Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Rank the Big 4 Ford, GM, Toyota, Chrysler. Best? Worst?
Hmmm, difference is, you can get a Camry SE 4-cylinder. That model is going to come in $6-7K lower on the sticker than the very cheapest IS250. Which is more than enough money to be "significant". Now, look at the Camry SE V-6 vs the IS250, and you are still talking a $3-4K difference, and the out-the-door prices on the mass-volume Camry are likely going to be better than the limited volume Lexus. But while the Camry will have more power, it will also be a whale of a car if you like small cars, and of course will not be RWD. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that those two aren't stepping much on each others' toes.
GM suffers from "model compression" in that respect - too many V-6 engines, not enough differentiation among brands and models as a result. But I would imagine they will be able to provide significantly more features in a $28K Aura 3.5 FWD than are in the most basic CTS 2.8. That is probably even true in a comparo of an Aura 3.6 and a CTS 2.8, so there is a reason not to "cross the street".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Thanks to all for the new info and of course your opinions. I do value all of them including the ones I disagree with. I'm hoping lemko the Astra is the new civic killer we need.
I also am hoping the Aura is a Camry competitor and it looks good on paper and in photo's Sure we all could see where GM could of done this, or done that, but hey it's a good start and finally saturn might prove to be worthy of the GM line-up
UAW & GM "Teamwork that delivers" Well when management is as committed.
I believe the next CTS will move slightly up market (a few thousand) but will be worth the extra cost. This will make the Aura and G6 more competitve. I do look forward to seeing where the G8 fits into the fold of things. The pontiac side of the car buisness need to enhance performance and the GXP certainly does that. I'm actually getting used to the new look. I'd like to see the GXP go to AWD and compete with the boy racer crowds of Subaru and Mitsubishi Why don't you just say it ?
Rocky you need to be hired by GM as their chief marketer :P
This thread, just like every other thread that includes some mention of GM, has turned into "here's what's wrong with GM, the center of the universe, and here's how I am sure I could fix it, even though lots of well-paid, well-trained people haven't been able to".
This is true even though the thread TITLE mentions three other car companies, and the topic could potentially encompass at least a couple other automakers as well.
I'm not complaining exactly...FASCINATED would be the better word. Fascinated that GM can spark so much debate and interest, even as Ford, almost as large and with problems almost as big, not to mention also being a domestic automaker, gets little or no attention, and only half-hearted posting when someone opens a thread about it.
And I am equally guilty very often! And I'm not even that interested in GM, even though it is the only domestic automaker I have actually sampled with purchases of my own.
Anyway, back on topic, right now I figure you just gotta rate Ford and Chrysler higher than GM, both for current product and future business outlook. Dontcha'?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The funny thing Chrylers horrible interiors get little or no mention by auto enthusiast :confuse: They are flat out bloody ugly and more plasticky than a kia. :sick:
Ford does not have any life savers in the upcoming product line-up but that is never mentioned. Maybe it's a liberal media conspiracy to knock GM off it's #1 perch, I dunno :confuse:
2nd, unless the IS is finding more of a market this time around, it is not going to be selling at a premium and will be available at discount.
3rd, people paying extra for the 'performance' fwd must be looking for performance, correct? So why not pop a few more bills for true performance?
Same with Caddy and the Aura. Assume the redline adds around 2k to the price (about what the redline Sky will add) . A loaded redline will have to be at least 28k or so. Which is where the base CTS comes in.
The base IS and CTS are both fairly loaded in any event. No leather, but who cares?
Again, if you are paying for performance, a couple grand for real performance, and the higher quality frame and exclusivity, seems a smart shopper has a lot of reasons to cross the street.
Ford has its own problems, but it's really not as bad off as GM. Ford is small enough that the F-series can prop up the rest of the company when needed, the Focus is still a decent car a decade after it was designed, the Fusion and 500 are credible entries (though they both need that 3.5L V6 yesterday), the Mustang is a success, and the cooperation with Volvo and Mazda has done Ford well without wrecking either one. The Explorer is steadily collapsing (but the crossover SUV will arrive just in time to make up the shortfall), Jaguar is still a money pit, Mercury and Lincoln are drifting aimlessly, and losing the interest in Kia may come back to bite them in the butt a decade from now, but Ford still has a trump card: Bill Ford and his relatives can simply buy back the public stock and take the whole thing private if they ever need to.
The rest appears to miss a critical fact: Ford does not appear to appreciate what it needs to do to come back as well as GM.
GM is closing antiquated facilities far more aggressively than Ford. GM also appears to be doing a better job integrating Europe and South America with North America and Asia. Curiously, Mazda and Volvo have done better with Ford Europe than Ford North America.
Finally, while Ford did better with Mazda than GM with Suzuki, through GMDAT GM still has a far stronger presence in emerging Asia than Ford. Mazda is not a player in China and India - or really all that much in Australia, where GM is now supplementing Holden with GMDAT cars.
GM is closing antiquated facilities far more aggressively than Ford.
Ford was never huge to begin with, so it doesn't have as much excess capacity to close, and they've been taking a quieter approach to downsizing rather than making a big production out of it like GM does.
GMDAT GM still has a far stronger presence in emerging Asia than Ford.
True, and that's where losing Kia will hurt. But that's a problem for the 2010s, and we're not there yet.
Ford actually made a profit last year. If either GM or Ford goes bankrupt, GM will go first and Ford probably follows.
As for the CTS, I thought the 2.8 base model had cloth, so I looked it up on Caddy's website and here is what I found
Standard CTS seating includes comfortable front bucket seats with leatherette seating surfaces, 8-way power adjusters/recliners in the driver's seat, and a fixed-back rear seat with armrest pass-through to trunk and cupholders.
Every car mfg out there has "base" models of it's vehicles, even BMW, Lexus, Caddy, Infinity, etc. offer lower level models.
BMW and Mercedes at least are smart enough to keep most of their stripper and taxicab models in the home market, so that we Americans don't have to look at them! :P And a base-level Lexus, Caddy, etc is still pretty high-end. For instance, while a Lexus ES330 is often called a glorified Camry, it at least comes with a very nice, plush interior and a fairly powerful V-6. Now, while an Aura isn't in the same price class as an ES330, IMO offering the Aura with 4-cyl and the pushrod 3.5 V-6 is akin to Lexus offering the ES with the 4-cyl!
If Saturn is trying to be a somewhat upscale Euro fighter, it doesn't need to be pushing Auras with 4-cylinders and pushrod V-6es. That's what they have the Malibu and G6 for. And GM doesn't really have the market share anymore to push the same basic car across a myriad of divisions like they did back in, say, the 1980's, when they could offer a Celebrity, 6000, Ciera, and Century all in 2-3 different trim levels ranging from spartan to plush, and have them all pull in respectable sales numbers. That kind of stuff doesn't work anymore.
also what they used to call vinyl back in the old days, before the term "vinyl" was commonly used? I know that prior to 1955, cars tended to have a lot more fabric and real leather in them, and it seemed like the vinyls had a higher quality look to them as well. They may not have been very durable, but they looked nice.
Then, around 1955, it seems that vinyl was all the rage, and billed as something of a wonder material, because it was easy to clean and let the automakers put brighter, wilder colors on the interior. These later vinyls seemed more downscale from what had come before, although there were various grades, textures, thicknesses, softnesses, and so on. For awhile, vinyl seemed like a cheap material, but now that hard plastics are all the rage, it almost seems high-class!
I think I didn't make my point very well. What I meant was that all car makers at all price points put out the same models in different trim levels. The Aura is going to be no different.
IE: BMW has 4 different trim levels of the 3 series sedan. The 325i at $30,900 is obviously considered the base 3 series because by default it has a lower price and less feature content than the 330xi. But, it's still comparable to a "base" Lexus or Mercedes.
I could also be completely wrong on this, but isn't the Aura supposed to be targeted at Toyota and Honda not Lexus and Acura. If so, then I believe the Aura's 2 trim lines can compete very well, but it's still going to depend on whether they price it right or not.
I think leatherette is at least supposed to try to look and feel like leather. In the 50s and 60s cars my family has owned, the vinyl was almost always proud to look and feel like a space-age synthetic. I think by the 70s, vinyl did turn to crap and was only for lowline cars and pickups. I remember the vinyl in the non-AC Plymouth Horizon my dad had when I was little was pretty cheap.
I remember sitting in a car recently (don't remember which one) that had the leatherette seat and remember thinking it was actually light years ahead of what vinyl or "pleather" used to be like. It was actually quite soft and comfortable...wish I could remember what the car was.
I think leatherette is at least supposed to try to look and feel like leather. In the 50s and 60s cars my family has owned, the vinyl was almost always proud to look and feel like a space-age synthetic. I think by the 70s, vinyl did turn to crap and was only for lowline cars and pickups. I remember the vinyl in the non-AC Plymouth Horizon my dad had when I was little was pretty cheap.
No kidding, my first car was a 75 Buick Regal that my grandpa gave me in the late 80's. You didn't want to just jump in the car wearing shorts on a hot day, odds were you might leave some skin behind on those vinyl seats. OUCH!!!
about 70's cars that were designed to torture the occupants more than in the cars that came before. For instance, I've had plenty of 60's car with vinyl interiors, and none of them really bothered me. I remember as a kid though, my Mom's '75 LeMans was a real sweatbox until the a/c cooled it down. Get in that sucker on a hot summer day when it's been closed up for awhile, and it was pure torture. Its vinyl seats would burn you, and I remember Mom would sometimes use a shirt or cloth or something to turn the ignition key, because otherwise it would burn her fingers! I remember my 1980 Malibu was pretty bad too.
I wonder if one reason cars seemed to get hotter and more unbearable in the 70's is because they were sealed tighter? 60's cars seemed more drafty, and would "breathe" a bit better.
My '67 Catalina convertible has a black vinyl interior, and you'd think that would be about as bad as it gets. But I don't find it to be that bad, actually. But then, once you put the top down and the windows and get moving, the air flows pretty well. In those 70's cars, especially once they started making the rear windows stationary, the interiors just seemed to get hotter and stuffier.
Now that I have a '76 LeMans, sometimes I'll get a flashback to Mom's old '75 on hot days. The ignition can still burn your fingers. The interior gets really stuffy (coupe with stationary rear windows). And the vinyl is softer and more supple than what my Mom's '75 had, so it doesn't burn you as bad, but then Pontiac saw fit to put these decorative little buckles in the seatbacks! OUCH!! Now, I know some people get into burning and branding and such, but it's just not my thang! :surprise:
I think your right. I had a '71 Mustang convertible with white vinyl seats that were perforated. It could sit out in the sun all day and I could hop in w/o getting a 2nd degree burn. Now the dash and center console were black, so you just had to watch what you touched.
The 70s brought those sloping back windows with a lot of vertical area for sunshine to enter the car and heat it up. Did the front windshields on lots of models also gain a backward slope welcoming more vertical, summer sunshine?
that's a good point too, about the sharper slope of the rear window, plus those sloping rear windows often extended over the back seat a bit. I'm not sure if windshields necessarily started getting more rakish...that probably depended on the model more than anything. My '76 LeMans doesn't have a particularly rakish windshield...probably no more than its '68-72 or earlier counterparts. But then my '79 New Yorker is pretty rakish, especially for a sedan. In the 70's, many cars also started getting sharply curved side windows, and that probably let in more sunlight.
Also, when they started downsizing cars in the late 70's, they tended to have more glass area than the cars they replaced. No doubt that increased glass area led to more interior heating.
...my 1968 Buick Special Deluxe was the only car I had with a vinyl interior. It didn't get particularly hot because it was a lighter medium-blue color. I have experienced the hot ignition switches!
Chrysler's lower quarter earnings dampen effort to break from Big 3.
The Chrysler Group wants to disassociate itself from its money-losing Detroit rivals -- a theme that marketing chief Joe Eberhardt reiterated this week in a meeting with dealers in San Diego, Calif.
But the Auburn Hills automaker's first-quarter financial results showed that it's having trouble breaking out of the pack.
Chrysler's first-quarter operating profit slid by more than half to $144 million from $306 million a year ago, weighing on its parent company DaimlerChrysler AG's performance, as the automaker offered the highest incentives in the U.S. of any major automaker.
While the Mercedes Car Group continues to lose money -- its losses narrowed to $823 million from $1.2 billion a year ago -- DaimlerChrysler's total profit rose 4 percent to $363 million, propped up by higher earnings from its van business and financial services.
The automaker's shares fell 3 percent in New York Stock Exchange trading Thursday to $56.34 as investors expressed disappointment with the pace of Mercedes' improvement and concern about Chrysler's results, even though its financial performance in the first quarter was stronger than that of General Motors Corp. or Ford Motor Co.
"Despite an intensely competitive market, Chrysler Group was able to deliver our 11th consecutive quarterly profit in the first quarter," Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda said. "The company will continue its actions to improve efficiency, flexibility and customer satisfaction in the current year."
But as the automaker tries to align itself with the winners -- it's launching a record 10 products this year -- excess inventory and deep incentives could halt Chrysler's winning streak.
"The figures were a bit disappointing," said Patrice Solaro, a Paris-based auto analyst at Kepler Equities. "Chrysler's profit margin is less than 1 percent now, and it won't recover in the second quarter because the new products don't come out until autumn."
Bodo Uebber, DaimlerChrysler's chief financial officer, cited rising interest rates, high raw materials prices and competition as the main risks Chrysler faces.
"For the Chrysler Group, we anticipate a continued difficult product environment," said Uebber, adding new products, most of which roll out later this year, should help the automaker.
But the automaker has been hurt by the shift from large trucks. Next month, it will temporarily idle its SUV assembly plant in Newark, Del., and its Warren Truck factory, where the Dodge Ram and Dodge Dakota are built, to lower swollen inventories.
Eberhardt told dealers this week at a meeting at the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego that Chrysler does not want to be considered part of the Big Three anymore, according to one dealer in attendance. Chrysler should be compared to Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., Eberhardt said.
David Healy, auto analyst at Burnham Securities, says it will be hard for Chrysler to shed the "Big Three" label.
"They're going to be building the same kind of products that everyone else is offering," Healy said. "Their hope is to do it cheaper and better and they succeeded for the past couple of years but now the margin squeeze is on."
During the first quarter, Chrysler's fleet sales ballooned to 34 percent of overall sales, from 30.6 percent the same period a year ago. The automaker saw a 4 percent rise in retail sales to 690,656. Generally fleet sales are not as profitable as retail car and truck sales.
But Chrysler is still performing substantially better than its crosstown rivals.
Its operating profit isn't fully comparable to Ford and GM results because it excludes some pension expenses.
"If you did a strict apples-to-apples comparison, they might have been slightly in the red," Healy said. "But this is trivial, compared with the huge losses at Ford and GM."
Gas prices that now hover at about $3 a gallon are also causing a slight shift between light trucks and cars, Uebber said.
Jesse Toprak, an analyst with Edmunds.com, said despite its high incentives, Chrysler's brand image has improved and it has increased its share of the U.S. market.
Unlike GM and Ford, Chrysler has grown its market share throughout last year and for the first quarter of 2006 it stands at 14 percent from 13.8 percent last year.
The automaker's sought-after Chrysler 300 sedan has been a hit in the tough-to-crack West and East Coast markets, where domestic brands aren't as popular as foreign nameplates.
That's a SMOKING pace for the Corolla, especially considering it's almost up for replacement. Maybe they should just let it go an extra year, eh?! :-)
Camry is up, maybe Toyota really WILL break the half-mil mark this year. That's a hot pace for the Tacoma too - it's 10-20% up on what its sales pace was back when there was still a Ranger.
I notice the absence of Explorer - time was not too long ago, it would have been at least halfway up that list. Times, they are a-changin'....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I noticed that there is only one Ford (the F150) in the top 10 now. At one time they had 5 of the top 10 bestsellers! GM is holding on with the Impala but not much else beyond some truck models.
I don't think the Camry has hit its stride yet, going to be tough for Ford,GM and Chrysler to watch those numbers over the summer.
It is hard to imagine that over 60K people buy a F150 every month, that is the very definition of "sales"!
All 3 US automakers were down saleswise last month where as Honda, Toyota were dramatically up sales numbers wise. Ford was slighly down by only 2%(260K) from May 2005 figures(262K.) Ford had great success with the Fusion last month sales wise with it(the Fusion) selling 14,498 units. In my opinion Ford needs a new Focus compact car. Chrysler was down by 23,000 units(191K) from May 2005 Figures(214K)although the Dodge Calber has been a sales blockbuster. Last month Dodge sold 12K-12.5 Calibers. The Caliber only has a 13 day supply. In my opinion Chrysler needs a good selling mid-size car. GM was down by 47,000 units(335K) last month from May 2005(382K units.) I have no good news or words of encouragement for GM. Three reasons in my opinion why GM sales numbers are down: their truck sales are down because of gas prices and they are cutting car sales to rental fleets. Gm mid-size offerings like the Malibu and G6 have not been recieved well by the market also.
Toyota sold 235K units last which is only 25K less than Ford sold last month which doesn't include Jaguar, Land Rover, or Volvo sales figures. Toyota sold 201K in May 2005. Toyota sales increases were because of the new IS, Yaris, RAV4, Camry, ES 350, and 4 Runner.
Honda sold 141K units in May 2006 vs 122K units in May 2005 because of sales increases of the Accord, Civic, Fit, and Pilot sales. Acura was down sales wise.
Nissan was down by 7 percent last month. Infinti was dramatically down sales numbers wise.
Yearly total units combined if the auto industry stayed at this sales pace for the year would be a total of 16.1 million units sold by December 2006.
BTW, Cars might maybe on pace to outsell Trucks this year. How about that!
"Honda and Toyota buyers have already been convinced and each very often only buy Toyota/Honda or Honda/Toyota."
"Sienna/Odyssey CamCord is now one word Civic/Corolla CR-V/RAV"
Well not me. Toyota's styling on their cars is either bland or wild looking. I'll stick to Honda and Mazda thanks. Camcord isn't one word for me sorry. Corolla wouldn't touch one.
like some Toyota cars stylisically but not alot lately. I did like the 00-02 Celica, 97-02 4 Runner, 01-05 RAV 4, 98-99 avalon, and late 80's Corolla Sport. The new Camry is ok looking except for the pig snout and the radio's design theme in the Camry looked spaced age to me from what I could see of the Camry's interior in the dark. The wood grain on the shifter area could be replaced by brushed alumminum in my opinion. The 02-06 Camry I didn't care for its interior theme or plastics for that matter. The 02-06 Camry's exterior was a dis-proportionate mess as well. I looked at the current generation Camry Solara's interior compared with the 02-06 Camry's interior and the Solara's interior was beautiful.
I should note I did take a look at a Celica in 2001. If I didn't live in NJ where it snows sometimes I would have probably bought a Celica.
I disagree, and figure you're just baiting me. But if that's true, why did none of their engines make the Wards 10 best list this year??? Not one of them old tech grinders on the list.???
GM is a leader of nothing but a follower of many it appears. Ford is kicking right back and Chrysler growth is still steady. But at this point, I think we are going to see Toyota really "Moving Forward" and taking the top spot this year.
The only thing Ford is going to kick is the bucket and the only thing growing at Chrysler is their unsold inventory. I'd say GM is in better shape than those two.
I would definitely agree with you on that. Where is Ford going? To decontenting - witness rear drum brakes on the '08 Escape to keep the cost down, after having rear discs for years. I would even rank Chrysler above Ford at this point. And the Duratec has been done to death - the 3.0 is a step down from the competition in most of its applications (either in power or fuel economy, and sometimes both), as is the 2.0 in the Focus. All the big Ford trucks lose out to the big GM trucks, and this year that may even include the Silverado topping the F-series in sales, who knows...
:-)
My apologies to Ford fans, but I think 2006 was the year when GM finally, finally, "GOT it". They will be less speedy in turning the ship than we would like, but it takes a long time to turn a really big ship. OTOH, 2006 seems to have been the year when Ford execs continued to CLAIM they "got it", while still missing the point.
Of course, at least Ford didn't practically KILL its dealers leaning on them too hard, the way Chrysler did...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No argument that GM's efforts to remake the company from factory floor to product development process have finally shown up in the product.
If the new Malibu and CTS drive as good as they look, then GM will finally have some mainstream CARS that are as good as anything from Europe or Japan. The new crossovers look like winners, too.
The big problem with GM is too many laggards in the corporate lineup that should have been put out to pasture (minivans, Grand Prix) or given an extreme makeover (LaCrosse, Equinox). Plus, there are still too many divisions and too much badge engineering among those divisions (Pontiac G5 and Torrent).
As for Ford - this year's auto show debuts show that William Clay Ford, Jr., HAD to go, and should have left about two years ago.
With the new Focus, the styling has way too much going on, the hatchbacks and wagon are gone and the bigger engine is gone. Meanwhile Honda soaks up positive press and enthusiast buyers with the Civic Si. Even GM has the Cobalt SS, which has received decent reviews. This car only reinforces what a glaring mistake it was to deny Americans the improved European Focus.
Ford, at least LOOK like you are trying, okay?
The Five Hundred's mechanical improvements are exactly what the car needed, but the makeover only takes the car's looks from "bland" to "bland with a big chrome grille." The car needs a new roofline and back end, too.
Mr. Mullaly "gets it," he is asking the right questions and making the right changes, and he has an able lieutenant in Mark Fields, but Blue Oval fans will be experiencing a new product drought for the next two years.
Chrysler's minivans are spot on, and Chrysler will benefit from the abdication by GM and Ford in this segment. But the only really solid items in the lineup are the Jeep Wrangler, Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and the minivans. The Sebring looks like rental-car material.
Whether the new Dodge Avenger can carry the Mopar banner in this critical segment remains to be seen. The car shares its underpinnings with the Chrysler Sebring, which hasn't been getting very good reviews for its performance or refinement. At least the styling looks more coherent than that of its Chrysler sibling.
And sales of Chrysler's SUVs and pickups seem to be falling faster than those of its competitors.
is how hard the Grand Cherokee has fallen. That has been quite popular for many years now. I attribute that almost exclusively to gas prices. I agree that Chrysler has few winners and many losers right now, not much better than Ford. What will they do about the Ram? No-one seems to want one, and its sales are important to DCX. And what about the Durango? And the Dakota? In the truck realm, I see Toyota achieving a KO of DCX in the next 5 years, 10 at the outside. Chrysler Group is entering a time when its future is murky, as Daimler execs and shareholders fight to dump the company. And who will want it? And what will the buyer do about future product?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ach, Explorer is fighting other Fords too hard for sales. It's not only the gas prices that have done in the Explorer. But its time has also passed - truck-based SUVs, with their lumbering ways and very thirsty engines, will now go back to the niche duty they had prior to 1990. At that time, SUVs were workhorses, or offroad beasts for the younger set. Explorer still makes a great workhorse, if you need to tow (I would get the V-8 though). It's not that great offroad - too easy to high-center for one thing - but Jeep has most of that market anyway. The folks who really need to tow and don't want a pick-up don't make up a very large crowd, however.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Anyway, thanks for not blaming Explorer's drop in sales on their lousy styling"
Truck-based SUVs, much like minivans, I don't think is a very styling-sensitive segment. As long as you make it look vaguely butch and give it the driver's seat height, people won't much care about the details. The Explorer satisfies that requirement well enough.
As for the "towing the Tilton Hilton" comment, I think some SUV owners who do tow vastly overestimate the number of people out there who are actually towing. Just think how often you actually see people towing on the interstate, for instance. Not very often. I remember seeing an article some place last year that described the results of surveys of SUV owners asking how many actually towed anything ever with their trucks - the responses came back less than 10%.
If I had Ford's ear at this point, I would say kill the V-6 in the Explorer, make the V-8 a world-class engine (it may already be, I don't know that much about it) and make it standard, and then focus all their R&D resources on car-based models for the next ten years. And maybe think about bringing back a traditional wagon or two as well. The very first project, of course, should be getting the Fairlane on the market just as soon as humanly possible. Project number two should be an early and complete revamp of the Freestyle, to address the areas that people have indicated are "weak". And how about a smaller version of the Edge, Edge Jr, to go head to head with CRV and the like? The Escape sells well, but could be much improved to offer the more car-like attributes that CRV buyers covet (Escape misses the mark here, I think - the engine and the ride are noisy and busy, and handling leaves something to be desired. It feels very much like the small truck, not car, it is). Edge Jr could satisfy that group of buyers and steal some sales from Honda and Toyota.
And oh yeah, CARS! Ford, do some good cars! I know you have Mustang, but that caters to a niche (in which Ford is almost the sole player now - good for Mustang sales, but useless to mainstream car buyers). The Fusion is the first OK entrant in the car market since Focus in 2000, which promptly went right off the rails with a million recalls. Just look at what GM is doing with the '08 Malibu. Ford is going to go right back to last place in the midsize segment (well, except maybe for the Sebring, yick) in less than a year! The lack of exemplary crossovers and good cars is why I rate Ford third of the Big 2.5.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If I had Ford's ear at this point, I would say kill the V-6 in the Explorer, make the V-8 a world-class engine (it may already be, I don't know that much about it) and make it standard, and then focus all their R&D resources on car-based models for the next ten years.
I agree with everything you say here - and FWIW, the V-8 engine in the Explorer now is pretty great - 300hp, OHC, 3V, same engine as GT Mustang. Makes the truck very enjoyable. I feel the design is superior to anything else in the class so far, the IRS and power folding 3rd seat make it so.
Ford is going to go right back to last place in the midsize segment (well, except maybe for the Sebring, yick) in less than a year! The lack of exemplary crossovers and good cars is why I rate Ford third of the Big 2.5.
I find it hard to believe that the new Malibu will be all that groundbreaking. I'm not a Fusion fan, actually, but given the pathetic entrants from Gm in the past 30 years, Celebrity vs. Taurus, Cavalier vs. Focus, G6, Lucerne, I just don't see anything earthshattering here from GM. Ford has been putting OHC engines into their cars with coil on plug technology since about 96, while GM has been vibrating on with pushrods in engines developed in the 60's complete with plug wires and throttle body injectors still today. Ford had their complete fleet converted to some type of fuel injection by 86, GM had a carburator on their Cadillac Fleetwood still in 1990! I don't see GM as a threat yet. Chrysler could be, but you're right, the Sebring won't do it. And as for Crossovers that are cutting edge - you call the Vue/Equinox cutting edge? Maybe bleeding edge, nice enough, but hardly a dramatic entry. So, the Edge goes up against their new triplets - I'm not loving the Edge - I'll try GMs, but doubt they are going to be world class. It's not what GM does.
Ford and Chrysler have been the Domestic leaders in bringing technology to the market since 1983. Chrysler makes prettier cars, GM is a sad parody of a once great giant of a car company. That's why I rate Ford first, Chrysler second, and GM dead last. They haven't shown me anything yet that would change that opinion.
Ford has been putting OHC engines into their cars with coil on plug technology since about 96, while GM has been vibrating on with pushrods in engines developed in the 60's complete with plug wires and throttle body injectors still today.
What are they still putting throttle bodies on? The truck engines?
If I understand correctly, the 2008 Malibu gets the existing 2.4 and 3.6 OHC engines. One problem is that the 3.6 wasn't really designed with high-volume production in mind, so GM tried to chug-a-lug the Chevy and Buick pushrod V6s for the nth time to make ends meet. That money would have been much better spent on VVL heads for the 3.6. A 340hp V6 CTS would have been nice, and nice for GM.
Exactly! Another reason why I just can't put GM ahead of Ford yet, despite the pathetic condition of Ford at this time. Their car designs suck in many cases, but they are pretty much up to date under the hoods, behind the Japanese, but that'll likely always be the case. But GM has made a living for the past 30 years making old technology work, and that doesn't impress me. Surprised it impresses Nippon....
Comments
GM suffers from "model compression" in that respect - too many V-6 engines, not enough differentiation among brands and models as a result. But I would imagine they will be able to provide significantly more features in a $28K Aura 3.5 FWD than are in the most basic CTS 2.8. That is probably even true in a comparo of an Aura 3.6 and a CTS 2.8, so there is a reason not to "cross the street".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I also am hoping the Aura is a Camry competitor and it looks good on paper and in photo's
UAW & GM "Teamwork that delivers" Well when management is as committed.
Rocky
(a few thousand) but will be worth the extra cost.
This will make the Aura and G6 more competitve.
Rocky you need to be hired by GM as their chief marketer :P
Rocky
This is true even though the thread TITLE mentions three other car companies, and the topic could potentially encompass at least a couple other automakers as well.
I'm not complaining exactly...FASCINATED would be the better word. Fascinated that GM can spark so much debate and interest, even as Ford, almost as large and with problems almost as big, not to mention also being a domestic automaker, gets little or no attention, and only half-hearted posting when someone opens a thread about it.
And I am equally guilty very often! And I'm not even that interested in GM, even though it is the only domestic automaker I have actually sampled with purchases of my own.
Anyway, back on topic, right now I figure you just gotta rate Ford and Chrysler higher than GM, both for current product and future business outlook. Dontcha'?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ford does not have any life savers in the upcoming product line-up but that is never mentioned. Maybe it's a liberal media conspiracy to knock GM off it's #1 perch, I dunno :confuse:
Well I suppose the slamming of GM will continue.
Rocky
2nd, unless the IS is finding more of a market this time around, it is not going to be selling at a premium and will be available at discount.
3rd, people paying extra for the 'performance' fwd must be looking for performance, correct? So why not pop a few more bills for true performance?
Same with Caddy and the Aura. Assume the redline adds around 2k to the price (about what the redline Sky will add) . A loaded redline will have to be at least 28k or so. Which is where the base CTS comes in.
The base IS and CTS are both fairly loaded in any event. No leather, but who cares?
Again, if you are paying for performance, a couple grand for real performance, and the higher quality frame and exclusivity, seems a smart shopper has a lot of reasons to cross the street.
You can't buy a Caddy without leather pal. :P
Rocky
Rocky
The rest appears to miss a critical fact: Ford does not appear to appreciate what it needs to do to come back as well as GM.
GM is closing antiquated facilities far more aggressively than Ford. GM also appears to be doing a better job integrating Europe and South America with North America and Asia. Curiously, Mazda and Volvo have done better with Ford Europe than Ford North America.
Finally, while Ford did better with Mazda than GM with Suzuki, through GMDAT GM still has a far stronger presence in emerging Asia than Ford. Mazda is not a player in China and India - or really all that much in Australia, where GM is now supplementing Holden with GMDAT cars.
Ford was never huge to begin with, so it doesn't have as much excess capacity to close, and they've been taking a quieter approach to downsizing rather than making a big production out of it like GM does.
GMDAT GM still has a far stronger presence in emerging Asia than Ford.
True, and that's where losing Kia will hurt. But that's a problem for the 2010s, and we're not there yet.
As for the CTS, I thought the 2.8 base model had cloth, so I looked it up on Caddy's website and here is what I found
Standard CTS seating includes comfortable front bucket seats with leatherette seating surfaces, 8-way power adjusters/recliners in the driver's seat, and a fixed-back rear seat with armrest pass-through to trunk and cupholders.
What the hell is leatherette?
BMW and Mercedes at least are smart enough to keep most of their stripper and taxicab models in the home market, so that we Americans don't have to look at them! :P And a base-level Lexus, Caddy, etc is still pretty high-end. For instance, while a Lexus ES330 is often called a glorified Camry, it at least comes with a very nice, plush interior and a fairly powerful V-6. Now, while an Aura isn't in the same price class as an ES330, IMO offering the Aura with 4-cyl and the pushrod 3.5 V-6 is akin to Lexus offering the ES with the 4-cyl!
If Saturn is trying to be a somewhat upscale Euro fighter, it doesn't need to be pushing Auras with 4-cylinders and pushrod V-6es. That's what they have the Malibu and G6 for. And GM doesn't really have the market share anymore to push the same basic car across a myriad of divisions like they did back in, say, the 1980's, when they could offer a Celebrity, 6000, Ciera, and Century all in 2-3 different trim levels ranging from spartan to plush, and have them all pull in respectable sales numbers. That kind of stuff doesn't work anymore.
Then, around 1955, it seems that vinyl was all the rage, and billed as something of a wonder material, because it was easy to clean and let the automakers put brighter, wilder colors on the interior. These later vinyls seemed more downscale from what had come before, although there were various grades, textures, thicknesses, softnesses, and so on. For awhile, vinyl seemed like a cheap material, but now that hard plastics are all the rage, it almost seems high-class!
Base 2.8 litre CTS has grey and ebony leatherette. Leather is an upgrade
IE: BMW has 4 different trim levels of the 3 series sedan. The 325i at $30,900 is obviously considered the base 3 series because by default it has a lower price and less feature content than the 330xi. But, it's still comparable to a "base" Lexus or Mercedes.
I could also be completely wrong on this, but isn't the Aura supposed to be targeted at Toyota and Honda not Lexus and Acura. If so, then I believe the Aura's 2 trim lines can compete very well, but it's still going to depend on whether they price it right or not.
No kidding, my first car was a 75 Buick Regal that my grandpa gave me in the late 80's. You didn't want to just jump in the car wearing shorts on a hot day, odds were you might leave some skin behind on those vinyl seats. OUCH!!!
I wonder if one reason cars seemed to get hotter and more unbearable in the 70's is because they were sealed tighter? 60's cars seemed more drafty, and would "breathe" a bit better.
My '67 Catalina convertible has a black vinyl interior, and you'd think that would be about as bad as it gets. But I don't find it to be that bad, actually. But then, once you put the top down and the windows and get moving, the air flows pretty well. In those 70's cars, especially once they started making the rear windows stationary, the interiors just seemed to get hotter and stuffier.
Now that I have a '76 LeMans, sometimes I'll get a flashback to Mom's old '75 on hot days. The ignition can still burn your fingers. The interior gets really stuffy (coupe with stationary rear windows). And the vinyl is softer and more supple than what my Mom's '75 had, so it doesn't burn you as bad, but then Pontiac saw fit to put these decorative little buckles in the seatbacks! OUCH!! Now, I know some people get into burning and branding and such, but it's just not my thang! :surprise:
I think your right. I had a '71 Mustang convertible with white vinyl seats that were perforated. It could sit out in the sun all day and I could hop in w/o getting a 2nd degree burn. Now the dash and center console were black, so you just had to watch what you touched.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Also, when they started downsizing cars in the late 70's, they tended to have more glass area than the cars they replaced. No doubt that increased glass area led to more interior heating.
The Chrysler Group wants to disassociate itself from its money-losing Detroit rivals -- a theme that marketing chief Joe Eberhardt reiterated this week in a meeting with dealers in San Diego, Calif.
But the Auburn Hills automaker's first-quarter financial results showed that it's having trouble breaking out of the pack.
Chrysler's first-quarter operating profit slid by more than half to $144 million from $306 million a year ago, weighing on its parent company DaimlerChrysler AG's performance, as the automaker offered the highest incentives in the U.S. of any major automaker.
While the Mercedes Car Group continues to lose money -- its losses narrowed to $823 million from $1.2 billion a year ago -- DaimlerChrysler's total profit rose 4 percent to $363 million, propped up by higher earnings from its van business and financial services.
The automaker's shares fell 3 percent in New York Stock Exchange trading Thursday to $56.34 as investors expressed disappointment with the pace of Mercedes' improvement and concern about Chrysler's results, even though its financial performance in the first quarter was stronger than that of General Motors Corp. or Ford Motor Co.
"Despite an intensely competitive market, Chrysler Group was able to deliver our 11th consecutive quarterly profit in the first quarter," Chrysler CEO Tom LaSorda said. "The company will continue its actions to improve efficiency, flexibility and customer satisfaction in the current year."
But as the automaker tries to align itself with the winners -- it's launching a record 10 products this year -- excess inventory and deep incentives could halt Chrysler's winning streak.
"The figures were a bit disappointing," said Patrice Solaro, a Paris-based auto analyst at Kepler Equities. "Chrysler's profit margin is less than 1 percent now, and it won't recover in the second quarter because the new products don't come out until autumn."
Bodo Uebber, DaimlerChrysler's chief financial officer, cited rising interest rates, high raw materials prices and competition as the main risks Chrysler faces.
"For the Chrysler Group, we anticipate a continued difficult product environment," said Uebber, adding new products, most of which roll out later this year, should help the automaker.
But the automaker has been hurt by the shift from large trucks. Next month, it will temporarily idle its SUV assembly plant in Newark, Del., and its Warren Truck factory, where the Dodge Ram and Dodge Dakota are built, to lower swollen inventories.
Eberhardt told dealers this week at a meeting at the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego that Chrysler does not want to be considered part of the Big Three anymore, according to one dealer in attendance. Chrysler should be compared to Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., Eberhardt said.
David Healy, auto analyst at Burnham Securities, says it will be hard for Chrysler to shed the "Big Three" label.
"They're going to be building the same kind of products that everyone else is offering," Healy said. "Their hope is to do it cheaper and better and they succeeded for the past couple of years but now the margin squeeze is on."
During the first quarter, Chrysler's fleet sales ballooned to 34 percent of overall sales, from 30.6 percent the same period a year ago. The automaker saw a 4 percent rise in retail sales to 690,656. Generally fleet sales are not as profitable as retail car and truck sales.
But Chrysler is still performing substantially better than its crosstown rivals.
Its operating profit isn't fully comparable to Ford and GM results because it excludes some pension expenses.
"If you did a strict apples-to-apples comparison, they might have been slightly in the red," Healy said. "But this is trivial, compared with the huge losses at Ford and GM."
Gas prices that now hover at about $3 a gallon are also causing a slight shift between light trucks and cars, Uebber said.
Jesse Toprak, an analyst with Edmunds.com, said despite its high incentives, Chrysler's brand image has improved and it has increased its share of the U.S. market.
Unlike GM and Ford, Chrysler has grown its market share throughout last year and for the first quarter of 2006 it stands at 14 percent from 13.8 percent last year.
The automaker's sought-after Chrysler 300 sedan has been a hit in the tough-to-crack West and East Coast markets, where domestic brands aren't as popular as foreign nameplates.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060428/AUTO01/604280385/- 1148
Rocky
Camry is up, maybe Toyota really WILL break the half-mil mark this year. That's a hot pace for the Tacoma too - it's 10-20% up on what its sales pace was back when there was still a Ranger.
I notice the absence of Explorer - time was not too long ago, it would have been at least halfway up that list. Times, they are a-changin'....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't think the Camry has hit its stride yet, going to be tough for Ford,GM and Chrysler to watch those numbers over the summer.
It is hard to imagine that over 60K people buy a F150 every month, that is the very definition of "sales"!
M
1. Toyota - best
The rest, I feel are not very good auto makers:
2. Chrysler
3. Ford
4. GM - I hate GM's cars except the Cadillacs.
Toyota sold 235K units last which is only 25K less than Ford sold last month which doesn't include Jaguar, Land Rover, or Volvo sales figures. Toyota sold 201K in May 2005. Toyota sales increases were because of the new IS, Yaris, RAV4, Camry, ES 350, and 4 Runner.
Honda sold 141K units in May 2006 vs 122K units in May 2005 because of sales increases of the Accord, Civic, Fit, and Pilot sales. Acura was down sales wise.
Nissan was down by 7 percent last month. Infinti was dramatically down sales numbers wise.
Yearly total units combined if the auto industry stayed at this sales pace for the year would be a total of 16.1 million units sold by December 2006.
BTW, Cars might maybe on pace to outsell Trucks this year. How about that!
"Sienna/Odyssey
CamCord is now one word
Civic/Corolla
CR-V/RAV"
Well not me. Toyota's styling on their cars is either bland or wild looking. I'll stick to Honda and Mazda thanks. Camcord isn't one word for me sorry. Corolla wouldn't touch one.
I should note I did take a look at a Celica in 2001. If I didn't live in NJ where it snows sometimes I would have probably bought a Celica.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060619/BUSINESS01/606190390/10- 14
Rocky
"The Big 3 are getting better and better"
Check out your local GM dealer if you don't believe me.
http://tinyurl.com/9667h
Q. Who is more arrogant, GM or their fanbois?
GM is a leader of nothing but a follower of many it appears. Ford is kicking right back and Chrysler growth is still steady. But at this point, I think we are going to see Toyota really "Moving Forward" and taking the top spot this year.
:-)
My apologies to Ford fans, but I think 2006 was the year when GM finally, finally, "GOT it". They will be less speedy in turning the ship than we would like, but it takes a long time to turn a really big ship. OTOH, 2006 seems to have been the year when Ford execs continued to CLAIM they "got it", while still missing the point.
Of course, at least Ford didn't practically KILL its dealers leaning on them too hard, the way Chrysler did...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If the new Malibu and CTS drive as good as they look, then GM will finally have some mainstream CARS that are as good as anything from Europe or Japan. The new crossovers look like winners, too.
The big problem with GM is too many laggards in the corporate lineup that should have been put out to pasture (minivans, Grand Prix) or given an extreme makeover (LaCrosse, Equinox). Plus, there are still too many divisions and too much badge engineering among those divisions (Pontiac G5 and Torrent).
As for Ford - this year's auto show debuts show that William Clay Ford, Jr., HAD to go, and should have left about two years ago.
With the new Focus, the styling has way too much going on, the hatchbacks and wagon are gone and the bigger engine is gone. Meanwhile Honda soaks up positive press and enthusiast buyers with the Civic Si. Even GM has the Cobalt SS, which has received decent reviews. This car only reinforces what a glaring mistake it was to deny Americans the improved European Focus.
Ford, at least LOOK like you are trying, okay?
The Five Hundred's mechanical improvements are exactly what the car needed, but the makeover only takes the car's looks from "bland" to "bland with a big chrome grille." The car needs a new roofline and back end, too.
Mr. Mullaly "gets it," he is asking the right questions and making the right changes, and he has an able lieutenant in Mark Fields, but Blue Oval fans will be experiencing a new product drought for the next two years.
Chrysler's minivans are spot on, and Chrysler will benefit from the abdication by GM and Ford in this segment. But the only really solid items in the lineup are the Jeep Wrangler, Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and the minivans. The Sebring looks like rental-car material.
Whether the new Dodge Avenger can carry the Mopar banner in this critical segment remains to be seen. The car shares its underpinnings with the Chrysler Sebring, which hasn't been getting very good reviews for its performance or refinement. At least the styling looks more coherent than that of its Chrysler sibling.
And sales of Chrysler's SUVs and pickups seem to be falling faster than those of its competitors.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Interesting - to what do you ascribe the drop in Explorer sales to, nippon?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What about the folks who need to take the whole family and drag the Tilton Hilton too??? Pickup won't do.
Anyway, thanks for not blaming Explorer's drop in sales on their lousy styling.
Truck-based SUVs, much like minivans, I don't think is a very styling-sensitive segment. As long as you make it look vaguely butch and give it the driver's seat height, people won't much care about the details. The Explorer satisfies that requirement well enough.
As for the "towing the Tilton Hilton" comment, I think some SUV owners who do tow vastly overestimate the number of people out there who are actually towing. Just think how often you actually see people towing on the interstate, for instance. Not very often. I remember seeing an article some place last year that described the results of surveys of SUV owners asking how many actually towed anything ever with their trucks - the responses came back less than 10%.
If I had Ford's ear at this point, I would say kill the V-6 in the Explorer, make the V-8 a world-class engine (it may already be, I don't know that much about it) and make it standard, and then focus all their R&D resources on car-based models for the next ten years. And maybe think about bringing back a traditional wagon or two as well. The very first project, of course, should be getting the Fairlane on the market just as soon as humanly possible. Project number two should be an early and complete revamp of the Freestyle, to address the areas that people have indicated are "weak". And how about a smaller version of the Edge, Edge Jr, to go head to head with CRV and the like? The Escape sells well, but could be much improved to offer the more car-like attributes that CRV buyers covet (Escape misses the mark here, I think - the engine and the ride are noisy and busy, and handling leaves something to be desired. It feels very much like the small truck, not car, it is). Edge Jr could satisfy that group of buyers and steal some sales from Honda and Toyota.
And oh yeah, CARS! Ford, do some good cars! I know you have Mustang, but that caters to a niche (in which Ford is almost the sole player now - good for Mustang sales, but useless to mainstream car buyers). The Fusion is the first OK entrant in the car market since Focus in 2000, which promptly went right off the rails with a million recalls. Just look at what GM is doing with the '08 Malibu. Ford is going to go right back to last place in the midsize segment (well, except maybe for the Sebring, yick) in less than a year! The lack of exemplary crossovers and good cars is why I rate Ford third of the Big 2.5.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree with everything you say here - and FWIW, the V-8 engine in the Explorer now is pretty great - 300hp, OHC, 3V, same engine as GT Mustang. Makes the truck very enjoyable. I feel the design is superior to anything else in the class so far, the IRS and power folding 3rd seat make it so.
Ford is going to go right back to last place in the midsize segment (well, except maybe for the Sebring, yick) in less than a year! The lack of exemplary crossovers and good cars is why I rate Ford third of the Big 2.5.
I find it hard to believe that the new Malibu will be all that groundbreaking. I'm not a Fusion fan, actually, but given the pathetic entrants from Gm in the past 30 years, Celebrity vs. Taurus, Cavalier vs. Focus, G6, Lucerne, I just don't see anything earthshattering here from GM. Ford has been putting OHC engines into their cars with coil on plug technology since about 96, while GM has been vibrating on with pushrods in engines developed in the 60's complete with plug wires and throttle body injectors still today. Ford had their complete fleet converted to some type of fuel injection by 86, GM had a carburator on their Cadillac Fleetwood still in 1990! I don't see GM as a threat yet. Chrysler could be, but you're right, the Sebring won't do it. And as for Crossovers that are cutting edge - you call the Vue/Equinox cutting edge? Maybe bleeding edge, nice enough, but hardly a dramatic entry. So, the Edge goes up against their new triplets - I'm not loving the Edge - I'll try GMs, but doubt they are going to be world class. It's not what GM does.
Ford and Chrysler have been the Domestic leaders in bringing technology to the market since 1983. Chrysler makes prettier cars, GM is a sad parody of a once great giant of a car company. That's why I rate Ford first, Chrysler second, and GM dead last. They haven't shown me anything yet that would change that opinion.
What are they still putting throttle bodies on? The truck engines?
If I understand correctly, the 2008 Malibu gets the existing 2.4 and 3.6 OHC engines. One problem is that the 3.6 wasn't really designed with high-volume production in mind, so GM tried to chug-a-lug the Chevy and Buick pushrod V6s for the nth time to make ends meet. That money would have been much better spent on VVL heads for the 3.6. A 340hp V6 CTS would have been nice, and nice for GM.