I never contended that GM interiors are grounbreaking, in fact I said most of them are not. Then again, how many cars have groundbreaking interiors? Not many last time I checked. What I did say was GM's newer interiors are class competitive. That applies for everything from the Cobalt to the XLR. When people talk about a car like the XLR having inferior materials for the price I wonder what cars they are compaing it too. The SL500's interior was about the same as the $30K C-class before the C got it's revision for 2005. I have seen the SL500's interior and sat in the car at an MB driving event and I came away very unimpressed when you consider the base price.
As for my statement about reliability, all you have to do it look at the JD Power intitial and three year quality rankings. They rank the cars by brand, not by company so "GM" isnt ranked as a whole. However Buick, Cadillac and even Chevy are ranked high on those lists. The Malibu recently rated highest in the midsize segment after three years. I'm sure you wont find any reference to that fact on Edmunds but it's true. GM brands consistently ranks higher than Ford or Chrysler and all the European car companies. Edmunds praises the interiors of European products as if plastic quality has anything to do with reliability. We all know the Germans can design a nice interior, but what good is a great interior if a $50K Audi isn't going to be as reliable as Malibu or Impala? The long term reliability of German cars is not a consideration and it should be if you are in the business of recommending cars. You asked me why should you recommend low quality GM cars to the public and I'm asking you to explain what you mean by low quality. Build quality on todays cars is relatively consistent. GM uses plastics that are superior to most NIssan/Infiniti as well as Chrysler products as far as I can tell. Long term reliability suveys show several GM brands are right there with Toyota and Honda and superior to Nissan. Low quality?
I guess there really isn't any information that you have that could refute my statements about GM's epsilon or delta platforms. I'm pretty sure you've driven the 9-3 (I have on two occassions) and it's hard to argue that the 9-3 isnt a great handling FWD car. C&D just did a test featuring the Ion Redline and Cobalt SS in which the cars finsihed 4th and 5th. They didn't stand a chance in coming in better than 3rd because the RSX and WRX were in the comparison. Not really sure why the WRX was even included, but that's a different story. Bottom line is the performance on both cars exceeded the winning RSX and the 2nd place WRX. They trashed the Saturn because it was a Saturn and they dont see Saturn as a perveyor of sports cars. They blasted the Cobalt SS for having a dark interior and a big spoiler. There were complaints about the shifter and the steering but basically the cars were not knocked for anything performance oriented. If you look at the interiors of all the cars in that article I think it's hard to argue the Cobalt SS doesnt have the richest looking interior. It's definitely better looking than the dated Civic-like RSX interior.
I dont know how old you are or what GM has told you in the past but as far as I know GM's past "revivals" havent been based around product. GM has tried to steady itself by increasing quality and cutting thousands of jobs. Quality is important but until the last few years I dont think product was seen as a key to turning the company around. When people like you whine about GM making the same old promises and not delivering I wonder if you are even paying attention to what's going on now. Have you heard of the XLR, CTS and CTS-V, GTO, Vette, Cobalt, 9-3, STS/STS-V or G6? Are you saying GM has been making cars of this caliber for years? I dont think they have. You wonder how could anyone have thought the G6 or lacrosse were going to win back share, but both cars are outselling their predescessors if you discount fleet sales. The G6 3.5V6 is now selling about as well as the Grand Am was in 2004 although the grand am had two engines and two body styles. By the end of this year I think it's possible Pontiac could be selling $17 or 18K G6's a month once the 4 cylinder and coupe are in full production. And yet you are calling it a lackluster effort. I dont get that. The Lacrosse's monthly sales are about 2K units behind the "hit" 300C and no one seems to notice. One reason why the 300's sales represent a huge increase for Chrysler is that the 300M wasnt moving in it's last few years. The 300 is chrysler top selling car with about 12 or 13K units a month. That isn't exactly Toyota Camry territory and GM has a few models that outsell the 300.
"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. "
What vehicles are you comparing the HHR to exactly? You dont feel the HHR's interior is as good or better than a Honda Element or PT cruiser? Also, the base price of the HHR is $16K so $22K must get you a fully loaded model. I wouldnt buy an HHR but I have to say it's price is competitive, the interior is nice and it has a lot of features that you wouldnt expect like remote start and 8 way pwr driver's seat.
"'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?"
I'm sorry but that isnt correct. Again, you cant twist the facts around to support your views just because you don't like GM. There isnt one car on the road today that was completely designed after Lutz's arrival. I would like to know one example of a car that he took credit for and then retracted that credit once the car tanked. Lutz had influence over the G6 (which I find to be attractive), Lacrosse, GTO, Cobalt and STS but none of them represent a clean sheet design. The Lucerne, Soltice and Sky are products designed under his watch. The Lucerne is a little conservative but it's definitely classy looking. When people criticize GM's design efforts I wonder who they feel GM should emulate. Toyota? Honda? Chrysler has three hot vehicles so I guess GM should copy them. I don't think anyone is silly enough to say GM should take after Ford's design leadership.
I also don't see why you feel the cobalt can't hold a candle to the Mazda3. The base cobalt isnt as sporty as the 3 and teh Cobalt SS SC seriously outperforms the 3. The '06 SS which is coming out now is the best match for the 3. The 3 definitely offers more style, but when it comes to interior and feature content the Cobalt can hold it's own. The 3 interior which Mr. Brauer claimed "blew away" the competiton is just as dark and monchromatic as any chevy Malibu or G6 which are often criticized for lack of color. As a guy who has spent a lot time in the 3 I can say the interior is well built but nothing that could be called clearly superior to cars like the Cobalt or Corolla. I think the 3's interior is supposed to be sporty and BMW like and that appeals to some people, but not all.
As for the cobalt, I wouldn't say GM had 10 years to work on a new car because we know they didn't start working on the cobalt when the cavalier was revised for 1995. Secondly, it's hard to leap frog the competition in any car class, much less the under $20K class. When is the last time a ground breaking car was launched in this segment? Since the Focus debuted I dont think any car has really shook up this market. Even the 3 is just a modernized, more powerful version of the lively Protege. You are calling the Cobalt middle of the road as if it is no better than average. Are you saying that the civic and corolla aren't middle of the road? Also, what about sales? The cobalt is now catching up to the civic and corolla in monthly sales and it's far ahead of the 3, does that count for anything? Do you think all those sales are to Enterprise? Could it be that Chevy was smart to go with a conservative desing because that's what works for the Civic/Corolla? The 3 may be the darling of the press but it's not in the same sales league as it's Japanese counterparts.
Just like a car's NVH and refinement isn't all about the noise levels in the cabin.
I guess the folks at Ward's, who keep including the Nissan VQ in their 10-best engines list must be ignorant about NVH when they make their decisions. Simpletons.
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.
Wait a minute -- aren't those NUMBERS you mentioned there? Aren't they actually unimportant? Or am I just demanding a foolish consistency from your logic? I thought that "ponderous" had a somewhat pejorative (as opposed to purely factual) connotation to it, but then I'm not a professional writer or editor. If you mean the car is heavier, you could always use the word heavy. If the car is heavy but actually handles surprisingly well given it's mass, then one might choose a different phrase like "surprisingly agile".
Probably because it's geared to get off the line quickly but runs out of steam on the top end.
Or it could be a typo. Considering the other typos in the tables of data, perhaps you can excuse my doubts.
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.
I'm confused: the M has all of those features, AND it has the LDW, seat coolers, reverse camera, etc.
Now, my question to you: Do you work for Nissan, or just own several of their products?
I only own one -- the M35x, but I've been through a number of LPS's over the years.
All sarcasm aside, I am glad to see this "feedback" forum and the fact that you respond to the comments and stand by your articles.
I went to a C&D/R&T event today to compare the STS/530 and CTS/ES330. I wasn't sure why the ES330 was there but that's what they chose to bring. We were asked to drive and evaluate the cars on many different characteristics. I really tried think like an Edmunds staffer and be extra critical of the Cadillacs when it came to refinement and material quality. Overall I have to say I don't get what the hype is about when it comes to American cars lacking "refinement'. Karl says that you cant worry about noise levels because it's more than that. I guess that makes sense to some degree but the problem is I didnt notice any unrefined noises from any of the cars I drove. All were quiet at idle and the 3.6 V6 made great noises under acceleration and the exhaust note on the STS was far better than the non existent exhaust note on the 530. The ES330 was far louder under acceleration than I thought it would be because they have tried to give the engine a sporty growl. I examined the leather, the plastics, the closing action of the doors and other things. The doors on the Caddies closed just as solidly as the Lexus and BMW. The interior of the STS (black leather) was far more luxurious and inviting than the BMW and that seemed to be a universal sentiment. People generally came away impressed that the STS felt no worse than the 530 while looking better inside and out. I didn't see any aspects of the STS that were inferior to the 530 other than cheap plastic coat hooks in the rear and the fact that the 530 felt lighter. The gauges were better, wood was brighter and more luxurious, the engine sounded better, the steering was easier and lighter and of course no iDrive was needed to operate functions.
The CTS' interior is a different story but the build quality and material quality were excellent. The ES obviously had a far better looking interior but there was no noticble different in how the cars were screwed together. Naturally the ES pitched and rolled a lot during cornering and it's sterering was sloppy but overall it wasn't much worse than the non-sport package CTS.
BTW, one of the professional drivers told me that he prefers the STS to the 530 even though he isnt supposed to share his opinions. Another pro told me that today there is minimal difference between any luxury sport cars on the market. He said the difference between Cadillac and it's competitors was apparent 10 years back but now the gap has closed. This was from a guy who drives an M3 as his personal car and travels the world driving Ferraris and other cars for manufacturer launch events. He's driven the F430 and Scaglietti.
Wait a minute -- aren't those NUMBERS you mentioned there? Aren't they actually unimportant? Or am I just demanding a foolish consistency from your logic?
Ok, then let me clarify. When one car is tenths of a second faster to 60 mph or through the slalom, the numbers mean little. And when a car's cabin is one or two decibels louder or quieter than a competitor, it also doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Especially if the engine in the one of the cars vibrates a lot more than the other and or the tone of the sound is highly annoying. Neither of those features is picked up by a sound meter. You have to (GASP!!), have faith in the reviewers' ability to evaluate such items.
But when one car is up to 400 pounds heavier than it's competition, it starts to make a difference.
I guess the folks at Ward's, who keep including the Nissan VQ in their 10-best engines list must be ignorant about NVH when they make their decisions. Simpletons.
Not really. The VQ is a great engine. I think that's why we said so in the comparison test. But if you're talking NVH, exhaust note, and even OVERALL performance (not just straightline acceleration), the BMW engine is better. Hard to quantify on a Web page, you'll just have to (gulp) take my word for it.
BTW, if you want to talk simpletons, let's talk about the J.D. Power folks who measure a car's "reliability" after three months (that's 90 days, just to be clear) and then release studies claiming "best in initial quality" that other people hold up a "proof" of how great a given car is. A real stress test, those first 90 days.
Or it could be a typo. Considering the other typos in the tables of data, perhaps you can excuse my doubts.
Nope, we got that one right.
I'm confused: the M has all of those features, AND it has the LDW, seat coolers, reverse camera, etc. Actually, it doesn't have a specific sport suspension (at least not like the Audi, Lexus and BMW have), and the rest of those features are optional. They're all standard on the RL (except the sport suspension), which is why the RL ranked better in Feature Content. Since LDW, seat cooler and reverse camera weren't considered primary features for this segment, they didn't help the M35's score at all.
Oh, and I'll go ahead and take care of the response to this right now: But Karl, if the M35x handles so well without a sport suspension it shouldn't count against it for not having one available!!!!!!
The M35x does handle well without the sport suspension, but the Acura (which also doesn't have one) was faster in the slalom, as was the BMW. And, throwing out the numbers for a second (I know, that's not possible for some of you), the BMW just handles better. Sorry I can't quantify it on a chart or use a formula that we post on a Web page, but it does. Sort of like the Tribeca's lack of refinement can't be recorded with a sound meter...but that' doesn't mean it's not there -- if you can believe that...
This was from a guy who drives an M3 as his personal car and travels the world driving Ferraris and other cars for manufacturer launch events.
And gets paid by said manufacturers to work these events...
I always love the old "I'm not supposed to say this, but I like brand XYZ the best." when it comes from a guy who was paid by brand XYZ to work the event.
And people think our spy photos/video is thinly veiled manufacturer hype...
No, not you specifically. I've seen a lot of discussion boards that wonder if photos are leaked on purpose. The shot of the Corvette you mentioned from S.F. (on the car carrier), was very suspicious, so I think that started people thinking.
I was basically making the point that spy videos and photos don't seem nearly as suspicious as, for example, a paid employee for a company (even a one-day contractor) saying he actually likes said company's product best.
BTW, if you want to talk simpletons, let's talk about the J.D. Power folks who measure a car's "reliability" after three months (that's 90 days, just to be clear) and then release studies claiming "best in initial quality" that other people hold up a "proof" of how great a given car is. A real stress test, those first 90 days.
Bravo!
As someone who kept a 1980 Volvo for 21 years ('82-'03), that 90-day nonsense always gives me a good laugh! Even 3 years (dependability study) are too short. My 1990 Mercury Sable held up quite well for 3 years, but man, once the payment book was closed at 4 years and 60+K miles, then the REAL troubles started!
1487: I dont know how old you are or what GM has told you in the past but as far as I know GM's past "revivals" havent been based around product. GM has tried to steady itself by increasing quality and cutting thousands of jobs. Quality is important but until the last few years I dont think product was seen as a key to turning the company around.
Over the past 20+ years, GM has repeatedly said that the latest batch of new products will reverse its slumping market share. It said this in the late 1980s, when the original W-Bodies debuted (and were touted as GM's response to the original Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable).
GM said this again when the Corsica/Beretta debuted during the same time frame (which is when Chevy lost the long-held number-one spot to Ford).
Then it said this again in the mid-1990s - after GM's brush with bankruptcy in 1992 - when the current minivan platform, revamped W-Bodies and revamped J-Bodies debuted.
Meanwhile, the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora were supposed to make GM a contender in the near-luxury market. Both cars are gone now - due to poor sales. For that matter, the entire Oldsmobile division is gone after a total revamp of its lineup failed to ignite interest in the brand.
The Saturn L-Series and Ion were supposed to turn around Saturn's fortunes. The L-Series flopped, and the Ion has received some of the most brutal reviews of any new product within the last decade. It survives primarily because of incentives.
These are the instances where GM touted new product as the key to either its revival, or the revival of a particular division, and the products failed to deliver.
1487: When people like you whine about GM making the same old promises and not delivering I wonder if you are even paying attention to what's going on now. Have you heard of the XLR, CTS and CTS-V, GTO, Vette, Cobalt, 9-3, STS/STS-V or G6? Are you saying GM has been making cars of this caliber for years? I dont think they have.
No, but other manufacturers have (with the exception of the Corvette, which is in a class by itself) for years. Therefore, GM needs to do more than just match the competition to make headway in the market and regain lost share. So far not one of those products - aside from the Corvette - is class-leading in ANY published road test that I've read. And that is a big problem. If GM wants to really change people's perceptions, it is going to have to do more than merely come close to where the current class leaders are. It must lead, and these products are not leaders in their segments.
1487: You wonder how could anyone have thought the G6 or lacrosse were going to win back share, but both cars are outselling their predescessors if you discount fleet sales.
A new version outselling the old version of a car - especially when we are using production numbers for the final year of the old version - is hardly a great achievement.
1487: The G6 3.5V6 is now selling about as well as the Grand Am was in 2004 although the grand am had two engines and two body styles. By the end of this year I think it's possible Pontiac could be selling $17 or 18K G6's a month once the 4 cylinder and coupe are in full production. And yet you are calling it a lackluster effort.
Every road test of the vehicle I've read calls it a lackluster effort. Maybe the 3.9 V-6 engine will change that, but I then wonder why GM didn't have this engine ready for the car from day one.
1487: I dont get that. The Lacrosse's monthly sales are about 2K units behind the "hit" 300C and no one seems to notice.
The Chrysler 300 sells with minimal incentives. The LaCrosse only started moving when GM began heavily discounting it and then hyped the "employee discounts for everyone" program. When the LaCrosse sells at 300 levels with the same level of incentives, then I'll be impressed.
1487: What vehicles are you comparing the HHR to exactly?
Chrysler PT Cruiser.
1487: You dont feel the HHR's interior is as good or better than a Honda Element or PT cruiser?
No.
1487: I'm sorry but that isnt correct. Again, you cant twist the facts around to support your views just because you don't like GM. There isnt one car on the road today that was completely designed after Lutz's arrival. I would like to know one example of a car that he took credit for and then retracted that credit once the car tanked.?
LaCrosse, STS, Grand Prix GTO and G6, for starters. As I said, it wasn't made clear that he didn't have a clean sheet to design these cars until after they posted lackluster results in the market. Incidentally, from what I've read on other websites devoted to GM, Mr. Lutz's changes to the STS, which were fairly extensive, actually made the car blander and hurt its appeal.
1487: When people criticize GM's design efforts I wonder who they feel GM should emulate.
I think GM is big enough, and has enough talent on the payroll, that it should not have to emulate any other car maker. It should come up with its own distinctive design language.
1487: As for the cobalt, I wouldn't say GM had 10 years to work on a new car because we know they didn't start working on the cobalt when the cavalier was revised for 1995.
Any car company worth its salt is working on the next generation of a model even as the latest version is still fresh. Plus, as I noted, GM originally planned to introduce the next-generation Cavalier around 2000, so it would have had to have been working on the replacement in 1995, given industry lead times. So, yes, GM has had a decade to come up with a replacement for the Cavalier.
1487: Secondly, it's hard to leap frog the competition in any car class, much less the under $20K class. When is the last time a ground breaking car was launched in this segment? Since the Focus debuted I dont think any car has really shook up this market.
Focus, Corolla and Mazda3 have all had a major impact in one way or another on this segment since 2000. No doubt it is hard to leap-frog the competition, but GM has to do this if it wants to really stop the erosion of its market share.
1487: Are you saying that the civic and corolla aren't middle of the road?
The Civic and Corolla are old designs. The Civic will be replaced this fall. Neither is the epitome of excitement, but they still perform well in comparison tests, especially in view of their age. Plus, I'm not comparing them to the Cobalt SS. I'm using the garden-variety Cobalts as the measuring stick.
1487: The cobalt is now catching up to the civic and corolla in monthly sales and it's far ahead of the 3, does that count for anything?
We have to take into account the age of the competition, and GM's much heavier use of incentives than Toyota and Honda. The results look less impressive when those factors are considered.
1487: Do you think all those sales are to Enterprise?
A much higher percentage of Cobalts go to fleets than Civics do. Only 1-2 percent of total Honda sales are to fleet customers. Cobalt was at about 20 percent, last figures I saw. The lastest round of promotions may have lowered the percentage of fleet sales for the Cobalt.
It's not that GM's newest models are vehicles. They are perfectly acceptable. The problem is that after all the hype (and, in some cases, long wait for their arrival), they are unlikely to reverse GM's declining market share, and they certainly aren't upsetting the apple cart in their respective segments.
Quite frankly, given GM's resources, and the time it has had to study the competition, its new models should be better.
Don't accuse editor_karl or the testers at Edmunds.com (or any other publication) of anti-GM bias for breaking this bad news.
Wife tried to talk her out of it before she bought it. She was swayed by the price, 0% financing, and "V6". Well now after several trips to the dealer for various issues she is ready to get rid of it. Now she's shocked by how much of a hit in depreciation the car has taken.
How can you say you don't care for the looks of the Accord but recommend the monotone blandness which is the interior of the Malibu. And it's not like the exterior styling set the world afire either.
How can you take a platform that underpins the 9/3 Aero annd make it look like the Malibu? Chevy stylists had to go out of thier way to screw that one up.
I do not think either one sets the world on fire in the looks department, I just prefer that of the Bu. My father has had one for almost 2 years with out any problems. I drove it last summer out east and back and averaged around 35 mpg over 1400 miles or so.
I do think the 9-3 Aero looks fantastic. I really like the 9-3 and almost had one a year or so ago. Unfortunately I was unable to sell the car I had and had to let the 9-3 go.
And putting the world to sleep are two different extremes. Like I said, the interior of the Malibu takes bland to the extreme while the Accord has taken interior design to another level in the class. And since most time is spent sitting IN the car, that should be a very important consideration.
As far as engines. I agree the Malibu has a very efficient engine. But if they can get 35 mpg out of that engine, why can't they do it with 1 less litre like the Accord. Ours does a 3000 rpm 80 mph with mid 30's mpg can run up to 127 mph and sounds great doing it. The higher you rev the V6 in the Malibu, the more strangled it starts to sound. All that "low-end torque" usually translates to "high-end strangulation" in most 2 valve cars. I'd like to see a dyno for that V6 after 4000 rpm.
I'm sure the malibu is a great rental, but there have been very few rentals that I have thought about keeping. Not even the Mustang GT's that Budget rental car used to have. Often there's a reason that rental agancies get so many of a particular model.
After seeing what Hyundai has done with the Sonata, it becomes even more disappointing that GM can't get it's act together.
i don't see why folks bash the JD Power survey. they are up-front that their data is about *initial quality*. so what' s the issue? if you don't care about initial quality, you can ignore their data. as someone who has bought >15 new cars since 1984, i DO care about initial quality - i do not have time in my life to deal with a car that has poor initial quality!
For the record, the guy who said he preferred the STS wasn't the guy who drove various cars all over the world. That gentlemen was a former race car driver who drives cars at manufacturer launch events to showcase the capabilities of high performance cars.BTW, if he was being paid by Cadillac why would he tell me his personal car was an M3? He explained that high end sports car manufacturers want their cars to be fully showcased and many auto journalists aren't skilled enough to push these cars to their limits so they hire professional drivers to take auto journalists on high speed runs at tracks or on roads where the cars can be pushed hard. I can assue you that none of the drivers at the event were working for Cadillac. I only heard one pro-cadillac comment the entire time I was there I heard no negative comments about the 5 series from any of the staff on hand. Believe or not there may be some people out there that prefer a crappy GM product over a 530. I know it's hard to believe anyone would vouch for a Cadillac unless they are being paid, but it could happen. Did you know Cadillac is probably going to end up 2nd to Lexus is luxury car sales this year? Let me guess, that's only due to Enterprise. We all know how many CTS and Escalades we see at Enterprise. Oh no wait, it's all due to one month of employee pricing. Got it.
I dont know if intial quality is really something worth mentioning, but I do think three year quality is worth mentioning. The idea that cars could magically be designed to fall apart right after the warranty ends is stupid. The bottom line is Lexus and Toyota quote JD power awards in their literature all the time so it must count for something. Apparently it only doesnt count when the cars winning the awards arent Japanese.
if it takes a professional driver to point out the difference between one vehicle and another, what does that say? when i have rented toyotas, i have found them very uncomfortable, so why woud i buy one?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
You make some interesting points, but you're still wrong.
I really dont care what GM told you or anyone else in the past. I'm sure they have made promises and I'm sure they havent lived up to those promises. First of all GM couldnt do anything before getting their quality in order. Any vehicles they delivered during past "revolutions" were doomed from the get go without Toyota type quality. This is 2005, not 1985 and now GM actually has respectable quality. Now that their cars will match up with imports in that reqard they can attempt to correct their other issues like styling and technology.
Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that according to the press GM has no class leading vehicles and therefore they will never gain any share. I would like to know how many class leading vehicles industry leaders such as toyota, Chrysler and Ford have? As far as I can tell Toyota has maybe three (prius, Avalon, Tacoma), Ford has two (mustang, F150) and Chrysler has three, but all are essentially the same car. My point is, none of the largest auto manufacturers have a monopoly on class leading vehicles. I would venture to say none of them have more than three in their entire lineup. It is very difficult to come out with a vehicle today that blows away the competition. Your best bet is to come out with a vehicle that has attractive styling, one or two innovative features and an aggressive price. I think the Saturn Aura is going to be a great car for GM, but I'm not going to sit here and say it's going to crush the competition. How can that be possible with the Accord, Altima and a new camry on the way? By the same token I dont see many imports coming out that are heads and shoulders above the competiton. GM needs to keep their quality high and try to differentiate themselves from the Asians with styling. It has been proven over and over again that the Asian car companies dont have a handle on good design and that's where GM can try to gain share.
your arguments about GM model gaining sales over their dated predecessors or the Cobalt selling because it's competition is old is ridiculous. Those arguments could be made against ANY successful car on the market. If the new civic is successful people can make the argument that it's success is due to the fact that the Focus and Corolla are dated. That is a lame argument. You say we shouldnt acknowledge the sales of the G6 and Lacrosse because they are only outselling last years dated models. You and i both know that monthly sales are always compared to last years sales in the same month. The whole point of the G6 and Lacrosse is to sell cars with a lower percentage of fleet sales and with less incentives. Before the employee program these two cars had $500 incentives (about the same as a Toyota would have) while the Grand Am and Regal were selling with huge incentives last year. Any way you cut it the two cars have been moderately successful. I can tell that you have read numerous articles about these cars failure but you have no idea what the facts really are in this case. The press jumped all over these two cars while ignoring the sales of the Ford 500 and now everyone is ready to hang Bob Lutz.
You keep referencing GMs vast resources as proof that they should be making the best cars on the market. I assume you know the difference between revenue and profit. GM has tons of revenue but little profit. Some of that is their own doing but GM faces issues than The BIg Japanese Three don't face and that allows them to devote far more of their revenue to R&D. Toyota spends more on R&D than GM even though GM brings in more money. One of GM's main problems is that expenses beyond it's control reduce what it can put into R&D for new products. You know the history of american manufacturing firms so you ought to know GM isnt the first big iconic manufacturing firm to face serious trouble in this country. If GM were an isolated case and every other major manufacturing company were thriving in this country than maybe your simplistic arguments would hold water, but the deck is stacked against them (and Ford and Chrysler) so it's going to be tough to survive.
"I think GM is big enough, and has enough talent on the payroll, that it should not have to emulate any other car maker. It should come up with its own distinctive design language. "
You mean like Honda and Toyota? When I think of distinctive design language I think of Ferrari or Aston Martin. You arent going to find a lot of great design language in the mainstream automotive market. Have you seen any Nissans? I really dont think GM's designs are worse than anyone elses. I like the direction that Cadillac and Saturn are going. I think Chevy should remain conservative and Toyota likes. The G6 is a good start for pontiac and the Soltice looks promising. I dont see anything like the Solstice coming out of Toyota or Nissan.
"LaCrosse, STS, Grand Prix GTO and G6, for starters. As I said, it wasn't made clear that he didn't have a clean sheet to design these cars until after they posted lackluster results in the market. Incidentally, from what I've read on other websites devoted to GM, Mr. Lutz's changes to the STS, which were fairly extensive, actually made the car blander and hurt its appeal."
I dont know where you get your info, but it was made very clear. The Lacrosse was 100% done when he got there and he forced them to delay the car a year to makes some changes, but he did not and could not redesign the entire car. If you knew anything about the GTO, but pontiac made minimal changes to that car before bringing it to the US. I dont know what the non-Lutz STS looked like so I cant confirm whether or not he made it worse. Considering the car has met or exceeded sales expectations I would say he did a good job.
"Plus, I'm not comparing them to the Cobalt SS. I'm using the garden-variety Cobalts as the measuring stick. "
In my opinion the garden variety Cobalt can hold it's own with the civic and corolla. Before you start talking incentives keep in mind that Corollas are available for substantial discounts, about $3K in my area.
"Every road test of the vehicle I've read calls it a lackluster effort."
Have you driven the car? Do you have any opinions that differ from that of the "experts"? Are you saying that any car not praised by the press is devoid of merit? I know what the experts said, but I dont see how this car is so underwhelming when compared to Accord/Camry/Altima. It looks better than any of them, offers a large backseat, remote start and adjustable pedals and decent handling. BTW, the Ford explorer, Impala and Malibu are all vehicles that have never been praised by the press and manage to stay near the top of the sales charts. The Big 2.5 have about 60% of the market but the majority of their vehicles are panned by the press. If everyone made car buying decisons based on Edmunds or C&D we'd all be driving Accords and BMW 3 series.
Who's models are upsetting the applecart these days? Toyota? Honda?
Considering how much time VW, Mitsu, Mazda, Jaguar, Ford and Chrysler have to study the competition should their models be better? The way I see it Toyota, Hyundai and Nissan are doing great and everyone else is doing OK or poorly. Gm isnt the only company losing share and the fact that they are the biggest means they have the most to lose. VW and Ford are two of the largest automakers in the world and both are struggling right now but no one writes about it or talks about it. VWs products are universally praised and recommended by the press and yet their sales have been declining for the last two years or so but their struggles arent a topic of discussion. I was told that because they arent an american company. That may be true but the industry is global now and they are a major global player just like GM.
I'm not sure what constitutes average or above average but as long as I read reviews praising average foreign products while deriding similaly average domestic products I will call people or publications biased. If you play the role of Yes Man to automotive reviewers who constantly praise your favorite car companies I cant expect you to be objective. If you can come up with a logical explanation as to why a car like the camry (roomy, reliable, safe, affordable) could be called a class leader and a car like the impala (roomy, reliable, safe, affordable) could be called a typical GM piece of mediocrity than I would like here that explanation. Niether car looks that good and neither is going to set an enthusiast's heart racing yet one is considered a cheap rental car and the other is the "benchmark" of family sedans. If Karl were to respond to that I would assume resale value and that ever ellusive "refinement" issue would be mentioned. Quite frankly, there isnt an objective way to explain why the Camry is a great car and the Impala is a crappy car. When all else fails just start talking about subjective points based on personal opinions and try to pass them off as facts,
The issue is that so-called "initial quality" really is a summation of car buyers' likes and dislikes with their purchases, and is not in any way a true measure of reliability. A car would have to be a real pile of junk to have significant problems in the first 90 days.
And believe me, I don't pay any attention to good old JD's "initial quality." It's just good for a belly laugh whenever a carmaker ballyhoos it.
Two points: I never claimed that carmakers design cars to "magically...fall apart right after the warranty ends." And, I never said that I think the award has more credibility when it applies to Japanese brands.
My point is that three years still isn't long enough to really differentiate a car's long-term reliability, and cited my personal experience with a Mercury Sable as a prime example.
I tend to keep my cars a long time, well after both the payments and the warranties end.
Haven't you seen the stories about Ford's market share in the US being lower than at any point since the Model T production lines were shut down to make way for the Model A? We're talking 1927! Also the Freestyle, which just came out, is already slated to be killed because of poor sales?
And the horror stories about VW's awful reliability, which in combination with their aging models, have cause their sales to plunge? And the new Jetta getting obese and more costly, yet still about the size of a Corolla? (And looking like one also?)
I don't think three year surveys are that bad. If you have any problems within that time period, it's safe to expect more in the future. Electrical gremlins, trim pieces falling off, and transmission problems only get worse with time.
If you don't have problems, then well... you can't assume that you won't have any after six years. I think 5-6 years would be ideal for a reliability survey. Three years is more of a "weeder" survey.
After that, reliability can be more a function of maintenance and ownership than how the car was designed and built. I've heard people say that Yugos were actually well designed, and they only failed so often because people treated them like disposable cars. I know my dad used to treat cars that way... and so they died on us. So I wouldn't trust 10 year surveys unless they only accepted surveys from people with thorough maintenance records. (How well a car holds up without maintenance is a sign of quality too, but it's impossible to verify that for a survey.)
...is that they aren't truly independent because they get paid by the automakers.
About the Yugo, I tried out one when they first came out, and it was virtually impossible to find the manual shift gates -- and this was just in a parking lot. I couldn't imagine driving one on the road.
BTW, I learned how to drive on a manual transmission, and I've always had such a car in my possession, so it wasn't lack of skill/knowledge.
“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).”
Well, for several reasons, I am disappointed.
If you fly to (or pass through) Atlanta, please let me know, as I will gladly offer my GXP for as long as you need to form some sort of impression.
And I am absolutely serious, here.
I see the GXP (though clearly a ‘niche’ vehicle) as significant to Pontiac and to GM, for several reasons.
First and foremost, I think that the fact Pontiac was able to bring to market a car that I find highly enjoyable and fun to drive (yet also comfortable, practical, with many of the amenities expected today) within the confines of the existing FWD platform is a real and important accomplishment. Coming from 3 previous cars with MSRPs between $36K and $42K, I am impressed with what GM hath wrought for an actual transaction price below $27K.
It now looks like this platform must last Pontiac (and GM) for quite some time. This GXP, and the Impala SS, thus may represent what GM can do within their financial restrictions.
Yes, there is Torque Steer, under some circumstances. Yes, I would prefer to have everything else in this size package with RWD. Not gonna happen anytime soon, from GM.
More later, - Ray Over 55, and certainly old enough to know better . .
It now looks like this platform must last Pontiac (and GM) for quite some time
Actually, I believe the W-bodies (Impala/MC, Grand Prix, LaCrosse) will be dead in a few years. I know there is a new large FWD platform which Chevy will get. Buick will probably get an Epsilon2 platform, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the next-gen Holden Commodore make its way to the States as a Grand Prix replacement...
“GTO? (actually offers more rear seat leg/head room than the GP; of course, it's a 2-dr rather than 4.)” - rorr
Besides 4 doors, some other (potential) advantages that I can think of immediately to the GXP, over a GTO (for me) include:
TAP Shift (manumatic mode for the automatic) Factory moonroof available. Factory NAV system available. HUD. Dual Zone HVAC available. Heated front seats available. Fold down rear seats. EPA ratings: 18 / 27 (GTO w/4-speed automatic = 16 / 21)
Now I can certainly understand if some (or all) of these attributes are of no interest to others. .
- Ray Willing to look seriously at a 4-Dr GTO, if ever one is sold in the USA – with all these attributes . .
"Actually, I believe the W-bodies (Impala/MC, Grand Prix, LaCrosse) will be dead in a few years."
That may be true. Today, in this industry, I see 'a few years' as a very long time. (Possibly time enough, if appropriate changes are not made, for GM to enter bankruptcy.) The rate of change (in competing makes / models) is ever accelerating. - Ray Hoping GM will spend (a lot of) $$s over that time to improve their products . .
I agree with you on GM putting $$$ into their products. And, increasing the rate of change - going 5-7 years with a relatively unchanged product is not a good plan any longer.
I didn't want to put dates in my first post. The Impala and then the LaCrosse are the newest W-bodies, with the Grand Prix being the oldest, coming out in MY2004. Fast-forward 5 years and you have a MY2008 or, more likely, MY2009 replacement (Holden's new Commodore gets announced next month and ships starting in April/May of next year). If GM can't come to an agreement with the UAW they'll just build them in Australia and ship 'em over (I believe that Holden is converting some of the former Daewoo facilities for RWD Zeta production, and will move some of their Asian/Middle East export business there, freeing up factory capacity for more NA production).
I am the owner of a new M45 Sport, and did quite a bit of comparison shopping before buying. While I can not in any way compare all features of the 35 AWD to these other vehicles, I think I can make a fair comparison of those features I DID test, and compare the 35's that I test drove to the other models here.
First, I would have to agree that the review has several areas of disconnect. I could not figure how the text in various spots would say one thing, yet the numbers/rankings/evaluations say something completely different.
As a previous BMW owner, and having test driven the new models, I was shocked to see the low score for the Infiniti interior relative to the other models. The fit and finish are, in fact, not perfect, but significantly better than the BMW in many aspects. My control layout is the same as the Infiniti model tested, and is for the most part quite usable. iDrive???? How could you miss this? Warmth and comfort? Not even close. So I started feeling the integrity of this review was suspect. Is there an agenda here?
I agree that the BMW has the best combination of ride and handling of any car I have driven. The Infiniti is VERY close behind in my experience, with superb handling in all models I tested, but a slightly harsher ride over rough roads. Interestingly, the handling remained excellent over ruts and bumps. Just more got transmitted through to the passenger compartment.
Fun to drive? I am puzzled by these results. Yes, I know it is subjective, but the Acura has nowhere near the steering feel or responsiveness of the BMW or the Infiniti. Not close, in my opinion. In fact, the Acura finishing ahead of both of these in the slalom by that large margin is surprising to the point of being difficult to believe, IMO. Perhaps someone had a bad day or two driving...I dont know. But that Acura is a soft ride with steering that feels quite disconnected from the road, and I dont feel it is the same league as the beemmer or Infiniti.
Subjectively, the Infiniti is a blast to drive. I put my money where my mouth is.
A note about study design: There is no good explanation here of exterior design. Are we talking 'looks'? The Audi has a full two-point margin over the next nearest competitor, certainly enough to skew the results of the overall test in its favor. How important could this possibly be??? Isnt that subjective? Why dont you leave this out completely, let people measure the other merits of these competitors, then choose based on those merits combined with the look that they like? This huge margin (the largest in the test) could artifactually make the Audi jump over everybody when that factor is one that does not contibute significantly to the driveability, comfort, safety or function of the car. Please-decrease the significance of this entirely subjective factor!
I was also surprised to see the suspension of the Infiniti two full points below the BMW, and below that of the Audi and Acura. I will grant that the additional weight of the AWD components may change the overall behavior of the car tested here in a small way from those I tested, but I could not justify that big a margin based on my experiences with these vehicles.
Ponderous??? This is belied by the fact that the car handles superbly, certainly quite close to the magical BMW, not only on your test, but in several other reviews. In my experience, as well, as a BMW owner. Who cares how much the car weighs (within reason)? You can say it weighs more, if you'd like. But dont say ponderous . That implies something entirely different. The car handles. Flat out. Dont argue this point. The car has beaten BMW in other peoples' tests. Yeah, at the cost of the ride being a bit harsh. I know. Many won't drive a BMW because it has a 'harsh' ride. But the M car HANDLES. Done. NOT ponderous. Please just retract the word. It is statements like this, and your defense of its usage, that make readers think you have an agenda. Just say you meant heavy, and that the car can rival or beat the BMW in the twisties. Thank you.
My evaluations of these cars led me to decide on the Infiniti for a number of reasons.
First, I wanted something with performance close to the BMW, but without the attitude and horrendous dealer and corporate interactions. I loved my car, but hated the maintenance and agita from every corner of BMW, all the way up to the top corporate levels of BMW NA. It would be very, very hard for me to put my money into one of their products again. After all, they use the word 'experience' in their motto, and driving is indeed an ongoing 'experience'. And their horrible attitude creeps gradually into the daily experience of driving, stealing away that extra pleasure one expects when one spends over $50 K on a luxury. To be fair, they make a great car, and I tested a 545 before I made my buying decision. I am very glad I did.
Second, the Infiniti M series was VERY close to the BMW in engine performance, tranny performance, handling and driving near the limit. Loved it. None of these other marques came that close. Specifically, the Acura left me feeling cold-more luxury, less sport. Nice features, but a touch cheap feeling on the inside. I did love the matte finish rosewood on the Infiniti, having made guitars a long time ago. Much warmer feeling than the BMW, slightly better than the Acura, different feeling and not as luxurious as the Lexus or Audi. But the Lexus is not quite as luxurious as previous models. I am not sure why...
Third, it is very hard to justify the price difference. My car, priced to match, came out $14K less than the BMW! Easy choice. Also less than the others listed here, although the Acura was not off by very much.
Fourth, the Infiniti reputation for service and reliability. And my particular dealer, Infiniti of Marin, has a stellar reputation among Infiniti dealers, getting some special award of excellence only given to eight dealers each year. After a long and terrible BMW experience, this factor carried some more weight for me than it might for others (especially those with enough self-esteem to not care when they are pissed on after dropping 50 large for a luxury vehicle). I care about a nice relationship, especially when I see the dealer fifteen times in two years. Funny thing is, I still love the car itself, just not the driving experience. It is too wrapped up in the BMW mystique, which smells kind of funny to me right now.
Fifth, just the gut feeling. The Infiniti was fun, fun fun, and had enough gizmos that served a real purpose, including the nicest Nav of the bunch, a nice compromise of that master button (like iDrive) with several of the functions also available via independent controls, adaptive headlights, a few others. The steering feel was a close second to the BMW (in fact, my 2003 5 series was better than this new active
steering), and the car always seemed energetic and composed. In the end, I kept coming back to choosing between BMW and Infiniti for the driving experience, and the small differences in maximum driving between the two were easily outweighed by the overall experience of owning and using the Infiniti.
I would agree that the Infiniti is a little rough in a few edges, certainly small enough quibbles that they dont affect the overall to any significant extent. The BMW is behind the times IMO in what the customer wants. No one anywhere has liked the iDrive, yet it persists, albeit in a slightly toned-down version, as though BMW is trying to back down without losing too much pride. I hated it, and I am a geeky guy. Acura had a nice set of controls, but the master knob/control was still too intrusive for my tastes. But very nice electronic features on the Acura!
Regarding your response to the previous poster: Couldnt you be a bit less defensive? Yes, he was emotional and upset. You dont have to like his comments, but you also don't have to be so condescending. I agree with some of his points, and you don't really answer them, but dismiss the poster rather than face the questions. The sarcasm only diminishes the impact of what you are trying to say, especially the last comments.
One last thing-this review is significantly at odds with the other automotive press responses to these cars. Certainly I am happy that all are entitled to their opinions, but it is surprising that such different results would spring out of different sources.
I think you mean "biased." However, you might be better served with the word "opinioned" or "critical." These do not mean the same thing as biased--but they may describe Edmund's stand on the HHR.
Many publications fill their reviews with copy from the manufacturer--and give a positive report. Edmunds is one of the few that is willing to say they don't like something. I think it lends credability.
If you don't like the opinions here, simply read Carconnection and Canadian Driver...
Has a comparison with the HHR and the PT. They chose the HHR as the winner.
On a different, but interesting note.
In the Sept. Road and Track their is a comparison between the RSX Type S and the Cobalt SS Supercharged. The Cobalt barely sneaked by as the winner.
Now, in the new issue of Car and Driver, there is a cheap speed comparison. Both the RSX and the Cobalt are in this one as well. C & D ranked the RSX 1rst and the Cobalt 4th.
Very different results.
Road and Track liked the Cobalt, Honda and Driver did not. Oops, I mean Car and Driver.
Car & Driver prefers well-balanced cars that provide the best of both worlds. The Cobalt SS is cheap speed but little more. The RSX-S is a car you can live day-to-day with and still hit the autocross on the weekends. The RSX is way more refined and has a much more understated look to it.
It seems that Edmunds has many different writers that review vehicles. How many are there? How many on your staff?
The new HHR review was by Erin Riches. So, is this review just the opinion and thoughts of Erin? Or is it a general opinion of a group of reviewers that all had their input thrown into the story?
In a comparison I am guessing that many people contribute and all general thoughts are conveyed into one article by one writer. Is this correct?
Here is an idea. For an upcoming review, have multiple reviewers post articles. Instead of reading just one persons point of view, we could read many on the same vehicle.
It would be interesting to compare different styles of reporting and opinions. Maybe the new Civic would be a good one to consider for such a project?
So, Road and Track only cares about cheap speed? I am pretty sure both are priced very close to each other.
Personally, I could not live with a RSX everyday. The cabin is too tight and cramped for me. I simply do not fit and the back seat is way to cramped for my growing children.
I just find it interesting that two well known publications can have such contrasting views.
contrasting views so why is it so hard to accept that magazines have contrasting views and priorities. The Cobalt is quick but it's no RSX and if the price is as close as you say then I would definitely rather have the Acura.
I think that is more due to the pricing and demographics..... Sport coupes in the mid-$20s are a tough market... they appeal to younger buyers, who generally don't have the money to pay for them...
I think that is why the Celica and the Prelude went away...
That doesn't mean the RSX isn't a better car than the others... just maybe not as good a value...
Many publications fill their reviews with copy from the manufacturer--and give a positive report. Edmunds is one of the few that is willing to say they don't like something. I think it lends credability.
I have high regards for edmunds.com until their review on the Pontiac Grand Prix GXP. This GXP review was flawed. Scroll back to earlier posts to see how other readers pointed out the mistakes in the review.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a GXP owner myself.
Comments
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
As for my statement about reliability, all you have to do it look at the JD Power intitial and three year quality rankings. They rank the cars by brand, not by company so "GM" isnt ranked as a whole. However Buick, Cadillac and even Chevy are ranked high on those lists. The Malibu recently rated highest in the midsize segment after three years. I'm sure you wont find any reference to that fact on Edmunds but it's true. GM brands consistently ranks higher than Ford or Chrysler and all the European car companies. Edmunds praises the interiors of European products as if plastic quality has anything to do with reliability. We all know the Germans can design a nice interior, but what good is a great interior if a $50K Audi isn't going to be as reliable as Malibu or Impala? The long term reliability of German cars is not a consideration and it should be if you are in the business of recommending cars. You asked me why should you recommend low quality GM cars to the public and I'm asking you to explain what you mean by low quality. Build quality on todays cars is relatively consistent. GM uses plastics that are superior to most NIssan/Infiniti as well as Chrysler products as far as I can tell. Long term reliability suveys show several GM brands are right there with Toyota and Honda and superior to Nissan. Low quality?
I guess there really isn't any information that you have that could refute my statements about GM's epsilon or delta platforms. I'm pretty sure you've driven the 9-3 (I have on two occassions) and it's hard to argue that the 9-3 isnt a great handling FWD car. C&D just did a test featuring the Ion Redline and Cobalt SS in which the cars finsihed 4th and 5th. They didn't stand a chance in coming in better than 3rd because the RSX and WRX were in the comparison. Not really sure why the WRX was even included, but that's a different story. Bottom line is the performance on both cars exceeded the winning RSX and the 2nd place WRX. They trashed the Saturn because it was a Saturn and they dont see Saturn as a perveyor of sports cars. They blasted the Cobalt SS for having a dark interior and a big spoiler. There were complaints about the shifter and the steering but basically the cars were not knocked for anything performance oriented. If you look at the interiors of all the cars in that article I think it's hard to argue the Cobalt SS doesnt have the richest looking interior. It's definitely better looking than the dated Civic-like RSX interior.
"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. "
What vehicles are you comparing the HHR to exactly? You dont feel the HHR's interior is as good or better than a Honda Element or PT cruiser? Also, the base price of the HHR is $16K so $22K must get you a fully loaded model. I wouldnt buy an HHR but I have to say it's price is competitive, the interior is nice and it has a lot of features that you wouldnt expect like remote start and 8 way pwr driver's seat.
"'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?"
I'm sorry but that isnt correct. Again, you cant twist the facts around to support your views just because you don't like GM. There isnt one car on the road today that was completely designed after Lutz's arrival. I would like to know one example of a car that he took credit for and then retracted that credit once the car tanked. Lutz had influence over the G6 (which I find to be attractive), Lacrosse, GTO, Cobalt and STS but none of them represent a clean sheet design. The Lucerne, Soltice and Sky are products designed under his watch. The Lucerne is a little conservative but it's definitely classy looking. When people criticize GM's design efforts I wonder who they feel GM should emulate. Toyota? Honda? Chrysler has three hot vehicles so I guess GM should copy them. I don't think anyone is silly enough to say GM should take after Ford's design leadership.
I also don't see why you feel the cobalt can't hold a candle to the Mazda3. The base cobalt isnt as sporty as the 3 and teh Cobalt SS SC seriously outperforms the 3. The '06 SS which is coming out now is the best match for the 3. The 3 definitely offers more style, but when it comes to interior and feature content the Cobalt can hold it's own. The 3 interior which Mr. Brauer claimed "blew away" the competiton is just as dark and monchromatic as any chevy Malibu or G6 which are often criticized for lack of color. As a guy who has spent a lot time in the 3 I can say the interior is well built but nothing that could be called clearly superior to cars like the Cobalt or Corolla. I think the 3's interior is supposed to be sporty and BMW like and that appeals to some people, but not all.
As for the cobalt, I wouldn't say GM had 10 years to work on a new car because we know they didn't start working on the cobalt when the cavalier was revised for 1995. Secondly, it's hard to leap frog the competition in any car class, much less the under $20K class. When is the last time a ground breaking car was launched in this segment? Since the Focus debuted I dont think any car has really shook up this market. Even the 3 is just a modernized, more powerful version of the lively Protege. You are calling the Cobalt middle of the road as if it is no better than average. Are you saying that the civic and corolla aren't middle of the road? Also, what about sales? The cobalt is now catching up to the civic and corolla in monthly sales and it's far ahead of the 3, does that count for anything? Do you think all those sales are to Enterprise? Could it be that Chevy was smart to go with a conservative desing because that's what works for the Civic/Corolla? The 3 may be the darling of the press but it's not in the same sales league as it's Japanese counterparts.
I guess the folks at Ward's, who keep including the Nissan VQ in their 10-best engines list must be ignorant about NVH when they make their decisions. Simpletons.
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.
Wait a minute -- aren't those NUMBERS you mentioned there? Aren't they actually unimportant? Or am I just demanding a foolish consistency from your logic? I thought that "ponderous" had a somewhat pejorative (as opposed to purely factual) connotation to it, but then I'm not a professional writer or editor. If you mean the car is heavier, you could always use the word heavy. If the car is heavy but actually handles surprisingly well given it's mass, then one might choose a different phrase like "surprisingly agile".
Probably because it's geared to get off the line quickly but runs out of steam on the top end.
Or it could be a typo. Considering the other typos in the tables of data, perhaps you can excuse my doubts.
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.
I'm confused: the M has all of those features, AND it has the LDW, seat coolers, reverse camera, etc.
Now, my question to you:
Do you work for Nissan, or just own several of their products?
I only own one -- the M35x, but I've been through a number of LPS's over the years.
All sarcasm aside, I am glad to see this "feedback" forum and the fact that you respond to the comments and stand by your articles.
I really tried think like an Edmunds staffer and be extra critical of the Cadillacs when it came to refinement and material quality. Overall I have to say I don't get what the hype is about when it comes to American cars lacking "refinement'. Karl says that you cant worry about noise levels because it's more than that. I guess that makes sense to some degree but the problem is I didnt notice any unrefined noises from any of the cars I drove. All were quiet at idle and the 3.6 V6 made great noises under acceleration and the exhaust note on the STS was far better than the non existent exhaust note on the 530. The ES330 was far louder under acceleration than I thought it would be because they have tried to give the engine a sporty growl. I examined the leather, the plastics, the closing action of the doors and other things. The doors on the Caddies closed just as solidly as the Lexus and BMW. The interior of the STS (black leather) was far more luxurious and inviting than the BMW and that seemed to be a universal sentiment. People generally came away impressed that the STS felt no worse than the 530 while looking better inside and out. I didn't see any aspects of the STS that were inferior to the 530 other than cheap plastic coat hooks in the rear and the fact that the 530 felt lighter. The gauges were better, wood was brighter and more luxurious, the engine sounded better, the steering was easier and lighter and of course no iDrive was needed to operate functions.
The CTS' interior is a different story but the build quality and material quality were excellent. The ES obviously had a far better looking interior but there was no noticble different in how the cars were screwed together. Naturally the ES pitched and rolled a lot during cornering and it's sterering was sloppy but overall it wasn't much worse than the non-sport package CTS.
BTW, one of the professional drivers told me that he prefers the STS to the 530 even though he isnt supposed to share his opinions. Another pro told me that today there is minimal difference between any luxury sport cars on the market. He said the difference between Cadillac and it's competitors was apparent 10 years back but now the gap has closed. This was from a guy who drives an M3 as his personal car and travels the world driving Ferraris and other cars for manufacturer launch events. He's driven the F430 and Scaglietti.
Ok, then let me clarify. When one car is tenths of a second faster to 60 mph or through the slalom, the numbers mean little. And when a car's cabin is one or two decibels louder or quieter than a competitor, it also doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. Especially if the engine in the one of the cars vibrates a lot more than the other and or the tone of the sound is highly annoying. Neither of those features is picked up by a sound meter. You have to (GASP!!), have faith in the reviewers' ability to evaluate such items.
But when one car is up to 400 pounds heavier than it's competition, it starts to make a difference.
I guess the folks at Ward's, who keep including the Nissan VQ in their 10-best engines list must be ignorant about NVH when they make their decisions. Simpletons.
Not really. The VQ is a great engine. I think that's why we said so in the comparison test. But if you're talking NVH, exhaust note, and even OVERALL performance (not just straightline acceleration), the BMW engine is better. Hard to quantify on a Web page, you'll just have to (gulp) take my word for it.
BTW, if you want to talk simpletons, let's talk about the J.D. Power folks who measure a car's "reliability" after three months (that's 90 days, just to be clear) and then release studies claiming "best in initial quality" that other people hold up a "proof" of how great a given car is. A real stress test, those first 90 days.
Or it could be a typo. Considering the other typos in the tables of data, perhaps you can excuse my doubts.
Nope, we got that one right.
I'm confused: the M has all of those features, AND it has the LDW, seat coolers, reverse camera, etc.
Actually, it doesn't have a specific sport suspension (at least not like the Audi, Lexus and BMW have), and the rest of those features are optional. They're all standard on the RL (except the sport suspension), which is why the RL ranked better in Feature Content. Since LDW, seat cooler and reverse camera weren't considered primary features for this segment, they didn't help the M35's score at all.
Oh, and I'll go ahead and take care of the response to this right now:
But Karl, if the M35x handles so well without a sport suspension it shouldn't count against it for not having one available!!!!!!
The M35x does handle well without the sport suspension, but the Acura (which also doesn't have one) was faster in the slalom, as was the BMW. And, throwing out the numbers for a second (I know, that's not possible for some of you), the BMW just handles better. Sorry I can't quantify it on a chart or use a formula that we post on a Web page, but it does. Sort of like the Tribeca's lack of refinement can't be recorded with a sound meter...but that' doesn't mean it's not there -- if you can believe that...
And gets paid by said manufacturers to work these events...
I always love the old "I'm not supposed to say this, but I like brand XYZ the best." when it comes from a guy who was paid by brand XYZ to work the event.
And people think our spy photos/video is thinly veiled manufacturer hype...
Is that in reference to me? I was just curious if manufacturers every intentionally leak photos.
I was basically making the point that spy videos and photos don't seem nearly as suspicious as, for example, a paid employee for a company (even a one-day contractor) saying he actually likes said company's product best.
Bravo!
As someone who kept a 1980 Volvo for 21 years ('82-'03), that 90-day nonsense always gives me a good laugh! Even 3 years (dependability study) are too short. My 1990 Mercury Sable held up quite well for 3 years, but man, once the payment book was closed at 4 years and 60+K miles, then the REAL troubles started!
Over the past 20+ years, GM has repeatedly said that the latest batch of new products will reverse its slumping market share. It said this in the late 1980s, when the original W-Bodies debuted (and were touted as GM's response to the original Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable).
GM said this again when the Corsica/Beretta debuted during the same time frame (which is when Chevy lost the long-held number-one spot to Ford).
Then it said this again in the mid-1990s - after GM's brush with bankruptcy in 1992 - when the current minivan platform, revamped W-Bodies and revamped J-Bodies debuted.
Meanwhile, the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora were supposed to make GM a contender in the near-luxury market. Both cars are gone now - due to poor sales. For that matter, the entire Oldsmobile division is gone after a total revamp of its lineup failed to ignite interest in the brand.
The Saturn L-Series and Ion were supposed to turn around Saturn's fortunes. The L-Series flopped, and the Ion has received some of the most brutal reviews of any new product within the last decade. It survives primarily because of incentives.
These are the instances where GM touted new product as the key to either its revival, or the revival of a particular division, and the products failed to deliver.
1487: When people like you whine about GM making the same old promises and not delivering I wonder if you are even paying attention to what's going on now. Have you heard of the XLR, CTS and CTS-V, GTO, Vette, Cobalt, 9-3, STS/STS-V or G6? Are you saying GM has been making cars of this caliber for years? I dont think they have.
No, but other manufacturers have (with the exception of the Corvette, which is in a class by itself) for years. Therefore, GM needs to do more than just match the competition to make headway in the market and regain lost share. So far not one of those products - aside from the Corvette - is class-leading in ANY published road test that I've read. And that is a big problem. If GM wants to really change people's perceptions, it is going to have to do more than merely come close to where the current class leaders are. It must lead, and these products are not leaders in their segments.
1487: You wonder how could anyone have thought the G6 or lacrosse were going to win back share, but both cars are outselling their predescessors if you discount fleet sales.
A new version outselling the old version of a car - especially when we are using production numbers for the final year of the old version - is hardly a great achievement.
1487: The G6 3.5V6 is now selling about as well as the Grand Am was in 2004 although the grand am had two engines and two body styles. By the end of this year I think it's possible Pontiac could be selling $17 or 18K G6's a month once the 4 cylinder and coupe are in full production. And yet you are calling it a lackluster effort.
Every road test of the vehicle I've read calls it a lackluster effort. Maybe the 3.9 V-6 engine will change that, but I then wonder why GM didn't have this engine ready for the car from day one.
1487: I dont get that. The Lacrosse's monthly sales are about 2K units behind the "hit" 300C and no one seems to notice.
The Chrysler 300 sells with minimal incentives. The LaCrosse only started moving when GM began heavily discounting it and then hyped the "employee discounts for everyone" program. When the LaCrosse sells at 300 levels with the same level of incentives, then I'll be impressed.
1487: What vehicles are you comparing the HHR to exactly?
Chrysler PT Cruiser.
1487: You dont feel the HHR's interior is as good or better than a Honda Element or PT cruiser?
No.
1487: I'm sorry but that isnt correct. Again, you cant twist the facts around to support your views just because you don't like GM. There isnt one car on the road today that was completely designed after Lutz's arrival. I would like to know one example of a car that he took credit for and then retracted that credit once the car tanked.?
LaCrosse, STS, Grand Prix GTO and G6, for starters. As I said, it wasn't made clear that he didn't have a clean sheet to design these cars until after they posted lackluster results in the market. Incidentally, from what I've read on other websites devoted to GM, Mr. Lutz's changes to the STS, which were fairly extensive, actually made the car blander and hurt its appeal.
1487: When people criticize GM's design efforts I wonder who they feel GM should emulate.
I think GM is big enough, and has enough talent on the payroll, that it should not have to emulate any other car maker. It should come up with its own distinctive design language.
1487: As for the cobalt, I wouldn't say GM had 10 years to work on a new car because we know they didn't start working on the cobalt when the cavalier was revised for 1995.
Any car company worth its salt is working on the next generation of a model even as the latest version is still fresh. Plus, as I noted, GM originally planned to introduce the next-generation Cavalier around 2000, so it would have had to have been working on the replacement in 1995, given industry lead times. So, yes, GM has had a decade to come up with a replacement for the Cavalier.
1487: Secondly, it's hard to leap frog the competition in any car class, much less the under $20K class. When is the last time a ground breaking car was launched in this segment? Since the Focus debuted I dont think any car has really shook up this market.
Focus, Corolla and Mazda3 have all had a major impact in one way or another on this segment since 2000. No doubt it is hard to leap-frog the competition, but GM has to do this if it wants to really stop the erosion of its market share.
1487: Are you saying that the civic and corolla aren't middle of the road?
The Civic and Corolla are old designs. The Civic will be replaced this fall. Neither is the epitome of excitement, but they still perform well in comparison tests, especially in view of their age. Plus, I'm not comparing them to the Cobalt SS. I'm using the garden-variety Cobalts as the measuring stick.
1487: The cobalt is now catching up to the civic and corolla in monthly sales and it's far ahead of the 3, does that count for anything?
We have to take into account the age of the competition, and GM's much heavier use of incentives than Toyota and Honda. The results look less impressive when those factors are considered.
A much higher percentage of Cobalts go to fleets than Civics do. Only 1-2 percent of total Honda sales are to fleet customers. Cobalt was at about 20 percent, last figures I saw. The lastest round of promotions may have lowered the percentage of fleet sales for the Cobalt.
It's not that GM's newest models are vehicles. They are perfectly acceptable. The problem is that after all the hype (and, in some cases, long wait for their arrival), they are unlikely to reverse GM's declining market share, and they certainly aren't upsetting the apple cart in their respective segments.
Quite frankly, given GM's resources, and the time it has had to study the competition, its new models should be better.
Don't accuse editor_karl or the testers at Edmunds.com (or any other publication) of anti-GM bias for breaking this bad news.
My brother has a 4-cylinder Camry - does nothing for me. Looks bloated, is slow and boring.
Just my opinion.
How can you say you don't care for the looks of the Accord but recommend the monotone blandness which is the interior of the Malibu. And it's not like the exterior styling set the world afire either.
How can you take a platform that underpins the 9/3 Aero annd make it look like the Malibu? Chevy stylists had to go out of thier way to screw that one up.
I do not think either one sets the world on fire in the looks department, I just prefer that of the Bu. My father has had one for almost 2 years with out any problems. I drove it last summer out east and back and averaged around 35 mpg over 1400 miles or so.
I do think the 9-3 Aero looks fantastic. I really like the 9-3 and almost had one a year or so ago. Unfortunately I was unable to sell the car I had and had to let the 9-3 go.
As far as engines. I agree the Malibu has a very efficient engine. But if they can get 35 mpg out of that engine, why can't they do it with 1 less litre like the Accord. Ours does a 3000 rpm 80 mph with mid 30's mpg can run up to 127 mph and sounds great doing it. The higher you rev the V6 in the Malibu, the more strangled it starts to sound. All that "low-end torque" usually translates to "high-end strangulation" in most 2 valve cars. I'd like to see a dyno for that V6 after 4000 rpm.
I'm sure the malibu is a great rental, but there have been very few rentals that I have thought about keeping. Not even the Mustang GT's that Budget rental car used to have. Often there's a reason that rental agancies get so many of a particular model.
After seeing what Hyundai has done with the Sonata, it becomes even more disappointing that GM can't get it's act together.
as someone who has bought >15 new cars since 1984, i DO care about initial quality - i do not have time in my life to deal with a car that has poor initial quality!
I really dont care what GM told you or anyone else in the past. I'm sure they have made promises and I'm sure they havent lived up to those promises. First of all GM couldnt do anything before getting their quality in order. Any vehicles they delivered during past "revolutions" were doomed from the get go without Toyota type quality. This is 2005, not 1985 and now GM actually has respectable quality. Now that their cars will match up with imports in that reqard they can attempt to correct their other issues like styling and technology.
Your entire argument seems to be based on the fact that according to the press GM has no class leading vehicles and therefore they will never gain any share. I would like to know how many class leading vehicles industry leaders such as toyota, Chrysler and Ford have? As far as I can tell Toyota has maybe three (prius, Avalon, Tacoma), Ford has two (mustang, F150) and Chrysler has three, but all are essentially the same car. My point is, none of the largest auto manufacturers have a monopoly on class leading vehicles. I would venture to say none of them have more than three in their entire lineup. It is very difficult to come out with a vehicle today that blows away the competition. Your best bet is to come out with a vehicle that has attractive styling, one or two innovative features and an aggressive price. I think the Saturn Aura is going to be a great car for GM, but I'm not going to sit here and say it's going to crush the competition. How can that be possible with the Accord, Altima and a new camry on the way? By the same token I dont see many imports coming out that are heads and shoulders above the competiton. GM needs to keep their quality high and try to differentiate themselves from the Asians with styling. It has been proven over and over again that the Asian car companies dont have a handle on good design and that's where GM can try to gain share.
your arguments about GM model gaining sales over their dated predecessors or the Cobalt selling because it's competition is old is ridiculous. Those arguments could be made against ANY successful car on the market. If the new civic is successful people can make the argument that it's success is due to the fact that the Focus and Corolla are dated. That is a lame argument. You say we shouldnt acknowledge the sales of the G6 and Lacrosse because they are only outselling last years dated models. You and i both know that monthly sales are always compared to last years sales in the same month. The whole point of the G6 and Lacrosse is to sell cars with a lower percentage of fleet sales and with less incentives. Before the employee program these two cars had $500 incentives (about the same as a Toyota would have) while the Grand Am and Regal were selling with huge incentives last year. Any way you cut it the two cars have been moderately successful. I can tell that you have read numerous articles about these cars failure but you have no idea what the facts really are in this case. The press jumped all over these two cars while ignoring the sales of the Ford 500 and now everyone is ready to hang Bob Lutz.
You keep referencing GMs vast resources as proof that they should be making the best cars on the market. I assume you know the difference between revenue and profit. GM has tons of revenue but little profit. Some of that is their own doing but GM faces issues than The BIg Japanese Three don't face and that allows them to devote far more of their revenue to R&D. Toyota spends more on R&D than GM even though GM brings in more money. One of GM's main problems is that expenses beyond it's control reduce what it can put into R&D for new products. You know the history of american manufacturing firms so you ought to know GM isnt the first big iconic manufacturing firm to face serious trouble in this country. If GM were an isolated case and every other major manufacturing company were thriving in this country than maybe your simplistic arguments would hold water, but the deck is stacked against them (and Ford and Chrysler) so it's going to be tough to survive.
"I think GM is big enough, and has enough talent on the payroll, that it should not have to emulate any other car maker. It should come up with its own distinctive design language. "
You mean like Honda and Toyota? When I think of distinctive design language I think of Ferrari or Aston Martin. You arent going to find a lot of great design language in the mainstream automotive market. Have you seen any Nissans? I really dont think GM's designs are worse than anyone elses. I like the direction that Cadillac and Saturn are going. I think Chevy should remain conservative and Toyota likes. The G6 is a good start for pontiac and the Soltice looks promising. I dont see anything like the Solstice coming out of Toyota or Nissan.
"LaCrosse, STS, Grand Prix GTO and G6, for starters. As I said, it wasn't made clear that he didn't have a clean sheet to design these cars until after they posted lackluster results in the market. Incidentally, from what I've read on other websites devoted to GM, Mr. Lutz's changes to the STS, which were fairly extensive, actually made the car blander and hurt its appeal."
I dont know where you get your info, but it was made very clear. The Lacrosse was 100% done when he got there and he forced them to delay the car a year to makes some changes, but he did not and could not redesign the entire car. If you knew anything about the GTO, but pontiac made minimal changes to that car before bringing it to the US. I dont know what the non-Lutz STS looked like so I cant confirm whether or not he made it worse. Considering the car has met or exceeded sales expectations I would say he did a good job.
"Plus, I'm not comparing them to the Cobalt SS. I'm using the garden-variety Cobalts as the measuring stick. "
In my opinion the garden variety Cobalt can hold it's own with the civic and corolla. Before you start talking incentives keep in mind that Corollas are available for substantial discounts, about $3K in my area.
"Every road test of the vehicle I've read calls it a lackluster effort."
Have you driven the car? Do you have any opinions that differ from that of the "experts"? Are you saying that any car not praised by the press is devoid of merit? I know what the experts said, but I dont see how this car is so underwhelming when compared to Accord/Camry/Altima. It looks better than any of them, offers a large backseat, remote start and adjustable pedals and decent handling. BTW, the Ford explorer, Impala and Malibu are all vehicles that have never been praised by the press and manage to stay near the top of the sales charts. The Big 2.5 have about 60% of the market but the majority of their vehicles are panned by the press. If everyone made car buying decisons based on Edmunds or C&D we'd all be driving Accords and BMW 3 series.
"The
Considering how much time VW, Mitsu, Mazda, Jaguar, Ford and Chrysler have to study the competition should their models be better? The way I see it Toyota, Hyundai and Nissan are doing great and everyone else is doing OK or poorly. Gm isnt the only company losing share and the fact that they are the biggest means they have the most to lose. VW and Ford are two of the largest automakers in the world and both are struggling right now but no one writes about it or talks about it. VWs products are universally praised and recommended by the press and yet their sales have been declining for the last two years or so but their struggles arent a topic of discussion. I was told that because they arent an american company. That may be true but the industry is global now and they are a major global player just like GM.
I'm not sure what constitutes average or above average but as long as I read reviews praising average foreign products while deriding similaly average domestic products I will call people or publications biased. If you play the role of Yes Man to automotive reviewers who constantly praise your favorite car companies I cant expect you to be objective. If you can come up with a logical explanation as to why a car like the camry (roomy, reliable, safe, affordable) could be called a class leader and a car like the impala (roomy, reliable, safe, affordable) could be called a typical GM piece of mediocrity than I would like here that explanation. Niether car looks that good and neither is going to set an enthusiast's heart racing yet one is considered a cheap rental car and the other is the "benchmark" of family sedans. If Karl were to respond to that I would assume resale value and that ever ellusive "refinement" issue would be mentioned. Quite frankly, there isnt an objective way to explain why the Camry is a great car and the Impala is a crappy car. When all else fails just start talking about subjective points based on personal opinions and try to pass them off as facts,
And believe me, I don't pay any attention to good old JD's "initial quality." It's just good for a belly laugh whenever a carmaker ballyhoos it.
My point is that three years still isn't long enough to really differentiate a car's long-term reliability, and cited my personal experience with a Mercury Sable as a prime example.
I tend to keep my cars a long time, well after both the payments and the warranties end.
And the horror stories about VW's awful reliability, which in combination with their aging models, have cause their sales to plunge? And the new Jetta getting obese and more costly, yet still about the size of a Corolla? (And looking like one also?)
If you don't have problems, then well... you can't assume that you won't have any after six years. I think 5-6 years would be ideal for a reliability survey. Three years is more of a "weeder" survey.
After that, reliability can be more a function of maintenance and ownership than how the car was designed and built. I've heard people say that Yugos were actually well designed, and they only failed so often because people treated them like disposable cars. I know my dad used to treat cars that way... and so they died on us. So I wouldn't trust 10 year surveys unless they only accepted surveys from people with thorough maintenance records. (How well a car holds up without maintenance is a sign of quality too, but it's impossible to verify that for a survey.)
About the Yugo, I tried out one when they first came out, and it was virtually impossible to find the manual shift gates -- and this was just in a parking lot. I couldn't imagine driving one on the road.
BTW, I learned how to drive on a manual transmission, and I've always had such a car in my possession, so it wasn't lack of skill/knowledge.
Well, for several reasons, I am disappointed.
If you fly to (or pass through) Atlanta, please let me know, as I will gladly offer my GXP for as long as you need to form some sort of impression.
And I am absolutely serious, here.
I see the GXP (though clearly a ‘niche’ vehicle) as significant to Pontiac and to GM, for several reasons.
First and foremost, I think that the fact Pontiac was able to bring to market a car that I find highly enjoyable and fun to drive (yet also comfortable, practical, with many of the amenities expected today) within the confines of the existing FWD platform is a real and important accomplishment. Coming from 3 previous cars with MSRPs between $36K and $42K, I am impressed with what GM hath wrought for an actual transaction price below $27K.
It now looks like this platform must last Pontiac (and GM) for quite some time. This GXP, and the Impala SS, thus may represent what GM can do within their financial restrictions.
Yes, there is Torque Steer, under some circumstances. Yes, I would prefer to have everything else in this size package with RWD. Not gonna happen anytime soon, from GM.
More later,
- Ray
Over 55, and certainly old enough to know better . .
GTO? (actually offers more rear seat leg/head room than the GP; of course, it's a 2-dr rather than 4.)
Actually, I believe the W-bodies (Impala/MC, Grand Prix, LaCrosse) will be dead in a few years. I know there is a new large FWD platform which Chevy will get. Buick will probably get an Epsilon2 platform, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the next-gen Holden Commodore make its way to the States as a Grand Prix replacement...
Besides 4 doors, some other (potential) advantages that I can think of immediately to the GXP, over a GTO (for me) include:
TAP Shift (manumatic mode for the automatic)
Factory moonroof available.
Factory NAV system available.
HUD.
Dual Zone HVAC available.
Heated front seats available.
Fold down rear seats.
EPA ratings: 18 / 27 (GTO w/4-speed automatic = 16 / 21)
Now I can certainly understand if some (or all) of these attributes are of no interest to others. .
- Ray
Willing to look seriously at a 4-Dr GTO, if ever one is sold in the USA – with all these attributes . .
Add an AWD option and now you're talking...
-juice
That may be true.
Today, in this industry, I see 'a few years' as a very long time.
(Possibly time enough, if appropriate changes are not made, for GM to enter bankruptcy.)
The rate of change (in competing makes / models) is ever accelerating.
- Ray
Hoping GM will spend (a lot of) $$s over that time to improve their products . .
I didn't want to put dates in my first post. The Impala and then the LaCrosse are the newest W-bodies, with the Grand Prix being the oldest, coming out in MY2004. Fast-forward 5 years and you have a MY2008 or, more likely, MY2009 replacement (Holden's new Commodore gets announced next month and ships starting in April/May of next year). If GM can't come to an agreement with the UAW they'll just build them in Australia and ship 'em over (I believe that Holden is converting some of the former Daewoo facilities for RWD Zeta production, and will move some of their Asian/Middle East export business there, freeing up factory capacity for more NA production).
of comparison shopping before buying. While I can not
in any way compare all features of the 35 AWD to these
other vehicles, I think I can make a fair comparison
of those features I DID test, and compare the 35's that
I test drove to the other models here.
First, I would have to agree that the review has
several areas of disconnect. I could not figure how
the text in various spots would say one thing, yet the
numbers/rankings/evaluations say something completely
different.
As a previous BMW owner, and having test driven the
new models, I was shocked to see the low score for the
Infiniti interior relative to the other models. The
fit and finish are, in fact, not perfect, but
significantly better than the BMW in many aspects. My
control layout is the same as the Infiniti model
tested, and is for the most part quite usable.
iDrive???? How could you miss this? Warmth and
comfort? Not even close. So I started feeling the
integrity of this review was suspect. Is there an agenda here?
I agree that the BMW has the best combination of ride
and handling of any car I have driven. The Infiniti is
VERY close behind in my experience, with superb
handling in all models I tested, but a slightly
harsher ride over rough roads. Interestingly, the
handling remained excellent over ruts and bumps. Just
more got transmitted through to the passenger
compartment.
Fun to drive? I am puzzled by these results. Yes, I
know it is subjective, but the Acura has nowhere near
the steering feel or responsiveness of the BMW or the
Infiniti. Not close, in my opinion. In fact, the Acura
finishing ahead of both of these in the slalom by that
large margin is surprising to the point of being
difficult to believe, IMO. Perhaps someone had a bad
day or two driving...I dont know. But that Acura is a
soft ride with steering that feels quite disconnected
from the road, and I dont feel it is the same league
as the beemmer or Infiniti.
Subjectively, the Infiniti is a blast to drive. I put
my money where my mouth is.
A note about study design: There is no good
explanation here of exterior design. Are we talking 'looks'? The Audi has a full
two-point margin over the next nearest competitor,
certainly enough to skew the results of the overall
test in its favor. How important could this possibly
be??? Isnt that subjective? Why dont you leave this
out completely, let people measure the other merits of
these competitors, then choose based on those merits
combined with the look that they like? This huge margin (the
largest in the test) could artifactually make the Audi
jump over everybody when that factor is one that does
not contibute significantly to the driveability,
comfort, safety or function of the car.
Please-decrease the significance of this entirely
subjective factor!
I was also surprised to see the suspension of the
Infiniti two full points below the BMW, and below that
of the Audi and Acura. I will grant that the
additional weight of the AWD components may change the
overall behavior of the car tested here in a small way from those I tested, but I could not justify that
big a margin based on my experiences with these
vehicles.
Ponderous??? This is belied by the fact that the car
handles superbly, certainly quite close to the magical
BMW, not only on your test, but in several other
reviews. In my experience, as well, as a BMW owner.
Who cares how much the car weighs (within reason)? You can say it weighs more,
if you'd like. But dont say ponderous . That implies
something entirely different. The car handles. Flat
out. Dont argue this point. The car has beaten BMW in
other peoples' tests. Yeah, at the cost of the ride
being a bit harsh. I know. Many won't drive a BMW because it has a 'harsh' ride. But the M car HANDLES. Done.
NOT ponderous. Please just retract the word. It is
statements like this, and your defense of its usage,
that make readers think you have an agenda. Just say
you meant heavy, and that the car can rival or beat
the BMW in the twisties. Thank you.
My evaluations of these cars led me to decide on the
Infiniti for a number of reasons.
First, I wanted something with performance close to
the BMW, but without the attitude and horrendous
dealer and corporate interactions. I loved my car, but
hated the maintenance and agita from every corner of
BMW, all the way up to the top corporate levels of BMW NA. It would be very, very hard for me to put my
money into one of their products again. After all,
they use the word 'experience' in their motto, and
driving is indeed an ongoing 'experience'. And their
horrible attitude creeps gradually into the daily
experience of driving, stealing away that extra
pleasure one expects when one spends over $50 K on a
luxury. To be fair, they make a great car, and I tested a 545 before I made my buying decision. I am very glad I did.
Second, the Infiniti M series was VERY close to the
BMW in engine performance, tranny performance,
handling and driving near the limit. Loved it. None of
these other marques came that close. Specifically, the
Acura left me feeling cold-more luxury, less sport.
Nice features, but a touch cheap feeling on the
inside. I did love the matte finish rosewood on the
Infiniti, having made guitars a long time ago. Much
warmer feeling than the BMW, slightly better than the Acura, different
feeling and not as luxurious as the Lexus or Audi. But the Lexus is not quite as luxurious as previous models. I am not sure why...
Third, it is very hard to justify the price
difference. My car, priced to match, came out $14K
less than the BMW! Easy choice. Also less than the
others listed here, although the Acura was not off by
very much.
Fourth, the Infiniti reputation for service and
reliability. And my particular dealer, Infiniti of
Marin, has a stellar reputation among Infiniti
dealers, getting some special award of excellence only given to
eight dealers each year. After a long and terrible BMW
experience, this factor carried some more weight for
me than it might for others (especially those with enough self-esteem to not care when they are pissed on after dropping 50 large for a luxury vehicle). I care about a nice relationship, especially when I see the dealer fifteen times in two years. Funny thing is, I still love the car itself, just not the driving experience. It is too wrapped up in the BMW mystique, which smells kind of funny to me right now.
Fifth, just the gut feeling. The Infiniti was fun, fun
fun, and had enough gizmos that served a real purpose,
including the nicest Nav of the bunch, a nice
compromise of that master button (like iDrive) with
several of the functions also available via
independent controls, adaptive headlights, a few others. The
steering feel was a close second to the BMW (in fact,
my 2003 5 series was better than this new active
composed. In the end, I kept coming back to choosing
between BMW and Infiniti for the driving experience,
and the small differences in maximum driving between
the two were easily outweighed by the overall
experience of owning and using the Infiniti.
I would agree that the Infiniti is a little rough in a
few edges, certainly small enough quibbles that they
dont affect the overall to any significant extent. The
BMW is behind the times IMO in what the customer
wants. No one anywhere has liked the iDrive, yet it
persists, albeit in a slightly toned-down version, as
though BMW is trying to back down without losing too
much pride. I hated it, and I am a geeky guy. Acura
had a nice set of controls, but the master
knob/control was still too intrusive for my tastes.
But very nice electronic features on the Acura!
Regarding your response to the previous poster:
Couldnt you be a bit less defensive? Yes, he was emotional and upset. You dont have to
like his comments, but you also don't have to be so
condescending. I agree with some of his points, and
you don't really answer them, but dismiss the poster
rather than face the questions. The sarcasm only
diminishes the impact of what you are trying to say,
especially the last comments.
One last thing-this review is significantly at odds
with the other automotive press responses to these
cars. Certainly I am happy that all are entitled to
their opinions, but it is surprising that such
different results would spring out of different
sources.
My two cents. Cheers!
Many publications fill their reviews with copy from the manufacturer--and give a positive report. Edmunds is one of the few that is willing to say they don't like something. I think it lends credability.
If you don't like the opinions here, simply read Carconnection and Canadian Driver...
On a different, but interesting note.
In the Sept. Road and Track their is a comparison between the RSX Type S and the Cobalt SS Supercharged. The Cobalt barely sneaked by as the winner.
Now, in the new issue of Car and Driver, there is a cheap speed comparison. Both the RSX and the Cobalt are in this one as well. C & D ranked the RSX 1rst
and the Cobalt 4th.
Very different results.
Road and Track liked the Cobalt, Honda and Driver did not. Oops, I mean Car and Driver.
The new HHR review was by Erin Riches. So, is this review just the opinion and thoughts of Erin? Or is it a general opinion of a group of reviewers that all had their input thrown into the story?
In a comparison I am guessing that many people contribute and all general thoughts are conveyed into one article by one writer. Is this correct?
It would be interesting to compare different styles of reporting and opinions. Maybe the new Civic would be a good one to consider for such a project?
Personally, I could not live with a RSX everyday. The cabin is too tight and cramped for me. I simply do not fit and the back seat is way to cramped for my growing children.
I just find it interesting that two well known publications can have such contrasting views.
The consumer market has voted differently, and puts the RSX in anything but first place.
Just an observation.
-juice
I think that is why the Celica and the Prelude went away...
That doesn't mean the RSX isn't a better car than the others... just maybe not as good a value...
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
The Civic Si stands a better chance even with the same powertrain.
-juice
I have high regards for edmunds.com until their review on the Pontiac Grand Prix GXP. This GXP review was flawed. Scroll back to earlier posts to see how other readers pointed out the mistakes in the review.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a GXP owner myself.