Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Karl's Daily Log Book
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I hope Edmunds does not have this problem with overreacting car makers!
And Should freeways be for play? Many Los Angelenos love to "play" on the freeway, especially by drafting trucks in the right lanes and then jamming back into the left lane (and traffic) at the last possible moment, disrupting the entire flow of traffic. During Holidays this is an epidemic.
I'd like to live a while longer and not be in the way of the latest virtual_nurburgring driver!
It seems to me, though, they are missing out by not offering a diesel in the "light duty" SUVs.
I wonder if that person knows about the 2006 Pontiac Solstice...
-Jason
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
More important is the fact that Edmunds' leadership has always supported an independent and unbiased editorial voice. There are plenty of publications prepared to re-word a press kit, but we aren't one of them.
And of course Ford has a major SVT Owner's group that offers everything from track days to car shows to driving schools.
I agree that people should "save it for the track" when it comes to "testing" their personal vehicles. And it's very common for owners of enthusiast vehicles to band together and rent a local track. If you get more than 10 or 15 people to go in on it the cost per person is pretty low.
I think it was a good move by GM. I am sure that losing such a large amount of adverting will put a dent in the L.A. Times bottom line. GM can find better avenues to spend their money in L.A. Besides no one in L.A. drives GM vehicles anyway:)
Have you seen this -
http://www.automobear.com/index_home_content.html
I think this article has a lot of good info. The G6 is doing ok and will do better with more variants in the near future. GM screwed up, as usual, by not having all models/engines available at launch. The G6 is not the class leader,but better than many give it credit for. If you ask me, the worst aspect of the G6 is the lousy electric steering.
Yeah, it probably will. It will also piss off every journalist in the free world because it smacks of corporate interference with a free press. They can't get journalists on their side by bullying them. They need to accept that, even with good product, it's going to take years and years to win over not only the public, but journalists as well.
I read the LA Times auto reviews weekly online, and Dan Neill's articles in particular. I haven't noticed any more bias in their articles than in any number of publications. This is a very childish move by GM, and it's not going to win them any friends.
As for GM's reaction to the LA Times, it seems a common trait held by companies managed by control-oriented executives. Apple is fighting with the press over "leaks". Disney is fighting on a number of fronts. There are many other examples.
Then again, the LA Times seems to have gotten a fair number of things wrong with that review.
A major Consumer magazine didn't think all that much of the G6 either, but so far GM is not attacking them in the press.
I hope Edmunds will remain an objective, fun place to get info on cars.
Considering the diesel in the liberty is european, I think the difference you're seeing is the price level and the type of engines. I think the TDI's are pretty smooth for the money, but getting into truck engines of this sort even the gas liberty is rough and noisy. I'd be interested in a test of the Touareg TDI and the Lexus hybrid. Leave out the fact that the Lexus is aimed at the luxury crown, and the VW is more performance/utility. I'm just interested in the drivetrain comparisons.
I don't think converting to a high pressure system would do much for vehicles that currently aren't running it. My TDI runs better on low-sulphur fuel with it's current injection system. My Dodge Ram is running a high-pressure common rail system and I don't notice much difference between #2 diesel and the low-sulphur. Pulls fine either way, but it will smoke a little on cold starts with the regular #2 diesel. I can't get it to smoke while pulling. 15,000# trailer, pulling a hill at redline doesn't smoke. Lugging the trailer in 6th up a hill, no smoke. Another guy that pulls with us has a newer Ford 6.0L diesel and he smokes when accelerating/pulling hard.
Of course they can. They can also enjoy the anti-GM PR backlash as well.
This was a very childish move by GM.
Here's commentary from Autoextremist.com:
http://www.autoextremist.com
Both articles make two references that I take issue with:
1. There is an underlying desire by the automotive press to "get" GM
2. The G6 is basically a "good" car
I'll take each one in order:
1. I'm am tired of hearing people (GM employees, GM fans, and anyone else) try to explain the bad press GM is getting as some sort of coordinated, industry wide movement. I know for a fact Edmunds.com doesn't do this, and my impression of other automotive commentary suggests they aren't doing it either. If a car performs poorly for some reason, Edmunds.com reports on it. As an example, when our long-term Honda Pilot shredded a timing belt at 14,000 miles I took the car, and the company, to task. They produced a vehicle with a flaw, then they failed to inform me of the flaw (we never got the recall notice) and then the dealer missed the lack of recall service to this vehicle when it went in for its 7,500-mile service. I called all three of these issues out in both the long-term update and in an editorial column. You can read both here:
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/100237/article.html
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=76080/pageId=56689
Was Honda happy about this type of coverage? Did they like us running a photo of a Honda Pilot on a flatbed truck? No. Did they pull advertising or restrict our access to press cars or do anything else to "punish" us for this coverage. Of course not. They screwed up, they knew it, and they accepted it.
My point is that we obviously provide negative coverage when it is warranted -- brand be damned. Obviously some brands generate negative coverage more often than others, but only as a reflection of the product, not any overriding feelings that all cars from company X are bad, which brings me to my second point...
2. Here is a direct quote from the Automobear story:
This notwithstanding, G6 is a good car: an agile corner-carver with quick steering that could use more feedback; a distinctively-styled mainstreamer with short overhangs and an aggressive stance in a sea of bland bulbousness, and the beginning of a product line that will field some very interesting sister models.
A good car? A good car??? Let me make one thing clear right now -- in 2005 nobody gets credit for making "a good car." Every car sold in this country has the following traits:
Basically comfortable
Basically reliable
Basically safe
Basically well equipped (it's almost impossible to buy a car without air conditioning and cruise control these days)
Because all of the above attributes are essentially standard on EVERY vehicle sold in the U.S. today, I don't give extra credit for possesing those traits. Peter DeLorenzo rightly identified this issue in his column:
The bottom line to all of this is that GM somehow still clings to the mindset that "good enough" is good enough with their products, and as I've said many, many times before, "good enough" stopped being good enough in the North American car market at least 15 years ago
BINGO!
I'll go one further. As someone who drives hundreds of cars every year, many of them back-to-back with their competitors during a comparison test, I can tell you that beyond the standard items I listed above, cars from a given brand generally leave me with at least one positive impression as I exit the vehicle:
1. Honda -- almost class-leading refinement (maybe just a tad behind Toyota, but better than everyone else), exceptional interior design, remarkable power considering engine size, excellent fuel economy, more fun to drive than I expected
2. Toyota -- class-leading refinement, class-leading quality, extremely functional interior design, superb ride quality, class-leading brakes
3. Nissan -- class-leading performance, creative (without being too extreme, usually) exterior design, nimble handling, creative/unique features
4. Chrysler/Dodge -- class-leading exterior design, class-leading horsepower (not always, but often), solid ride/handling
5. Ford -- great steering feel and overall handling, solid interior design and quality, attractive exterior design (often retro, but still well executed)
6. BMW -- class-leading driving dynamics, exceptional engine power given engine size, class-leading passion
7. Mercedes -- class-leading ride quality (Mercedes is in a different class from Toyota), class-leading automtic transmission performance, class-leading advanced technology
8. Volkswagen -- class leading interior quality, excellent driving dynamics
8. Volvo -- class-leading safety, steadily improving exterior design and driving dynamics
10. Hyundai/Kia -- class-leading value, creative exterior design, steadily improving interior quality, particularly given price
Am I generalizing with the above attributes, meaning you could likely find at least one model from each manufacturer that doesn't display them? YES! Are there negative qualities that also tend to go with each of the above manufacturers? YES!
But my point is that for each manufacturer listed above I can name one class-leading, or near class-leading attribute, that most of their product line offers.
Now I'll do GM:
11. GM --
Nothing comes to mind! The closest I can get would be to say that they usually aren't underpowered and they usually have very smart automatic transmissions, but neither attribute is class leading.
Yes, the XLR has an impressive interior. Yes, the Corvette offers a lot of performance for the dollar. Yes, the CTS-V is fun to drive. But even these models aren't class leaders in my opinion. I'll take a 300C SRT-8 over a CTS-V (costs less, looks cooler, better interior). I'll take either a Mercedes SL or Porsche 911 Cabriolet over an XLR (the SL and 911 cost more, but they offer better driving dynamics and more passion, something buyers at this price point want). I'll take a M3 over a Corvette (better interior, better steering feel, better shifter -- plus I could use the rear seat). And yes, I know the Corvette is faster in a straight line, but that one advantage isn't enough for me.
I will allow for the above-mentioned GM products being much better than "good" and I don't begrudge people for buying them. But GM is the biggest car company on the planet with numerous brands (some would argue too numerous). Considering their position in the world they should have more than three or four strong products.
Two years ago I interviewed Bob Lutz
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/100660/article.html
In this interview he told me, "This is still one of the, maybe, two automobile companies left in the world that can do anything it wants to — anything.."
Agreed. Now why don't the products reflect this?!!
Please, Bob, give me something positive to feel everytime I exit almost every
C&D is celebrating their 50th anniversary this year, and they are doing one story per month for each decade. Well, when they revisited the 60's, they republished a very scathing review of the Opel Kadett wagon. Evidently, the story goes that GM was so incensed with the article that all divisions of GM ceased all of their advertising in all of the magazines owned by C&D's corporate parent ... even going so far as to cancel Frigidaire ads in a bridal magazine!
Institutional memory is a funny thing....
You forgot BORING.
The CTS-V and SRT-8 are not in the same category for one reason - only the CTS-V has a manual.
Again, I don't think the Vette and M3 are in the same category as far as consumers are concerned.
Please, Bob, give me something positive to feel everytime I exit a GM vehicle.
As I said in my original post "Are there negative qualities that also tend to go with each of the above manufacturers? YES!"
Having negative qualities is ok, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE SOME POSITIVE ONES, TOO.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out the corporate-wide, class-leading trait possessed by most GM products. The hook that suggests I should strongly consider their product if I value...XYZ.
Please check out the 2006 Pontiac Solstice.
Also, have you driven other GM cars, like a Vauxhall sports car or a Holden?
Oh, and the Corvette handles better than an M3.
"Ford -- great steering feel and overall handling, solid interior design and quality, attractive exterior design (often retro, but still well executed"
Does a Ford Corwn Victoria had better steering feel, handling, an interior than a new Cadillac STS?
The main problem with GM, in my opinion, is that it's inconsistent. GM can produce winners (Pontiac Solstice) but it can also produce some real bad products. (The Aztek comes to mind) GM can build cars that perform pretty good at CR's testing track (Chevrolet Malibu) yet it can also build cars that CR criticizes constantly. (Saturn ION) It's this inconsistency that's killing GM. If a consumer rents a Chevrolet Cavalier at Enterprise, and is very dissatisfied with it, he might make a generalization about Chevrolet as a whole. Sure, Chevrolet may build a few very good cars (Malibu, Corvette) but its the ones that aren't very good that are rented by people who don't know much about cars who generalize about it and say "Geez. Chevrolets must stink. This Cavalier is a mess."
The one car that I think is being overly criticized though, is the Buick LaCrosse. Buick says its a "premium midsized car" while all the car magazines (including Edmunds) compare the LaCrosse to the Toyota Avalon, Ford Five-Hundred, etc. The LaCrosse was built with the Lexus ES330 in mind. It may not be as refined, prestigious or expensive, but it is certainly about the same size. The aging Buick LeSebre is the car that's supposed to cover the Full Sized market. Why do all the car magazines, Consumer Reports and Edmunds.com included, compare the Buick LaCrosse, a midsized car, with full sized cars such as the Toyota Avalon and Ford Five-Hundred?
Incentives, but of course!
The Buick LeSabre will be replaced by the Lucerne this fall.
One could say that Dodge is inconsistent with the Neon and the new Magnum.
I can not think of anything. But, you should be able to. It is hard to believe that you can find no redeeming traits for a company that still maintains 25% of the market. Does this mean that the consumers that bought GM products should have bought something else? There must be something (besides incentives) that drives consumers to purchase GM products.
So, how does the new Cobalt stack up? It has received mostly positive reviews from what I have seen. Please do not tell me that the new Jetta is better - it should be because comparably equiped it will cost thousands more. If you ask me it is now a class leader (maybe not when the new Civic bows). I would also rank the Mazda3 at the top, even though I do not think that sales of the 3 are much better than the Protege.
Already said you'd be able to find specific cars from each manufacturer that didn't match my general description of the total product offering. And already said GM may have three or four great products, but as the largest car maker on the planet that's a pretty weak position to be in. The new STS better than an ancient design like the Crown Vic? Yeah, that's something for GM to brag about...
BTW, steering feel on the M3 is waaaaay better than new Corvette, and that's more important to me than ultimate straightline power or maximum lateral Gs, since I experience steering feedback every second I'm behind the wheel, but maximum acceleration and/or handling happen very rarely on the street.
The BMW M3's engine has had a few problems...
BMW M3's engine
I can hardly wait for the 2006 Corvette Z06. I'd take it over a new 911. For one, I can hardly believe that Porsche refuses to fix the RMS (rear main seal) on the new 2005 911. This RMS problem has gone on since the 1997 Boxster.
And once again, Chrysler (300) and Ford (Five-Hundred) are doing a better job at this than GM (LaCrosse). Is the LaCrosse a "bad" car? No. Is it as good as the Five-Hundred or 300 (which both cost about the same and offer similar size/equipment)? Also no. The LaCrosse is certainly quicker than the Ford because of the weak Duratec engine, but the Ford has better interior, better space utilization and better driving dynamics. The Chrysler is pretty much better in every way.
No surprises here, but a very typical performance by all of the domestics (and one that coincides with my previous generalizations of each manufacturer).
I'll need a few days to compile my GM list...
In terms of me finding a redeeming quality to GM vehicles, I think I've explained my overall feelings about the challenges faced by this automaker.
At this point it's up to you guys. Someone pick a segment and then tell me why the GM offering is the BEST one in that segment. Not a good offering. Not a solid offering. The BEST offering.
BTW, I'll be a lot more impressed if it's not the Corvette or STS you campaign for, because there are some others out there.
"Ford -- great steering feel and overall handling, solid interior design and quality, attractive exterior design (often retro, but still well executed)"
Does that really apply to the Ford Crown Victoria?
I'm glad that Ford will replace the Crown Victoria with the Australian Ford Falcon in a few years.
Maybe it is just me, but the new Z06 seems like it has the stuff to make it at least one of the best sports cars out there.
Carbon fiber, magnesium, six-piston caliper front brakes with individual brake pads, four-piston caliper rear brakes with individual brake pads, 505 hp, backed by the factory in racing, dry-sump lubrication, aluminum chassis, developed with the C6-R, developed with Dave Hill and other Corvette enthusiasts, 470 lb-ft of torque, 7,000 rpm redline, exhaust mufflers with valves that open after 3,500 rpm, and on and on...
The 911 is fantastic, but Porsche refuses to fix the RMS (rear main seal) leaks on the new 05 911 (it is a rare problem). The RMS problem first came out on the 1997 Boxster. The 911 Turbo used to be the wild 911, but now any pimple-face teenager with a driver's license could drive it thanks to an optional automatic transmission. Dry-sump lubrication was only available on the previous 911 with the GT2, GT3, and 911 Turbo. Plus, the new Cayman (Boxster with a roof and other changes) could make the 911 obsolete.
Now the 2006 Pontiac Solstice.
Awesome styling (makes the new MX-5 look bland), $19,995 including a $575 destination charge (will be the most affordable roadster on the market), optional limited-slip differential (gee, where is that on the Z4?), less weight than a Z4 and Audi TT, no gizmos to go wrong like SMG, and on...
Sure there's a lot of nitpicking to do, but also against all of GM's halo cars. The Corvette's rear suspension -> unrefined handling, the Solstice's and Cobalt SS's weight, the Cadillacs' interiors... but what bothers me more is that all of GM's halo cars are among the cheaper offerings in their classes. And the saved money always means a compromise in something that should be very important to that class of car (like all the examples I mentioned). I don't mind when an up-and-coming manufacturer like Hyundai takes that approach, but it seems wrong for GM to make a car that's going to sell just because it's cheaper than the competition. "Bang for the buck" isn't exactly the stuff of dreams.
(They do have great styling, but GM only does styling well on their halo cars... and so does everybody else. The others do styling well on their normal cars, too...)
GM had better nailed this one. It could do a lot for their image. If it turns out to be only so-so and not class-leading, they really don't get it.
Class-leading GM vehicle = full size vans (just being funny, but it is true).
I am a longtime GM owner but I am not a "fanboy" who can't stand criticism - you should see my scathing posts on how Igot treated by GM's "customer service" (or lack thereof) when my first 2004 GTO was problematic (it eventually got exchanged - but it took GM 54 days to process the exchange paperwork - a total of 51 days after the dealer got my replacement car!).
I can certainly offer you some suggestions on things that GM cars do extremely well:
a) HVAC - every GM car I've EVER driven has had been great about its ability to quickly heat or cool the car. I realize this may not be important to most Californians, but to those of us in the upper Midwest, or in Texas or Floriday, this is VERY important.
b) automatic transmissions - in general GM has led the industry in their development and reliability. The lack of 5 and 6 speed autos is being rectified fairly soon. I'm sure there's someone out there who has had problems with reliability, but, considering the number of vehicles they sell, you do not hear too much about automatic transmission reliability on GM vehicles (unlike, say, Honda/Acura, and Chrysler's wonderful "UltraDrive").
c) engines. Again, I've never had a significant engine problem with a GM car (but I'm well aware of the head and intake gasket problems of the 3.1, 3.4, and 3.8L engines). GM powertrains are typically not underpowered (and fairly reliable. The engines typically provide excellent fuel economy and very good performance. Some of them (the LS1 and LS2 motors in the 'Vette and GTO, the Northstar family) are very impressive pieces of engineering.
I'm sure I could think of more if I was more awake/wasn't typing this first thing in the morning. I can also tell you the things GM has done poorly (interior design/quality, relatively bland exterior styling - though I have yet to see a Toyota that makes me go "wow" - to be fair the new Lexus GS and IS are very nice).
Based upon my mostly-positive experiences with GM vehicles, and the experiences of co-workers who have bought recent (1998-up) Hyundais and Kia's, I would tilt the "value" equation into GM's favor. If you just said which car was the "cheapest" to buy, I'd agree with the Koreans, but when you talk about "value" it should factor in such things as price (GM is competitive here due to their incentives), reliability, and functionality. Per Terry here on Edmunds, Hyundai/Kia are also still pretty bad at resale value - an area where GM cars aren't so great, thanks to the discounts, but they're still ahead of the Koreans).
OK, flame away. These are just my opinions.
--Robert
I am curious as I find my Forester to be the most nimble tall wagon/ small SUV out there.