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
Comments
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0503/21/A01-123402.htm
If it's true that Zeta products couldn't compete price-wise with the 300C and Mustang, then it was the right decision. But GM had better come up with Plan B ASAP...
--Robert
M
" Is the Aztek still in production?"
It's still being built, but this is the last year. It's being replaced by the Torrent, a small SUV built on the same platform as the Vue and Equinox. The pictures look pretty nice. Interior definitely looks good.
I did see a little of the scrunched rear side window look in the Avalon. But all this makes me think of the Sevilles with the gangster look in the 77-78 era (right years?).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Chrysler really got a leg up on everyone else in 1956 by putting tailfins on all the cars, and integrating them into the design so they looked like a natural part of the car. The all-new '57 models were designed from the start with tailfins, so here they looked like an integral part of the car as well, and even served a purpose. At higher speeds, they diverted the wind to give you more stable handling. Of course, you had to get up to around 80-90 mph to see it! And while the cars were certainly capable of those speeds at the time, it's doubtful that most of the roads were! But contrast that to, say, a '59 Chevy. Its batwing tailfins also diverted the air, but in a way that if you got up to around 110 mph in the right wind conditions, you could get the rear-end of the car to lift off the ground!
When the Chrysler products came out for 1957, it made everybody else's cars look about 4 years old. That sent everybody scrambling back to the drawing board, trying to outdo Chrysler's fins. And as a result, Chrysler tried to outdo them, and it just became a big mess.
As for what cars had tailfins 10 years later? Well, the Europeans were often about 10 years behind the domestics back then when it came to style, so plenty of Euro models had them throughout the 60's. First thing that pops into my mind is the Mercedes Fintail!
I like the new 300 and Magnum, but in many ways it's the Hemi that makes the car. Take that away and the 300 and Magnum are more like a 2005 Diplomat and Volare wagon, respectively. I do like the fact that they're RWD though, and have plenty of stretch-out room. FWD cars that have the passenger cabin too close to the front usually suffer in legroom, whereas the 300 is a car where you can stretch out in comfort, 70's style.
Trucks still and will continue to represent a huge profit area for GM. They sell over 1 million units annually. They know there will be a return on their investment in trucks. Also don't forget some of that money will be spent on furthering hybrids in the truck line.
Spending money on a platform for North America that has been deemed uncompetitve makes no sense. They still will use it overseas it seems.
I think the GTO's sales failure has both GM and Lutz wondering about what the market place really is. The GTO is a rebadged Monaro, so the styling is not Lutz's, but the expectation that this would be a hot seller in the US really does make one wonder if they (whoever "they" is) really understands the current car market.
However, if the production costs are high because you are using an expensive steel alloy then making 10 times as many units will not reduce the cost at all. Your only real hope of reducing the cost is for the steel alloy's production cost to go down. Or you need to replace the expensive steel alloy with something cheaper, which will probably result in an poorer product.
You still have to pay engineering costs to stretch or shrink the basic platform and then actually design everything thing else for the final vehicle. Maybe Lutz is looking at it this way: GM has to engineer the platform for new RWD Camaros, Impalas, Devilles, what have you. Potential volume doesn't indicate that it would be profitable, hence the business case doesn't work. Using the architecture as it is would not be profitable either. Heck, IIRC the new Commodore/Monaro were supposed to built in the US and exported to Australia - that must be dead now as well.
Wasn't the new Mustang supposed to use the underpinnings of the S type/Lincoln LS? But it turned out to be too expensive so they engineering another. That makes no financial sense to me but then again 0% financing allows car companies to be profitable.
I think the Zeta platform is still alive at Holden. I don't know about the Monaro though.
Lots of Holden folks are pretty PO'd about the cancellation of Zeta for NA. Seems that they spent quite a lot of $$$ designing the platform for U.S. assembly and sales, only to now see the cancellation for GMNA. Means they probably won't ever make money on their Zeta cars - and Holden has been consistently profitable for GM for the past several years (unlike GMNA and GM Europe).
Corporate GM management has also whacked the Zeta wagons, preferring to push Theta-based SUV's (built by GMDAT in Korea) to Australia - and these were very common fleet vehicles in Australia (Telstra, their local telco company, bought them in tons). Wagons and Utes (like the El Camino) are and have been very popular vehicles in Australia, unlike the U.S. - seems to be a case where "North American" thinking is not helping.
There's been quite a bit of bickering between Holden and GMNA, and this decision doesn't make things any better, that's for sure...
Styling? What styling? STYLING is exactly the problem with the GTO - and I think the new Mustang proves that.... because from what I've read, the GTO performs, but it looks like a Grand Am, or even worse. The Mustang, OTOH, looks great, and performs well too, is priced great, and can't stay on the lot, while the GTO is a boat anchor. I've yet to see one on the road, or if I have, I couldn't tell, which, well, I repeat myself, what style??? If Lutz had anything to do with that, shame on him.
I know, but it seems to me they're putting all their eggs in one basket. Toyota is coming for them in truck market with their next full size truck and they're also going to do they hybrid route too on both cars and trucks. GM needs some cars worth talking about. If they couldn't make a sound business case for this platform then what was the point? The idea of rwd Buicks, a real GTO, and some others rwd drivers sounded good to me. Oh well. Make more trucks and hope gas prices don't hinder sales.
The Mustang is built on a derivative of the LS platform, only it uses a live axle and other cheap outs. I've never seen where it was a totally different platform, you're right they wouldn't make sense.
M
Good God, I don't want to live in a world where my only automotive choices are Honda and Toyota. That would be like going to Baskin Robbins and having tens of choices and they're all vanilla!
But the profits on trucks should be used to develop new car platforms. From the sounds of it, GM can't afford to do both right now. So they invest in what is almost a sure thing versus a riskier venture.
As for RWD, I realize it is the preferred over FWD for handling. But it seems that more automakers are going even further to AWD. IMHO, that's where GM should spent the next round of development money.
FWD may be sufficient for you winter driving but many folks want the performance advantage of AWD. Subaru started it. Audi offers everything in AWD. Volvo, BMW, and MB offer it on all their models. The 300 offers it as does the 500 and Monterey. So will the Fusion, Milan, and Zephyr.
IMHO, GM should develop RWD platforms for their premium and performance models that can be equipped with AWD.
--Robert
who's getting "REAL GTO" on his '04's license tag
Only the A4 sedan and cabriolet are offered in FWD. All other models are designed as AWD. Their handling may be second rate compared to BMW but whose isn't - at least according to the enthusiast publications.
Luckily GM could appropriate AWD from Subaru.
Well, guess what! The '04-'05 GTO look just like the Grand Am and the '97-'03 Grand Prix. And it's RWD and has a big V-8!
The problem is, anytime anyone mentions "GTO" folks think of the Judge models. Most of the GTO's didn't look too much different than other Pontiacs available at the time. Just like the '04. The difference is in the drive wheels (RWD) and performance (350/400 HP V-8). And the GTO has just about the best interior of any current GM vehicle (and it has a "real" backseat, unlike most high-performance coupes.
Part of the problem with the car is that it doesn't photograph well. See it in person, and your perspectives (literally) may change. I agree there's a Cavalier/Sunfire similarity at first, but the first thing you note when parking next to one is the difference in size and scale. The GTO does look more... imposing in person. Owning one, I can tell you I get lots of attention cruising down the road (especially if I hit the go pedal), getting into/out of my car at parking lots, et. al. As long as the police don't give me attention, I'm happy :-)
Also, with only 16k made last year, and 12k this year (short model year), you're not going to see them everywhere. GM never planned on selling 200k of this car, with a max of 18k per year production ability. It's true the '04's did not sell well, for a number of reasons (poor marketing, poor product shipment sending RWD cars to snow-laden states, common knowledge that the '05's would have more HP and scoops, and, the big one, dealers gouging asking for more than MSRP). The '05's are actually selling above Pontiac's expectations.
Too bad there probably won't be a next-gen, at least for several more years, if at all. Just happy I have mine, and that there isn't one on every corner, at every car rental lot, et. al.
--Robert
Pontiac took that performance image and worked its magic into all of it cars, from the most mundane Tempest on up to the poshest Bonnevilles and Grand Prixes. So while a GTO is just a Tempest with performance mods, a '64 Tempest is already a tough, mean looking car. Even with just a 6-cyl and 4-doors, it still looks rugged.
I did finally get to sit in a GTO at the DC auto show, and I really fell in love with the interior. One thing I really liked was how you could really stretch out up front. The way I could fully extend my right leg and just barely reach the firewall made me think of a big old RWD 70's car, before they started with all this FWD stuff that gave you wheel cutouts invading into the footwell, awkwardly placed dead pedals, dashboards that were so low that guys with big feet could accidentally snag the wiring underneath, etc... The exterior is just kind of there...it doesn't excite me, but it doesn't offend me either. But for something that's badged as a GTO, it just doesn't look the part. GTO's (and the '73-75 Grand Am, and the '77 1/2 Can Am with the ads that proclaimed "Remember the Goat!") all had that tough, macho look to them, like they could take anything on and win. They had attitude.
The current GTO does have the performance, but I guess it's just lacking the attitude. Overall it seems to have the goods though...big V-8 engine, a coupe that some of you might actually call "large" :-), RWD, stick shift availability, etc. Maybe it would've sold better if they just gave it a different name? As it stands, you probably just had too many purists who had a '64 or other GTO as a kid, or had a restored one locked up in the garage, screaming "THAT AIN'T NO GTO!!"
Then, there's the "Woodward" Ram-Air 6 concept car (from which the next-gen GTO was to take styling cues from):
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Pontiac-GTO-Ram-Air-6.htm
--Robert
I like the way that concept even has a 389! I wonder if they just took the 5.7 and enlarged it to 389 (what's that, about 6.5 liters?), or if they just took an old Pontiac 389 and modernized it?
Buick had a concept car a few years back called a Blackhawk, that used a modified, modernized 455 that put out an obscene amount of horsepower. That was an awesome looking car too, one that, if launched on the public, would show that Buick was back with a vengeance! Except for the fact that it would still be a halo car, and, well, Buick just doesn't have that much of a model lineup to back it up at this point. :-(
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2000-Buick-Blackhawk-Concept.htm
The Blackhawk was a retro concept, that evoked Buick styling of the late 30's and early 40's, but in overall proportioning, this thing is really long and low-slung. Kinda makes me think of what might've happened if GM had taken a 1971-76 Riviera, made it into a convertible, and given it a heavy retro touch. And speaking of Rivs, it's hard to tell from the angle, which doesn't show much, but the interior looks like it might be similar to a '95-99 Riv.
The concept is burgundy, which nowadays seems reserved for mainly little old lady cars, but it looks great on this Blackhawk!
He said he believes sales are "at least 30 percent below" where they need to be to keep the G6 factories running at capacity, which he estimated at 200,000 vehicles a year.
Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research Inc. in Bandon, Ore., agreed, characterizing the performance of the G6 as "awful."
Consumers bought an average of 195,949 Grand Ams a year, or an average of 16,329 a month, between its release in 1984 and last year, according to the research firm Autodata Corp. of Woodcliff Lake, N.J.
In February, consumers bought 7,043 G6s, which would translate into about 84,516 in annual sales.
To get those volumes, GM has had to offer substantial incentives, such as cash-back rebates and discounted financing rates. Buyers in this region today can get at least $1,500 cash off of the G6, or $500 off plus special interest rates of 2 percent or less for loans up to 72 months.
Since Winfrey's media-splash giveaway, consumers have purchased 27,332 G6s. But in the first six months of the Grand Am release, 31,673 cars were sold, according to Autodata. So the G6 is selling about 86 percent as well as the Grand Am did half a year into its launch.
Detroit Free Press auto critic Mark Phelan saw problems with the G6 coming. He gave the car two out of four stars in a review last year, noting: "They are attractive, comfortable and competent cars, but a high price, iffy interiors and oddly tuned steering leave them well short of sporty competitors."
CNW's research shows that GM is tops in the marketing department, getting some of the best showroom traffic among automakers. Currently, Pontiac is sponsoring the NCAA men's basketball tournament, giving the G6 a new round of high exposure.
With the G6 not selling as well as the vehicle it replaced, GM continues to lose market share. GM's share of the market was down to 25.1 percent for the year through February, compared with 26.9 percent a year ago and 27.5 percent for all of 2004.
Remember that in the 1960s, GM was still the styling leader, and Pontiac was the styling leader within GM.
Saying that a car looked like a Pontiac was a compliment. Not so today.
GM also made sure that styling cues appeared first on the upper-level models before they filtered down to the lower-priced vehicles.
Thus, stacked, vertical headlights and "Coke bottle" rear fenders appeared on the Catalinas and Bonnevilles before showing up on Tempests a year or two later.
The GTO didn't pick up styling cues from the Chevy II or Corvair. And no one ever said it looked like a Chevy II.
The GTO does have a nice interior. But from the outside, it does not have much "presence," in my opinion. Certainly not the presence people paying $30,000+ expect in a new car.
M
At least Ford and Chrysler have some cars that look really good.
I drive a G35 and feel GM has noting in that class except their over priced Cadillac.
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=102049
Depressing if were a GM fan. I don't think they can afford to shut down another division.
M
Yeah...I'm surprised nobody's latched onto the fact that this latest GM crisis hit the fan just after the Oldsmobile phase-out was completed. There are lots of factors at work, but I don't think that was entirely a coincidence.
Reliable insiders on other boards are hinting that there is already a plan in place to phase-out Pontiac. Obviously that has not been confirmed by GM, but if I had to place a bet I'd say that's the way the winds are blowing right now. I drive a Pontiac ('86 Parisienne) and I love it, but in my opinion Pontiac has been going down the tubes for the last 15 years. Their goofy plasti-blob styling fit with the times in the early '90s, but it doesn't fit now, and they can't seem to get away from it. This has nothing to do with quality or fit-and-finish. Those things are fine on new Pontiacs. It's a design issue. I prefer Pontiac's clean, angular styling from the early '80s. A Pontiac 6000 STE would look rather clean and elegant next to the misshapen G6.
-Andrew L
-Andrew L
I can't imagine GM having to drop another division. That would be like the ultimate in surrendering market share to the Asian imports and even DCX. Pontiac it seems has way to many newer models in the showroom now and more on the way to be axed. To me Buick would be a more likely choice or Saturn. We know for sure that Chevy and Cadillac will never be phased out. GM execs will go down with the ship before terminating those two brands.
Then there is Saturn, which until I saw the SkY and Aura I would have said please get rid of those nasty little cars. Now they too hold some promise, like around this time next year.
Does Saab count as one of their "divisions" like Chevy etc.? Not sure, but they've already done Saab in for the most part so why not let this brand die instead of making Chevys/Subarus out of them?
The most expendable might just be GMC. Nothing unique there, just luxury versions of Chevy trucks.
I truly hope they don't have to shut another division down.
M
I don't think they can afford not to.
"Pontiac it seems has way to many newer models in the showroom now and more on the way to be axed." - Merc1
Olds had just revamped much of their line-up when it got flushed. If I'm not mistaken, the Intrigue and Alero were both first gen vehicles when it happened.
If Pontiac is phased out, I expect it'll take several years for it to happen. By that time, the G6 and Torrent won't be quite so new. Leftover units will go to rental fleets.
I agree with you on Saturn. Although the Relay appears to be the automotive equivalent of microwaved leftovers, the brand name has something to build on. All it needs is good product... and the show cars have promise.
IMO they should have at least given the new Aurora and Bravada a chance to see how well they sold before pulling the plug.
If I remember correctly, Chrysler killed off Plymouth pretty quickly in comparison.
In general, I agree - GM really should have only 3 divisions - Chevrolet at the low end, Cadillac at the high end, and then a mid-range ...maybe Saturn if they can bring out the Aura pretty much un-changed from the concept, and then build on that, with the Sky, a new Relay, a new Vue, etc...
I think Pontiac and GMC have already been merged, so it would be relatively easy to kill both of them.
We've been saying in forums like this for years, GM doesn't have the resources and the market share anymore to have all these divisions.. they'd be better off paring down to 3 or 4 max.
Let's say, if GM announced on June 1 2005 that they were dropping Pontiac, I would hope they weren't still making Pontiacs for the 2009 model year!
Olds basically became an European style car maker, while Buick remained traditional American style. I think the traditional Olds buyer ended up at Buick.
As for now - merging Pontiac and Buick would makes the most sense to me. Most stores are already together (at least here in New England). They can cover a broad stroke of the market as they have few overlapping models.
Pontiuk!!
I wonder if either Buick or Pontiac could stand if the other is terminated.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/date/19960221/news00188.html
They didn't spend money on the GTO, and their next fully enticing offering is the Slstice, which, oh by the way, is a Sky (aside from a niche offering).
Hmmmmm.....