By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
As myself and others have already pointed out, nobody in the union designed those awful Cavaliers or decided to give them such a long shelf-life before replacing them with another car that still can't compete in its class.
You can blame the unions or the Japanese or your mother-in-law for the automakers' problems, but at the end of the day, it comes down to their failure to make desirable products that consumers want to buy.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I hate to point a finger but someone has GM and the others in a choke hold, and if they dont work it out for their own good, they will sink the Big 3 along with their jobs.
Like the story of the scorpion and the frog, no matter what promises are made, the scorpion will sting the frog as it carries it on its back across the pond and they both will go down......
Think that attitude goes along with the management deficiency and worker attitude? They get state unemployment for 20 weeks but all the rest of the cost is up to GM...funded out of car sales?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The article linked here claims costs of about $2,000 per car. Given the overall expense load of the company and the average sales price of a car, that doesn't seem all that unmanageable if the company can stop blaming the little guy and develop products that consumers actually want.
This guy from Edmunds seems to have figured it out, too bad he isn't participating on this thread:
The key will be to anticipate consumer demands and stay ahead of the technology curve. Add-ons such as MP3 capabilities were a non-factor five years ago, but now two out of three U.S. drivers say they'd like an MP3 option in a new car, according to Edmonds.
"They need to sense those future trends and integrate them," [Edmund's executive director of industry analysis Jesse] Toprak said.
But first, the U.S. manufacturers must reverse public opinion. Young, trend-setting markets on the East and West Coasts are buying more Japanese cars than ever before. More U.S. buyers believe foreign carmakers produce superior products. Regardless of whether it's true, the U.S. automakers must convince buyers that their cars are equal to or better than their foreign counterparts.
With the announced cutback, GM's plan is to achieve $7 billion in cost reductions by the end of 2006. Ford is expected to announce cutbacks early next year. Analysts agreed that it's a good first step, but it won't help if they don't start making more sales.
"If' you're not selling enough cars, you're not going to make enough money," Toprak said. "Cuts aren't going to maintain long-term, sustainable growth — only sales does that. It's all about the product."
ABC News
If you're dealing in facts, you cannot state as a fact that repair costs of a Cobalt will be more than for a Corolla...
Are you thinking of the listed maintenance costs as repair costs? The maintenance items are stretched by makers to try to reduce the apparent cost of ownership in such comparisons, primarily for fleet type sales buyers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Companion table: "Comparing the Best"
In essence, basic differences include:
-Toyota's team method empowers workers while reducing defects on the line before assembly is complete, resulting in fewer defects and fewer warranty claims
-US automakers assembly lines are less flexible, causing them to overbuild unneeded inventory and not shifting production to higher demand vehicles as the market shifts
Obviously, the workers need to be cooperative, but much of it comes down to management providing better facilities and methods. And of course, it helps to build cars that people actually want to buy...
Let's make one thing clear. That is the manufacturing process of the US AUTO Manufacturers. Many US manufacturers have adopted many of the Toyota manufacturing principals and have used them aucessfully for years.
That isn't quite accurate. While some Big 3 plants have seen improvement and applied these techniques, many others have not or else have not implemented them properly. From the same article:
Detroit’s automakers have made huge improvements at factories, such as GM’s Oshawa plant near Toronto, winner of J.D. Power and Associates’ North American quality award for 2003. But the gap between the best and worst Big Three plants is big, undermining their overall efficiency.
Compared with Japanese plants, “the (U.S.) average is lower because you have dogs and cats,” Harbour said.
If all of GM’s assembly plants operated like Oshawa, the automaker would reap billions in earnings, Cole said. “Not millions or hundreds of millions, but literally billions of added profit.”
Now here's the irony: GM is planning on shutting down the Oshawa plant. It is also planning on shutting down the Saturn plant in Tennessee, one of GM's other superior plants.
That raises a question: Do you think that it was the UAW that chose to shut the company's best facilities, or was that someone in upper management?
Speaking about the Cobalt, I think it's being left behind on the styling front. It looked rather middle-of-the-pack when it came out, but all of its competitors are going through restylings about now. The only forward-looking designs on mainstream GM vehicles seem to come from Opel, so here's hoping for an Astra coming our way...
It is unrealistic to believe that in this society that a woker can pay absolutely nothing for healthcare. That is la la land. Everyone pays some type of health care through their employer. Why should the UAW fight and strike to become like the rest of the world? Are you really serious? Them paying for healthcare is not bringing down their standard of living that much, By paying for health care, they are actualyl helping themselves by helping to trim a big cost. Would you also argue that workers that are not working deserve pay as well? How about the UAW strike any time there is a change in the economic landscape, then Ford and GM would go belly up a lot faster. You are not presenting a case, applicable to the real world. If I was a UAW worker, I'd have to face the facts, I might have to get paid less to keep my job. Just think, if it were a company without a UAW, GM or Ford could actually do pay cuts. Oh my goodness!!!! The world must be ending at that point.
The union is not their only problem. But it is a big part of it when workers want to fight to get paid when they aren't working and for janitors to make 30 bucks an hour.
No that is not an economic fact. That is only an economic fact when the market is allowed to run freely without any artificial influences. In one breathe you say that the union should not give up benefits and in another you say something that is based on an economy that has no artificial influences which A UNION IS.
Our country does not believe in an economy that is able to adjust to equilibrium freely. That is why we have minimum wage.In the same way there is plenty the government could do to curve the flow of US jobs overseas. There was talks of increased taxes to for outsourced labor not too long ago.
"If you really think it's patriotic to earn less, then tell your employer that you insist on paying more for your healthcare. Nothing's stopping you from demanding a pay cut if you really would prefer it. "
I pay for healthcare already and my company isn't at the verge of bankruptcy with the first thing on the block to go if they file being my free healthcare (which ABSOLUTELY NO BANKRUPTCY JUDGE WOULD ALLOW) and my uncompetitive wage (have you been paying attention to what's going on at Delphi lately). If I were in that situation I'd pay for the healthcare and possibly take a pay cut (or find another job) before the company goes i bankruptcy and I am forced to do it anyway. Just my two cents. I'd rather been seen as supporting the company rather than sucking out its blood.
He is arguably already paying for it, in the form of lower wages. And in any case, most western countries have some sort of publicly paid health care plan that is funded through taxes and the public treasury, rather than through employers.
And in any case, you didn't answer my question as to whether you had demanded a pay cut in order to help your employer and serve the economy. Have you done this yet?
Nonsense. A union is a group that negotiates wages for a collective, rather than the individual negotiation that normally occurs.
A union negotiating wages is no more "artificial" than is it "artificial" to negotiate the purchase price of a car. A union simply creates leverage for the workers by uniting them so that the employer can suffer greater loss if it fails to negotiate. In a market economy, negotiation of prices and terms is core to our freedom to transact as we see fit.
And I'm sorry, but you are simply nuts if you believe that western wages are above those of developing countries simply because of unions. You forget that higher wages are a function of the supply and demand of labor, and no one in the US is going to work for Chinese wages. Would you?
You say that you pay for your healthcare and you say your healthcare is free. Is one a mistype?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Any economics majors in the house??? Or anyone who took Econ 100?? A Union my friend artificial influences supply and demand. Supply and demand are the main functions of economics. Case-in-point, paying people for not working. Minimum wage is also an artificial force. Price ceilings, stipends, subsidies, all too are artificial influences on the market.
"And I'm sorry, but you are simply nuts if you believe that western wages are above those of developing countries simply because of unions. You forget that higher wages are a function of the supply and demand of labor, and no one in the US is going to work for Chinese wages. Would you?"
I never said that simply because of unions our wages are high or did I hint at that. You do raise an interesting topic though. There is a general lapse in logic about this "outsourcing is inevitable" logic. In a Democracy, where the lower class is FAR FAR FAR FAR growing faster than any other class and the top 5% control the majority of the nations wealth, you only have but so long. If you don't hear the click ticking now, you need to clean your ears. You aren't going to tell the computer engineer that has his master's from MIT and a truck load of college loans that his job being shipped to India is inevitable. At some point the people will tell you to kiss their behinds and elect to office someone who will make sure that they are able to grab a piece of the American dream, the piece that was shipped to India.
I happen to have an MBA from one of the US' best business schools, and studied economics under one of our better known economists, so I think that I know something about it, thanks.
And no, a union simply creates negotiating leverage that increases wages if effective and doesn't if it is not. In a typical employer-employee relationship, an employer has far more leverage than does a worker, and the union helps to equalize it.
Yes, a union can threaten to constrain the supply of labor, but there is nothing sinister about that. Negotiation is typical in many transactions, from buying a house or car to getting a job. If it works, a union will get higher wages for its membership/ clients, but so would any other successful negotiator.
You aren't going to tell the computer engineer that has his master's from MIT and a truck load of college loans that his job being shipped to India is inevitable.
Actually, we are already doing just that, or at least we were until the recent resurgence of IT created a bit of a labor shortage in the US IT sector.
But yes, it should be obvious that more and more of our low-cost cars are probably going to be built by low-wage workers in Korea, China and Mexico, and that even the premium vehicles will be partially or wholly built in some developing countries. (For example, there have already been many a 3-series BMW that has been built in South Africa. And if anyone noticed, the build quality didn't seem nearly as good as were the German-built cars...)
I think you dodged around my main points a little bit. When a union specifies wages increases regardless of what happens in the economy. And then stipulates that an employer has to essentially guaranty work for said employees, again regardless of what happens in the economy. When this happens they have isolated the workforce from fluctuations in demand. THat is probably precisely why they structure it in that fashion and that is an ARTIFICIAL influence on the normal flow of supply and demand. Is it not? Then answer me this, has the UAW in fact not done both of those things? Then, following that same logic, has the UAW not then artificially influenced the normal flow of supply and demand?
"You aren't going to tell the computer engineer that has his master's from MIT and a truck load of college loans that his job being shipped to India is inevitable.
Actually, we are already doing just that, or at least we were until the recent resurgence of IT created a bit of a labor shortage in the US IT sector."
My point was, do you think in our democracy this can consistantly go on and we tell people that "it is inevitable" and they just lay quiet. Don't you think, the more and more this "inevitable outsourcing" happens that at some point it will influence peopel to vote for someone who will keep jobs in the US by placing artificial restrictions on the supply and demand of labor just as the UAW has? If that is true, than is it trully inevitable?
It's not. The term "artificial" is bogus and implies that there is some natural order that mandates that people not join together to negotiate package deals.
If workers band together to negotiate a collective price for their labor, then that's a rational decision to create leverage, which is intelligent for them to do so if they have a valuable product to sell and if the benefits of doing so exceed the costs. Sellers of goods attempt to get the highest price possible, buyers attempt to pay as little as possible, and both will haggle accordingly. That's capitalism in action.
Do you think in our democracy this can consistantly go on and we tell people that "it is inevitable" and they just lay quiet. Don't you think, the more and more this "inevitable outsourcing" happens that at some point it will influence peopel to vote for someone who will keep jobs in the US by placing artificial restrictions on the supply and demand of labor just as the UAW has?
I'll ignore your use of the term "artificial", but if voters are willing to swap higher prices and increased inflation for more jobs and fewer product choices, then we will make that choice. Lou Dobbs thinks we should, you can make your own decision. (Personally, I'm torn.)
What does that mean? I know of no such economic term, and I've got textbooks from Mankiw and Samuelson that don't have it, either.
People have the right to negotiate terms, and they do it all the time. A successful union simply negotiates terms that are better than those that individual laborers can obtain for themselves. Just as you might use a broker to buy real estate or a car because the broker has better access to information or negotiation ability, so a worker may use a union to accomplish the same thing. Nothing "artificial" about that.
In any case, I still don't see what genius at GM thought that the Cobalt was a great follow-up to the lackluster Cavalier, or how such a car is expected to compete with the Corolla, Civic, etc.. You might want to blame the union for that, but I don't recall them designing the car or developing its specs. If you know differently, feel free to provide details.
I agree with York's speech on this. If the unions see a plan that's bilateral (shares the sacrifices and the blame) and looks like it will save GM, they'll probably accept a moderate cut. I expect the job banks would be the first thing to go, or at least I hope so.
But if I were running the UAW and saw that GM was trying to save itself by doing business as usual, I'd do business as usual too, and get everything I could get before the inevitable end.
Another reality is that buying cars made in expensive countries (US, Japan, Germany) will probably cost a premium. Such products typically succeed when they are premium products, like tools that last. I don't think you can sell value products made with expensive means though, and that's the Big 3's problem.
I will get the exact economic term for you tomorrow. It falls under the same category as price fixing, price ceilings, and price floors. Since you have an MBA I know you know exactly what I am talking about. But I will get the exact term so you can no longer dodge around the issue.
"People have the right to negotiate terms, and they do it all the time. A successful union simply negotiates terms that are better than those that individual laborers can obtain for themselves. Just as you might use a broker to buy real estate or a car because the broker has better access to information or negotiation ability, so a worker may use a union to accomplish the same thing. Nothing "artificial" about that."
You keep dodging around my main point. You sure you went to a business school and not a law school for political science? Whether people have the right or not DOES NOT MATTER WHEN YOU ARE TALKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Supply and deman have nothing to do with people's rights in trade negotiation. Where in your economics books did you find that? That was in that good political science book. Price ceilings, price fixing, price floors (i.e. minimum wage), etc. may have sound reasoning behind it; however, they put a horizontal line on the supply and demand axis that is artificial because it would not normally exist in a free market. Please don't reply why it is and how it is that unions do what they do,; because, it will just prove that you are not reading my posts even further.
I would encourage that each U.S. citizen think like an economist before buying a particular product. That obviously includes a huge purchase such as a motor vehicle.
America benefits more in the end if you buy from an American company, plain and simple. Even if it is not made by an American worker.
Whether Ford builds an F-150 in America or a Fusion in Mexico, that dollar you earned, ends up as profit in Dearborn, Michigan. I would lightly argue that most of the parts in that Fusion were also made by Ford, mostly in American factories as well. Ford then in turn pays tax revenue to the state of Michigan, and to Washington.
Yes, that Fusion counts as an export from Mexico against our trade balance, but the money is paid into the United States treasury.
Let's use Apple Computer as an example. An iPod is entirely engineered in Cupertino, California, and is manufactured in China.
All the profits are pocketed by Apple in California, and paid to the state, and federal government of this great country.
YOU benefit more in the end, by buying from an American company, with your hard earned money. Your neighbor does too, your local government does, your state government does, your federal government does. However, it is an added bonus if you buy from an American company that uses an American worker to build that product.
A Hewlett-Packard All-in-one printer, profits stay in America.
Now, this is not an all out onslaught against foreign investors. After all, if it wasn't for the billions of dollars from the investments of Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan (albeit a French-Japanese company that I would never support, as its a joint venture between Renault and Nissan), the economy would not nearly be as good as it is now.
What would America's GDP look like without the hundreds of thousands of vehicles coming out of Toyota factories that end up in U.S. showrooms every year?
Same with Nissans, BMW, Volkswagen, Honda, you name it?
Where would the workers of those factories found jobs that paid that high of a salary?
However, this is not to deter from the simple fact, even though Honda may use an American worker, to build an Accord, and that American worker pays income tax in America, the overall profits in the bigger picture fall back into Tokyo's treasury, and not Washington's.
Using logic, it would be better if Ford Motor Company, using an American worker, had 300,000 Mercury Montego/Ford Five Hundred vehicles flying out of there factory in the South Side of Chicago, and Americans were snatching them up.
However, it's quite obvious:
- The Big Three pay there workers much more then the imported competition on average (with almost zero contributed by workers for health care), we're talking salaries for experienced workers close to $80,000 a year here
- These types of salaries have led to the following conditions for American manufacturers. While you cannot blame this entirely on the former heads of GM, Ford, and Chrysler, I can come to the conclusion the conditions the union by contract with the big three has hurt big three efficiency.
Using more expensive labor, it takes General Motors 36 hours to build a car or truck on average.
Ford 33 hours.
Chrysler about 33 hours.
Toyota and Honda? About 24 hours. (From a BusinessWeek article I read a few months ago, these numbers are entirely accurate)
Think about that, times by hundreds of thousands of workers and millions of vehicles per year. Who is being more efficient with there money, or given a larger opportunity to be more efficient with there money, despite the money General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler have had as pure profit in the past, and still have on there cash balance sheets?
Adding to this, does Toyota and Honda have an impending health care crisis like GM?
GM spent $5 billion dollars per year on Health Care last year alone for its retirees and current workforce.
Toyota made $5 billion dollars last year in PROFIT! Are you telling me this is sustainable, while GM lost billions of dollars on top of this?
I am going to quickly sum up my thoughts here:
- The union has greatly hurt big three efficiency and U.S. manufacturing, and there are number of obvious examples (the steel industry, textile, furniture, and now the auto industry)
- The pensions promised by contract by pretty much any company in the last 30 years were something the company could never afford, focus should be placed on 401k plans instead and IRA investing
- Tax rates should be lowered across the board for corporations, as well as income taxes, and couple with the utmost efficiency in government spending
Globalization simply means "competition for capital." Who has the skill for the job, and how much will it cost? The U.S. must be the most competitive it can for investment. Currently, there is lots of money to be made in the U.S., and companies invest here with the intention of turning a profit.
There is no such thing as a good tax, and we should avoid them at all costs in the near future.
This was a very fragmented post, but I think I got my point across. Personally, almost everything I buy is made in America (#1 priority in my consumer choices) or made by an American company at the very least.
Just looking around me, nearly everything I have bought is American. My boxers are woven in the states out of combed cotton. Socks, T-Shirts, and even my jeans, made in America. My desk, made by Bush Furniture, proudly made in the States. My laptop, made by Dell, although manufactured overseas, they employ many hard working Americans, and all of there profits are paid into the U.S. tax system.
Of course, my brand new 2006 Mercury Montego built on the South Side of Chicago, with the average worker pulling down $33 an hour in that plant ($74 with benefits) sits nicely in my garage as well.
Automakers need more flexibility in trimming production and need to increase there own manufacturing efficiency. The union stands in the way of doing that.
American companies can compete in every sector of the global marketplace. I myself, am a conservative, and a Republican.
I believe the government must do best for the American worker with the policies they set forth.
Lower taxes, initiatives to invest within America (capital gains and dividend tax cuts), manufacturing credits (because jobs made in America, produce American taxpayers, which pay income tax), coupled with lower spending is the key mathematical ingreident to ensure our economic future.
It is all about efficiency. Trial lawyers don't help health care inflation. A worker not building a car yet collecting a full paycheck that is much higher then the competition isn't a good formula for productivity and efficiency. And at the very least, using our per annum $13 trillion dollar purchasing pow
And at the very least, use our per annum $13 trillion dollar purchasing power to buy American (priority being on American made) because the revenue they produce, drives American ingenuity and tax receipts up.
It'd even be better if a Toyota worker builds a Camry and goes out and snatches up a new Impala too.
An American car is a car built by an American company, mostly of that companies parts, preferably by American workers, because the profits STAY in America.
they may have adapted some features. does not mean they understand how to USE them.
from the article:
"Toyota encourages employees to pull the cord, despite the line stoppages, to expose problems and address them quickly. In Georgetown, workers reach for their cords 2,500 times a shift, and stoppages amount to 6-8 minutes per shift.
"But, plant manager Convis said, “at Toyota, it’s a problem if you run (the line) at 100 percent. Something isn’t adding up, because life isn’t (perfect) like that.”
"For the past year and a half, andon cords have hung along the assembly lines at GM’s Oshawa plant. But the concept can get muddled in translation.
“We used to get 17 andon pulls per day,” said Rod McVeigh, a supervisor in the assembly plant. “We’re now targeting six a day.”
"But that might encourage workers to look out less for glitches.
"Dennis Pawley, Chrysler’s former manufacturing chief and now a consultant teaching Japanese manufacturing methods, says of the Big Three: “They don’t understand that they don’t understand.” " [bold added]
I'm not dodging anything -- I've read your posts, and I'm disagreeing with you.
In any case, smell the coffee and understand that despite a graph that you may have seen in a book, in the real world, labor unions play a role in the work force, and need to be dealt with. You can play libertarian all day long, but when you wake up tomorrow, the UAW will still be there.
All of that begs these questions:
(a) What do you want to do about it? (And I mean a real-world solution that has a chance of succeeding, not a pipe dream that gets you to justify hating unions.)
(b) Why should anyone want to buy a Chevy Cobalt when it is inferior to its competition, and what does the decision to release such a car tell you about the management of the company? (After all, it is management, not labor, that makes these decisions.)
Bingo, that's exactly right. As noted in that article and elsewhere, the plants vary greatly, and the methods are not always properly implemented.
It's one thing to mimic aspects of what Toyota, etc. do, it's quite another to get it right. And it seems that where GM is getting right that they have plans to shut down those plants! Does that seem like a smart decision?
An economist would generally advise consumers to make the most rational product decision based upon the utility provided by that product. An economist would be unlikely to urge consumers to buy a Ford or GM product, irrespective of whether they truly want it.
Whether Ford builds an F-150 in America or a Fusion in Mexico, that dollar you earned, ends up as profit in Dearborn, Michigan.
Not quite. When a public company such as Ford earns a profit, some of those profits go to the shareholders. As I've already shown in this thread, many of those major shareholders are multinational financial institutions -- in the case of Ford, that includes Barclays (UK) and Deutsches Bank. So it's inaccurate to claim that all of Ford's profits go to the US and Toyota's all go to Japan, when that clearly is not the case.
In any case, these companies are also being taxed in the various other countries in which they also operate. When Ford builds a car at a European plant, it incurs local expenses and taxes that reduce their profits accordingly before they ever make it to Dearborn. So an Aussie-made Pontiac is providing fewer US manufacturing jobs than is an American-made Acura.
However, this is not to deter from the simple fact, even though Honda may use an American worker, to build an Accord, and that American worker pays income tax in America, the overall profits in the bigger picture fall back into Tokyo's treasury, and not Washington's.
Honda's US division is a NYSE-listed company, with shareholders from around the world, including the US, sharing in some of its profits. So this isn't true, either.
The US entities are also taxed on earnings generated in the US, and the US employees need to pay taxes in the US. (Of course, many of those US employees will end up sending their money to China after buying low cost goods at Walmart, but I suppose that's their right.)
Automakers need more flexibility in trimming production and need to increase there own manufacturing efficiency. The union stands in the way of doing that.
Agreed that automakers need more flexible plants. But how does that explain cars such as the Cobalt?
....
America benefits more in the end if you buy from an American company, plain and simple. Even if it is not made by an American worker.
Either your college sucks or your are not economic study material.
Instead of lecturing you free of charge, I will simply state my opinion to everyone on board: American auto industry is doomed and there is no way to save it.
During the industrial revolution, there wasn't a way to save the British farmers and tradesman. They got to change; they got to adapt to the new big factories.
Same goes for American auto workers in 2006. They not only face the competition from Japan, Korea and Mexico, but also China and India. This is a losing battle anyway you look at it.
What can Americans do? Simple, adapt. The United State is the world's best when it comes to semiconductor, IT, software, nano-tech, bio-tech .... The list goes on and you should get the idea.
In the 18th century, the Brits never tried to compete with China on wheat production, right? Instead, they had got steam engines. Now, why should the Yankees compete on auto production?
That's exactly the problem -- a quantum leap simply wasn't enough.
Rather than compare the Cobalt to the Cavalier, you need to compare it to the competitors' new cars being made and sold in 2006, and the Cobalt doesn't compare all that favorably to those. This car should have been a home run, ball-out-of-the-park statement for GM, and it isn't quite there. Better is just not good enough.
What astonishes me is that the "US" automakers don't use their large fleet businesses as showcases of their cars, so that those who rent them come away with positive impressions and with a desire to buy them. Instead, too many consumers associate GM sedans with Dull Rental Box, and want nothing to do with them because of the rental experience. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
It is a very decent car, a stand-out in Chevy's line-up, about average among other compact cars.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Oh, and the Cobalt is too heavy to be a "subcompact".
Undoubtedly, there will be some consumers who agree with you, or who otherwise buy a Cobalt instead of a competing car for a number of reasons. But that doesn't mean that there will be enough of these buyers or that they will be willing to pay a high enough price to make the car a class leader. That's what GM needed, and it fell short.
But more seriously, I'd call the Impala a large sedan because compared to all the other sedans out there, it is one of the largest. The Malibu, Accord, Camry, etc. are midsized because it's the "standard" size for family sedans - the most common. You're paying for more air.
I don't think an Impala would hold 4 adults any better than an Accord, Altima, Camry, or Malibu would, although it does trump the others in trunk space. And for those times that you might need to put three passengers across in the back seat, the Impala might have an extra inch or two of shoulder room to help out. But depending on the contouring of the seats, curvature of the side windows, roof pillars, etc, it still might not be any better for three across than the other cars.
One thing I'll say about the '06 Impala, though, is that it seems to be a HUGE jump over the '00-05 in terms of interior quality, gaps, fit and finish, etc. And it's pleasant enough to look at. I just wish it had a more useable back seat. At least in the old days, if a car had an unuseable backseat, it was in the name of style, because they were going for a low roofline, close-coupled look, etc. But for something that's an upright, tall sedan, there's no excuse for it! Especially something that's attempting to get passed off as "large". Dammit, if I can fit in the backseat of a '68 Dart hardtop without my head hitting the ceiling, I should be able to do it in an '06 Impala! :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Most cars are not class leaders. Which in itself requires a definition - most sales?, best handling?, best acceleration?, ad nauseum.
And except for raw sales figures, who gets to decide "best handling", etc, R&T?, Edmunds?, WSJ?.
There are many excellent cars that are succcessful that are not "class leaders" by any definition.
And plenty of people buy a car just because they like them for some reason or another.
Including feeling good about buying an American made product. Or not trying to own what all the other yuppies own. Something to be said about knowing as much about yourself as one perhaps knows - or thinks he knows - about cars.
Certainly the future will be different. The days of GM being #1 at 50+ percent market share will never return.
But that does not mean they will barely survive; Most likely GM and Ford will build vehicles and those vehicles will be of excellent quality - and probably exciting looks for many models. And many Americans will buy them for a variety of reasons.
When it comes together, nothing beats a car that says "America".
Buick obviously did something right when they built these downsized Park Avenues and LeSabres as there are a LOT of survivors. Geeze, I thought I had something unique and there are about four of them on every block.
That doesn't explain the falling market share.
And in any case, since when does falling short become patriotic? I thought that American industry was supposed to lead, but when it comes to automaking, it often can't even following without tripping and stubbing its toes.
That's not the America that I was taught about in school.
GM and Ford made their success by being mass-market builders serving the average consumer. To maintain that status, they need to be class leaders (read: sell lots of cars that consumers like so much that they'll want to buy them again) in the bread-and-butter car segments if they wish to avoid being relegated to niche status and constantly fighting the slow downward slide that they are currently experiencing. That's kind of a no-brainer, unless you think that they can survive by strictly on the profits of a few niche products.
And trunk space dropped from around 20-21 cubic feet to around 15-16, again comparable to most midsized cars on the market at the time. Headroom and legroom were excellent though, and probably on par with the old '77-84 Electras.
My ex-wife's mother had an '87 or so LeSabre, and a friend of mine in college used to drive an '85 Electra, so I've had some experience with these cars.
If the Aveo is a microcar, what is the Chevy Spark or Pontiac G2? I have a hard time calling the Cobalt a "subcompact" when it is as large as a Chevy II and a few hundred pounds heavier. I think the Malibu and Impala neatly define the bounds of a "midsize" car (the extra length of the G6 is enough to kick it off the compact/midsize fence). The Impala would be a full-size if it had some extra room in the back seat.
Why should brand loyalty be honored if the brand isn't dependable?
It's your/our money folks. How do you want to spend it? If loyalty means sinking with the ship, I'm off the ship.
But further, the way they do their ratings these days (and it appears they've changed it again for the 2006 cars) the differences between, say, a "much better than average" car and even a "worse than average" car really isn't that great anymore.
The domestics are losing market share, but not because of simply reliability. Quality, yes, but with regards to reliability, there just isn't that much of a difference anymore, and CR's ratings, if you read between the lines, bear this out.
For instance, if you check out Camrys or Fords. All Camrys and Fords will have about the same ratings on all models (give or take a few mark).
Also, don't be fooled by the most current year having good marks. They call it, "initial quality" rating. Most vehicles are good in their first year. It's the following years that should be reviewed. Has the car held up over 2, 3, 4 years?