wrt to the cobalt vs Corolla/Civic, what are you talking about? The cobalt was a huge leap over the dated cavalier in every way and is 100% competitive with the Honda and Toyota. It's faster than both, most likely quieter than both and has a better interior. C&D said the Cobalt interior seemed to benchmark the old Jetta but doubt the current civic/corolla have ever been compared to the old Jetta. The interior of both Japanese cars is functional, but plain and hardly upscale. I had a friend with a base Civic coupe and the interior was as cheap as anything GM puts out. The plastics and trim in the backseat were especially cheap. I am wondering if the magazines have avoided comparing the Cobalt to the existing Corolla/Civic because they are afaid the cobalt would beat them. I suspect that they are waiting for the new improved Civic to come out before staging comparisons. I would like to know one subjective area in which the Civic/Corolla beat the cobalt other than mileage. Even that is tempered by the fact that both offer smaller, weaker engines.
The 500 is about two years newer and more expensive than the Malibu, it should be better. What is your point? Compare the interior to the more recent Impala and then let me know what you think.
I'm talking about comparing a Cobalt to a Corolla/Civic. I thought that was clear.
I've driven a couple of Cobalt rentals. As far as the refinement of the drivetrain compared to a Corolla/Civic, there is no comparison. Corolla/Civic are more refined....by a pretty large margin. The engines are smoother. The panel gaps are much closer, both in and out.
I had a well used '99 Civic that I used strictly to run back and forth the airport every week. Even that one, which was 6 years old with well over 100,000 miles on it, was smoother, more precise and more refined than the new Cobalt. If I were a betting man, I'd say the Cobalt would be rattling itself to death once 100,000 miles rolls around. Whereas, my old Civic was as tight and rattle free (and trouble free) as it was when it had 10,000 miles on the odo.
It makes me question how GM, with so many years of development, couldn't even match what Toyota or Honda is doing, let alone exceed it.
A Malibu, should be updated to stay competitive. Give me a choice between the Accord or Camry and a Malibu, the Honda/Toyota wins hands down. Again the Accord/Camry (which are also a couple of years into their current model life cycles) are more refined, better fitment (in and out) and will have better resale than a Malibu.
All this gets to my orginal statement....how can GM not put out competitive products that compete "head to head" with the best offerings in the segment? For the time being, at least, they are the biggest car company in the world.
I don't mind if anyone is a GM appologist, but at some point the blinders have to come off. GM refuses to look at the competition to see where there products stack up.
You mentioned the Impala. Admittedly, I've only seen pictures of the new one. But, there's certainly nothing there that would get me to venture into the Chevy store to give it a 2nd look. It's still FWD whereas the rest of the automotive world is going back to RWD for their big sedans.
I'd almost be afraid to think the amount of torque steer the Impala V8 (or Grand Prix) would generate in their newer models.
HHR? That's been done before and done better by the competition (PT Crusier, Scion Xb, etc) .
I suppose they could continue to rebate, offer special pricing, etc to gain sales, but their marketshare continues to drop. They seem content to blame everything other than their products for their downfall.
There's just nothing aside from the Corvette that would make me venture into a GM showroom. That's sad since they've got so many models one would think they'd have at least something to get me to at least look at their cars/trucks.
It really doesn't matter to me if the live axle is just as functional as the IRS. I just want my car to have IRS. Just a personal preference. Just like some people will buy only Chevys .. even if the competition is better.
Graphicguy: I agree, the last thing I want to do is revisit the whole Mustang and GTO discussion. I frankly don't consider myself a "GM apologist" - after my whole buyback experience on my first GTO, and some grief that my current dealer is giving me with my wife's Envoy (refusing to perform a TSB for a known issue - I'm trying another dealer), it's questionable if I'll buy another GM vehicle. Frankly, other than the GTO, as a driving enthusiast, right now there is little in the GM cupboard which appeals to me as a car I would and could actually buy (sure, I love the Solstice and the Sky, but they are not practical daily drivers for me).
Your comment was that GM keeps making flawed vehicles. The fact of the matter is, an impartial observer can find flaws in ANY new vehicle. The issue is the magnitude of the flaw (ref. your knock on the new Impala being FWD, when Ford, Honda, and Toyota's large cars are all FWD - where's the complaints there)? Complaining about powertrain performance on the new H3 - that's a pretty significant flaw and I agree, it's a big issue. Complaining about FWD versus RWD for a FAMILY SEDAN when all of its competitors save Chrysler are still FWD? Not as big of a deal!
And, not to beat a dead horse, but the real track numbers/timeslips (not the bogus ones car magazines and sites like Edmunds get) tend to show that the 2005 GTO is AT LEAST 1/2 second faster in the 1/4 mile, and trapping at higher speeds than the 2005 Mustang GT. Not to mention that the Mustang's engine and aerodynamics limit it to 147 mph, whereas some service-based GTO owners have hit 170+ mph on the Autobahn (with the speed limiter removed, of course). I just don't know how you can argue that the GTO isn't a superior performer (and I'm well aware that performance is more than just a straight line and top speeds - but things like steering feel are pretty subjective, and I don't want to open that can of worms). Now, if you had qualified this as "daily driving performance" (i.e. on public roads, at "legal" speed limits, not on the track), then you might have a point.
Strongly suggest you pick up a copy of MPH Magazine (the issue with the Mustang, Charger, and GTO on the cover) and read their article... or are they all GM apologists too?
GM is still setting themselves up for failure. It's at a point now that most people will NOT buy GM unless they get some type of huge discount. There may be a couple of models that are the exception to this but on the whole it's probably a very accurate statement. In a time when people wait for cheap interest rates on Hondas and lease deals on BMW's, GM doesn't stand a chance unless they knock several grand off of a vehicle's price.
They are also going to lose out on the younger generation because people in their early 20's are far less likely to be loyal to one brand and only one brand. They will shop around and compare. GM's mainstream models are not oustanding. Nor are they compelling ... at least not at MSRP or even invoice.
Well, what they have done with most 2006 models is reduce the price by anywhere from $1k to $6k, depending on the model.
So, after the Employee Discount for Everyone ends, they'll probably start running ad campaigns touting their new lower pricing.
But, like you said, the Pavlovian conditioning may mean that people are still expecting the huge discounts and rebates on top of the lower prices. And, as you said, the question is if the new product will be compelling enough that people will buy, or wait for the discount. They may have shifted their sales problem from a couple of months ago (the glut of unsold '05's before the discount) to the immediate future (i.e. October, when the new '06's are out, most of the '05's are gone, and the employee discount is no longer offered).
I think one of the reasons that Lutz pushed hard for the Solstice and Sky was to try to attract both younger buyers as well as older buyers who were turned off of GM. Give them a reason to get into a GM showroom and at least look at a car. They may not buy the Solstice or Sky, but maybe they'll consider another GM vehicle. The downside is, the new product just isn't there (look at the current Saturn showroom... the ION is awful, ditto the Rebate, I mean, Relay minivan - only the VUE is competent (wife almost bought one in Red Line trim before we got our screaming discount deal on the Envoy SLT). The Pontiac showroom isn't much better... now, if those divisions had new, competent product, it might be a different story.
Robert....first, it's good to "banter" with you again. I enjoy it.
I saw that MPH issue. I know you'll disagree with me, but there really wasn't much in the way of substance to it. Did they like the Charger or not? I couldn't tell.
If you look at all the aggregate numbers from all the different sources that post performance numbers for the Mustang GT vs the GTO, they are very, very similar....maybe a 1/10th or two difference here and there. The fastest I've seen tested on an '05 Mustang GT is 4.9 secs 0-60 from R&T. The slowest was 5.4 secs 0-60 from CR. In the 1/4, the fastest I've seen is 13.5 from several sources for the Mustang. The slowest 1/4 was from CR at 14.1. For the '05 GTO, the fastest I've seen 0-60 is 4.8 secs (GM claims the automatic will do the 0-60 in 4.6 secs, but I've yet to see any independent source confirm that). '05 GTO 1/4 times are run in 13.3 secs from several sources. Worst GTO 1/4 was 14.1 by CR. CR has the Mustang and GTO performance identical. Again, not enough of a difference to matter since they are so close. As I've stated previously, there wasn't enough of a performance edge, one way or the other, for me to say one was superior. To me, if I was on the street, and having some bracket racing experience, I wouldn't back down from a little stop light war with someone in a GTO. The very small difference makes it a driver's race. I'll concede top speed to the GTO, since I'm rarely, if ever, going to be exploring that territory it's a non-issue to me.
Regarding GM in general, the only interesting cars I've seen out of their stable has been the XLR, Solstice, GTO and Corvette. All of those are limited in their production/sales, so that's not going to help them. As far as their mainstream cars and trucks, there's just not much there to get me into their showrooms.
I bought a 4Runner a couple of months ago. I looked at the Envoy pretty closely since pricing is so good right now. Not much of a comparison between the two. In just about every category, the 4Runner drove better. I also compared the Envoy to the Explorer (which is better, even though Ford is redoing it for '06). I did like the inline 6 cyl in the Envoy, but that's about it.
I've driven lots and lots of various GM rentals. If given a choice at the rental counter, I'd pick just about anything over the comparable GM offerings.
There's nothing wrong with GM that good product can't fix. That's oversimplifying, but true, nonetheless. I just don't understand why GM doesn't "get it". While it's true that both GM and Ford are crying the blues regarding the amount of their healthcare and retirement benefits costs, but if you put out a superior product, people will buy it. Let's face facts, if GM's market share were increasing instead of dropping like a stone, the problems they face would be less of an issue.
And, not to beat a dead horse, but the real track numbers/timeslips (not the bogus ones car magazines and sites like Edmunds get) tend to show that the 2005 GTO is AT LEAST 1/2 second faster in the 1/4 mile, and trapping at higher speeds than the 2005 Mustang GT. Not to mention that the Mustang's engine and aerodynamics limit it to 147 mph, whereas some service-based GTO owners have hit 170+ mph on the Autobahn (with the speed limiter removed, of course). I just don't know how you can argue that the GTO isn't a superior performer
yawn...
(and I'm well aware that performance is more than just a straight line and top speeds
oh, it's quite apparent.....NOT!
If you're wondering where Karl is, he's probably sitting back and waiting for the bickering and arguing to stop. There are other forums for this conversation.
Let's not forget who's name is on the title of this forum.
You are correct. I was part of the off-topic discussion. It should have known that the heated debate would spill over to this thread. I orginally made mention of this because it's indicative of GM's problems and THAT was part of the conversation earlier with Karl.
How can Edmunds justify the poor track times they've achieved on some of their recent tests?
I've seen 3 recently where the numbers did not jive with timeslips that I've seen. I know two of them were GM vehicles (GTO and GXP), but, before anyone calls me a Subaru apologist, the STi's numbers were also way low.
I know Karl mentioned awhile ago that they had to move which test track they used, and the newer one was at 1000 feet above sea level, and at higher temperatures. Correction factor not accurate? Other explanations?
On one hand, I take all "magazine-tested" numbers with a grain of salt. There are so many variables... "ringer" cars, driver, track, temperature & humidity, altitude, condition and pressurization of tires, timing methodology, et. al. That's why I like to see timeslips (though they can be Photoshopped, and who really knows if a car is "stock"?).
But, when Edmunds' times come out in a totally different league than what the manufacturers claim, the magazines achieve, AND the timeslips show... it gives the appearance of a "credibility gap".
Yep, I am done with this discussion with graphicguy as well. He brought up some points, which I obviously disagreed with and contributed my 2 cents. Didn't want this to take over Karl's discussion, sorry.
When doing performance testing (0-60, 1/4, skidpad), tires make so much of the difference. You can have two identical vehicles from the same manufacturer, except one might have all-season radials on it, the other summer-only performance tires. The vehicle with performance tires will obviously launch and handle better.
When doing a comparo between vehicles, would it ever make sense to put the same brand/make (obviously not size) of tire on two different vehicles? Then you remove the "OEM tire" issue from the equation, and you're getting a true sense of how the vehicle itself handles, accelerates, et. al. I agree that the current testing methodology is representative of the car as it ships from the factory - but, many times, rims and tires are changed out fairly quickly. Also, what percentage of owners replace their tires with the same brand/model?
And, when you get a car in from the press fleet, how much inspection is done to make sure someone hasn't done a 20-mile burnout?
Will a hugely popular TV or Movie have a major impact on what you Journalists focus on for testing, as the entertainment tends to influence what people drive?
Something like hybrids or large family sedans becoming more popular certainly makes us focus on them more in testing, but that's more driven by pure market forces, not entertainment issues. Obviously we'll cover interesting car-related entertainment happenings (i.e. The Dukes of Hazzard movie), but even then we just focus on the car element, not the overall movie's quality (which I've seen by the way...and feel the car elements are the only redeeming quality -- barely).
Karl you rock and you are the gran turismo poobah - you can make it happen: please consider using your influence and winning smile to get an interview with Jessica Simpson to see which she likes better, GTO or mustang.
Yeah, like Jessica Simpson's opinion would actually silence the voices on either side of this debate. Of course, I'm a team player and would be willing to try for such an interview -- just because I'm a giver, of course.
What about the XLR, STS, HHR, Equinox/Torrent, Sky, '06 Vue, Cobalt, etc. None of those vehicles have decent interiors? Have you looked at an '05 Impala vs an '06? The difference is huge.
I don't know how to say this any clearer -- the HHR, Cobalt and Equinox do NOT have "good" interiors. They have "improved" interiors over older GM cars. And modern muscle cars have "improved" fuel efficiency over older versions, but I'm not going to rate the new Mustang or GTO as having "good" gas mileage, either.
BTW, for an interior to be rated as "good" it has to be better than the current segment average. Once again, the Cobalt, HHR and Equinox are NOT (they are all worse than the average, actually).
"Well, maybe in YOUR constantly-bashing-GM-opinion, Karl."
No, in ANYONE'S opinion who is not a GM devotee.
The XLR's interior is officially "good." The STS is close to class average, but I'll call it "good" for the purposes of this arguement (it still isn't "benchmark," and don't try to tell me it is).
Haven't seen the FINAL PRODUCTION version of the Sky yet, so I can't comment (and I'm wondering how you can...). GM reps are supposed to show us the '06 Vue in a few weeks.
So, you've got 2 GM products with "good" or better interiors.
They make a lot of models.
I'll stick with my original statement (even if it is a slight generalization):
I would like to know one subjective area in which the Civic/Corolla beat the cobalt other than mileage.
Steering feel (the Toyota is barely better, but it is better) Seat comfort Interior material and switchgear quality Drivetrain refinement Handling (at least for the Civic, I'd have to drive Corolla/Cobalt back-to-back to confirm on those two)
Do you feel that GM can't do a good interior or chooses not to? I know that sounds silly, but the reason I ask is that I saw the Aura at the NAIAS and thought, "Wow!" Later, I admitted to myself that GM would probably bring the car to market with a much-cheapened-looking interior. I hope I am wrong.
Re: your comparison of the Cobalt to the Civic/Corolla, I think what is most telling is the Cobalt is BRAND new this year (the result of a few years of gestation at GM) and yet is barely up to par with models which are essentially at the end of their runs. The Civic will be all new this fall and the Corolla will release it's next generation car next year.
One wonders how the Cobalt will stack up to the competition then.
Got a 2005 CTS. Been to dealer 4 times with steering wheel shutter @ 40-50mph. They keep telling me it is cause by Goodyear tires. Ordered 2 more for me. Are they messing with me?
rorr.....this is an epidemic for GM. The Cobalt is just one example.
No wonder the only way they can compete is to lower their drawers on price. That's the only way they're gettting people into their showrooms. It certainly isn't because of their product.
It's a real shame since they've got the resources to be so much better.
Their accountant culture is well known. Even the legendary Bob Lutz can't change that culture. When's the last time they had a designer leading the company? Did Wagoner rise from the engineering or design ranks or from the accounting ranks?
but GM is rolling their "autoshowinmotion" back into California, so that might be a good way to see a __lot__ of GM interiors and clock 'em against the handy (if less numerous) competition GM also shows for comparison.
In the past, Audi and several major brands were strangely __absent__ from these shows.
Your anti GM rants are troubling. Again, I dont think it's right for someone with such strong anti GM sentiment to be writing reviews on Edmunds. How can the consumers get the information they need when people like you refuse to acknowledge any vehicles made by the world's largest automaker. Your statements cant ever be backed up with facts. If you have any evidence to support your notions that GM cars are poorly built compared to their competition I would like to see that. You keep making silly generalizations without naming who GM is clearly inferior to in the marketplace. I have to wonder if you have paid attention to the interiors of any Ford or Chrysler models lately. Ford's interiors arent bad looking, but they are hardly upscale and they are all similar. Ford and Chrysler use the same cheap looking head units in almost every vehicle and the interior of the "hot" 300 is about the same as a Malibu if you really pay attention. Statements like "Once again, the Cobalt, HHR and Equinox are NOT (they are all worse than the average, actually). " are srictly your OPINION. I don't know how to state that any clearer. Interiors are about material quality, build quality and appearance. There is no way any objective person (you would be excluded from this) could say that GM's interiors as a whole are worse than Nissan, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Ford or Chrysler. There is absolutely no way. You say the Equinox's interior isnt even average for the class and I would like to know what vehicles in it's class are clearly superior. The RAV4? the CR-V? HAve you looked inside a CR-V lately? Of course you haven't because if you had you would see the design is dated and far from upscale. It looks like the interior of a $18K vehicle and that's what it is. I have to wonder if the marketplace agrees with you because the Equinox has been a hot seller and the Torrent has better interior so I suspect it will do OK as well. Please explain to me how any of your "factual" statements about GM interiors should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Anyone who reads this forum or your reviews knows you have little positive to say about GM's vehicles, not even the vette. Your comments about the HHR are borderline ridiculous. You say it's interior isn't class average, what are you considering it's class? The HHR's interior is clearly superior to the freshened PT and can hold it's own against the plasticky interior of the Element and overstylized interior of the Scion. If you don't like any GM designs that's your perrogotive but dont sit here and say there are all bad. I dont think anyone universally hates GM interior designs so I would assume your statements are based on build quality and materials. MAterial evaluation is very subjective and I think it's clear GM (and everyone else) have addressed build quality. Lutz said the panel gaps in the HHR could be compared to a Lexus. Did you check that out? I assume since you didn't complain about it's build quality that it was put together well. With you any GM vehicle is doomed as soon as you sit in the vehicle. Believe me, there are plenty of people who like GM vehicles until they know it's from GM. A lot of people liked the Olds Intrigue until they knew it was an Olds, then it became a car no one would buy. You're the same way.
You also assert that anyone who isnt a GM "fan" agrees with your sentiment that all GM interiors (save 2) are poor. Your own publication doesn't agree with you because edmunds has had good things to say about the Impala, GTO and others. The general sentiment amongst all the car mags I read is that GM's interiors are becoming competitive with the imports. Your statements about the Cobalt haven't been backed up in any reviews I read of the car. Did you read R&T's comparo between the SS and RSX? They said the Cobalts interior was attractive and tolerances were very tight. Even C&D who is almost as biased as you are agreed that the Cobalt was a high quality small car. Things like steering feel and switchgear movement cant be quantified, they are essentially subjective matters. Every GM criticism you come up with is based on opinion and that doesn't mean much if the person giving the opinion isn't fair. I could take it if you bashed all American cars equally but the fact that you make excuses for Ford and Chrysler makes me laugh. You have never responded to my questions about their interiors, quality or design with respect to GM. If you have any evidence that they are producing better vehicles than GM I would like to hear it ASAP. The 300 and Mustand are nice, but they arent stopping Toyota from passing Ford and Chrysler in the next couple years.
Again, you're killing me. I dont know about steering feel, but I assume the Cobalts electric steering isnt the best system in the world. Since this is mentioned a lot I will assume the Civic has better steering. The corolla? Please, you would say any non GM vehicle has better steering than the cobalt. How about the excursion?
Seat comfort- subjective- doesnt count
drivetrain refinement - unless you are talking about noise levels, this is subjective. Everything I have read about the cobalt says it is refined. The R&T comparo said the Cobalt was far quieter than the RSX. I drove and Ion with the new quiet Ecotec and it's no more unrefined than the mazda3, my brother agrees and he owns a 3.
handling- again subjective. I dont think any test results support that notion. The civic hasnt been tested in years because there's no reason to test it, but I'm pretty sure the cobalt and civic base models are about a wash. When you look at the civics anemic rolling stock it's pretty clear it's no sports sedan. In real world handling there is likely little difference between the three cars.
What cant be denied is that the cobalt is probably quieter, has a longer warranty, has more powertrain/model opitons, more standard hp, a more detailed interior (dont see a lot of chrome accents in that civic interior) and has more features than either car. In other words it's a good buy in today's small car market. If we go by you subjective ratings the cobalt is trash, if we go by the facts the cobalt is competitive. Dont know how to explain it any better.
About steering and brake feel... Lots of reviews will use words like "vague" or "responsive" or "crisp", or simply "good feel" and while we can sorta guess what's going on, those words often don't say much to the reader. It's car magazine jargon, and well... a glossary would be nice. Especially on things like feel, since a lot of us have limited car experience and really need different feels explained to us in more than just a word. An explanation would make a useful article.
Motor Trend had an article about FWD/RWD, and they said something about FWD physically not being able to transmit one kind of steering feel, and I have no idea what they're talking about.
And I don't know if you read the posts you missed, but we're not even sure brake feel exists.
Didnt somebody on here just tell you not to base opinions on rental cars? Why dont we just say you wouldnt venture into a GM dealership under any circumstances and leave it at that. I never understand why people like you spend so much time trying to convince others that you are logical for not liking anything GM makes. I never plan to buy a Toyota or Nissan, but there's no logic behind it. I just think their cars are ubiquitous and ugly. It's really that simple. Just like someone else on this forum, you are using a lot of opinions and passing them off as facts.
"HHR? That's been done before and done better by the competition (PT Crusier, Scion Xb, etc) ."
that's your opinion. MT's latest issue disagrees and I suspect so will many other people who buy the HHR.
"There's just nothing aside from the Corvette that would make me venture into a GM showroom. That's sad since they've got so many models one would think they'd have at least something to get me to at least look at their cars/trucks."
That's your opinion. Obviously 26% of the people who buy cars in the US dont agree with you.
"A Malibu, should be updated to stay competitive. Give me a choice between the Accord or Camry and a Malibu, the Honda/Toyota wins hands down. Again the Accord/Camry (which are also a couple of years into their current model life cycles) are more refined, better fitment (in and out) and will have better resale than a Malibu. "
Other than resale value, that's your opinion (seeing a pattern here) and that's fine. GM build quality isnt a concern anymore. Four of five years ago you could read an Edmunds or C&D review without seeing something about misaligned panels or big gaps. Not anymore. IF you actually read some of the materials GM releases when new models come out they tell you what the tolerances are. I cant say they are better than toyota, but once your down to 4mm or 5mm you cant tell the difference.BTW, the malibu is being upgraded for '06 with the SS model, a new front, new wheels and an improved interior and gauges. How many major changes has Toyota made on the camry since 2002? New tranny and 3.3L engine as far as I know. Nothing earth shattering. How many improvements has Honda made to the civic since 2001? I doubt you will answer that one.
"As far as the refinement of the drivetrain compared to a Corolla/Civic, there is no comparison. Corolla/Civic are more refined....by a pretty large margin. The engines are smoother. The panel gaps are much closer, both in and out. "
Again, your opinion. Do you have any proof that the gaps were much larger or have you read that ANYWHERE in ANY review of the cobalt? I know I havent. "smoother" engine? What does that mean exactly? sounds subjective to me. Either an engine is quiet or it's not. The Honda engine may be freer revving but that doesnt make it smoother. In fact Honda's are known for having buzzy four bangers. Read R&T's review of the RSX. I have driven the class leader and the ecotec equipped Ion and the Ion is just as quiet at idle and just as composed during acceleration. I'm pretty sure the cobalt will be quieter than the other cars in it's class, it was 7db quieter than the RSX under hard acceleration.
"Even that one, which was 6 years old with well over 100,000 miles on it, was smoother, more precise and more refined than the new Cobalt. If I were a betting man, I'd say the Cobalt would be rattling itself to death once 100,000 miles rolls around. Whereas, my old Civic was as tight and rattle free (and trouble free) as it was when it had 10,000 miles on the odo. "
Your statement about the old Civic makes it hard for me to take you seriously. I'm glad you are able to predict the Cobalts integrity at 100K miles. My parents have a '98 Intrigue with 85K miles and no squeaks/rattles in the stucture. Considering the Delta platform is much newer than the W platform I would take that bet you offered. Years ago we had a chevy that lasted 140K miles before we sold it and it had no squeaks/rattles and it wasn't even unibody. Meanwhile when you read long term tests of various imports in the various car mags you often hear about dash rattles popping up in the first year. Before you go on and on about GM's poor quality I suggest you read a few recent long term wrap ups of imports in the car mags. I read a long term article about the 350Z that made me laugh. The car had more problems than any 2004 car should ever have and yet they had little negative to say about it. I have seen similar reviews of the XJ8, Phaeton, RX-8, Titan, etc.
when i get to work, sometimes i park next to a cobalt. it looks ok, but to me, like a lot of small gm's there are pieces on it that seem like the were designed for a larger vehicle, like the headlights. due to your posts, i took a quick look at the interior. the seat material looks much improved over the previous dyed patato sack cloth of the previous cavalier/grand am. the dash/console looks average, less stylish than my '04 focus, which is better than the cavalier. basically, gm(ford too) needs to get it better, not just up to par with the competition. price may get people in the seats, but they need get peple to want to buy one, not based on price. my lincoln's worth.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Your inability to acknowledge GM's crappy interiors is troubling. I don't think it's right for someone to continually clutter up my discussion with such obvious pro-GM bias. How can users of this discussion get regular and valuable feedback from me when you keep going into long, drawn-out rants about how GM is being unfairly picked on? It seems to me that you and janssen keep wanting to go 'round and 'round on what is an accepted fact by most automotive reviewers...and consumers. In fact, you and janssen seem to have a lot in common. Hmmm....
Regardless, your main point seems to be that you want "proof" of GM's inferior interiors. OK, what would you consider "proof." That I rap my wedding ring on just about any interior panel inside a GM product and it consistently makes a high-pitched "click-click-click"? That I can often stick business cards, pens, or fingers in-between interior panels? For the record, the Mustang and 300 make this "click-click-click" noise too...on SOME interior panels. But on some of them it doesn't make anything but a dull thud (the same noise it makes on most interior panels in a Honda or Toyota). Nissan and Mitsubishi interiors aren't much better than GM's, but they still have tighter gap tolerances. And at least the design of the Mustang and 300 interiors is compelling. Yup, a purely opinionated statement. Sue me.
What if we have a poll on the Web site and ask everyone (not just mean, old biased automotive journalists) what car company has the worst interiors overall? If GM comes up the "winner" will that be proof? Nah, that's just a reflection of the "myth" perpetuated by publications like Edmunds.com, right?
You seem intent on identifying me as someone who won't give GM a fair shot, no matter how "good" the product is. Fine. I'm officially identifying you as someone who won't acknowledge GM's continuing product failings, no matter how much "proof" is provided.
You claim C&D called the Cobalt a "high quality small car." Please give me proof -- month and page number will suffice.
In the meantime, you and everyone else should always remember one important thing:
In the end, I DON'T CARE WHAT CAR ANYONE BUYS
Do you think I stay up at night agonizing over the fact that "Someone might buy a GM unless I steer them away from that company's product."
I don't. I drive cars, and I tell people what I think about them. If you don't like my opinion, or simply disagree, than go buy whatever you want.
If you refuse to acknowledge my "opinion" about the bulk of GM's product than disregard it, go buy a Cobalt, and have a nice life.
BTW, one final earth shattering item to report.
I own a 2004 Chevy Malibu
HA! Put that in your "You just won't give GM a chance!" pipe and smoke it!!
explorerx4:when i get to work, sometimes i park next to a cobalt. it looks ok, but to me, like a lot of small gm's there are pieces on it that seem like the were designed for a larger vehicle, like the headlights.
At first I didn't like the Cobalt's big headlights. But they have grown on me and now I quite like them. Maybe that's because they remind me on eyes on anime characters or small animals. It gives the car an innocent look.
I was actually quite impressed with the interior of a Cobalt LT I saw at the Atlanta autoshow. I thought it was quite nice compared to other small cars. I only spent a few minutes in each car but I'd put it after the Mazda3 (the car I currently own) and Corolla. The Mazda3 interior looks really nice but the wedding ring trick nets a lot of click-click-click. I like the interior the most, but not because of the cheap plastic.
I agree with Karl on the Mustang after spending a week with it. Nice looking interior but not because of some of the cheap materials.
I just thought I'd jump in here and back up Karl. I'm not gonna say I drive as many cars as he does however. I do drive a fair amount due to the fact that I travel a lot for work. Unless I can get lucky and get to hertz #1 gold I usually get stuck with an American big three piece of crap. Now I am a huge mustang fan. I also have great respect for the corvette. But people blaming GM's problems on unions and the rising cost of healthcare is a severe case of head in the sand -itis IMO. They haven't really made a vehicle that can compete with a Honda or Toyotas reliability, or the driving experience of a German make. Now there are always exceptions to the rule, but things get a reputation for a reason. As far as the comparo go for the small sport sedan segment, the Acura is the winner in all of them. And it finished way ahead of the new Chevy cavalier [cobalt] I remember Chevy doing that whole high performance thing in the 80's with the cavalier called the Z24. Boy that was a world beater. Buy what you want. Soon Toyota will be past GM in worldwide sales and then a new company will be the worlds leader in boring cars. But at least they'll be reliable. If you Think Karl's biased then maybe 1487 could be the editor for a while. Then we could have a GM bias. But I think way less people would fall for that dog and pony show. BTW I drive a chevy silverado- great truck. :P
The jargon about "feel" can be confusing, especially because it's exactly that, a feeling. Ever try to explain the feelings of fear or love or excitement? Not easy, but you know them when you feel them.
Here's the best I can offer, a breakdown of the components that make up steering feel and brake feel (yes, brake feel exists).
Steering feel: 1. On-center dead spot -- does the wheel move a given distance before the front wheels actually start to turn? Obviously the less the better -- as long as it's not so "tight" that the car is jittery at highway speeds. This used to be a major problem with older car (they all had large on-center dead spots, especially if various steering parts were worn out), but now it's pretty minor, with the differences between the "best" cars and "worst" cars relatively small. However, I still look for it, and don't like it. 2. Weighting -- there's really two sub-elements here. First, how much resistance does the steering put up as you turn off center (note, the resistance should correlate to the actual movement of the wheels, or the on-center dead spot will feel larger then it really is)? Second, how much does the resistance build up as you turn the wheel further off center? Ideally it should be a linear weighting that starts small when just off center and gets progressively greater as you move closer to full wheel lock (left or right). 3. Feedback -- how much road surface information comes through the steering wheel rim as you hold onto it? Ideally, you should be "aware" of even the smallest pavement imperfections, but at the same time it shouldn't send back too much information, or feel overly "busy" with the information it sends back. In other words, it should tell me the important stuff about the road surface, but not necessarily every detail.
BTW, tuning in great steering feel is definitely a high art (some might say "black art) in terms of engineering and design. And of course what might be "good" steering to some will be "busy" or "intrusive" steering to others. And what might be "dead" or "overboosted" steering to some might be "smooth" and "light" steering to others. For the record, Ferrari and Porsche have the best steering feel, in my opinion. When I drove the F430 coupe last fall in October I was literally blown away by the amount of feedback coming through the wheel, along with the perfect weighting. Another staffer, who drove the F430 Spider this week, said he thought the "weighting build-up" when turning off center could have been a little better, but otherwise he agreed it was great.
Brake Feel: 1. Progressiveness -- the amount of stopping power exerted by the brakes should approximate the amount of pedal movement/pressure applied to the pedal. Some brakes are horrible at having a big zone of dead space, where nothing is happening and no resistance comes through, and then WHAM!, they hit like a sledge hammer and the car's front end dives as the driver's head bobs forward. The worst car I've driven like this? The Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR. Yes, it had "race brakes" that were supposed to provide phenomenal stopping power. But I drove the car for two full days on the press trip and still couldn't get a smooth stop out of it at low speeds. Neither could any other journalist on the trip. No amount of "racing-spec brake performance" is worth that, in my opinion. Other cars have really stiff pedals that hardly move at all and offer a big wall of resistance just as they start to move. These are also hard to modulate. Ideally the pedal should weight up (yes, just like the steering wheel) as it moves down and you apply more pressure, and the weighting up and resistance to movement should completely match the level of braking force you feel/experience.
I know someone said, "There's no brake feel, you just get used to whatever amount of pressure needed for a given stopping situation." That seems a bit oversimplified, but even if I agree for the sake of argument, wouldn't you rather "get used" to a pedal that offered progressive movement and resistance, versus one that was very mushy or another one that felt overly stiff and hardly moved at all?
2. ABS -- When ABS does kick in, it shouldn't send a pulse through the pedal and it shouldn't make a bunch of clicking/grinding noise. I know someone out there will argue that they like the noise/vibration because "it let's me know when ABS is being used." My question: Who cares when it's being used? The whole point of ABS is that you can punch the brakes as hard as you need to while still having the ability to steer. So whether ABS is activated or not, your behavior during a hard stop should be the same: see if you can stop in time, and if not steer around whatever you're going to hit. One of the early problems with ABS is that people would feel the pedal pulse and lift up, thinking it was a malfunction (they'd usually plow into something immediately after this). Most drivers are more cognizant of how ABS feels these days, but either way I say the pulsing is an unnecessary distraction.
Lexus has the best brakes in the industry, overall. They could provide a bit more feedback in terms of "weighting up" while you increase the pressure on the pedal, but they are always very strong in terms of stopping distance, and they do this without even a hint of ABS noise or vibration. (And please, I don't need anyone to go out and find some test where a Lexus stopped in a longer distance than car XYZ. I've driven hundreds of cars over the past decade and Lexus cars usually have the shortest distance in a given comparison test, and they always have the least amount of ABS noise/vibration. One or two exceptions to my "distance" statement will not change my opinion...or prove any point).
I hope this helps out with some of the jargon you often see in road tests.
Do I understand correctly that you feel that the brakes that give the least indication one or more wheels are operating the ABS cycling gives a shorter stopping distance? -- or do you believe it's more esthetically acceptable?
I have two cars same brand 98 and 03. The 98 has a moderate ABS vibration and feel on snow. Just put the 03's brakes to the floor for an unexpected interstate slowdown and never felt the ABS-I did hear tires squealing. So the newer car may have ABS that cycles without great pedal vibration and that's a good design? I got stopped when I didn't think I would. (I hate being behind large SUVs where I can't see the action ahead.)
Do I understand correctly that you feel that the brakes that give the least indication one or more wheels are operating the ABS cycling gives a shorter stopping distance? -- or do you believe it's more esthetically acceptable?
Just more acceptable. I'm not associating ABS noise/vibration with stopping distance. I think Lexus has done a great job of removing ABS noise/vibration AND I think they've done a great job of making their brakes powerful, but I don't think the two are necessarily related. So even a car with noticeable ABS noise/vibration may have a short stopping distance, but I still think modern cars should have no ABS noise/vibration (if one company can do something, then all of them can, and the one(s) doing it first are ahead of the game, IMO).
I agree about big SUVs. Probably one of the most common hazards they create is the inability to see past them, meaning little warning time when something abrupt is happening up ahead. Glad your ABS worked (vibration or no vibration).
I think that is a great set of explanations about "feeling" that can not be put into numbers. I realize it is a tough task, and I am sure all the posters here are glad you put the time into a very difficult task.
Speaking for the general population of readers who rarely post, I hope that the bias debate doesn't sour Karl on further participation in this thread. This format gives us access to a very unfiltered version of his thoughts on cars, and I (and I am sure many many others) have found those to be very valuable and enjoyable. It would be a serious shame to have it fade away because of a few pro-GM posters who do not properly respect the purpose of this thread as originally intended.
To the GM fanclub, please agree to disagree and move on. If most edmunds readers are like me, they were tired of this "debate" a good while ago too...
Forgive me for asking you to repeat things, but in effect, are you saying brake "feel" is solely due to the mechanics of the pedal and system and not in any part due to "feedback" from the road (as opposed to steering)? There was a discussion here that argued about whether it is possible to determine what the tires were actually doing on the road suface (eg impending lock-up).
>few pro-GM posters who do not properly respect the purpose of this thread
The group who has respect GM's models, at least some, shouldn't be dismissed so off-handedly. The preference for what car serves one's needs varies with age and driving style. I am interested in age groups here and in how opinion varies within age groups. If people wish to give their age group, I'm interested in how that changes their opinion of what car others should be driving.
Different strokes for different folks. But we need to respect the other folks.
I appreciate Karl's response to my question about ABS feedback/operation vibration. I was amazed when the car gave no noticeable feel in the pedal during the emergency stop. Engineering ABS systems has really changed in 10 years of this particular car model and I hoped that meant improved ability to control wheel lockup for maximum stopping power. I could not tell when the ABS started operating.
I don't have too much experience, but whenever I see GM interiors on rentals, friends cars, etc. it's not so much that they look cheap, but they look trendy, cluttered, fadish or just plain ugly in my opinion. I had a '03 Corolla CE version and everything inside was solid as a rock and looked clean. I also have a Ford Freestyle (gray inside...no fake wood) and it's really simple and clean inside, although not as solid as the corolla. Anyway, just my experience.
Comments
The 500 is about two years newer and more expensive than the Malibu, it should be better. What is your point? Compare the interior to the more recent Impala and then let me know what you think.
I've driven a couple of Cobalt rentals. As far as the refinement of the drivetrain compared to a Corolla/Civic, there is no comparison. Corolla/Civic are more refined....by a pretty large margin. The engines are smoother. The panel gaps are much closer, both in and out.
I had a well used '99 Civic that I used strictly to run back and forth the airport every week. Even that one, which was 6 years old with well over 100,000 miles on it, was smoother, more precise and more refined than the new Cobalt. If I were a betting man, I'd say the Cobalt would be rattling itself to death once 100,000 miles rolls around. Whereas, my old Civic was as tight and rattle free (and trouble free) as it was when it had 10,000 miles on the odo.
It makes me question how GM, with so many years of development, couldn't even match what Toyota or Honda is doing, let alone exceed it.
A Malibu, should be updated to stay competitive. Give me a choice between the Accord or Camry and a Malibu, the Honda/Toyota wins hands down. Again the Accord/Camry (which are also a couple of years into their current model life cycles) are more refined, better fitment (in and out) and will have better resale than a Malibu.
All this gets to my orginal statement....how can GM not put out competitive products that compete "head to head" with the best offerings in the segment? For the time being, at least, they are the biggest car company in the world.
I don't mind if anyone is a GM appologist, but at some point the blinders have to come off. GM refuses to look at the competition to see where there products stack up.
You mentioned the Impala. Admittedly, I've only seen pictures of the new one. But, there's certainly nothing there that would get me to venture into the Chevy store to give it a 2nd look. It's still FWD whereas the rest of the automotive world is going back to RWD for their big sedans.
I'd almost be afraid to think the amount of torque steer the Impala V8 (or Grand Prix) would generate in their newer models.
HHR? That's been done before and done better by the competition (PT Crusier, Scion Xb, etc) .
I suppose they could continue to rebate, offer special pricing, etc to gain sales, but their marketshare continues to drop. They seem content to blame everything other than their products for their downfall.
There's just nothing aside from the Corvette that would make me venture into a GM showroom. That's sad since they've got so many models one would think they'd have at least something to get me to at least look at their cars/trucks.
Yep, just like Ford is with the new Five Hundred. Oh wait...
There's just nothing aside from the Corvette that would make me venture into a GM showroom.
Oh, but come on. You dissed the GTO for having a "pushrod" LSx engine, but in a Corvette, it's OK? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me...
--Robert
Your comment was that GM keeps making flawed vehicles. The fact of the matter is, an impartial observer can find flaws in ANY new vehicle. The issue is the magnitude of the flaw (ref. your knock on the new Impala being FWD, when Ford, Honda, and Toyota's large cars are all FWD - where's the complaints there)? Complaining about powertrain performance on the new H3 - that's a pretty significant flaw and I agree, it's a big issue. Complaining about FWD versus RWD for a FAMILY SEDAN when all of its competitors save Chrysler are still FWD? Not as big of a deal!
And, not to beat a dead horse, but the real track numbers/timeslips (not the bogus ones car magazines and sites like Edmunds get) tend to show that the 2005 GTO is AT LEAST 1/2 second faster in the 1/4 mile, and trapping at higher speeds than the 2005 Mustang GT. Not to mention that the Mustang's engine and aerodynamics limit it to 147 mph, whereas some service-based GTO owners have hit 170+ mph on the Autobahn (with the speed limiter removed, of course). I just don't know how you can argue that the GTO isn't a superior performer (and I'm well aware that performance is more than just a straight line and top speeds - but things like steering feel are pretty subjective, and I don't want to open that can of worms). Now, if you had qualified this as "daily driving performance" (i.e. on public roads, at "legal" speed limits, not on the track), then you might have a point.
Strongly suggest you pick up a copy of MPH Magazine (the issue with the Mustang, Charger, and GTO on the cover) and read their article... or are they all GM apologists too?
--Robert
They are also going to lose out on the younger generation because people in their early 20's are far less likely to be loyal to one brand and only one brand. They will shop around and compare. GM's mainstream models are not oustanding. Nor are they compelling ... at least not at MSRP or even invoice.
So, after the Employee Discount for Everyone ends, they'll probably start running ad campaigns touting their new lower pricing.
But, like you said, the Pavlovian conditioning may mean that people are still expecting the huge discounts and rebates on top of the lower prices. And, as you said, the question is if the new product will be compelling enough that people will buy, or wait for the discount. They may have shifted their sales problem from a couple of months ago (the glut of unsold '05's before the discount) to the immediate future (i.e. October, when the new '06's are out, most of the '05's are gone, and the employee discount is no longer offered).
I think one of the reasons that Lutz pushed hard for the Solstice and Sky was to try to attract both younger buyers as well as older buyers who were turned off of GM. Give them a reason to get into a GM showroom and at least look at a car. They may not buy the Solstice or Sky, but maybe they'll consider another GM vehicle. The downside is, the new product just isn't there (look at the current Saturn showroom... the ION is awful, ditto the Rebate, I mean, Relay minivan - only the VUE is competent (wife almost bought one in Red Line trim before we got our screaming discount deal on the Envoy SLT). The Pontiac showroom isn't much better... now, if those divisions had new, competent product, it might be a different story.
--Robert
I saw that MPH issue. I know you'll disagree with me, but there really wasn't much in the way of substance to it. Did they like the Charger or not? I couldn't tell.
If you look at all the aggregate numbers from all the different sources that post performance numbers for the Mustang GT vs the GTO, they are very, very similar....maybe a 1/10th or two difference here and there. The fastest I've seen tested on an '05 Mustang GT is 4.9 secs 0-60 from R&T. The slowest was 5.4 secs 0-60 from CR. In the 1/4, the fastest I've seen is 13.5 from several sources for the Mustang. The slowest 1/4 was from CR at 14.1. For the '05 GTO, the fastest I've seen 0-60 is 4.8 secs (GM claims the automatic will do the 0-60 in 4.6 secs, but I've yet to see any independent source confirm that). '05 GTO 1/4 times are run in 13.3 secs from several sources. Worst GTO 1/4 was 14.1 by CR. CR has the Mustang and GTO performance identical. Again, not enough of a difference to matter since they are so close. As I've stated previously, there wasn't enough of a performance edge, one way or the other, for me to say one was superior. To me, if I was on the street, and having some bracket racing experience, I wouldn't back down from a little stop light war with someone in a GTO. The very small difference makes it a driver's race. I'll concede top speed to the GTO, since I'm rarely, if ever, going to be exploring that territory it's a non-issue to me.
Regarding GM in general, the only interesting cars I've seen out of their stable has been the XLR, Solstice, GTO and Corvette. All of those are limited in their production/sales, so that's not going to help them. As far as their mainstream cars and trucks, there's just not much there to get me into their showrooms.
I bought a 4Runner a couple of months ago. I looked at the Envoy pretty closely since pricing is so good right now. Not much of a comparison between the two. In just about every category, the 4Runner drove better. I also compared the Envoy to the Explorer (which is better, even though Ford is redoing it for '06). I did like the inline 6 cyl in the Envoy, but that's about it.
I've driven lots and lots of various GM rentals. If given a choice at the rental counter, I'd pick just about anything over the comparable GM offerings.
There's nothing wrong with GM that good product can't fix. That's oversimplifying, but true, nonetheless. I just don't understand why GM doesn't "get it". While it's true that both GM and Ford are crying the blues regarding the amount of their healthcare and retirement benefits costs, but if you put out a superior product, people will buy it. Let's face facts, if GM's market share were increasing instead of dropping like a stone, the problems they face would be less of an issue.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
yawn...
(and I'm well aware that performance is more than just a straight line and top speeds
oh, it's quite apparent.....NOT!
If you're wondering where Karl is, he's probably sitting back and waiting for the bickering and arguing to stop. There are other forums for this conversation.
Let's not forget who's name is on the title of this forum.
Who wants horse meat burgers?
I'll cease and desist.
I've seen 3 recently where the numbers did not jive with timeslips that I've seen. I know two of them were GM vehicles (GTO and GXP), but, before anyone calls me a Subaru apologist, the STi's numbers were also way low.
I know Karl mentioned awhile ago that they had to move which test track they used, and the newer one was at 1000 feet above sea level, and at higher temperatures. Correction factor not accurate? Other explanations?
On one hand, I take all "magazine-tested" numbers with a grain of salt. There are so many variables... "ringer" cars, driver, track, temperature & humidity, altitude, condition and pressurization of tires, timing methodology, et. al. That's why I like to see timeslips (though they can be Photoshopped, and who really knows if a car is "stock"?).
But, when Edmunds' times come out in a totally different league than what the manufacturers claim, the magazines achieve, AND the timeslips show... it gives the appearance of a "credibility gap".
--Robert
Do any exist that could still be posted?
We didn't get to shoot video of the GXP. That same week we had a comparison test going on (the all-wheel drive sedans) and we couldn't get it shot.
When doing a comparo between vehicles, would it ever make sense to put the same brand/make (obviously not size) of tire on two different vehicles? Then you remove the "OEM tire" issue from the equation, and you're getting a true sense of how the vehicle itself handles, accelerates, et. al. I agree that the current testing methodology is representative of the car as it ships from the factory - but, many times, rims and tires are changed out fairly quickly. Also, what percentage of owners replace their tires with the same brand/model?
And, when you get a car in from the press fleet, how much inspection is done to make sure someone hasn't done a 20-mile burnout?
Just asking,
--Robert
Something like hybrids or large family sedans becoming more popular certainly makes us focus on them more in testing, but that's more driven by pure market forces, not entertainment issues. Obviously we'll cover interesting car-related entertainment happenings (i.e. The Dukes of Hazzard movie), but even then we just focus on the car element, not the overall movie's quality (which I've seen by the way...and feel the car elements are the only redeeming quality -- barely).
Yeah, like Jessica Simpson's opinion would actually silence the voices on either side of this debate. Of course, I'm a team player and would be willing to try for such an interview -- just because I'm a giver, of course.
The world needs more 'givers' like this!
I don't know how to say this any clearer -- the HHR, Cobalt and Equinox do NOT have "good" interiors. They have "improved" interiors over older GM cars. And modern muscle cars have "improved" fuel efficiency over older versions, but I'm not going to rate the new Mustang or GTO as having "good" gas mileage, either.
BTW, for an interior to be rated as "good" it has to be better than the current segment average. Once again, the Cobalt, HHR and Equinox are NOT (they are all worse than the average, actually).
"Well, maybe in YOUR constantly-bashing-GM-opinion, Karl."
No, in ANYONE'S opinion who is not a GM devotee.
The XLR's interior is officially "good." The STS is close to class average, but I'll call it "good" for the purposes of this arguement (it still isn't "benchmark," and don't try to tell me it is).
Haven't seen the FINAL PRODUCTION version of the Sky yet, so I can't comment (and I'm wondering how you can...). GM reps are supposed to show us the '06 Vue in a few weeks.
So, you've got 2 GM products with "good" or better interiors.
They make a lot of models.
I'll stick with my original statement (even if it is a slight generalization):
GM can't do "good" interiors.
Steering feel (the Toyota is barely better, but it is better)
Seat comfort
Interior material and switchgear quality
Drivetrain refinement
Handling (at least for the Civic, I'd have to drive Corolla/Cobalt back-to-back to confirm on those two)
Do you feel that GM can't do a good interior or chooses not to? I know that sounds silly, but the reason I ask is that I saw the Aura at the NAIAS and thought, "Wow!" Later, I admitted to myself that GM would probably bring the car to market with a much-cheapened-looking interior. I hope I am wrong.
One wonders how the Cobalt will stack up to the competition then.
No wonder the only way they can compete is to lower their drawers on price. That's the only way they're gettting people into their showrooms. It certainly isn't because of their product.
It's a real shame since they've got the resources to be so much better.
Their accountant culture is well known. Even the legendary Bob Lutz can't change that culture. When's the last time they had a designer leading the company? Did Wagoner rise from the engineering or design ranks or from the accounting ranks?
In the past, Audi and several major brands were strangely __absent__ from these shows.
Your anti GM rants are troubling. Again, I dont think it's right for someone with such strong anti GM sentiment to be writing reviews on Edmunds. How can the consumers get the information they need when people like you refuse to acknowledge any vehicles made by the world's largest automaker. Your statements cant ever be backed up with facts. If you have any evidence to support your notions that GM cars are poorly built compared to their competition I would like to see that. You keep making silly generalizations without naming who GM is clearly inferior to in the marketplace. I have to wonder if you have paid attention to the interiors of any Ford or Chrysler models lately. Ford's interiors arent bad looking, but they are hardly upscale and they are all similar. Ford and Chrysler use the same cheap looking head units in almost every vehicle and the interior of the "hot" 300 is about the same as a Malibu if you really pay attention. Statements like "Once again, the Cobalt, HHR and Equinox are NOT (they are all worse than the average, actually). " are srictly your OPINION. I don't know how to state that any clearer. Interiors are about material quality, build quality and appearance. There is no way any objective person (you would be excluded from this) could say that GM's interiors as a whole are worse than Nissan, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Ford or Chrysler. There is absolutely no way. You say the Equinox's interior isnt even average for the class and I would like to know what vehicles in it's class are clearly superior. The RAV4? the CR-V? HAve you looked inside a CR-V lately? Of course you haven't because if you had you would see the design is dated and far from upscale. It looks like the interior of a $18K vehicle and that's what it is. I have to wonder if the marketplace agrees with you because the Equinox has been a hot seller and the Torrent has better interior so I suspect it will do OK as well. Please explain to me how any of your "factual" statements about GM interiors should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Anyone who reads this forum or your reviews knows you have little positive to say about GM's vehicles, not even the vette. Your comments about the HHR are borderline ridiculous. You say it's interior isn't class average, what are you considering it's class? The HHR's interior is clearly superior to the freshened PT and can hold it's own against the plasticky interior of the Element and overstylized interior of the Scion. If you don't like any GM designs that's your perrogotive but dont sit here and say there are all bad. I dont think anyone universally hates GM interior designs so I would assume your statements are based on build quality and materials. MAterial evaluation is very subjective and I think it's clear GM (and everyone else) have addressed build quality. Lutz said the panel gaps in the HHR could be compared to a Lexus. Did you check that out? I assume since you didn't complain about it's build quality that it was put together well. With you any GM vehicle is doomed as soon as you sit in the vehicle. Believe me, there are plenty of people who like GM vehicles until they know it's from GM. A lot of people liked the Olds Intrigue until they knew it was an Olds, then it became a car no one would buy. You're the same way.
You also assert that anyone who isnt a GM "fan" agrees with your sentiment that all GM interiors (save 2) are poor. Your own publication doesn't agree with you because edmunds has had good things to say about the Impala, GTO and others. The general sentiment amongst all the car mags I read is that GM's interiors are becoming competitive with the imports. Your statements about the Cobalt haven't been backed up in any reviews I read of the car. Did you read R&T's comparo between the SS and RSX? They said the Cobalts interior was attractive and tolerances were very tight. Even C&D who is almost as biased as you are agreed that the Cobalt was a high quality small car. Things like steering feel and switchgear movement cant be quantified, they are essentially subjective matters. Every GM criticism you come up with is based on opinion and that doesn't mean much if the person giving the opinion isn't fair. I could take it if you bashed all American cars equally but the fact that you make excuses for Ford and Chrysler makes me laugh. You have never responded to my questions about their interiors, quality or design with respect to GM. If you have any evidence that they are producing better vehicles than GM I would like to hear it ASAP. The 300 and Mustand are nice, but they arent stopping Toyota from passing Ford and Chrysler in the next couple years.
Seat comfort- subjective- doesnt count
drivetrain refinement - unless you are talking about noise levels, this is subjective. Everything I have read about the cobalt says it is refined. The R&T comparo said the Cobalt was far quieter than the RSX. I drove and Ion with the new quiet Ecotec and it's no more unrefined than the mazda3, my brother agrees and he owns a 3.
handling- again subjective. I dont think any test results support that notion. The civic hasnt been tested in years because there's no reason to test it, but I'm pretty sure the cobalt and civic base models are about a wash. When you look at the civics anemic rolling stock it's pretty clear it's no sports sedan. In real world handling there is likely little difference between the three cars.
What cant be denied is that the cobalt is probably quieter, has a longer warranty, has more powertrain/model opitons, more standard hp, a more detailed interior (dont see a lot of chrome accents in that civic interior) and has more features than either car. In other words it's a good buy in today's small car market. If we go by you subjective ratings the cobalt is trash, if we go by the facts the cobalt is competitive. Dont know how to explain it any better.
Motor Trend had an article about FWD/RWD, and they said something about FWD physically not being able to transmit one kind of steering feel, and I have no idea what they're talking about.
And I don't know if you read the posts you missed, but we're not even sure brake feel exists.
Help?
"HHR? That's been done before and done better by the competition (PT Crusier, Scion Xb, etc) ."
that's your opinion. MT's latest issue disagrees and I suspect so will many other people who buy the HHR.
"There's just nothing aside from the Corvette that would make me venture into a GM showroom. That's sad since they've got so many models one would think they'd have at least something to get me to at least look at their cars/trucks."
That's your opinion. Obviously 26% of the people who buy cars in the US dont agree with you.
"A Malibu, should be updated to stay competitive. Give me a choice between the Accord or Camry and a Malibu, the Honda/Toyota wins hands down. Again the Accord/Camry (which are also a couple of years into their current model life cycles) are more refined, better fitment (in and out) and will have better resale than a Malibu. "
Other than resale value, that's your opinion (seeing a pattern here) and that's fine. GM build quality isnt a concern anymore. Four of five years ago you could read an Edmunds or C&D review without seeing something about misaligned panels or big gaps. Not anymore. IF you actually read some of the materials GM releases when new models come out they tell you what the tolerances are. I cant say they are better than toyota, but once your down to 4mm or 5mm you cant tell the difference.BTW, the malibu is being upgraded for '06 with the SS model, a new front, new wheels and an improved interior and gauges. How many major changes has Toyota made on the camry since 2002? New tranny and 3.3L engine as far as I know. Nothing earth shattering. How many improvements has Honda made to the civic since 2001? I doubt you will answer that one.
"As far as the refinement of the drivetrain compared to a Corolla/Civic, there is no comparison. Corolla/Civic are more refined....by a pretty large margin. The engines are smoother. The panel gaps are much closer, both in and out. "
Again, your opinion. Do you have any proof that the gaps were much larger or have you read that ANYWHERE in ANY review of the cobalt? I know I havent. "smoother" engine? What does that mean exactly? sounds subjective to me. Either an engine is quiet or it's not. The Honda engine may be freer revving but that doesnt make it smoother. In fact Honda's are known for having buzzy four bangers. Read R&T's review of the RSX. I have driven the class leader and the ecotec equipped Ion and the Ion is just as quiet at idle and just as composed during acceleration. I'm pretty sure the cobalt will be quieter than the other cars in it's class, it was 7db quieter than the RSX under hard acceleration.
"Even that one, which was 6 years old with well over 100,000 miles on it, was smoother, more precise and more refined than the new Cobalt. If I were a betting man, I'd say the Cobalt would be rattling itself to death once 100,000 miles rolls around. Whereas, my old Civic was as tight and rattle free (and trouble free) as it was when it had 10,000 miles on the odo. "
Your statement about the old Civic makes it hard for me to take you seriously. I'm glad you are able to predict the Cobalts integrity at 100K miles. My parents have a '98 Intrigue with 85K miles and no squeaks/rattles in the stucture. Considering the Delta platform is much newer than the W platform I would take that bet you offered. Years ago we had a chevy that lasted 140K miles before we sold it and it had no squeaks/rattles and it wasn't even unibody. Meanwhile when you read long term tests of various imports in the various car mags you often hear about dash rattles popping up in the first year. Before you go on and on about GM's poor quality I suggest you read a few recent long term wrap ups of imports in the car mags. I read a long term article about the 350Z that made me laugh. The car had more problems than any 2004 car should ever have and yet they had little negative to say about it. I have seen similar reviews of the XJ8, Phaeton, RX-8, Titan, etc.
basically, gm(ford too) needs to get it better, not just up to par with the competition. price may get people in the seats, but they need get peple to want to buy one, not based on price. my lincoln's worth.
Your inability to acknowledge GM's crappy interiors is troubling. I don't think it's right for someone to continually clutter up my discussion with such obvious pro-GM bias. How can users of this discussion get regular and valuable feedback from me when you keep going into long, drawn-out rants about how GM is being unfairly picked on? It seems to me that you and janssen keep wanting to go 'round and 'round on what is an accepted fact by most automotive reviewers...and consumers. In fact, you and janssen seem to have a lot in common. Hmmm....
Regardless, your main point seems to be that you want "proof" of GM's inferior interiors. OK, what would you consider "proof." That I rap my wedding ring on just about any interior panel inside a GM product and it consistently makes a high-pitched "click-click-click"? That I can often stick business cards, pens, or fingers in-between interior panels? For the record, the Mustang and 300 make this "click-click-click" noise too...on SOME interior panels. But on some of them it doesn't make anything but a dull thud (the same noise it makes on most interior panels in a Honda or Toyota). Nissan and Mitsubishi interiors aren't much better than GM's, but they still have tighter gap tolerances. And at least the design of the Mustang and 300 interiors is compelling. Yup, a purely opinionated statement. Sue me.
What if we have a poll on the Web site and ask everyone (not just mean, old biased automotive journalists) what car company has the worst interiors overall? If GM comes up the "winner" will that be proof? Nah, that's just a reflection of the "myth" perpetuated by publications like Edmunds.com, right?
You seem intent on identifying me as someone who won't give GM a fair shot, no matter how "good" the product is. Fine. I'm officially identifying you as someone who won't acknowledge GM's continuing product failings, no matter how much "proof" is provided.
You claim C&D called the Cobalt a "high quality small car." Please give me proof -- month and page number will suffice.
In the meantime, you and everyone else should always remember one important thing:
In the end, I DON'T CARE WHAT CAR ANYONE BUYS
Do you think I stay up at night agonizing over the fact that "Someone might buy a GM unless I steer them away from that company's product."
I don't. I drive cars, and I tell people what I think about them. If you don't like my opinion, or simply disagree, than go buy whatever you want.
If you refuse to acknowledge my "opinion" about the bulk of GM's product than disregard it, go buy a Cobalt, and have a nice life.
BTW, one final earth shattering item to report.
I own a 2004 Chevy Malibu
HA! Put that in your "You just won't give GM a chance!" pipe and smoke it!!
At first I didn't like the Cobalt's big headlights. But they have grown on me and now I quite like them. Maybe that's because they remind me on eyes on anime characters or small animals. It gives the car an innocent look.
I was actually quite impressed with the interior of a Cobalt LT I saw at the Atlanta autoshow. I thought it was quite nice compared to other small cars. I only spent a few minutes in each car but I'd put it after the Mazda3 (the car I currently own) and Corolla. The Mazda3 interior looks really nice but the wedding ring trick nets a lot of click-click-click. I like the interior the most, but not because of the cheap plastic.
I agree with Karl on the Mustang after spending a week with it. Nice looking interior but not because of some of the cheap materials.
Jason
Buy what you want. Soon Toyota will be past GM in worldwide sales and then a new company will be the worlds leader in boring cars. But at least they'll be reliable. If you Think Karl's biased then maybe 1487 could be the editor for a while. Then we could have a GM bias. But I think way less people would fall for that dog and pony show. BTW I drive a chevy silverado- great truck. :P
Here's the best I can offer, a breakdown of the components that make up steering feel and brake feel (yes, brake feel exists).
Steering feel:
1. On-center dead spot -- does the wheel move a given distance before the front wheels actually start to turn? Obviously the less the better -- as long as it's not so "tight" that the car is jittery at highway speeds. This used to be a major problem with older car (they all had large on-center dead spots, especially if various steering parts were worn out), but now it's pretty minor, with the differences between the "best" cars and "worst" cars relatively small. However, I still look for it, and don't like it.
2. Weighting -- there's really two sub-elements here. First, how much resistance does the steering put up as you turn off center (note, the resistance should correlate to the actual movement of the wheels, or the on-center dead spot will feel larger then it really is)? Second, how much does the resistance build up as you turn the wheel further off center? Ideally it should be a linear weighting that starts small when just off center and gets progressively greater as you move closer to full wheel lock (left or right).
3. Feedback -- how much road surface information comes through the steering wheel rim as you hold onto it? Ideally, you should be "aware" of even the smallest pavement imperfections, but at the same time it shouldn't send back too much information, or feel overly "busy" with the information it sends back. In other words, it should tell me the important stuff about the road surface, but not necessarily every detail.
BTW, tuning in great steering feel is definitely a high art (some might say "black art) in terms of engineering and design. And of course what might be "good" steering to some will be "busy" or "intrusive" steering to others. And what might be "dead" or "overboosted" steering to some might be "smooth" and "light" steering to others. For the record, Ferrari and Porsche have the best steering feel, in my opinion. When I drove the F430 coupe last fall in October I was literally blown away by the amount of feedback coming through the wheel, along with the perfect weighting. Another staffer, who drove the F430 Spider this week, said he thought the "weighting build-up" when turning off center could have been a little better, but otherwise he agreed it was great.
Brake Feel:
1. Progressiveness -- the amount of stopping power exerted by the brakes should approximate the amount of pedal movement/pressure applied to the pedal. Some brakes are horrible at having a big zone of dead space, where nothing is happening and no resistance comes through, and then WHAM!, they hit like a sledge hammer and the car's front end dives as the driver's head bobs forward. The worst car I've driven like this? The Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR. Yes, it had "race brakes" that were supposed to provide phenomenal stopping power. But I drove the car for two full days on the press trip and still couldn't get a smooth stop out of it at low speeds. Neither could any other journalist on the trip. No amount of "racing-spec brake performance" is worth that, in my opinion. Other cars have really stiff pedals that hardly move at all and offer a big wall of resistance just as they start to move. These are also hard to modulate. Ideally the pedal should weight up (yes, just like the steering wheel) as it moves down and you apply more pressure, and the weighting up and resistance to movement should completely match the level of braking force you feel/experience.
I know someone said, "There's no brake feel, you just get used to whatever amount of pressure needed for a given stopping situation." That seems a bit oversimplified, but even if I agree for the sake of argument, wouldn't you rather "get used" to a pedal that offered progressive movement and resistance, versus one that was very mushy or another one that felt overly stiff and hardly moved at all?
2. ABS -- When ABS does kick in, it shouldn't send a pulse through the pedal and it shouldn't make a bunch of clicking/grinding noise. I know someone out there will argue that they like the noise/vibration because "it let's me know when ABS is being used." My question: Who cares when it's being used? The whole point of ABS is that you can punch the brakes as hard as you need to while still having the ability to steer. So whether ABS is activated or not, your behavior during a hard stop should be the same: see if you can stop in time, and if not steer around whatever you're going to hit. One of the early problems with ABS is that people would feel the pedal pulse and lift up, thinking it was a malfunction (they'd usually plow into something immediately after this). Most drivers are more cognizant of how ABS feels these days, but either way I say the pulsing is an unnecessary distraction.
Lexus has the best brakes in the industry, overall. They could provide a bit more feedback in terms of "weighting up" while you increase the pressure on the pedal, but they are always very strong in terms of stopping distance, and they do this without even a hint of ABS noise or vibration. (And please, I don't need anyone to go out and find some test where a Lexus stopped in a longer distance than car XYZ. I've driven hundreds of cars over the past decade and Lexus cars usually have the shortest distance in a given comparison test, and they always have the least amount of ABS noise/vibration. One or two exceptions to my "distance" statement will not change my opinion...or prove any point).
I hope this helps out with some of the jargon you often see in road tests.
I have two cars same brand 98 and 03. The 98 has a moderate ABS vibration and feel on snow. Just put the 03's brakes to the floor for an unexpected interstate slowdown and never felt the ABS-I did hear tires squealing. So the newer car may have ABS that cycles without great pedal vibration and that's a good design? I got stopped when I didn't think I would. (I hate being behind large SUVs where I can't see the action ahead.)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just more acceptable. I'm not associating ABS noise/vibration with stopping distance. I think Lexus has done a great job of removing ABS noise/vibration AND I think they've done a great job of making their brakes powerful, but I don't think the two are necessarily related. So even a car with noticeable ABS noise/vibration may have a short stopping distance, but I still think modern cars should have no ABS noise/vibration (if one company can do something, then all of them can, and the one(s) doing it first are ahead of the game, IMO).
I agree about big SUVs. Probably one of the most common hazards they create is the inability to see past them, meaning little warning time when something abrupt is happening up ahead. Glad your ABS worked (vibration or no vibration).
Also - I'm surprised the GM reps didn't have a 2006 Saturn Vue on hand, as the local Saturn dealer has several.
Finally - can you say anything more about the Ford Fusion?
To the GM fanclub, please agree to disagree and move on. If most edmunds readers are like me, they were tired of this "debate" a good while ago too...
The group who has respect GM's models, at least some, shouldn't be dismissed so off-handedly. The preference for what car serves one's needs varies with age and driving style. I am interested in age groups here and in how opinion varies within age groups. If people wish to give their age group, I'm interested in how that changes their opinion of what car others should be driving.
Different strokes for different folks. But we need to respect the other folks.
I appreciate Karl's response to my question about ABS feedback/operation vibration. I was amazed when the car gave no noticeable feel in the pedal during the emergency stop. Engineering ABS systems has really changed in 10 years of this particular car model and I hoped that meant improved ability to control wheel lockup for maximum stopping power. I could not tell when the ABS started operating.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,