There isn't a whole lot that really impresses nippon, even from the Japanese! :-)
Having said that, I have driven the Aura with the 3.6, and it is a sweeeet powertrain, wrapped in a car that is at least average. I have also driven the Tribute and Fusion with the 3.0 Duratec, and that engine.......isn't. Ford has a smoother four, but GM's is more torquey. Neither is as good as the Camry and Accord engines IMO.
But all of a sudden, GM is dumping all the accursed-and-ancient pushrod engines and going with extensive use of their Ecotec-4 and this new 3.6L DOHC. That's good. If only someone could convince them to entirely get rid of the totally behind-the-times 4-speed auto for their cars (rather than continuing to selectively use it in less expensive models that I guess it doesn't consider "high feature"!), they would begin to pull solidly ahead of Ford.
But that's not really the thing of it for me. GM and Ford have both been nursing their lines along the last few years with tons of talk and not a whole lot of action. Then last year, GM DID more than it TALKED. Ford continues to mostly talk, with their latest block-stopper being that they will reinvent the entire line by 2010. 2010? What about this year and next? The Focus will be a decade old by then, the Ranger even older, heck might as well just abandon both model lines for new names. Something beginning with F of course. :-P
And the 500's only innovation will be a minor restyling and the introduction of the 3.5 and a 6-speed auto. They talk big with the Interceptor concept, which could be the first great 4-door to come out of Ford in quite a while, but I don't have a lot of faith it will be coming to a dealership near me any time soon. The Lincoln MKR? OK, if it ever makes it to market. The rest of the line is lost in mediocrity, except for the very garishly-styled Navigator. Mercury? C'mon.
As things are, it's close, but GM has more going on and a better vision for the next 5 years. Chrysler, I think, is going to go rapidly downhill now as the Sebring fails to hit, and Daimler goes through internal feuds as it tries to figure out how to dump its American division. Not to mention their whole truck line is stuck in the sales doldrums, and some of the Jeeps as well. Patriot and Compass? OMG. Ditto Hornet. Decent but anonymous (except for Hornet) styling with crap fuel economy and the cheapest interiors this side of east European cars. You can figure on them quickly falling to last among the domestics.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think if I was answering this 5 years ago, GM would 3rd. They still have some turkeys in the lineup, but the REALLY bad stuff (Blazer, Cavalier) are gone. The new cars such as the Outlook my wife wants has a thoroughly modern and smooth engine, and 6 spd. transmission. Their newer cars are so good, I'm actually afraid of them becoming "America's Brand" and then turning in reverse and pushing out mediocre junk again.
2. Toyota
I think they are on the opposite course from GM. Having looked at the new Camry, it is clear to me that they are cost-cutting themselves into the same boat GM occupied in the 80s. Newer Toyotas just feel cheap to me, and their recalls are at an all-time high. I personally hate the way Toyotas drive - they're like Buicks, and they all seem to have this hesistation when you accelerate. All Corollas and Camries I've driven have this problem. I once took a Taurus as a rental over a Corolla because I so actively hate how they drive.
Quality-wise, Toyota just isn't where they used to be. To illustrate this point, here's an anecdote.
My old man had a 1968 Landcruiser that he used to plow our driveway. It finally rusted apart in the mid-90s, so what did he replace it with? A 1978 Landcruiser, which he actually gave away last year since he came into a semi-recent Silverado.
Contrast this with all the recalls toyota has had lately, and it's clear that they are either cost-cutting themselves into oblivion or simply growing too fast (probably a bit of both).
3. Ford
I admit, I had a hard time picking between #3 and #4. I think both Chrysler and Ford make bad cars, but for different reasons. Ford's cars are either drop-dead reliable, or just drop-dead. If I had to pick two cars from any manufacturer that I would call most reliable, they would be the Crown Vic and the Ranger.
The problem I have with Ford isn't so much the reliability of their cars, it is that they are incredibly boring to own and drive, and they don't age particularly well. A buddy of mine has a Five Hundred, and it's a "nice" car, but as interesting as my 1983 Pontiac 6000.
The question I have is whether Ford is going to make their cars more interesting before the company itself expires. I do like the Fusion, and it drives 100x nicer than anything I've driven from Toyota, but IT NEEDS MORE POWER. The lack of power is endemic to everything Ford makes - even the Mustang GT could use another 100 horses.
4. Chrysler.
The Charger Daytona is probably the only car they've made in the last 30 years that I wouldn't mind owning. There are so many things I hate about their cars, it would take me the whole afternoon to list them all.
Every Chrysler I have ever seen has the cheapest, shoddiest plastic interiors of any manufacturer. It's actually horrifying how cheaply made their interiors are. GM has made some bad interiors, but at least their plastics tend to be soft-touch. I can even tell by just looking at the pictures of their new minivans that I'm going to sit down in one and there is still going to be nothing but plain, hard plastic staring back at me.
Their transmissions are almost universally garbage. Show me a lifelong Chrysler owner who hasn't prematurely replaced at least one slushbox, and I'll show you my time machine. Ford has had some BAD transmissions, but at least they were restricted to a certain engine and vehicle (a few years' worth of Taurii and Windstars).
When I think of the worst vehicles America has made since the industry began, they are almost all made by this company. When I see a car tooling down the freeway with blue smoke pouring out the back, survey says it's a Chrysler minivan. Then there's the K-car, which was horrible indeed, but not so bad that Chrysler didn't try to put a new shell on it and call it a "Shadow".
But, you might say, the past is the past.
I personally know 3 people who drove recent Chrysler products. One Town and Country, and two Jeep Grand Cherokees. All were such horrific pieces of crap, they made my lemon Jetta look like my old man's Landcruisers. The Jeeps, even when they weren't busy grenading transmissions, were uncomfortable and had hard plastic interiors that had no place in a car costing more than $30k.
I wouldn't call Chrysler a "details-oriented" company. My wife and I have been shopping for her next car, and as such we sat down in a Grand Caravan. I picked up the seatbelt to snap myself in, and noticed that unlike most modern cars, the metal tab was surrounded by two pieces of plastic that I assume were supposed to snap together. Instead, you shake the buckle, and they kind of shook around. I think Chrysler gets a discount based on how many different kinds of cheap plastic they can cram into a single interior. There were all kinds of flashing and rough edges on plastic trim bits that looked like a $5 kids' toy. The seats were covered in a fabric I could charitably describe as "burlap", and the headliner appeared to be made out of recycled diapers.
Sitting in a "Stow and Go" seat was akin to my 6' frame sitting in a desk made for kindergartners. In addition to being too small, it had about an eighth of an inch of something like pocket lint that I"m sure would feel like padding if you were a 3 year old who weighted about 30 lbs. or so. I thought Honda took the crown for uncomfortable seats until I sat in this thing.
I'm going to cut this post off, but suffice to say I wasn't impressed by Chrysler's idea of a minivan. As far as I can tell, their customer base for these things represent the same group who make their grandkids pay for their ice cream, or go out into a busy street to pick a penny up. Because I have to be honest, this is not a vehicle that compares favorably to its competition, which is really my opinion of pretty much every vehicle this godforsaken car company manufactures.
i>But all of a sudden, GM is dumping all the accursed-and-ancient pushrod engines and going with extensive use of their Ecotec-4 and this new 3.6L DOHC. That's good. If only someone could convince them to entirely get rid of the totally behind-the-times 4-speed auto for their cars (rather than continuing to selectively use it in less expensive models that I guess it doesn't consider "high feature"!), they would begin to pull solidly ahead of Ford.
That's pretty much my point, nippon - Ford has more OHC and DOHC engines than GM already! In fact, they only have a couple of pushrod engines left, and both of them are only occupying engine bays because demand is too strong for the others for production....they are both on their last leg. As for transmissions, Ford has gone to 6 speeds in their trucks as of 05, and are putting them into other cars now. So, from my vantage point, what GM is doing is nice, but it's pure catch up to the world from the worst position in the industry. I give them points for that, but not more points than the other company who has been trying all along to stay fairly current.
Then last year, GM DID more than it TALKED. Ford continues to mostly talk, with their latest block-stopper being that they will reinvent the entire line by 2010. 2010? What about this year and next? The Focus will be a decade old by then, the Ranger even older, heck might as well just abandon both model lines for new names. Something beginning with F of course.
Interesting you see it that way. Talk is certainly the mantra at Ford, I won't argue that. However, what has GM suddenly done that is so outstanding? Creating a new line of SUVs that still lack the technology Ford has had in theirs since 02? (IRS, Folding third seat flat, 3Valve engines) They're pretty, because they look square like the Ford now. But there's nothing new under there. Just new skin. The Aura gets accolades, and it will be available in 3-5 flavors, depending on whether SAAB or Cadillac get a version, but Ford has the Mustang and the Fusion and the 500 out in 2 & 3 flavors, and they're all great cars. True, the 500 is a styling flop, but functionally, it's the best in class. Now, it gets an engine upgrade, so much the better.
And GM has the Outlook, which is supposedly awesome - and Ford has improved the Explorer with a 300hp OHC sweet V-8, and a 6 speed transmission, and it still tows a trailer, plus the 3rd seat powerfolds flat into the floor.
I'm sorry, I just don't see where GM is leaps and bounds ahead, I see them leaping fast to catch up - that's it for now.
GM's latest offerings are good. The trucks appear good enough to fight off the Tundra and hold on to current customers, which in today's market is an accomplishment. The F-150 is still good, however...if any makes suffer in this segment, it will be Dodge and Nissan.
The new crossovers look like very good, and they will snare a fair number of people defecting from traditional SUVs. Not giving Chevy a version right from the get-go is a mistake, though.
The new CTS looks great, and has received rave reviews. If Cadillac can spread this level of improvement through the rest of the line (XLR, STS, SRX), it will be back on track.
The new Malibu finally looks as though it wasn't styled for duty at the Alamo lot. I hope that it's interior materials are a cut above those in the Aura, which is the one fly in the ointment for that model.
GM's biggest problem is to many divisions. Chevy needs that new crossover...but Saturn, Buick and GMC already have one. What will the Chevy bring to the market that those models don't? How will it be distinguished from those models?
The Pontiac G5 and Torrent are more of the same badge-engineering nonsense that got GM into trouble in the first place.
It also has too many back-benchers. The Grand Prix, Colorado/Canyon, minivans and Ion are duds, plain and simple.
Plus, some of its models have dated too quickly. The Equinox, Cobalt and LaCrosse haven't been out that long, and they look tired next to the competition. Of course, styling the Cobalt to look like a facelifted Cavalier didn't help.
As for Ford...some of its vehicles need updates, but what I see are vehicles featuring confused styling (Focus), eliminating good features (rear disc brakes on Escape, no 2.3 four or wagon for Focus) or sporting updates that are not extensive enough (Five Hundred and Escape). Sad part is that all of these vehicles are solid, and aren't badly outdated. (We aren't talking about the GM J-cars here.) They needed updates in critical areas, but Ford has been hit-and-miss in giving them what they need.
And Chrysler? Sorry, but with the Sebring and the Compass, I am further convinced that Daimler has NO clue as to how to compete in the American mass market. The 300 is starting to look like a fluke, and the new minivans and Wrangler build on a winning formula that existed before the takeover, oops, I mean "merger."
I have read many of the previous posts on here and I just had to say something. Some of you think that GM is playing catch-up to others, while others still think that Ford is better than GM (?!!). I want to tell you all a little something. 1. Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz are auto-biz geniuses. They know how to run a company right. I think, after seeing the newest entrants, that they have machine-gunned down the whole bean-counting dept. of GM. The new products are freakin' amazing! I have yet to check out (in person) the new crossovers or the Aura or Malibu, but I was VERY impressed not only the stellar design of the whole package, but how well the fit and finish was and the new powertrains. GM will continue to put out amazing products for years to come. 2. Ford is in trouble! Simple as that. While they were too busy trying to peddle the unimpressive Explorer as a still-modern people-mover, the market has shifted to others who can build a proper crossover with acceptable mileage. I know that the Freestyle is there, and it's not bad, but not really that great. It's rather average. Ford's financial problems are still mounting, as they have now put all of their factories and headquarters up as collateral for an $18 BILLION loan. They need to put out products that people want, that are unique (not weird, but stand out), and that have class-leading features. Until then, they can wave bye-bye to profits, and then their assets. 3. Chrysler, Dodge & Jeep SUCK! I'm sorry, but if you have any interest in staying afloat in the American automobile business, you do NOT put out crap like the Sebring, Nitro, Caliber, Commander, Ram, Dakota, e.t.c. I have actually seen the interiors of these vehicles. What the heck were they thinking! the design is nothing special, but not bad. It's the quality. Where is the quality?!! Rubbermaid makes better plastic than those interiors. My trash cans have a more quality feel that them! What is it that they can't or don't get about quality? I looked at pictures of the new Sebring and the 2008 minivans with high hopes, and was hugely disappointed. Even the designs are bad. You can tell just by pictures that the plastics are harder than a headstone. Add padding, make different shades of colors, round a freakin' corner off for God's sakes! Don't even get me started on the Caliber, Compass, Commander and the trucks. Absolute trash. And they wonder why they aren't selling? Good Lord, if they don't have the sense to figure that out, then goodbye DCX.
BTW: Saturn will beat Honda in 3 years tops and Toyota in 5 (New products from Europe are awesome AND refined), Cadillac will become the "Standard of the World" again (CTS!), Chevy will rock even harder (Camaro, Silverado, Malibu, RWD Impala anyone? Plus the HHR is awesome!), Buick will improve (Enclave, Lucerne), GMC is getting better (Acadia, Sierra), Pontiac will be a competitor again (going all RWD by '10 or '11, G6 will be missed), Saab and Hummer? :confuse: Well, that's another story. Sell Saab, let them become independent, same with Hummer. Other than that, Toyota is goin' down! The new Tundra is not good, quality is fleeting, recalls are popping up more and more. GM WILL RULE AGAIN!!! :shades:
gm definitely has 'swagger' over ford. i think Mulally is bringing optimism back to ford. there is just too much fiction in their organization. i bought my first ford in 1983(tbird turbo coupe) and my next vehicle will be a ford(maybe a lincoln). just call me 'old yeller'.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Yes, I am a "ute", and yes, I am a fan of GM. I truly believe that GM will if not trounce Toyota and Honda, be a legit competitor and put out better products. The products of merely 3-5 years ago from GM were not stellar. The interiors were not good, but the build quality was at least halfway there, unlike Chrysler products. Things have been steadily improving for the last 3 years, and their turnaround plan was executed effectively and we are now looking at the benefits of this progress. Ford is on it's 3rd or 4th "Way Forward" plan, which have all been all talk, no walk. Toyota is getting too big for it's own good. They are selling on a reputation. They built it in the 80's and 90's, when American products were crap. Now, GM is building good products, but people go to the Japanese just because of what the past was like. Things change, for the good. Roger Smith, CEO of GM, almost ran the company off the cliff, and until about 3-4 years ago they were still on the belief system that people would continue to buy American just because. That is not the case. Now, GM products will be able to sell on their good merits. Give them another 3-4 years to change or replace models that aren't competitive or class-leading, then check out their lineup. Japanese are no longer superior to American products. I currently own a Honda, but it really wasn't my choice as to what I got. Yes, my name is 94accord_lover because I do love my car. I just don't think that Japanese are superior to Americans anymore, well GM anyways.
BTW: I'm 17 now, and I know it was a joke, but I've never done drugs in my life, and I still love GM!
i have kids your age and i am glad you are posting here. i can respect your opinion of a '94 honda, but you need to experience other vehicles before 'telling' everyone how it really is.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
What I meant by beat was will have better quality, if not sell just as well (Saturn does need more dealerships). Maybe I got a little excited when I said Toyota in 5, but I have the utmost confidence that Saturn will become a contender with the Japanese and Koreans. The G6 is a good car, despite what you think. I know the interior wasn't of the highest quality, but personally, I don't care. I know a few owners of them and they love their car. If they are so bad, why are they selling so good? Are there that many "idiots" out there? Well, just as a refresher, those platforms are still GM design, so I don't see why that was an insult of any kind. Holdens rock down under, and Opel is a respected brand in Europe and is a real competitor. Yes the epsilon is from "overseas", but it makes for a great car!
BTW: I give Daimler 9-10 months until it dumps Chrysler.
I've read that the new four-door Wrangler is selling well - dealers can't get enough to meet demand.
As for GM versus Ford: GM seems to be ahead in making the internal changes necessary to succeed. Ford's new leaders, however, appear to be shaking up the corporate culture in a far shorter timeframe than Mr. Lutz did at GM.
And I'll still take a Five Hundred with the new drivetrain over the Lucerne or Impala.
94accord_lover: What I meant by beat was will have better quality, if not sell just as well (Saturn does need more dealerships).
If I recall correctly, as part of the franchise agreements with Saturn dealers, GM agreed to limit the number of dealers to prevent too much internal competition. So Saturn is always going to have a smaller dealer base.
If anything, GM needs to realize that Chevy is still its big gun, and the one best suited to take on Toyota, Honda and Ford.
94accord_lover: The G6 is a good car, despite what you think. I know the interior wasn't of the highest quality, but personally, I don't care.
"Good" isn't good enough to top this segment anymore, and many owners do care about interior quality, hence the need for large incentives and fleet sales to move many GM vehicles.
94accord_lover: If they are so bad, why are they selling so good? Are there that many "idiots" out there?
They sell because of customers named Hertz, Alamo and Enterprise. Well over 1/4 of G6 sales are to fleet customers.
The G6 isn't a bad car. I'm sure anyone who buys it will receive safe, reliable and comfortable transportation for his or her purchasing dollar. The problem is that, even in this segment, many buyers want more.
As a personal note, I don't find the G6 styling to be all that attractive. It strikes me as contrived - or, as Edsel Ford I used to say when confronted with a design he didn't like, "They tried too hard" - in this case, to be sporty and cutting edge.
The best-looking cars in this class are the Passat and the Fusion.
94accord_lover: BTW: I give Daimler 9-10 months until it dumps Chrysler.
Germans are quite stubborn, especially when it comes to their automobile industry. Selling Chrysler this soon would admit defeat. Daimler will give this one last try.
I guess I will have to see it to believe it. Are we talking quality across the model spectrum? Or reliability? I can see Saturn as a contender...really, they are not far off that mark now, especially once the Ion finally vanishes. But to beat them...I have to be a skeptic.
The G6 might be good, but everything pretty much is "good" these days. It's not great, and it's not selling to private customers in my neck of the woods.
I didn't mean it so much as an insult, but as an observation...to show how GM seems to have higher regard for non NA markets. Euro and Aussie GM cars have been superior to their NA counterparts for ages. Even Chinese GM cars are starting to become more appealing. It's really weird. As you say, Holdens rock and Opels have a decent rep...but what we get doesn't do either. I think it's good that they've finally wised up and moved more competent product to this continent.
Do you think someone would dare pick up Chrysler, or will it sit on its own?
What I meant by beat was will have better quality, if not sell just as well
Interesting hope - but this hasn't been GM's M.O. since the 60's - and the world has changed. Toyota and Honda are not standing still.
Maybe I got a little excited when I said Toyota in 5, but I have the utmost confidence that Saturn will become a contender with the Japanese and Koreans.
A contender - perhaps, but that's a long way from overtaking.
The G6 is a good car, despite what you think. I know the interior wasn't of the highest quality, but personally, I don't care. I know a few owners of them and they love their car. If they are so bad, why are they selling so good?
You're right, the interior on the G-6, and every other GM car through the line is sub-par. Hyundai has a better interior across the board. Kia matches GM pretty well. So did Daewoo. You may not care if the interior on your car has Mattel written all over it, but it's the most important thing on a car to me, because that's where I live. Interior feel, look and comfort is #1 for a lot of us, but not for GM owners, obviously. As for selling so "well", I don't believe the G-6 has yet sold as many copies in a year as the 20 year old Grand Am it replaced. All the G-6's sold have been to rental fleets or Oprah giveaways, at least around here.
I give Daimler 9-10 months until it dumps Chrysler.
To whom, exactly is DC going to sell Chrysler? Who wants it? They've got 2 cars worth buying, the 300 and the Grand Cherokee. Everything else they've ruined. 4 door Wranger indeed.....
Lemko, I'd love to see GM remain #1 in world-wide sales, just as you would, and it would also please me to see Ford regain the #2 spot. But it's just not going to happen with cars like the G-6. Why? It's just okay. To me, the G-6 designers tried too hard, but failed to get the proportions right. And while I'm sorry to have to say it, I see the same appearance issue with the Aura, although to a lesser degree. I hope others see it differently, as the judges at the Detroit Auto Show did, and the Aura sells like hot dogs at a world series game.
Heck, maybe GM should replace those hard plastic interior bits with painted steel. I recall my 1968 Buick Special Deluxe had body color steel interior panels in place what would today be the hard plastic bits. Steel most definately would impart a feeling of solid quality. The only bad thing is that the vehicle would be heavier.
Oh, c'mon lemko...the problem isn't how hard the plastic is, it's how pretty it is! GM has used soft plastic for years - but it's been molded into what I would call a "bad trip" form, which entirely turns me off. Like in the trailblazer - the plastic isn't necessarily hard, it's just ugly. No theme to it, no symmetry, no beauty. It's molded every which way. Form follows function, but it's not sculpted like art, it looks thrown together. And they use way too much black plastic. Black plastic looks the worst, at least to me. It always looks cheap. I'd rather see plood than black plastic.
"That's pretty much my point, nippon - Ford has more OHC and DOHC engines than GM already!"
Sure, but in one fell swoop GM is leap-frogging Ford with its latest engines. The 3.6 is a good engine, gets better fuel economy with far more power in most applications than the Duratec 3.0. Who knows how the new 3.5 will perform. The Ecotec four provides better midrange torque than the Ford engine. However, in the case of the fours, GM has to catch up on fuel economy. But the General finally seems to be understanding that for cars (and crossovers) there is nothing "high feature" about an OHC engine, it is just "business as usual" in the industry.
Ford's mission in the next few years seems to be to become the perfect pale imitator of Toyota, the same mission Hyundai seems to have. GM, OTOH, is planning RWD large cars, better sport offerings, and will have updated its compact car TWICE before Ford has even properly updated Focus ONCE. Not to mention GM has a subcompact for sale, uninspiring though it may be.
The only area where Ford seems to be geared up to do battle is in crossovers, which will be a white-hot segment with lots of casualties for the next decade, I am sure.
And Chrysler? Chrysler is lost. Someone mentioned the Grand Cherokee as one of Chrysler's two popular models right now, but I remember reading very recently that GC sales are off a LOT. They have no good crossovers in the works, the new Sebring is a dud like the car it replaced, the 300 is getting old quickly and is impacted by gas prices. The truck-based models are doing awfully. Ram, Dakota, Durango, Aspen, where are any of them going? Nowhere fast. If the hopes of the whole company are staked on Wrangler Unlimiteds and Swivel'n'Go, there is big trouble in their future.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM, OTOH, is planning RWD large cars, better sport offerings,
Ok, let me get this straight - Wonder of Wonders - GM is planning RWD large cars! Holy Panther, Batman, FORD NEVER QUIT MAKING THEM!! And, although the platform is old, they are thoroughly updated cars, and drop dead reliable and tough. But, hey, GM is planning some! Fabulous. You're right, GM is brilliant! And better sport offerings? The Mustang also was not discontinued, as the Camarobird was, and you know what a hit the new version has been, but - GM is planning BETTER ones.....like what?
Look, I know Ford is in the crapper - I don't deny that, I'm just baffled as to why suddenly, GM is the genius company, NOW planning to do what Ford has already done! Ford always gets a bad rap - they can't win. They have always built a better designed SUV, Wagon & truck, but every time GM catches up to them, they're just so good. :confuse:
Good to see all old creation finally flourishing in this newly freyed TownHall!
The 16 year old has weighed in. Imagine - a "ute" who is pro GM
Still, if he thinks GM is going to trounce Toyota and Honda, he's smokin some of them funny cigarettes.....
Ain't nobody "trouncing" Toyota, as Toyota may be the GM of the 21st century, but I think the US market will be GM and Toyota sharing 50%, and Ford, Chrysler, Honda occupying the 2nd tier.
To whom, exactly is DC going to sell Chrysler? Who wants it? They've got 2 cars worth buying, the 300 and the Grand Cherokee. Everything else they've ruined. 4 door Wranger indeed.....
Caravan is still a major player, but may need Hemi power at some point to stay ahead, and get more male buyers. Every other vehicle Dodge puts out is for guys only. Might as well butch-up the van too.
I'd love to see GM remain #1 in world-wide sales, just as you would, and it would also please me to see Ford regain the #2 spot.\
I wouldn't, at least in the short-term.
The domestics need this kick in the pants, especially GM and Ford. GM seems to be responding faster and better. Ford seems to have rolled out of bed, and hit their head on something. :sick:
Toyota ain't perfect, but EVERY domestic has, and should, learn something from them. Aggressive, efficient, calculated, smart. They don't make things just to keep a plant open. They build to grow and prosper.
SAAB was independent before GM bought controlling interest (51%) in 1990, and bought the rest a decade later. SAAB would be better off as an independent again. It would be tough sledding competition wise, as a small independent has very limited capital. However, the engineering innovation that SAAB always had would not be stymied as it has been since GM took control.
Holy Panther, Batman, FORD NEVER QUIT MAKING THEM!! And, although the platform is old, they are thoroughly updated cars, and drop dead reliable and tough
I 100% agree with "drop dead reliable" (and noted such in my post earlier in this thread).
Panthers thoroughly updated, though? Have you driven one lately?? That said, I would have liked to own a Marauder. In typical GM fashion, Ford killed that car too soon. :P
Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks that climbing in one of the Panther cars is like an express trip back to the 70s. Whoa!
As for sport offerings, I know Ford has always had the Mustang, but it is a (forgive the expression!) one trick pony. GM is making sport models of other cars that are actually sporty (and some are just ridiculous, like the latest Malibu SS. Where's the sport?). Lots of them, with more to come. Meanwhile, yes, they are also going to rebirth the Camro. Which despite its looks will be an also-ran in sales to the Mustang, I am sure. And which GM will abandon almost as soon as it hits the road, so that it will once again disappear in ignominy a few years later.
I'm just saying that if you are trying to rate GM nd Ford back to back, one has a vision for the future that will make them stand out if they achieve it, while the other (Ford) is mostly doing business as usual, with minor variations on that theme that will not get them noticed by the market.
I looked at another article on the concept MKR today, boy is that car sweet. But it just serves to point out the difference between Ford and GM - Lincoln and Mercury are just about dead. Meanwhile, GM said it would revitalize Cadillac, and by God it went out there and did it. In five short years, it turned the ridicule and scorn of Cadillac from the prior 15 to 20 years into solid respect, and eliminated the catcalls. Now it looks like it is going to hang in there and not just hang the revitalized Caddy out to dry. Ford could learn A LOT here.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Panthers thoroughly updated, though? Have you driven one lately?? That said, I would have liked to own a Marauder. In typical GM fashion, Ford killed that car too soon.
Absolutely - rent them all the time. By thoroughly updated, I mean they are nimble, quiet, sturdy as a rock, and have rack & pinion up front, watts linkage in the rear, and handle quite well for their girth.
Your watts linkage comment begs the question - do any of the GM cars around the world use live-axle rears? Will the future rebadged Commodores sold here as GPs or G8s or whatever? Does the Chrysler 300?
I am not asking a rhetorical question, I honestly do not know. But I do know that a live axle in the back of a passenger sedan in 2007, while it may be an update from past years of the same model, is only average at best. It is inexpensive and durable, that we can say for it.
I do not think of the Crown Vic as nimble, but then I am a small car person. R-and-P steering, again while it may be an advance on older Panther models, is nothing to crow about these days either.
Anyway, I'm not sure how we went down this road. I don't think anyone is claiming the Panther cars are modern or sporty models. What they are is durable, inexpensive, and well suited to livery service. That's great, but in the ongoing race with GM, GM seems to be pulling ahead (just looking down the pipeline for each company).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Then, I query, nippon, why does Ford get no credit for IRS in their SUV line, while GM just "redesigned" their GMT900 SUVs with live axles, and no watts linkage either? Ford has had IRS in their SuVs since 02 - GM still does not, and evidently, does not intend to. I'm not sure that new rear drive Impala has it either....
This is what I'm saying, it just seems like GM is getting a lot of credit for finally doing what Ford has been doing for years - Ford gets no credit for doing it first. The Panther cars are dated in design, updated in technology, but at least they've been making a RWD car line all along, when everyone else quit.
For under $50,000 dollars, the Shelby GT-500 is in a class of its own. For the price, there are many foreign imports offering superior handling and better 0-60 scores, many with the added benefits of practicality and versatility. There are also more expensive competitors with added power and performance. But what they don't offer is the Shelby name and Mustang heritage, which to some buyers, means unconditional love, whatever the price may be. -Autoweek.
What foreign cars have better 0-60 times for under 50K? :confuse:
Last time i checked Honda/Nissan/Toyota dont offer any thing.. the only thing that comes close it the C6
Oh absolutely, I give Ford credit for that. But at the same time I have to say, given the choice of IRS in my car or my truck, I would choose it for my car first. Just how important is better handling and the elimination of axle hop in a 2 1/2-ton SUV? As for highway ride, you can coax a pretty smooth confortable ride from either design - live axle or IRS.
Toyota still uses the live axle rear in the 4Runner too, and I have to say it provides a very carlike ride even so. These are such large heavy vehicles, as is the Explorer, that it would be more significant to me personally to hear that the '07 Crown Vic now had IRS. Of course, the CV is no featherweight either.
I guess, the bottom line is that right now and in the foreseeable future, GM seems to be making more improvements that cater to what the market wants. It's not by a huge margin, but they seem to be edging ahead (no pun intended! :-P).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Then, I query, nippon, why does Ford get no credit for IRS in their SUV line, while GM just "redesigned" their GMT900 SUVs with live axles, and no watts linkage either?
Actually, I remember when the '02 Explorer/Mountaineer came out, it got a lot of praise for its IRS setup. One strong selling point there was that they could now offer a 3rd row seat. The only way GM got a third seat ouf of its Trailblazer clones was to bump up the wheelbase to Suburban-length and make the thing look like a bus!
This is what I'm saying, it just seems like GM is getting a lot of credit for finally doing what Ford has been doing for years - Ford gets no credit for doing it first.
I wonder if this is a sign that GM's marketing department is starting to get some life back into it? A similar thing happened in the late 50's and most of the 60's. Ford would enter a market first, such as the personal luxury coupe market (1958 T-bird), intermediate (1962 Fairlane/Meteor...it was kind of a tie with Chrysler, but Chrysler marketed its Furys, Darts, and Polaras as downsized big cars and were more of an accidental midsize), ponycar (1964 Mustang), more upscale low-end cars (1965 LTD, although Chevy and Plymouth responded fast with the Caprice and Fury VIP). Yet GM simply dominated the market in the 60's.
do any of the GM cars around the world use live-axle rears? Will the future rebadged Commodores sold here as GPs or G8s or whatever? Does the Chrysler 300?
The 300 and clones are IRS, and the Commodore range is IRS except for a few of the heavy-duty ute models (which are basically Australian pickup trucks).
The 300 is just an old platform, 2002 and older, E-class anyway so of course it is IRS.
Yeah, I think the IRS is the reason that they were able to get the spare tire under the trunk floor, because the gas tank was moved forward, under the back seat, as with FWD cars. In the past, about the only way to get the spare tire under the trunk floor of a solid axle car was like in my Dodge Dart, where it had a trunk floor long enough to accommodate both the spare tire and the gas tank. In this case though, the gas tank had to wrap around the spare tire well a bit, and it also resulted in a somewhat shallow trunk.
Now that I think about it, didn't the 1989-97 T-bird/Cougar have IRS?
The 300 is just an old platform, 2002 and older, E-class
The rear suspension and some other bits and pieces, but not the whole thing. The last-gen Thunderturd was also IRS, and that setup made its way under some Mustang Cobra variant around 2000.
Fine the engine, the sheetmetal, the interior and probably some of the roof is different then the last gen E-class but transmission I am pretty sure is the same as is the rear suspension and front suspension too.
Most of the platform is the same that is why they can offer them up so cheaply. The majority of the platform tooling is paid for.
The basic platform is a redesigned LH with a lot of Mercedes bits added on along the way, but it didn't start out as an E-class.
Really? I never knew the thing was derived from the LH. At one time, the LX was supposed to be offered with two different styles for Dodge and two for Chrysler. One would be a low-slung, sporty car, probably 300N for Chrysler and Charger for Dodge. The other would be a more upright, family car with a taller roofline, which was starting to become more popular around the time they started designing them. This would've most likely been Concorde for Chrysler, and perhaps Intrepid for Dodge, although they were thinking of dusting off older names like Newport, New Yorker, etc.
The platform was also supposed to be configured for FWD, RWD, or AWD, and engine choices were supposed to be the 3.7 V-6, 4.7 V-8, and a Hemi option. It was supposed to come out as a 2003 model, but kept getting delayed because, since the Benz takeover, they were trying to work some Benz components into it, like the rear suspension and other things.
Was the Intrepid/Concorde originally supposed to have been offered with an AWD option? I've always wondered why they mounted the engine/tranny longitudinally in the cars. I also heard that they picked that up from Renault, who mounted the drivetrain the same way with the Eagle Premier and Dodge Monaco.
Development on the LX started a year or so before the DCX "merger". The LH platform was RWD and AWD capable and a few prototypes were built that way but never saw regular production. Tracing the origins of the LX is almost like trying to decide if the Mustang is derived from the Lincoln LS or the Mazda6.
1. Toyota 2. Honda 3. GM 3. Hyundai (two-way tie) 5. Ford 6. Chrysler 7. Nissan 8. VW
I consider Mazda too closely associated with Ford to be ranked separately, although it is definitely the stronger half of Ford. And I don't rank Subaru because it is so tiny, but if I did, it would be right after Honda and ahead of GM/Hyundai.
Hey, nv, you and I are pretty close in our rankings! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yeah, we're close on the easy ones.... The middle gets pretty murky...
I have to give you Subaru's quality of product - but they're so friggin goofy in the way they're built, it's hard to classify them. What about Mitsubishi? I forgot it, but I would have put it somewhere around Nissan, over VW. Also, a quirky brand.
Comments
Having said that, I have driven the Aura with the 3.6, and it is a sweeeet powertrain, wrapped in a car that is at least average. I have also driven the Tribute and Fusion with the 3.0 Duratec, and that engine.......isn't. Ford has a smoother four, but GM's is more torquey. Neither is as good as the Camry and Accord engines IMO.
But all of a sudden, GM is dumping all the accursed-and-ancient pushrod engines and going with extensive use of their Ecotec-4 and this new 3.6L DOHC. That's good. If only someone could convince them to entirely get rid of the totally behind-the-times 4-speed auto for their cars (rather than continuing to selectively use it in less expensive models that I guess it doesn't consider "high feature"!), they would begin to pull solidly ahead of Ford.
But that's not really the thing of it for me. GM and Ford have both been nursing their lines along the last few years with tons of talk and not a whole lot of action. Then last year, GM DID more than it TALKED. Ford continues to mostly talk, with their latest block-stopper being that they will reinvent the entire line by 2010. 2010? What about this year and next? The Focus will be a decade old by then, the Ranger even older, heck might as well just abandon both model lines for new names. Something beginning with F of course. :-P
And the 500's only innovation will be a minor restyling and the introduction of the 3.5 and a 6-speed auto. They talk big with the Interceptor concept, which could be the first great 4-door to come out of Ford in quite a while, but I don't have a lot of faith it will be coming to a dealership near me any time soon. The Lincoln MKR? OK, if it ever makes it to market. The rest of the line is lost in mediocrity, except for the very garishly-styled Navigator. Mercury? C'mon.
As things are, it's close, but GM has more going on and a better vision for the next 5 years. Chrysler, I think, is going to go rapidly downhill now as the Sebring fails to hit, and Daimler goes through internal feuds as it tries to figure out how to dump its American division. Not to mention their whole truck line is stuck in the sales doldrums, and some of the Jeeps as well. Patriot and Compass? OMG. Ditto Hornet. Decent but anonymous (except for Hornet) styling with crap fuel economy and the cheapest interiors this side of east European cars. You can figure on them quickly falling to last among the domestics.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1. GM
I think if I was answering this 5 years ago, GM would 3rd. They still have some turkeys in the lineup, but the REALLY bad stuff (Blazer, Cavalier) are gone. The new cars such as the Outlook my wife wants has a thoroughly modern and smooth engine, and 6 spd. transmission. Their newer cars are so good, I'm actually afraid of them becoming "America's Brand" and then turning in reverse and pushing out mediocre junk again.
2. Toyota
I think they are on the opposite course from GM. Having looked at the new Camry, it is clear to me that they are cost-cutting themselves into the same boat GM occupied in the 80s. Newer Toyotas just feel cheap to me, and their recalls are at an all-time high. I personally hate the way Toyotas drive - they're like Buicks, and they all seem to have this hesistation when you accelerate. All Corollas and Camries I've driven have this problem. I once took a Taurus as a rental over a Corolla because I so actively hate how they drive.
Quality-wise, Toyota just isn't where they used to be. To illustrate this point, here's an anecdote.
My old man had a 1968 Landcruiser that he used to plow our driveway. It finally rusted apart in the mid-90s, so what did he replace it with? A 1978 Landcruiser, which he actually gave away last year since he came into a semi-recent Silverado.
Contrast this with all the recalls toyota has had lately, and it's clear that they are either cost-cutting themselves into oblivion or simply growing too fast (probably a bit of both).
3. Ford
I admit, I had a hard time picking between #3 and #4. I think both Chrysler and Ford make bad cars, but for different reasons. Ford's cars are either drop-dead reliable, or just drop-dead. If I had to pick two cars from any manufacturer that I would call most reliable, they would be the Crown Vic and the Ranger.
The problem I have with Ford isn't so much the reliability of their cars, it is that they are incredibly boring to own and drive, and they don't age particularly well. A buddy of mine has a Five Hundred, and it's a "nice" car, but as interesting as my 1983 Pontiac 6000.
The question I have is whether Ford is going to make their cars more interesting before the company itself expires. I do like the Fusion, and it drives 100x nicer than anything I've driven from Toyota, but IT NEEDS MORE POWER. The lack of power is endemic to everything Ford makes - even the Mustang GT could use another 100 horses.
4. Chrysler.
The Charger Daytona is probably the only car they've made in the last 30 years that I wouldn't mind owning. There are so many things I hate about their cars, it would take me the whole afternoon to list them all.
Every Chrysler I have ever seen has the cheapest, shoddiest plastic interiors of any manufacturer. It's actually horrifying how cheaply made their interiors are. GM has made some bad interiors, but at least their plastics tend to be soft-touch. I can even tell by just looking at the pictures of their new minivans that I'm going to sit down in one and there is still going to be nothing but plain, hard plastic staring back at me.
Their transmissions are almost universally garbage. Show me a lifelong Chrysler owner who hasn't prematurely replaced at least one slushbox, and I'll show you my time machine. Ford has had some BAD transmissions, but at least they were restricted to a certain engine and vehicle (a few years' worth of Taurii and Windstars).
When I think of the worst vehicles America has made since the industry began, they are almost all made by this company. When I see a car tooling down the freeway with blue smoke pouring out the back, survey says it's a Chrysler minivan. Then there's the K-car, which was horrible indeed, but not so bad that Chrysler didn't try to put a new shell on it and call it a "Shadow".
But, you might say, the past is the past.
I personally know 3 people who drove recent Chrysler products. One Town and Country, and two Jeep Grand Cherokees. All were such horrific pieces of crap, they made my lemon Jetta look like my old man's Landcruisers. The Jeeps, even when they weren't busy grenading transmissions, were uncomfortable and had hard plastic interiors that had no place in a car costing more than $30k.
I wouldn't call Chrysler a "details-oriented" company. My wife and I have been shopping for her next car, and as such we sat down in a Grand Caravan. I picked up the seatbelt to snap myself in, and noticed that unlike most modern cars, the metal tab was surrounded by two pieces of plastic that I assume were supposed to snap together. Instead, you shake the buckle, and they kind of shook around. I think Chrysler gets a discount based on how many different kinds of cheap plastic they can cram into a single interior. There were all kinds of flashing and rough edges on plastic trim bits that looked like a $5 kids' toy. The seats were covered in a fabric I could charitably describe as "burlap", and the headliner appeared to be made out of recycled diapers.
Sitting in a "Stow and Go" seat was akin to my 6' frame sitting in a desk made for kindergartners. In addition to being too small, it had about an eighth of an inch of something like pocket lint that I"m sure would feel like padding if you were a 3 year old who weighted about 30 lbs. or so. I thought Honda took the crown for uncomfortable seats until I sat in this thing.
I'm going to cut this post off, but suffice to say I wasn't impressed by Chrysler's idea of a minivan. As far as I can tell, their customer base for these things represent the same group who make their grandkids pay for their ice cream, or go out into a busy street to pick a penny up. Because I have to be honest, this is not a vehicle that compares favorably to its competition, which is really my opinion of pretty much every vehicle this godforsaken car company manufactures.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That's pretty much my point, nippon - Ford has more OHC and DOHC engines than GM already! In fact, they only have a couple of pushrod engines left, and both of them are only occupying engine bays because demand is too strong for the others for production....they are both on their last leg. As for transmissions, Ford has gone to 6 speeds in their trucks as of 05, and are putting them into other cars now. So, from my vantage point, what GM is doing is nice, but it's pure catch up to the world from the worst position in the industry. I give them points for that, but not more points than the other company who has been trying all along to stay fairly current.
Then last year, GM DID more than it TALKED. Ford continues to mostly talk, with their latest block-stopper being that they will reinvent the entire line by 2010. 2010? What about this year and next? The Focus will be a decade old by then, the Ranger even older, heck might as well just abandon both model lines for new names. Something beginning with F of course.
Interesting you see it that way. Talk is certainly the mantra at Ford, I won't argue that. However, what has GM suddenly done that is so outstanding? Creating a new line of SUVs that still lack the technology Ford has had in theirs since 02? (IRS, Folding third seat flat, 3Valve engines) They're pretty, because they look square like the Ford now. But there's nothing new under there. Just new skin. The Aura gets accolades, and it will be available in 3-5 flavors, depending on whether SAAB or Cadillac get a version, but Ford has the Mustang and the Fusion and the 500 out in 2 & 3 flavors, and they're all great cars. True, the 500 is a styling flop, but functionally, it's the best in class. Now, it gets an engine upgrade, so much the better.
And GM has the Outlook, which is supposedly awesome - and Ford has improved the Explorer with a 300hp OHC sweet V-8, and a 6 speed transmission, and it still tows a trailer, plus the 3rd seat powerfolds flat into the floor.
I'm sorry, I just don't see where GM is leaps and bounds ahead, I see them leaping fast to catch up - that's it for now.
The new crossovers look like very good, and they will snare a fair number of people defecting from traditional SUVs. Not giving Chevy a version right from the get-go is a mistake, though.
The new CTS looks great, and has received rave reviews. If Cadillac can spread this level of improvement through the rest of the line (XLR, STS, SRX), it will be back on track.
The new Malibu finally looks as though it wasn't styled for duty at the Alamo lot. I hope that it's interior materials are a cut above those in the Aura, which is the one fly in the ointment for that model.
GM's biggest problem is to many divisions. Chevy needs that new crossover...but Saturn, Buick and GMC already have one. What will the Chevy bring to the market that those models don't? How will it be distinguished from those models?
The Pontiac G5 and Torrent are more of the same badge-engineering nonsense that got GM into trouble in the first place.
It also has too many back-benchers. The Grand Prix, Colorado/Canyon, minivans and Ion are duds, plain and simple.
Plus, some of its models have dated too quickly. The Equinox, Cobalt and LaCrosse haven't been out that long, and they look tired next to the competition. Of course, styling the Cobalt to look like a facelifted Cavalier didn't help.
As for Ford...some of its vehicles need updates, but what I see are vehicles featuring confused styling (Focus), eliminating good features (rear disc brakes on Escape, no 2.3 four or wagon for Focus) or sporting updates that are not extensive enough (Five Hundred and Escape). Sad part is that all of these vehicles are solid, and aren't badly outdated. (We aren't talking about the GM J-cars here.) They needed updates in critical areas, but Ford has been hit-and-miss in giving them what they need.
And Chrysler? Sorry, but with the Sebring and the Compass, I am further convinced that Daimler has NO clue as to how to compete in the American mass market. The 300 is starting to look like a fluke, and the new minivans and Wrangler build on a winning formula that existed before the takeover, oops, I mean "merger."
I also add to your case, grbeck, that I'm not sure that 4 door Wrangler is such a hot idea either. Kind of the end of an era for that vehicle.....
1. Rick Wagoner and Bob Lutz are auto-biz geniuses. They know how to run a company right. I think, after seeing the newest entrants, that they have machine-gunned down the whole bean-counting dept. of GM. The new products are freakin' amazing! I have yet to check out (in person) the new crossovers or the Aura or Malibu, but I was VERY impressed not only the stellar design of the whole package, but how well the fit and finish was and the new powertrains. GM will continue to put out amazing products for years to come.
2. Ford is in trouble! Simple as that. While they were too busy trying to peddle the unimpressive Explorer as a still-modern people-mover, the market has shifted to others who can build a proper crossover with acceptable mileage. I know that the Freestyle is there, and it's not bad, but not really that great. It's rather average. Ford's financial problems are still mounting, as they have now put all of their factories and headquarters up as collateral for an $18 BILLION loan. They need to put out products that people want, that are unique (not weird, but stand out), and that have class-leading features. Until then, they can wave bye-bye to profits, and then their assets.
3. Chrysler, Dodge & Jeep SUCK! I'm sorry, but if you have any interest in staying afloat in the American automobile business, you do NOT put out crap like the Sebring, Nitro, Caliber, Commander, Ram, Dakota, e.t.c. I have actually seen the interiors of these vehicles. What the heck were they thinking! the design is nothing special, but not bad. It's the quality. Where is the quality?!! Rubbermaid makes better plastic than those interiors. My trash cans have a more quality feel that them! What is it that they can't or don't get about quality? I looked at pictures of the new Sebring and the 2008 minivans with high hopes, and was hugely disappointed. Even the designs are bad. You can tell just by pictures that the plastics are harder than a headstone. Add padding, make different shades of colors, round a freakin' corner off for God's sakes! Don't even get me started on the Caliber, Compass, Commander and the trucks. Absolute trash. And they wonder why they aren't selling? Good Lord, if they don't have the sense to figure that out, then goodbye DCX.
BTW: Saturn will beat Honda in 3 years tops and Toyota in 5 (New products from Europe are awesome AND refined), Cadillac will become the "Standard of the World" again (CTS!), Chevy will rock even harder (Camaro, Silverado, Malibu, RWD Impala anyone? Plus the HHR is awesome!), Buick will improve (Enclave, Lucerne), GMC is getting better (Acadia, Sierra), Pontiac will be a competitor again (going all RWD by '10 or '11, G6 will be missed), Saab and Hummer? :confuse: Well, that's another story. Sell Saab, let them become independent, same with Hummer. Other than that, Toyota is goin' down! The new Tundra is not good, quality is fleeting, recalls are popping up more and more. GM WILL RULE AGAIN!!! :shades:
just call me 'old yeller'.
Still, if he thinks GM is going to trounce Toyota and Honda, he's smokin some of them funny cigarettes.....
BTW: I'm 17 now, and I know it was a joke, but I've never done drugs in my life, and I still love GM!
I don't know what you mean by "beat", but I'd probably be willing to wager a few hundred thousand dollars that your prediction is wrong :P
Who will miss the G6? Enterprise?
Funny that GMs fortunes seem brighter when they bring in platforms from overseas...
I wonder how long it will be until Daimler makes a serious move to dump Chrysler...
BTW: I give Daimler 9-10 months until it dumps Chrysler.
As for GM versus Ford: GM seems to be ahead in making the internal changes necessary to succeed. Ford's new leaders, however, appear to be shaking up the corporate culture in a far shorter timeframe than Mr. Lutz did at GM.
And I'll still take a Five Hundred with the new drivetrain over the Lucerne or Impala.
If I recall correctly, as part of the franchise agreements with Saturn dealers, GM agreed to limit the number of dealers to prevent too much internal competition. So Saturn is always going to have a smaller dealer base.
If anything, GM needs to realize that Chevy is still its big gun, and the one best suited to take on Toyota, Honda and Ford.
94accord_lover: The G6 is a good car, despite what you think. I know the interior wasn't of the highest quality, but personally, I don't care.
"Good" isn't good enough to top this segment anymore, and many owners do care about interior quality, hence the need for large incentives and fleet sales to move many GM vehicles.
94accord_lover: If they are so bad, why are they selling so good? Are there that many "idiots" out there?
They sell because of customers named Hertz, Alamo and Enterprise. Well over 1/4 of G6 sales are to fleet customers.
The G6 isn't a bad car. I'm sure anyone who buys it will receive safe, reliable and comfortable transportation for his or her purchasing dollar. The problem is that, even in this segment, many buyers want more.
As a personal note, I don't find the G6 styling to be all that attractive. It strikes me as contrived - or, as Edsel Ford I used to say when confronted with a design he didn't like, "They tried too hard" - in this case, to be sporty and cutting edge.
The best-looking cars in this class are the Passat and the Fusion.
94accord_lover: BTW: I give Daimler 9-10 months until it dumps Chrysler.
Germans are quite stubborn, especially when it comes to their automobile industry. Selling Chrysler this soon would admit defeat. Daimler will give this one last try.
The G6 might be good, but everything pretty much is "good" these days. It's not great, and it's not selling to private customers in my neck of the woods.
I didn't mean it so much as an insult, but as an observation...to show how GM seems to have higher regard for non NA markets. Euro and Aussie GM cars have been superior to their NA counterparts for ages. Even Chinese GM cars are starting to become more appealing. It's really weird. As you say, Holdens rock and Opels have a decent rep...but what we get doesn't do either. I think it's good that they've finally wised up and moved more competent product to this continent.
Do you think someone would dare pick up Chrysler, or will it sit on its own?
What's so bad about the G6? The coupe and retractable hardtop are cool!
Interesting hope - but this hasn't been GM's M.O. since the 60's - and the world has changed. Toyota and Honda are not standing still.
Maybe I got a little excited when I said Toyota in 5, but I have the utmost confidence that Saturn will become a contender with the Japanese and Koreans.
A contender - perhaps, but that's a long way from overtaking.
The G6 is a good car, despite what you think. I know the interior wasn't of the highest quality, but personally, I don't care. I know a few owners of them and they love their car. If they are so bad, why are they selling so good?
You're right, the interior on the G-6, and every other GM car through the line is sub-par. Hyundai has a better interior across the board. Kia matches GM pretty well. So did Daewoo. You may not care if the interior on your car has Mattel written all over it, but it's the most important thing on a car to me, because that's where I live. Interior feel, look and comfort is #1 for a lot of us, but not for GM owners, obviously. As for selling so "well", I don't believe the G-6 has yet sold as many copies in a year as the 20 year old Grand Am it replaced. All the G-6's sold have been to rental fleets or Oprah giveaways, at least around here.
I give Daimler 9-10 months until it dumps Chrysler.
To whom, exactly is DC going to sell Chrysler? Who wants it? They've got 2 cars worth buying, the 300 and the Grand Cherokee. Everything else they've ruined. 4 door Wranger indeed.....
Sure, but in one fell swoop GM is leap-frogging Ford with its latest engines. The 3.6 is a good engine, gets better fuel economy with far more power in most applications than the Duratec 3.0. Who knows how the new 3.5 will perform. The Ecotec four provides better midrange torque than the Ford engine. However, in the case of the fours, GM has to catch up on fuel economy. But the General finally seems to be understanding that for cars (and crossovers) there is nothing "high feature" about an OHC engine, it is just "business as usual" in the industry.
Ford's mission in the next few years seems to be to become the perfect pale imitator of Toyota, the same mission Hyundai seems to have. GM, OTOH, is planning RWD large cars, better sport offerings, and will have updated its compact car TWICE before Ford has even properly updated Focus ONCE. Not to mention GM has a subcompact for sale, uninspiring though it may be.
The only area where Ford seems to be geared up to do battle is in crossovers, which will be a white-hot segment with lots of casualties for the next decade, I am sure.
And Chrysler? Chrysler is lost. Someone mentioned the Grand Cherokee as one of Chrysler's two popular models right now, but I remember reading very recently that GC sales are off a LOT. They have no good crossovers in the works, the new Sebring is a dud like the car it replaced, the 300 is getting old quickly and is impacted by gas prices. The truck-based models are doing awfully. Ram, Dakota, Durango, Aspen, where are any of them going? Nowhere fast. If the hopes of the whole company are staked on Wrangler Unlimiteds and Swivel'n'Go, there is big trouble in their future.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ok, let me get this straight - Wonder of Wonders - GM is planning RWD large cars! Holy Panther, Batman, FORD NEVER QUIT MAKING THEM!! And, although the platform is old, they are thoroughly updated cars, and drop dead reliable and tough. But, hey, GM is planning some! Fabulous. You're right, GM is brilliant! And better sport offerings? The Mustang also was not discontinued, as the Camarobird was, and you know what a hit the new version has been, but - GM is planning BETTER ones.....like what?
Look, I know Ford is in the crapper - I don't deny that, I'm just baffled as to why suddenly, GM is the genius company, NOW planning to do what Ford has already done! Ford always gets a bad rap - they can't win. They have always built a better designed SUV, Wagon & truck, but every time GM catches up to them, they're just so good. :confuse:
The 16 year old has weighed in. Imagine - a "ute" who is pro GM
Still, if he thinks GM is going to trounce Toyota and Honda, he's smokin some of them funny cigarettes.....
Ain't nobody "trouncing" Toyota, as Toyota may be the GM of the 21st century, but I think the US market will be GM and Toyota sharing 50%, and Ford, Chrysler, Honda occupying the 2nd tier.
To whom, exactly is DC going to sell Chrysler? Who wants it? They've got 2 cars worth buying, the 300 and the Grand Cherokee. Everything else they've ruined. 4 door Wranger indeed.....
Caravan is still a major player, but may need Hemi power at some point to stay ahead, and get more male buyers. Every other vehicle Dodge puts out is for guys only. Might as well butch-up the van too.
DrFill
I wouldn't, at least in the short-term.
The domestics need this kick in the pants, especially GM and Ford. GM seems to be responding faster and better. Ford seems to have rolled out of bed, and hit their head on something. :sick:
Toyota ain't perfect, but EVERY domestic has, and should, learn something from them. Aggressive, efficient, calculated, smart. They don't make things just to keep a plant open. They build to grow and prosper.
DrFill
I 100% agree with "drop dead reliable" (and noted such in my post earlier in this thread).
Panthers thoroughly updated, though? Have you driven one lately?? That said, I would have liked to own a Marauder. In typical GM fashion, Ford killed that car too soon. :P
As for sport offerings, I know Ford has always had the Mustang, but it is a (forgive the expression!) one trick pony. GM is making sport models of other cars that are actually sporty (and some are just ridiculous, like the latest Malibu SS. Where's the sport?). Lots of them, with more to come. Meanwhile, yes, they are also going to rebirth the Camro. Which despite its looks will be an also-ran in sales to the Mustang, I am sure. And which GM will abandon almost as soon as it hits the road, so that it will once again disappear in ignominy a few years later.
I'm just saying that if you are trying to rate GM nd Ford back to back, one has a vision for the future that will make them stand out if they achieve it, while the other (Ford) is mostly doing business as usual, with minor variations on that theme that will not get them noticed by the market.
I looked at another article on the concept MKR today, boy is that car sweet. But it just serves to point out the difference between Ford and GM - Lincoln and Mercury are just about dead. Meanwhile, GM said it would revitalize Cadillac, and by God it went out there and did it. In five short years, it turned the ridicule and scorn of Cadillac from the prior 15 to 20 years into solid respect, and eliminated the catcalls. Now it looks like it is going to hang in there and not just hang the revitalized Caddy out to dry. Ford could learn A LOT here.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Absolutely - rent them all the time. By thoroughly updated, I mean they are nimble, quiet, sturdy as a rock, and have rack & pinion up front, watts linkage in the rear, and handle quite well for their girth.
I am not asking a rhetorical question, I honestly do not know. But I do know that a live axle in the back of a passenger sedan in 2007, while it may be an update from past years of the same model, is only average at best. It is inexpensive and durable, that we can say for it.
I do not think of the Crown Vic as nimble, but then I am a small car person. R-and-P steering, again while it may be an advance on older Panther models, is nothing to crow about these days either.
Anyway, I'm not sure how we went down this road. I don't think anyone is claiming the Panther cars are modern or sporty models. What they are is durable, inexpensive, and well suited to livery service. That's great, but in the ongoing race with GM, GM seems to be pulling ahead (just looking down the pipeline for each company).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This is what I'm saying, it just seems like GM is getting a lot of credit for finally doing what Ford has been doing for years - Ford gets no credit for doing it first. The Panther cars are dated in design, updated in technology, but at least they've been making a RWD car line all along, when everyone else quit.
For under $50,000 dollars, the Shelby GT-500 is in a class of its own. For the price, there are many foreign imports offering superior handling and better 0-60 scores, many with the added benefits of practicality and versatility. There are also more expensive competitors with added power and performance. But what they don't offer is the Shelby name and Mustang heritage, which to some buyers, means unconditional love, whatever the price may be. -Autoweek.
What foreign cars have better 0-60 times for under 50K? :confuse:
Last time i checked Honda/Nissan/Toyota dont offer any thing.. the only thing that comes close it the C6
Toyota still uses the live axle rear in the 4Runner too, and I have to say it provides a very carlike ride even so. These are such large heavy vehicles, as is the Explorer, that it would be more significant to me personally to hear that the '07 Crown Vic now had IRS. Of course, the CV is no featherweight either.
I guess, the bottom line is that right now and in the foreseeable future, GM seems to be making more improvements that cater to what the market wants. It's not by a huge margin, but they seem to be edging ahead (no pun intended! :-P).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Thats a good questions and I am not sure...
Actually, I remember when the '02 Explorer/Mountaineer came out, it got a lot of praise for its IRS setup. One strong selling point there was that they could now offer a 3rd row seat. The only way GM got a third seat ouf of its Trailblazer clones was to bump up the wheelbase to Suburban-length and make the thing look like a bus!
This is what I'm saying, it just seems like GM is getting a lot of credit for finally doing what Ford has been doing for years - Ford gets no credit for doing it first.
I wonder if this is a sign that GM's marketing department is starting to get some life back into it? A similar thing happened in the late 50's and most of the 60's. Ford would enter a market first, such as the personal luxury coupe market (1958 T-bird), intermediate (1962 Fairlane/Meteor...it was kind of a tie with Chrysler, but Chrysler marketed its Furys, Darts, and Polaras as downsized big cars and were more of an accidental midsize), ponycar (1964 Mustang), more upscale low-end cars (1965 LTD, although Chevy and Plymouth responded fast with the Caprice and Fury VIP). Yet GM simply dominated the market in the 60's.
The 300 and clones are IRS, and the Commodore range is IRS except for a few of the heavy-duty ute models (which are basically Australian pickup trucks).
Yeah, I think the IRS is the reason that they were able to get the spare tire under the trunk floor, because the gas tank was moved forward, under the back seat, as with FWD cars. In the past, about the only way to get the spare tire under the trunk floor of a solid axle car was like in my Dodge Dart, where it had a trunk floor long enough to accommodate both the spare tire and the gas tank. In this case though, the gas tank had to wrap around the spare tire well a bit, and it also resulted in a somewhat shallow trunk.
Now that I think about it, didn't the 1989-97 T-bird/Cougar have IRS?
The rear suspension and some other bits and pieces, but not the whole thing. The last-gen Thunderturd was also IRS, and that setup made its way under some Mustang Cobra variant around 2000.
Most of the platform is the same that is why they can offer them up so cheaply. The majority of the platform tooling is paid for.
Really? I never knew the thing was derived from the LH. At one time, the LX was supposed to be offered with two different styles for Dodge and two for Chrysler. One would be a low-slung, sporty car, probably 300N for Chrysler and Charger for Dodge. The other would be a more upright, family car with a taller roofline, which was starting to become more popular around the time they started designing them. This would've most likely been Concorde for Chrysler, and perhaps Intrepid for Dodge, although they were thinking of dusting off older names like Newport, New Yorker, etc.
The platform was also supposed to be configured for FWD, RWD, or AWD, and engine choices were supposed to be the 3.7 V-6, 4.7 V-8, and a Hemi option. It was supposed to come out as a 2003 model, but kept getting delayed because, since the Benz takeover, they were trying to work some Benz components into it, like the rear suspension and other things.
Was the Intrepid/Concorde originally supposed to have been offered with an AWD option? I've always wondered why they mounted the engine/tranny longitudinally in the cars. I also heard that they picked that up from Renault, who mounted the drivetrain the same way with the Eagle Premier and Dodge Monaco.
2. Toyota
3. Ford
4. Nissan
5. Hyundia/Kia
6. Honda
7. Dodge/Chry
8. Mazda
9. VW
2. Honda
3. Ford
4. Mazda
5. GM
6. Hyundai
7. Chrysler
8. Nissan
9. VW
2. Honda
3. GM
3. Hyundai (two-way tie)
5. Ford
6. Chrysler
7. Nissan
8. VW
I consider Mazda too closely associated with Ford to be ranked separately, although it is definitely the stronger half of Ford. And I don't rank Subaru because it is so tiny, but if I did, it would be right after Honda and ahead of GM/Hyundai.
Hey, nv, you and I are pretty close in our rankings! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have to give you Subaru's quality of product - but they're so friggin goofy in the way they're built, it's hard to classify them. What about Mitsubishi? I forgot it, but I would have put it somewhere around Nissan, over VW. Also, a quirky brand.
1.Toyota
2.Honda
3.Subaru
4.Nissan
5.GM
6.Ford
7.Hyundai
8.Chrysler
9.VW