GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda...Who will sell you your next car?

dieselone

I wasn't impressed with the Impala either. The interior certainly looks better, but I didn't really play around with anything when my wife I looked at them.

Like Andre, all it took was for me to sit in the back seat. Not very comfortable in my opinion. My wife chose the Ford 500 over the Impala based on the rear seat room and the huge trunk. Her other choice for a company car was a Grandprix and it's even worse.

BTW, a 500 feels fairly cheap compared to the Accords I've driven too. I do like the CVT trans though. Very slick and certainly makes the most of the engines power once underway.

dieselone

Andre,

If you think the Impala is bad, go try an GrandPrix, it makes the Impala feel like a limo. I've sat in compacts that have more comforable rear accommodations than that abomination.

anythngbutgm

I found the worst part about the Grand Prix's rear accomodations was the seat bottom. It forces you to move your bottom forward thus creating a large gap between your lower back and the seat back. My sacrililiacs SP? ached for the whole day that last time I had to ride in the back seat of one of those. :mad:

andre1969

definitely feels like a limo in the back seat. It seems to dwarf the Impala, and IMO feels roomier than the Charger/300, and also better than my Intrepid. But then, like many limos or taxicabs, it seems like the 500 sacrifices some front seat comfort. I wish they'd make the seat go back a bit further. To me, it's like sitting behind the wheel of my old '85 Silverado. The seat is fairly high up and headroom is good, but for someone who likes to stretch their legs out, I don't think it's so great.

I think the 500 would be a great car for someone who had to chauffer clients around, like a real estate agent or what have you. I'd say it would also make a great alternative to something like a Crown Vic or Grand Marquis, or Town Car, for the taxi/livery crowd. Trunk's actually a bit bigger, and with the exception of maybe a 2-3" loss in shoulder room, I'd say the back seat is, too. I'd imagine a Panther car would be much more durable though, able to take more of a pounding.

And if the driver and front seat passengers don't have long legs, I think it would make a decent family car. Better than the Impala, which I think many average-sized people would find cramped.

As for the Grand Prix, I think I sat in an '04 once when they first came out. Horrible! Honestly though, I've found all iterations of the W-body to be tight in the back seat.

I swear those old A-bodies (Celebrity & company) had more front and rear legroom! This may not be saying much for GM's current cars, but I find that the older those A-bodies get, the more I actually appreciate their design. Scary, huh? :P

lemko

Well, if you like the old A-bodies, you'll love the old FWD C-bodies. My '88 Park Ave has a very spacious rear compartment for a car that looks smaller than my girlfriend's LaCrosse.

andre1969

actually I've always kinda liked the FWD C-body. My only beef with it was that I didn't think it was a worthy successor to the big RWD Electra, Ninety-Eight, and DeVille it replaced. However, I think it would've been a good replacement for the likes of the Malibu, Bonneville G, Regal sedan, and Cutlass Supreme sedan.

Well, in a way, it DID replace the Bonneville. The H-body, which came out in 1986 as the LeSabre and 88, was basically the same as the C-body, although the back seat wasn't quite as big (odd since they were on the same wheelbase) and spawned a Bonneville version in 1987.

dieselone

I think the 500 would be a great car for someone who had to chauffer clients around, like a real estate agent or what have you.

That's exactly why my wife picked it over the GP & Impala. For work, she often has recruits and Execs riding with her when they come into town. The truck space comes in very handy for hauling lots of luggage/work stuff.

Another nice bonus in the 500 is the 20 gal fuel tank. It's nice to be able to go well over 400 miles on a tank. Something you truely appreciate here in Kansas. LOL.

I find the front seat legroom fine, but your feet don't seem to have a lot of room to stretch out or move around. I never noticed this until we took it on a 200 mile round trip last weekend. I felt a little cramped while driving. Granted, we normally take the Suburban on trips and while it has similar leg room, it's a lot wider and I have all sorts of room to move my legs about.

jefferyg

That's what comes to mind whenever I see an Impala or a 500. I also had an Impala (05 model) a couple of months ago for a rental. It drove o.k., it was comfortable, got pretty good mileage for its size, and it was very quiet. But it was also one of the most bland automobiles I've ever laid eyes on. The 06 Impala is a little easier on the eyes but it appears smaller than the previous model - and it's still quite generic.

As for the 500, it is without a doubt, the most generic offering Ford has out right now. There's nothing about the car that says, "Hey, wouldn't you love to take me out for a drive."

As for who will sell me my next car...I dunno. But it will have to deliver better mileage than most cars I've seen lately. I filled up our 06 Passat Tuesday and came within fifteen cents of $50 to fill the tank. :sick:

lemko

I certainly agree. They most certainly weren't worthy successors to the old RWD C-Bodies. I hated them when they were new. Looking at them 20 years later, I can see them in a different light.

nvbanker

Back seat tight? Unbelievable! Knowing this is a major gripe of most all people in sedans, why would GM purposefully design a new Impala with a tight back seat? That's felony dumb, IMO. Good heavens, anybody knows that with what we have today to build cars, there is no excuse for not building a "large sedan" with a large cabin. Compare that to the new 500 - which has a cavernous back seat and trunk! It's ugly, but very efficient, spacious and practical. The new Impala is good looking, and a complete bust on design. It'll sell though, because it looks good and has a V-8.

lilengineerboy

I think its funny you are concerned with turbo lag and purchased a car that doesn't make real power until vtec kicks in.

dieselone

I think its funny you are concerned with turbo lag and purchased a car that doesn't make real power until vtec kicks in.

First, let me say I enjoy turbocharged engines, along with honda's VTEC engines along with other VVT type engines.

The difference I've noticed is turbocharged engines can have a bit of lag at both high and low rpm. With the VTECs or any normally aspirated engine, at high rpm you don't have lag since the engine is in it's powerband w/o the need of turbo boost.

The few late model Accord v6's with auto don't seem to suffer to much for having it's torque peak at high rpm. They are geared to take advantage of the power output. Some may not enjoy/appreciate a high revving engine, but you can't deny the v6 Accords accelerate very well. I'm sure a 6speed manual in these cars would be very entertaining and quick.

stevekilburn

I dont think turbochargers are pure passion.

Natural aspiration still inspires pure love and passionate romance. Its like a beautiful woman in your arms without injections or

boost from steroids or mood pills or ecstasy.

Modern Ferraris are all natural passions.

But turbochargers is not the purpose of the thread. So please stay on topic.

qbrozen

I don't care if you are a GM fan or not, and I'm certainly not saying you can't post, and, yes, I know you've been around quite some time, as have I.

I was merely answering your supposition with another possibility.

With that screen name, its always going to be very difficult for you to appear anyway but biased against GM. With every single post, you are advertising the fact that you believe GM is the absolute bottom of the barrel.

rocketman67

Retiring my 95 GMC 4x4 110K trouble free miles with a '06 Nissan Frontier NISMO 4x4 because GMC did it's best to change my mind about the Canyon by using an I5. :sick:

chrisducati

My next car will be Japanese. After driving a few 2006 American cars I have to say I'm really disappointed in them. Nothing much has changed from the last time I drove one. Then there is the guy I work with that loves his Chevy. Says its the best car he ever has owned. Where is your car today Rob? Back in the shop again huh? Great car Rob.

anythngbutgm

But wow :surprise:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/04/17/crash-tests-show-benefit-of-side-air-bags- /

:sick:

rockylee

Aren't they Bankrupt yet ? I thought the buy a Eclipse and get a 46' inch TV scam put them in BK ? Oh that's right the government of Japan is keeping them on life support.

Rocky

Kirstie_H

Folks, please remember to alert a host by e-mail when you see a problem rather than posting about it in the discussions. That only means we've got to delete your post as well as the offending post.

If you zap us a note, we'll take care of it - promise!

kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions

qbrozen

well now you're just taking the fun out of it.

rockylee

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=110090

Here ya Go Fintail.

Rocky

fintail

That's actually been out longer I think...last fall I saw a new E350 "AMG" - full AMG trim, but the normal 6cyl engine. I can't say I'm pleased to see AMG being relegated to a mere trim line.

rocketman67

My next vehicle is going to be a Nissan Frontier NISMO 4X4 to replace my '95 GMC Sonoma 4X4.
My intentions were to get a Canyon/Colorado but when I heard GM went to an I5 I did not even consider them.
265hp vs 220 with virtual the same mpg's is a no brainer.

nova

You will be happy with your Frontier. I just sold my 05 crew cab Le v6 auto. It had 22,000 miles. I did not use the bed one time I bought because in my opinion its the BEST looking mid size truck. Some times you wonder who is running GM. All they had to do is put the 3.9 v6 or the 4.8 v8 and they would double or triple their sales. I went back to chevy and bought a HHR because I heard that gas was going to be close to $4.00 a gallon 2 months ago its now at $ 3.00 and climbing every day. I also think chevy screwed up the HHR by not offering a V6 option to totally out do the PT cruiser & dodge caliber

nvbanker

I would at least drive the Colorado - I'm not saying it's better than the Frontier, but it's a nice truck. Well built, comfortable, handles great. Power isn't bad. Economy is good.

The Nissan has a very high floor, which makes it a wierd seating configuration compared with the Ford & Chevy trucks.... I'm just saying, you may want to drive them both before you buy.

nvbanker

The V-6 wouldn't fit in the Colorado, and the V-8 is out of the question. In fact, the I-6 from the Trailblazer wouldn't fit in it, so they had to chop off a cylinder to an I-5 to shoehorn the engine in there. It was designed for the Pacific Rim, to have a 4 cylinder engine in it. Later, the GM folks decided to try and market the truck as a replacement for the S-10, which badly needed replacing..... From that standpoint, I dismissed the Colorado as a real truck - until I drove it. It's really good, and a great improvement over the S-10.

dieselone

I agree the S10 badly needed replacing, so does the Ranger and it is still selling as well as the Canyon/Colorado combined.

It's a shame Ford & GM have let Toyota take over. A friend of mine just bought a 4 door Tacoma w/ 4.0 v6. Wow, a very nice, quick, and refined truck.

I'm sure if you want a 4cyl truck the Colorado is fine, but if you want 6 cylinder power, the I5 just doesn't cut it when compared to the Frontier and Tacoma. GM should have designed the truck from the begining to fit the 4.2L.

nvbanker

Oh, no doubt they should have! This is actually quite the story in Oops engineering, isn't it? I'm just saying, the Colorado is a 100% improvement over the S-10. It may not be as good as a Taco, but it's not bad.

I still don't like the Taco or the Frontier because of that incredibly high floor, that makes you practically sit on it, with a lousy, uncomfortable seat. The trucks are still a bit tinny to me, but I know they are mechanically outstanding.

If I needed a small truck today, I'd probably still buy the Colorado or the Ranger.

dieselone

I still don't like the Taco or the Frontier because of that incredibly high floor, that makes you practically sit on it, with a lousy, uncomfortable seat. The trucks are still a bit tinny to me, but I know they are mechanically outstanding.

I'll have to pay closer attention to the floor/seat issue next time I see my buddies Tacoma. I didn't notice anything wrong when I drove it. I got out of my Suburban directly to his Tacoma and thought is was comfortable for the 30 minutes I got to drive it. He had an '02 Tacoma as his previous truck and the new model is defintely far nicer.

Even with the I5, I'm sure the Colorado is fine for most small truck duties. I just wouldn't want to haul/tow much with it. I just shake my head that GM could have had a great small truck, instead of an OK one. But that seems to be the GM way.

rockylee

Friends at work are breaking/cracking their so called "bulletproof" composite beds on there new Tacoma's. :surprise: I here absolutely nothing about this in the media. :mad:

Rocky

aley1

The 2006 Mitsubishi Raider is an all-new midsize pickup truck, although "all new" in this case must be qualified because it uses the chassis and engine of the Dodge Dakota and comes off the Dakota assembly line in Detroit. However, its sheet metal is totally unlike the Dakota's, and its interior is a unique design as well.

The Raider is available as either an Extended Cab with small access doors, or as a Double Cab four-door, with either a V6 or V8 engine. The Raider uses a welded ladder frame chassis, with hydroformed components, and follows Daimler-Chrysler's recent direction of producing trucks that are notably smooth and silent running. The rack-and-pinion steering makes the Raider quite nimble in tight situations, and the V8 offers the most torque in the class, with no significant loss in fuel mileage when compared to the V6. The gentle suspension sweetens the road ride, but limits off-road use.

The Mitsubishi Raider lineup is simple, with the LS and XLS in either Extended Cab or Double Cab. All models have the same wheelbase and overall length, so there's no parking liability with the Double Cab, only a difference in the length of the bed: 5 foot 4 inches, versus 6 feet 5 inches.

For the best deals on new and pre-owned Mitsubishi models, contact your favorite Car Dealer, Manly Mitsubishi in Santa Rosa, CA.

link title

imidazol97

>are breaking/cracking their so called "bulletproof" composite beds on there new Tacomas.

Didn't hear about that problem on the evening news. If it had been on a Ford or GM product, it would have been the lead story since it's a negative.

lemko

...a story about a faulty glovebox emblem on a GM or Ford would make front page headlines in bold 72-point type above a story about George Bush single-handedly capturing Osama Bin Laden. Meanwhile a story about Camries spontaneously exploding in front of elementary schools and killing hundreds of children would be buried in the classifieds somewhere near an ad for free kittens.

imidazol97

Right on. Worse than that's being true, if someone points it out they are labeled as conspiracy theorists.

Friend is going to buy new car. She's in her 60s. Said she can't consider an American car because she had trouble with hers before. Then owned Toyota, then Civic 95. Wants good gas mileage.

Her American car was from the 70s. When I suggested the foreign brands then were even worse or at least weren't better, I got a duh response.

She's thinking of a Corolla.

lemko

Corolla good, Cobalt baaa-d! Baaa! Baaa!

dino001

Cobalt is a piece of crap. I drove it - only decent thing was engine and transmission, rest was mediocre at best: interior, seats, and really subpar handling (I slipped on a straight road going 60 mph after just tapping on brakes - the road was a bit slick, but nothing dramatic).

I know it's all press, World Bank, Bush, Clinton, NAFTA, CAFTA, FIFA, and probably solar activity, too, conspiring against this last GM wonder, but lets face it for once: GM gave up US small car market in circa 1995 and one mediocre attempt will not change it.

Cobalt might (and probably would) have been acceptable Cavalier replacements in 1999, not in 2006. Sure it's better than Cavalier, but it's not even close to the leaders. The question is one: if it was an honest effort to get back on track, they should fire everybody down the chain. If, on the other hand, it was a beancounter el-chipo miss, they should only fire the high brass as ones who cannot see that mediocrity with $3K cash back stopped working.

The world is running away very fast: new Civic, new Corrolla, new Sentra, now Caliber are (or will be) way ahead. Focus lost its mojo, but even now it's way better than Cobalt. Cavalier survived in fleets for over 8 years almots unchanged. For GMs sake I hope it's not going to be the case for Cobalt.

dieselone

So get that gas-miser out of their way. They've got someplace to go and they've got to get there fast. And burn gobs and gobs of fuel while they're being more important than you and I.

I'll have to ask my friend with the Tacoma if he's had any issues. He specifically bought one with the longer bed cause he actually uses his to haul stuff. 2 months ago when I drove it. It still had the paper plate and the bed was already covered in mud and rocks. It was two days old and he didn't think twice about dropping a 1000lbs of river rock into the bed.

All I know is, this is his 3rd Tacoma in a row and he hasn't had a single issue with one of them. His last one was an 00 Tacoma 4x4 TRD with 70k miles. He put in his yard with a 4 sale sign. He sold it in two days for $13k, don't think that would happen with any other small truck.

lmp180psu

Don't forget about the Mazda3 :shades:

I have never driven a Cobalt (and hope I never have too ) but its interior is defintely cheap looking, and is not even close to the Mazda3, Civic or Corolla.

dino001

Oh, I didn't forget the 3. It's becasue for me it's already in a "economy plus" group for its "s" trim with all those goodies (the only one I would buy for it's hatchback). But I agree - "i" trim belongs to the list with Civic, Corolla, etc.

jefferyg

its interior is defintely cheap looking, and is not even close to the Mazda3, Civic or Corolla.

I don't know about the Mazda3, but the other three I've had experience with. I've rented a Cobalt and a Corolla, and neither was particularly impressive to me. The Corolla did seem to get better gas mileage, but I did a lot more highway driving in it than in the Cobalt. Neither the Cobalt nor the Corolla could compare to the 03 Civic EX we owned, especially in the area of handling.

With gas prices like they are I've been considering getting back into a small car again. I haven't test driven the new Civic, but if the reports are even remotely true and the new Civic is any improvement at all over the previous generation, then it beats the competition hands down.

lemko

...one could have a nice Civic Hybrid. I wouldn't mind one if it didn't cost so darn much! At least it doesn't look as dorky as the Prius. Dig that cool Jetsons instrument panel!

rockylee

Isn't that the truth lemko. Some say that's a extremest response, but the sad thing is it's a reality, and would happen that way. I seriously doubt it would even make the paper like Detroit Auto News Insider.

Rocky

rockylee

I hope she has to walk her butt 3 miles for help when her Toy breaks down. :mad:

Rocky

rockylee

Here you knock the Cobalt as a bad car. How can anyone say the new Civic is a premium vehicle. The dash is bigger than my Kitchen tabel, and the design looks like something out of the Jetsons. My Gawd it's a ugly tinament on wheels

Rocky

rockylee

My pops and his brother (my uncle) have the new GM midsizers. Dad has a Chevy Colorado, and Uncle has the new Canyon. I like my uncles grill better though. Both of em' got red Z-71 4x4's and both haven't had one lick of a problem.

Rocky

socala4

The Cobalt is a bad car because it is highly unreliable. Trying to selling an unreliable car against rivals that are known for their reliability is a bad idea.

While I don't personally care for it, the Civic's design makes it distinctive and helps to aim it toward the youth market. Honda has wisely chosen to position the Civic as a tuner's car, capturing a large part of the youth market that would have once bought American pony cars, and establishing a relationship with young buyers who will need sedans, SUV's and minivans as they age.

Based upon current sales data, the Civic is doing quite well. My only lingering doubt about it is that the space age dash might not age very gracefully in the minds of buyers, which would harm resale values if the perception transitions from it being novel to just weird.

rockylee

The Mazda 3 is an uglier tinament :sick: (YUK !) than the the Civic. The mada interior might at best be marginally better than the Colbalt at best. It's not like the Mazda 3 reinvented interior design or anything and it also has subpar levels of interior fit and finish for the money you will pay. I'll still take the Recaro's, 5 speed, supercharged ecotec which is named wards top 10 and a 7 speaker premium pioneer over that tinament from Japan. :P

Rocky

rockylee

The Cobalt is a bad car because it is highly unreliable. Trying to selling an unreliable car against rivals that are known for their reliability is a bad idea.

What's so unreliable about the car Socala ? The engine is a gem and was voted by Wards as a top 10er :confuse:


While I don't personally care for it, the Civic's design makes it distinctive and helps to aim it toward the youth market. Honda has wisely chosen to position the Civic as a tuner's car, capturing a large part of the youth market that would have once bought American pony cars, and establishing a relationship with young buyers who will need sedans, SUV's and minivans as they age.

Okay I can agree with you on that. GM doesn't exactly make the best entry level cars for the youth, however they aren't all as horrible as you make em' sound. Sure the Cobalt could use a upgrade in interior materials and hopefully it will get one pretty soon with Bob committed to re-doing GM car interiors.

Based upon current sales data, the Civic is doing quite well. My only lingering doubt about it is that the space age dash might not age very gracefully in the minds of buyers, which would harm resale values if the perception transitions from it being novel to just weird.

We also agree on this.

Rocky

dieselone

Rock,

I guess we have different tastes. I find the Mazda 3 to be sharp inside and out. I'm hearing about a Mazdaspeed 3 with about 250hp coming out in the near future. Very cool.

The Civic always seems to grab my attention when I see one. I haven't looked at the interior in person, but in photos I don't really care for it.

If I were in the market for a compact, it definitely would be a Mazda 3.

lmp180psu

From posts I have read of yours, I am assuming you are a big american car(particularly Chevy) guy. I guess we will agree to disagree, because I heartily disagree with everything you said above, aside from maybe having recaro seats and a supercharged engine might be nice.

The Mazda3 may have not reinvented interior design but I had an 04 S sedan with almost every bell and whistle except leather and NAV. Now I have a 06 hatch with leather, and it has many features on cars costing much more. Aside from the cheap carpeting, the interior has fine fit and finish, and IMO looks like a more expensive vehicle. It may have hard plastics (like any other 'economy' car), but the feel/quality of the plastics are nicer than other cars in its class :P