domestics vs. imports came in. Personally, I don't care. If GM wants to increase it's market share, they need to offer BETTER products than the competition; not simply attempt to catch up. And frankly, we've been hearing about how the 'next thing' will be better than the competition for the last 20 years.
When reviewers have years (and years) of past disappointments when it comes to GM products, how can you honestly expect them to enter into all new reviews with a completely fresh, open mind. You think they all just have some sort of mental reset button? Reviewers should be evaluated as people, they aren't machines.
Having exposure to substantially fewer cars than an editor doesn't make what your saying less relevant? To be blunt, I think an INFORMED opinion is more relavent than an UNINFORMED opinion. And exposure to a much wider range of cars would lead me to believe that the editor's opinion is more informed.
You sit in dozens of vehicles at car shows and read magazines? And I suppose you do all this with no pro-GM bias right?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I see that Karl has posted. I must quickly send him an ingratiating reply; he kinda expects it of me.....
I thought your last post was so spot on.
Too bad you couldn't review the GXP. I know that you would have given it a completely fair and unbiased (nudge nudge wink wink) review.
that car BEGS you to drive the snots out of it. c & d should have given it their highest rating. i could never own one, because i would get into a bunch of trouble with it. i still need a driver's licence.
Is it truly the dealer, or is it Honda's policies toward the dealer that makes it difficult for the dealer to redress customer problems?
Rumor has it Honda does not believe they make Lemons, Ever. And because they do not make lemons, they do not need to address "lemon problems" customers may have. This was true for my first Honda.
Will also add the Honda dealers I visited recently in California were unpleasant, which did nothing to sell the car, no matter how good they might be to drooler mags like Honda and Driver / Honda Trend / Honda and Track, etc.
And I agree that Bob Lutz has had plenty of time to start having a major impact on GM's new models. It has taken GM much too long to get the new stuff to market.
The new Cobalt symbolizes the problem. GM has had over 10 years to come up with a replacement for the ancient Cavalier (the last model debuted for the 1995 model year). GM even DELAYED the replacement (which was originally scheduled to debut around 2001) and went back to the drawing board when the original model bombed in the consumer preview clinics. So it's not as though GM hasn't had the time to come up with something that would really rock this segment.
Instead, GM came up with a decent but hardly earth-shattering vehicle. Styling wise, it looks a lot like the old Cavalier. Overall, it really isn't that big of an advance over the Ford Focus (which debuted five years ago) and it certainly isn't going to knock the socks off anyone interested in the Mazda3. What's going to happen when the all-new Civic debuts this fall?
The simple fact is that, aside from the Cobalt SS, GM, after a decade, has come up with a middle-of-the-road entry that will, in all likelihood, be quickly outclassed as new offerings in this segment hit the market. Sorry, but in today's market, when even Hyundai is making major strides, that just isn't good enough.
Last night I attended a county fair, and a Chevy dealer had a display of new vehicles, including a 2006 HHR and Impala SS. The HHR interior seemed almost claustrophobic. It certainly didn't give the impression of room and flexibility. Maybe it was the narrow side windows. The interior was okay in the fit-and-finish department, but nothing to write home about. With an MSRP ">of $22,000, I couldn't help but wonder who was going to buy this vehicle.
The 2006 Impala is an improvement over the current model. But the interior is about three steps ahead of the old model where it needed to advance by about five steps. The back seat is still too cramped (a limitation of the W-body platform). The sticker price of $30,000+ does get the buyer a 5.3 V-8. People paying $30,000 for a new vehicle can get some nice "near luxury" models for that price (with more prestigious nameplates), even if they do have a V-6 (although there are some pretty nice V-6s in this segment). The Dodge Charger with a Hemi stickers for $29,900. Granted, Dodge isn't any more prestigious a nameplate than Chevrolet, but the Charger does have rear-wheel drive and boasts much more "street presence" than the Impala.
I would like GM to succeed and, at the very least, halt the constant erosion of its market share. But for most of my adult life I've been hearing that the wonderful new models that will save GM are just around the corner, and I've been disappointed each time. The refrain gets tiring. Plus, I have to wonder - how can anyone have looked at the Malibu, G6, Grand Prix and LaCrosse and really believed that they were going to win back market share from some very respected nameplates?
I'm also tired of the latest bait-and-switch PR tactic - GM hypes the latest model as having been influenced by Bob Lutz, and when it hits the market with less than stellar results, it turns out that "he really didn't have that much influence on it." So just what is he doing there?
The G6 is a good car. Light years ahead of the last Grand Am. However, they only give it one engine/transmission choice and delay the high performance version (which might have increased interest in the car) for a year. When the G6 GTP does come out it has an old-tech 3.9L push-rod engine that has the same HP rating as a 3.0L Accord and a 3.5L Altima, both of which get better gas mileage than the GTP.
The Equinox was a good SUV. It was the right size, had good styling, and useful interior features. So they saddle it with a 3.4L 184HP engine???? While they give the Vue the Honda 3.5L with 240HP? The Escape makes 200HP while the CR-V makes less power but is more efficient. Not to mention the Forester XT which will pretty much blow everything out of the water in this segment.
The Malibu is a decent car. But decent isn't enough to cut it in a segment with the Camry, Accord, Altima, Mazda6, and now the Sonata.
The Cobalt is a "decent" car. Again, decent won't cut it in a segment with the Corolla, Civic, Mazda3, and the better handling Ford Focus.
GM makes a whole bunch of decent cars but none of their models are good enough to be considered the benchmark. The exception to this might the Corvette but for $50,000 there is a lot of competition out there.
But -
-The G6 is starting to sell close to the same rate as the hit Chrysler 300.
-I would much rather have a V6 Malibu for the same price as a 4 banger Camcord.
-The only one I would pick over the Cobalt is maybe the Mazda3. I do not care for the redo of the Focus.
-For the price what competition does the Vette have???
-The Nox, well it has sold well. But, the engine still sucks and the steering feel is horrid. Oh, but wait, the Torrent is coming. What a joke!