You missed my point completely. I was saying that MB and BMW are major brands at home. In Europe they are not seen as niche luxury players, but as major automakers.
That is just not true. While MB manufactures also work trucks and buses, BMW is PURELY premium brand. Also MB's cars are also premium. It just happens that cars there are more expensive, in general, so to sell them in some decent numbers they have to cheapen their content.
Across the board, in all classes MB and BMW are 20-50% more expensive than their non-premium counterparts (Fiat, Ford, Opel). So no one expects them to sell in numbers even close to those by Opel or VW.
Using your logic MB and BMW are failures in Europe because they are the "home team" and dont have 30% share.
Booo hooo - again: major brands are Fiat, VW, Opel, and Toyota (depends on the market). Home team in Germany is VW and Opel (German GM).
The logic in you rants really fails me, cause either: 1. GM is fine, product is great, market share fantastic, finances phenomenal and then there is no reason to scream at anybody who dares to doubt the product (since it can defend itself), or their current situations. They would be insignificant and not worthy your best efforts (since GM is actually fine and moreover so many buy their fantastic product) or: 2. Their market situation is not so great, cause those terrible consumers hate their cars. Then you have to admit the market share is slipping despite their best (perhaps efforts), the credit ratings are real, layoffs warranted by excess capacity, etc. We will obviously disagree about the reasons: I say the product sucks, you say it's the media/NAFTA/globalization/Japanese bribe conspiracy that prevents idiot-consumers from seeing how fantastic the product is. But then you cannot yell at people who merely state the fact that GM does actually have a problem with their sales, image, or other things.
There is no BMW- or Mercedes-badged equivalent to the Polo, Corsa, Ka, etc., and those cars that are similar in size to those, i.e. Mercedes A-class, carry a relatively high price tag.
Per their UK sites,
5 Door diesel A Class bases at UKpound 14,590.00 5 Door Vauxhall Astra diesel bases at UKpound 14,525.00
Dude, I am tired of people using the argument "there is no bias because GM is losing share and everything negative you read has to be accurate". We are having a discussion with several individuals are who are displaying tons of bias and ignorance and yet people can't accept that you cant believe everything you read. who is to say that journalists and other media types are any more objective than regular people? Honestly, GM's history should have nothing to do with what a reviewer of a 2006 GM product writes. The mentality of many people here is that GM messed up in the past and thus they deserved to bashed regardless of the facts.
When magazines review GM (or other domestic products) they are quick to point out what features are missing but fail to talk about exclusive features. Edmunds review of the Escalade is a perfect example (they do this all the time) because they made a huge deal out of features found on the GL450 but totally ignored Escalade features that cant be found on the GL. C&D and others do this as well. I also find that most publications are less than critical when evaluting the interiors of import cars. Nissans get a lot of harsh criticism (rightfully so) but thats where it ends. I can tell you that I saw the new altima at the NY auto show and the interior looked no better than the 2003 Accord. In fact more than anything it reminded me of the G6 and yet the press are saying the interior is vastly improved and almost luxurious. When GM does black plastic interiors they are blasted, when Nissan does one it is a revelation of sorts. It's the same thing with fuel economy> If I read one more article about GM losing share because they refuse to save the planet like Toyota I think I will scream. Hybrid technology is great, but the press seems to have forgotten words such as Sequoia, Tacoma, Tundra, Titan, Armada, Pilot, Ridgeline, LX470, etc. when they are in the midst of theiri hybrid worship. Tne mileade on most import trucks/SUVs is terrible. The Germans are the worst, but the Japanese arent far behind. Import Suvs with V6s and 5 or 6 speed autos get worst mileage than GMs new OHV V8 equipped trucks. I have not read one single line in any article commenting on that fact or the fact that most crossovers (which are supposedly saving the world while GM is killing it with body on frame trucks) get mileage that is barely superior to old school SUVs like the explorer or trailblazer. The ML500 has a 7 speed automatic and gets about 15mpg in the City with a 5L DOHC V8. That's progress? As long as you throw around the word "crossover" you get a free pass from the press. 21mpg on the highway? Who cares, it's a crossover! 244hp but only 17mpg in the City? Who cares, it's a Honda and Honda loves the environment!
I also love how only US automakers are called out by the press for missing the hybrid revolution. Good thing Nissan, VW, MB, BMW and Hyundai didn't miss the boat. Oh wait, they sell a total of zero hybrid models between them. Funny, I've never heard that mentioned by the media. All I read is "the Big 3 continue to push gas guzzling SUVs while import automakers cash in on consumers demand for fuel efficient hybrids and smaller cars".
What a coincidence, my first car was a Suburu. I dont see what that has do with hating american cars though.
Believe or not, I really want to like them. I even used to have Ford Escort and it was a decent vehicle. My problem is: 1. Their are either too expensive for what they are or they are too crappy for their price. 2. American manufacturer's seem to simply gave up in 90s in small(er) car market, where I actually am. They bet on gas hogs and are losing big time now. 3. They seem to "undercook" their designs (Ford) or treat people like idiots (GM). Fusion is perfect example - great start, nice look, but beauty appears to be not much more than skin deep: crash test fiasco, mediocre V6, short list of options. GM - shows Aura with newest DOHC and then what - exactly as I said - dumps old pushrod, because people may not notice (same with Crappinox). Over and over.
Some of it are just honest mistakes and I could forgive that. But a lot of it comes from arrogance and wrong attitude and I if I get a sense someone is laughing at me (that bad type of laugh), I do not forgive.
These are my impressions - I reserve right to be wrong. Just I like to be the one who makes decision about my money, even if I am. No tarriffs, no going to DC and crying for bailout, no threatening me for making "wrong" choice. Other than that - if ya love that Grand Am or Cobalt - go and buy it, I don't care.
These are my impressions - I reserve right to be wrong. Just I like to be the one who makes decision about my money, even if I am. No tarriffs, no going to DC and crying for bailout, no threatening me for making "wrong" choice. Other than that - if ya love that Grand Am or Cobalt - go and buy it, I don't care.
The US government is not doing anything to help the US auto industry. The US company's are fixing themselves.
On the other hand, BMW did get government help with its Mini aquisition. VW and Fiat also have been recipients of government help. I have read cogent arguments on how the VAT acts as silent tariff to imports.
I have always marvelled at how the yen fails to appreciate against the dollar, in spite of the Euro growing.
GM - shows Aura with newest DOHC and then what - exactly as I said - dumps old pushrod, because people may not notice (same with Crappinox).
A non-issue. The 3.6 will be available for those who want it at a competitve price. The 3.5 is a worthy competitor in mpgs with any of the other 4 cyls in the section.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The Astra is a larger car than the A-class, at about 4.3 meters long vs. 3.8 meters for the A-class. (For you non-metric fans, that makes the Astra about 1 1/2 feet longer than the A-class, which puts it into an entirely different class in the European car market.)
In terms of size, the A-class compares most closely to the Vauxhall (Opel) Corsa, VW Polo, etc., which are all in the smaller category of cars that are about 3.8 meters long. But whereas the VW and GM products retail in the UK for under GBP 10,000, the retail pricing for the A-class is much higher at GBP 13-20,000, a substantial premium over other cars in its size range.
On the other hand, BMW did get government help with its Mini acquisition. VW and Fiat also have been recipients of government help. I have read cogent arguments on how the VAT acts as silent tariff to imports.
No denying that - so are GM Europe and Ford Europe. VAT is charged to all vehicles, not only imports. In its structure and idea it is a tax that's paid by the final consumer, regardless of the origin. It is taxed ones - the difference on imports it's simple, as there is price of X and tax is added to that and paid by the consumer. The reimbursements are just to avoid multiple taxations, as the manufacturer paid VAT on supplies, so they get reimbursed for it (hence the name Value Added Tax).
I personally do not like VAT (too beaurocratic) and whole European subsidy system makes me sick. So my request is that nothing of that sort comes here - I do not wish my tax money be spent on failing entities that would otherwise die. What people do in Europe is irrelevant, especially that they are gouged, robbed, overcharged and the economic growth is "negative" there for quite a while (especially in revered Germany and France). Nothing to be exactly proud of and not much to copy.
The 3.5 is a worthy competitor in mpgs with any of the other 4 cyls in the section.
That's exactly what is wrong with GM's attitude - they put 6-cylinder with performance of 4-cylinder then make some bogus claims making comparisons to those convenient (power to 4-cylinder, mpg to 6-cylinder) that are of course repeated by their faithful.
Since it's and ancient technology that paid off 10 times over already, they can price it in pair with others' 4-cylinders. Then they make those idiotic commercials comparing G6 with V6 to Altima 2.5 ("and the most powerful V6 is not in Nissan Altima 2.5" - of course bozo - 2.5 is a four, try Altima 3.5).
Old pushrods have their place - mostly as V8 trucks - I could see them also in some "American muscle" type of a vehicle, like Charger/300C or even Corvette. But in midsize sedan class and smal SUV they have long been liability to GM. Their biggest advantage - price - have long been outweighed by old-tech stigma (PR damage) and weight penalty (mileage and power/weight, front/rear weight distribution) and others. Making bogus claims based on "convenient" comparisons will not cut it anymore, even if all GM fans launch a global screaming campaign. For Joe Consumer it becomes very simple: Joe Frugal looks at mpg and goes for 4-cylinder, Joe Performance looks at HP and goes for 6-cylinder Camry. Only Joe Diehard GM goes along the official GM marketing "strategy" (do they even have one?).
That's exactly what is wrong with GM's attitude - they put 6-cylinder with performance of 4-cylinder then make some bogus claims making comparisons to those convenient (power to 4-cylinder, mpg to 6-cylinder) that are of course repeated by their faithful.
Having only owned cars with 4s, I could hardly be called faithful to V6s. However, I have rented Japanese mid-sizes with 4s and GMs with the 3.5. The 3.5 with its wide torque band is ideal for typical stop and go US driving. It gets the same or better gas mileage than the 4s.
Then they make those idiotic commercials comparing G6 with V6 to Altima 2.5 ("and the most powerful V6 is not in Nissan Altima 2.5" - of course bozo - 2.5 is a four, try Altima 3.5).
The commercials of the like I have seen compare price, not performance. The 3.5 sells for the same price as the Altima 2.5. The more expensive GM midsizes come with the 3.9 (or in the case of Saab, the 2.8 turbo). The 3.9 has pretty decent acceleration numbers and better economy than the Nissan engine.
Joe Frugal looks at mpg and goes for 4-cylinder, Joe Performance looks at HP and goes for 6-cylinder Camry. Only Joe Diehard GM goes along the official GM marketing "strategy" (do they even have one?).
Again, the GM 3.5 turns in mpg performance at or better than competitors' 4s.
the Malibu's a bit behind, but I remember Consumer Reports doing a review awhile, back, and in their driving experiences the Malibu 3.5 was getting better fuel economy than 4-cyl versions of the other cars. And also better than the Malibu's own 2.2 Ecotech.
Other 4-cylinders perhaps include Mitsubishi, Mazda, or Nissan that never made fuel economy claims. I doubt they could best Camcord, especially in city or mixed/commuter driving. Sometimes people see their highway mileage is well below claimed, as they drive 85 mph and expect EPA figure still be accurate.
I may concede that the GMs pushrods might actually have better mileage in higher highway speeds, especially when driven steadily, as you need to rev those Camcords in those speeds and the mileage drops really fast when you start revving them. The larger V6s, on the other hand, would rev steadily at lower rpms, as they do have more torque available. I just wonder if they (GM) put more modern transmissions than those ancient four-speed autos, the results would have been even better, both for city and highway. By the way, the transmission is probably single thing to blame for lackluster numbers in Ecotech 2.2 Malibu. The general rule is, the narrower the powerband, the more gears you need.
I would say thats close enough for government work. Not all engines coming off the same assembly line will get the same mileage. Plus not all people will get the same mileage from the same car. Plus you have to remember that these figures are rounded off so the differences may not be what they appear.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Oh, I admit the EPA numbers are pretty close. But the poster didn't say that. He said the 3.5 was at or better. That's obviously untrue.
and as far as differences in tolerances and driving habits, that's absolutely true. But whereas those differences might make a particular chevy as efficient as a particular toyota in one case, they could just as easily make the difference even greater than the EPA numbers dictate in another case. Law of averages means we have to take everything for face value and not try to read too much into it or stretch the statistics one way or the other.
Now, if you really want to insert personal habits, I'd have point out that my personal experiences over all of these years with many different vehicles has been that I get towards the low end of the EPA spectrum in GM vehicles and towards the high end in Hondas and Toyotas. But, really, that means nothing in the way of real facts.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
>The larger V6s, on the other hand, would rev steadily at lower rpms, as they do have more torque available. I just wonder if they (GM) put more modern transmissions than those ancient four-speed autos,
Now that the weak logic about pushrods vs ohc (old, tired discussion) failed we try the transmissions-just-ain-t-good-enough talk!!! :P
I did not say at or better by EPA rankings. My point is at or better in US driving conditions.
Oh, my apologies. I thought we were dealing with facts, not opinion. You are certainly welcome to your opinion. If you "feel" you can get better mileage in the chevy V6, then have at it. More power to ya.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
tend to be geared fairly tall with those bigger engines, so I don't know if putting a 5-speed, versus a 6-speed tranny would help much with economy out on the highway. No matter how many gears you have, and no matter what axle ratio you use, there's going to be an rpm threshold at which you're going to be unable to cross below in top gear. Either the car will be geared so tall that it lugs and strains the engine and tranny, or the car will downshift to a lower gear in all but coasting conditions.
GM's 4-speed transmissions use an overdrive gear of .667:1. So mate that up with, say, a 2.94:1 axle, and your effective top gear ratio is around 2.00:1. I suspect that with today's cars, you can't get much taller (lower number) than that. I had a 1985 LeSabre with a 2.73:1 rear, which means that in overdrive it was effectively about a 1.82:1. I also had an '86 Monte which, IIRC, had a 2.56:1 rear, so in overdrive it would be pulling about 1.70:1. Those cars would tend to loaf along fine on flat ground at 65-70, but they'd downshift in a heartbeat under the lightest load condition, such as acceleration, hills, passing, etc. But peg the speedometer on them, and they'd stay in overdrive just fine. Probably because at 85+ mph in 4th gear, those engines were back up to around their peak torque range.
I'm guessing at really high speeds, a 5-speed automatic would help fuel economy a bit because in higher-load situations, the tranny could probably get by with shifting down to 4th, which wouldn't be as short of a ratio as 3rd would be on a 4-speed auto. But just at a steady 65-70 I doubt it would help much.
But then you never know. The Altima 3.5 used to be rated at 19/26 with the 4-speed auto, but is 20/30 with the 5-speed auto.
Sure, they have wider powerband, but in stop & go (or constant changing speed) environment, they would exactly use more fuel. They will be more wastefull just due to mere size of their combustion chambers and need to overcome inertia of larger mass.
It would defy logic to expect better economy in an engine that gets its power from being larger, thus capable of burning more fuel on quick demand. Only at steady speed and well-matched gear ratios one could take observe some fuel savings due to powerband (as inertia is already overcome), not at constantly changing speeds, where even a touch of accelerator feeds that chamber really well (as opposed to some smaller engines, where driver may get quickly discouraged by screaming engine and go easy on the accelerator, unless they really intend to use the whole power.
Hybrid technology is great, but the press seems to have forgotten words such as Sequoia, Tacoma, Tundra, Titan, Armada, Pilot, Ridgeline, LX470, etc. when they are in the midst of theiri hybrid worship.
SUV are small percentage of total sales (except for Lexus) of Japanese when compared to GM and Ford. If you do the ratio of cars sold over with 35mpg to ones with less than 20 mpg for Toyota/Honda/Nissan vs GM/Ford/Dodge it is going to look really ugly. GM corporate fuel economy is around 18mpg, Honda 25mpg.
To me it seems GM supporters are the ones who are having selective amnesia.
I just did an AutoTrader search on 2004 V6 Honda Accords and Ford Tauruses. I don't really know what the original purchase prices would have been, but the average Taurus is listed at $12,400 while the average Accord is listed at $21,612.
I believe that certain brands make really good deals a few years used, but trying to say that all cars depreciate the same is hard to support.
I just don't get it. I always hear people say that the domestics do not do as well on resale value.
You obviously haven't done your homework. This issue with residuals is well known across the industry, just not evident in your error-ridden website. I'd go with a more accurate source such as Consumer Guide and its reference to the industry standard for setting lease residuals, the Automobile Lease Guide
Import-brand vehicles scored the top spot for residual value in every class according to Automobile Lease Guide (ALG). Residual value refers to the price of a vehicle at the end of its lease. They are calculated by ALG and used by commercial lenders to help determine lease rates. These same figures can also be used by consumers to assess the true cost of vehicle ownership.
Class / Vehicle Compact Car / MINI Cooper Midsize Car / Honda Accord Fullsize Car / Toyota Avalon Sports Car / Porsche 911 Near Luxury Car / Acura TL Luxury Car / Mercedes-Benz CLS Class Minivan / Honda Odyssey Crossover Utility Vehicle / Land Rover Range Rover Sport Compact SUV / Toyota RAV4 Midsize SUV / Toyota 4Runner Fullsize SUV / Toyota Sequoia Compact Truck / Toyota Tacoma Fullsize Truck / Toyota Tundra
Domestic makes fared slightly better when brand residual values were calculated. According to ALG, the following are the brands with the highest residual values:
Your point is well taken, but take the cars listed in #1746 and compare them to their transplant and imported rivals, and you'll likely still end up in a deeper hole with the domestic. As a new car buy, the domestics are going to depreciate quite rapidly, even when measured against the final purchase price.
Most import trucks just came out in recent years so they were just getting established when gas prices went up. Of course GM and Ford sell far more trucks, they have been doing it for much longer and have a much wider selection than the Japanese. The point is, if the Japanese are so concerned about fuel economy why are their trucks among the most inefficient on the market? They give you smaller engines, lower weights, more tranny gears and yet STILL come up with lousy mileage. If you need a large vehicle and want the best mileage possible you shouldn't be looking to by anything foreign because they strike out in that department. They also dont have any plans that I know of to adapt hybrid technology to large trucks but GM will be doing that with the Tahoe/Escalade next year.
MB is premium in Germany? IS that why they make MB taxis and police cars over there? Wouldnt that count as fleet sales? MB is a major player in Germany, there is no way around it and fail to mention that the home companies were established in Europe before the newcomers got there and thus had a larger share than they have today. Your argument is flawed. MB is like Ford in Germany. Europeans do not see MB/BMW/Audi the same way we do for multiple reasons. One reason is that most European cars are made to handle well and cruise a high speeds so MB and BMW are not exclusive in that regard. They are praised over here but that is considered standard over there. IF you dont believe me look at how sporty Opels are, they are far more sporty than any US GM brand. The second thing is that in Europe most vehicles are available with low hp diesels that get good mileage. Standard engines in MBs/BMWs/Audis over there would be considered weak over here.
"We will obviously disagree about the reasons: I say the product sucks, you say it's the media/NAFTA/globalization/Japanese bribe conspiracy that prevents idiot-consumers from seeing how fantastic the product is."
That was pretty stupid. IF you can find where I said GM's products are ALL great and ALWAYS have been great please let me know. All I said is that GM isnt as bad as import fanatics believe they are. It's really a simple argument and its one that cant be disproven based on objective evaluation of the facts. Now if we want to use typical simple minded GM criticism to evaluate their cars thats a differnt story. Most people like yourself believe that we should evaluate the products based on GM's market share, plat closures, the UAW, poor managment teams from prior decades, the fact that GM stopped making muscle cars and other interesting criteria that have nothing to do with the competence of GM product in 2006. OF course GM must suck because they are the first large industrial corportation in America to experience signifcant financial problems partially due to unsustainable cost structure related to pension and expensive healthcare in this country. Oh no wait, I forgot almost every major manucturing company based in the US has either gone under or shifted all production to countries with cheaper labor. I guess all those companies fell apart due to great products from Japan and poor quality.
All your CR lovers should check out truedelta.com and read what they have to say about CR's results and the problems with how they report data. Of course, I'm sure the guy is just mad because his favorite Ford didnt get a great rating. Forget about logic or fairness. CR cant be biased because it doesnt take ad money from carmakers!
"These are my impressions - I reserve right to be wrong."
I'm glad you said that because you are omitting quite a few things.
1. The whole bet on gas hogs argument is stupid. Gas was cheap and people wanted SUvs so the Big 3 provided them. If SUVs were such a bad idea what's up with teh 4Runner, Sequoia, Armada/GX56, PAthfinder and Pilot? Why were the Japanese tripping over themselves to push new SUVs into the market? Why were the press hailing the Japanese for finally making inroads into the last segment dominated by Detroit? Now in 2006 everyone has forgotten about the import trucks that were being praised and only detroit is guilt of focusing on trucks.
2. the Aura with 3.5 was promised from the beginning. Again, if you dont know the facts don't comment on the vehicle. There was no slight of hand or lying or trickery. GM announced the base engine would be a 3.5L OHV many months ago. They decided to give the car a standard V6 instead of a 4 cylinder for the same money as some competing 4 cylinder models. What is so hard to understand about that? They didnt need the Aura to mirror the G6 and Malibu exactly. On top of that the "old" pushrod isn't even old, has a 6400rpm redline and it has VVT. This engine has only been out since last year when the Impala debuted and they have added another 13 hp and it outpowers the Fusion/Mazda6.
3. I wish you would give some examples of domestic vehicles being too expensive. I can think of many values such as the Impala SS, 300C, Fusion, Malibu SS, Vette, Grand Prix GXP, HHR, Cobalt, etc. What domestic vehicles are overpriced in your mind? I can think of a few like the Lacrosse or STS V8 AWD, but by and large domestics offer better value and more incentives.
1. The whole bet on gas hogs argument is stupid. Gas was cheap and people wanted SUvs so the Big 3 provided them. If SUVs were such a bad idea what's up with teh 4Runner, Sequoia, Armada/GX56, PAthfinder and Pilot? Why were the Japanese tripping over themselves to push new SUVs into the market?
Unlike domestics, Japanese big 3 offers the choice of gas guzzlers and fuel-misers. For every SUV Nissan/Honda/Toyota has launched they also have number of fuel-efficient vehicles. This year alone they have released Versa/Fit/Yaris - all of them with over 35 mpg. Now try to name one GM vehicle that gives over 35mpg from their lineup of 70 models.
I am pretty sure that Honda, Toyota, and Nissan were never making their entire profit selling those SUV's mentioned above either. Nor is it likely that they didn't have contingencies ready in the event that gas prices would spike.
It almost feels like nobody in Detroit has contemplated an America with permanent $4 a gallon gas prices at all. If low-sulfur diesel winds up enabling automakers to produce EPA-acceptable diesel US cars in 2008 or later, it will very interesting to see how quickly automakers can adapt.
I'd bet money against GM or Ford being among the most agile, though.
I've always been of the mindset that a car should be worth about 25% of its original price after about 6 years, so to me those residuals seem about where they should be. IMO, it's these cars that are still worth 50-60+% of their original price at that time that I have a problem understanding. I know it's all reputation and perception, but I still just can't understand paying that much for something that's still 5 years old, most likely out of warranty, and could have an expensive problem crop up at any moment, when you could get a brand-new one for not much more. But people do it and there's a demand for them, so if that's your thing go for it.
I guess that's why if I'm going to buy a Japanese car, I'd probably go with a new one, and if I buy another domestic, I'll try to get one a year or two used!
Oh well, if nothing else, I've always liked the Park Avenue...guess I could get one dirt cheap if I wanted! And if I could find one...I think the 2005 model is pretty rare.
Oh, I agree, just not as dramatic as some numbers are suggesting. I would estimate domestics being worse by 5-10 of the transaction price after say 4-5 years, on average. Now, some may be significantly worse than others, those "rental specials" namely. But how many people really buy those retail, anyway?
The flip side is that some of those vehicles are excellent buys as used cars. A Taurus or a Park Avenue is cheap for what the buyer receives, and has a decent reliabilty record.
But that only highlights another problem for GM and Ford - too many of their vehicles are much better buys as USED cars than as new ones.
Even many of the GM boosters on this site boast about getting their cars used. No doubt that saves them money, but I'm not seeing how this helps GM over the long haul any more than someone who buys a brand-new Camry.
Any day I'd buy a used Toyota or Honda, no matter how old, no matter how many miles, if it was in good condition and still ran strong.
I think most people feel this way because they know that Hondas and Toyotas are basically problem free run-forever cars that will cost little to maintain until they reach 15 years or 300K miles.
So even if resale value hits 60% after 5 years, there will still be buyers wanting something that will run reliably. Afterall, people spend money on cars so that they can get from A to B. I'd rather spend 10K on a used Honda than spend 5K on a used Big 3 vehicle and be stranded everywhere with a car that needs to be towed all the time.
Not to mention shop repair time, costs, and inconveniences.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The flip side is that a 10 year old Civic can cost as much as a 5 year old Focus (or Camry/Taurus). Then it's not so obvious. The deals you can get on used (but not old) domestics are often too good to pass up.
I agree that 15 years is often the limit for any car (if it's automatic), and that makes an older Toyota or Honda less useful as a used car purchase.
You guys like your Garbage Motors products, fine. I have given Kudos where Kudos are due. I'll do the same for all brands, nothing is perfect. Just because GM products don't offer a whole lot to rave about in my eyes doesn't mean that I am coming from blind GM hatred.
Since I am not swooning over the latest GM wonderbomb, I'll never be accepted as anything but biased huh?
Alright, lets hear those kudos. And if you do give them kudos on the few cars you like, then why is your name anythingbutGM when you obviously like a few GM models?
Why is the 6 speed tranny making its way into new GM products like the Aura and GMT900's? If the 4 speed is so great, and more cogs are pointless, why join the foray? Heck, why bother with airbags, TCS, ABS, or MCD?
The 4 speed is a great transmission, because its smooth, and reliable. In fact, in several reviews on edmunds I've read, theyve praised it. In one, they were comparing two cars, one a GM with the 4 speed, and one a Toyota, I think, and while the toyota had more gears, they said they preferred the GM 4 speed, because it was much smoother and more responsive, and offered very similar economy. However, you're remark about why even bother with a new tranny if the old one is so great, and blah blah blah is stupid. GM makes great transmissions, as evidenced by the fact that BMW used them in their 3 and 5-series, and the new 6 speed should offer the same signature GM smoothness and responsiveness, with even better economy. My point is, ppl defend the 4 speed because its a great transmission, not because they think it's stupid to make a 5,6, or even 7 speed tranny.
NO kidding. I've been looking at several used vehicles for the wife to drive. Looked at used Acura TL's and you hardly save anything buying used (very nice car though). '03 Accord EX v6's still going for close to $20k. It's nuts. Of the cars I've looked at used so far, seems like a used Maxima seems like a pretty good value. They don't hold their value as well as a Toy/Hon, yet the two 04's I've test driven have impressed me a lot. Just wish I could find one with a manual trans.
Yes, I can get a used Impala or Taurus, but I just can't bring myself to buy one. I just don't like how they drive, even though you can get them for very little $$.
Even though GM has a good rep regarding their transmissions, It seems the 1/2 ton 4l60e's aren't as durable. Mine failed under 50k miles, and I personally know 3 other people that had one fail by 75k in a 1/2 ton p/u or SUV.
I would love to have a 6 speed auto in my Suburban. Sure, the 4 speed is fine for running around town, but at highway speed and particularly when I'm towing the 5.3 4 speed combo basically sucks. I don't care what the torque curve looks like, the fact is, the 5.3 needs to rev for power. When I'm towing my near 5,000lb boat, I have very little towing power under 3000rpm. The spacing between 2-3 gear is brutal. Since the torque peak is at 4000rpm (4200 on the DOD 5.3), that means I always have to be in 2nd gear when going up any hill when towing. With a 6speed, the extra ratios would make a huge difference. instead of going up a hill at 50 running over 4000rpm, I could be going say, 60 and be able to run 3k rpm with enough power to pull, or better yet, have access to 4000 rpm in the 60-65mph range.
With the 4 speed 4000rpm in 2nd is around 45 and in 3rd well over 80mph, that is basically useless for towing and I have the 3.73 gears. I couldn't imagine how bad it would be with 3.42s. If I were to get another tahoe/suburban with a 5.3 and a 4 speed, 4.10 gears would be a must.
I think the new GMT900 SUV's are worlds better than the ones they replace. But the Ford products one up them with independent rear suspension and power fold rear seats
That's what you base your decision on? The fact that the ford has irs and folding rear seats makes it better than the chevy? So I guess the fact that the 5.4 in the ford makes very little pwr (and is an ohc, compared to the chevys ohv), and tends to run out of breath when any load is placed on it, and the fact that even with solid rear axle, the tahoe rides and handles better, and that the interior of the Chevy is far superior to that of the Ford makes no difference?
So I guess the fact that the 5.4 in the ford makes very little pwr (and is an ohc, compared to the chevys ohv), and tends to run out of breath when any load is placed on it
The one thing I like about Ford's 5.4 is its torque output. They are great to tow with, you don't have to rev them. Unfortunately, a Ford truck/suv weigh so much that they are fairly slow when not towing.
For towing, I'd take Ford's 5.4 all day long over a 5.3. 365ft-lbs of torque @ 3750rpm vs. 340 @4200 with the 5.3 is a significant difference. The old 5.4 used to produce something like 360ft-lbs of torque at under 3000rpm and was a real stump puller, it just was slow when not towing.
Nissan's 5.6 is even more impressive with 385ft-lbs of torque at 3600rpm. I've test drove one and the Armada feels like it has a big block in it when compared to a 5.3 powered tahoe/Suburban. That thing is faster than most family sedans.
...looking at a two-year old Subaru Outback and it was priced so close to the new one, why not just get the new one?
Yes, I can get a used Impala or Taurus, but I just can't bring myself to buy one. I just don't like how they drive, even though you can get them for very little $$.
I could buy a used Impala in a New York second, but I could never buy a used Taurus. Now a used Crown Victoria on the other hand...
"The fact that the ford has irs and folding rear seats makes it better than the chevy?"
Infinitely better, IMO. I like how the Chevy looks, finally, and the interior is also, finally nice, very nice. But from a technology, function and design standpoint, they STILL can't get it right, even though Ford showed them how 5 years ago. GM isn't just a slow learner, they just don't care. They know their mind-numbed customers will buy a significant number of them anyway because they are well made and reliable, and most soccer moms have no clue what's under their truck. Doesn't matter to them. But it does to me, and the power folding seat in the way-back is a deal breaker to me. Only Nissan and Ford have it, and I won't buy an SUV without it. Period.
The 5.4L Triton 3V engine is award winning, has no piston slap, and will pull anything you want better than the 5.3L pushrod wheezer in the Chevy. That's why Chevy needs the 6.0L to tow with. Ford doesn't need it.
As to "riding better" than the Ford? You must be drunk. :shades:
The new Tahoe is miles ahead of what it replaces, but it's all cosmetic. There's nothing new under the truck from GM......ever, it seems... sigh.....
In a Suburban the folding 3rd row is not a big deal to me. In a Tahoe it would be a bigger issue, and I probably would pick an 07 Expedition over a Tahoe, for the extra towing capacity alone.
The Suburban still offers plenty of room behind the 3rd row. We use our 3rd row quite a bit in our burb. The new extended Expedition will also offer plenty of room and more towing capacity than a 1/2 ton burb. While going to a 3/4ton Suburban is an option, you loose what little driving quality a 1/2 ton offers.
I'd say at this point it's a little early to be saying an 07 Tahoe/Suburban is clearly superior to an 07 Expedition/Expe EL. More torque at lower rpm along with 2 additional gears is clearly superior for the Ford IMO. GM needs to offer a 6speed in a Tahoe/Suburban.
The folding 3rd row is nice, I don't know to many women that could comfortably remove 3rd row seats if they needed to. Heck, I regularly work out and I don't like removing it. I wouldn't make my buying decision on a folding 3rd row alone, to many other areas to consider, but I could see where it could sway a decision one way or another.
I just assumed GM had a fold-flat third row now until I saw Edmunds' review of the new Escalade. I can't believe that you STILL have to remove the heavy, bulky third row bench if you want to use that space. Especially in the Caddy version (which is very unattractive compared to the GM versions IMO).
This is actually one of the big reasons we picked the Explorer over a minivan. Most minivans still make you take the second row seats out and store them to use that cargo space whereas a couple of lever pulls gives me a flat cargo floor in the Explorer. Sure it's a smaller space but it's enough for us, it's convenient, and my wife can do it with one hand.
Yoru argument is beyond stupid, in fact I dont even know how to classify what you wrote. You are basing your argument on three vehicles that just came out this year. The Big 3 always have compact cars in their lineup and that was the case during the early 2000s when SUVs were still big. The Aveo gets 35mpg which is less than the Japanese cars, but still pretty good. Other than the Versa I would like you to name one Nissan vehicle with great fuel economy. In fact, I think that may be the only Nissan capable of more than 30mpg on the highway. The highway mileage on the Altima 4 cylinder is worse than the Malibu V6.
If you look at overall mileage of non-hybrid vehicles I wouldnt be surprised if GM and Toyota werent very close. Although Toyota's small cars get better mileage than GM's small cars, GM's trucks and SUVs get better mileage than their toyota counterparts.
Comments
That is just not true. While MB manufactures also work trucks and buses, BMW is PURELY premium brand. Also MB's cars are also premium. It just happens that cars there are more expensive, in general, so to sell them in some decent numbers they have to cheapen their content.
Across the board, in all classes MB and BMW are 20-50% more expensive than their non-premium counterparts (Fiat, Ford, Opel). So no one expects them to sell in numbers even close to those by Opel or VW.
Using your logic MB and BMW are failures in Europe because they are the "home team" and dont have 30% share.
Booo hooo - again: major brands are Fiat, VW, Opel, and Toyota (depends on the market). Home team in Germany is VW and Opel (German GM).
The logic in you rants really fails me, cause either:
1. GM is fine, product is great, market share fantastic, finances phenomenal and then there is no reason to scream at anybody who dares to doubt the product (since it can defend itself), or their current situations. They would be insignificant and not worthy your best efforts (since GM is actually fine and moreover so many buy their fantastic product) or:
2. Their market situation is not so great, cause those terrible consumers hate their cars. Then you have to admit the market share is slipping despite their best (perhaps efforts), the credit ratings are real, layoffs warranted by excess capacity, etc. We will obviously disagree about the reasons: I say the product sucks, you say it's the media/NAFTA/globalization/Japanese bribe conspiracy that prevents idiot-consumers from seeing how fantastic the product is. But then you cannot yell at people who merely state the fact that GM does actually have a problem with their sales, image, or other things.
Can't have both man.
I just think you like to yell. :P
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Per their UK sites,
5 Door diesel A Class bases at UKpound 14,590.00
5 Door Vauxhall Astra diesel bases at UKpound 14,525.00
Daimler also owns Smart. Money loser, admittedly.
When magazines review GM (or other domestic products) they are quick to point out what features are missing but fail to talk about exclusive features. Edmunds review of the Escalade is a perfect example (they do this all the time) because they made a huge deal out of features found on the GL450 but totally ignored Escalade features that cant be found on the GL. C&D and others do this as well. I also find that most publications are less than critical when evaluting the interiors of import cars. Nissans get a lot of harsh criticism (rightfully so) but thats where it ends. I can tell you that I saw the new altima at the NY auto show and the interior looked no better than the 2003 Accord. In fact more than anything it reminded me of the G6 and yet the press are saying the interior is vastly improved and almost luxurious. When GM does black plastic interiors they are blasted, when Nissan does one it is a revelation of sorts. It's the same thing with fuel economy> If I read one more article about GM losing share because they refuse to save the planet like Toyota I think I will scream. Hybrid technology is great, but the press seems to have forgotten words such as Sequoia, Tacoma, Tundra, Titan, Armada, Pilot, Ridgeline, LX470, etc. when they are in the midst of theiri hybrid worship. Tne mileade on most import trucks/SUVs is terrible. The Germans are the worst, but the Japanese arent far behind. Import Suvs with V6s and 5 or 6 speed autos get worst mileage than GMs new OHV V8 equipped trucks. I have not read one single line in any article commenting on that fact or the fact that most crossovers (which are supposedly saving the world while GM is killing it with body on frame trucks) get mileage that is barely superior to old school SUVs like the explorer or trailblazer. The ML500 has a 7 speed automatic and gets about 15mpg in the City with a 5L DOHC V8. That's progress? As long as you throw around the word "crossover" you get a free pass from the press. 21mpg on the highway? Who cares, it's a crossover! 244hp but only 17mpg in the City? Who cares, it's a Honda and Honda loves the environment!
I also love how only US automakers are called out by the press for missing the hybrid revolution. Good thing Nissan, VW, MB, BMW and Hyundai didn't miss the boat. Oh wait, they sell a total of zero hybrid models between them. Funny, I've never heard that mentioned by the media. All I read is "the Big 3 continue to push gas guzzling SUVs while import automakers cash in on consumers demand for fuel efficient hybrids and smaller cars".
Believe or not, I really want to like them. I even used to have Ford Escort and it was a decent vehicle. My problem is:
1. Their are either too expensive for what they are or they are too crappy for their price.
2. American manufacturer's seem to simply gave up in 90s in small(er) car market, where I actually am. They bet on gas hogs and are losing big time now.
3. They seem to "undercook" their designs (Ford) or treat people like idiots (GM). Fusion is perfect example - great start, nice look, but beauty appears to be not much more than skin deep: crash test fiasco, mediocre V6, short list of options. GM - shows Aura with newest DOHC and then what - exactly as I said - dumps old pushrod, because people may not notice (same with Crappinox). Over and over.
Some of it are just honest mistakes and I could forgive that. But a lot of it comes from arrogance and wrong attitude and I if I get a sense someone is laughing at me (that bad type of laugh), I do not forgive.
These are my impressions - I reserve right to be wrong. Just I like to be the one who makes decision about my money, even if I am. No tarriffs, no going to DC and crying for bailout, no threatening me for making "wrong" choice. Other than that - if ya love that Grand Am or Cobalt - go and buy it, I don't care.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
The US government is not doing anything to help the US auto industry. The US company's are fixing themselves.
On the other hand, BMW did get government help with its Mini aquisition. VW and Fiat also have been recipients of government help. I have read cogent arguments on how the VAT acts as silent tariff to imports.
I have always marvelled at how the yen fails to appreciate against the dollar, in spite of the Euro growing.
GM - shows Aura with newest DOHC and then what - exactly as I said - dumps old pushrod, because people may not notice (same with Crappinox).
A non-issue. The 3.6 will be available for those who want it at a competitve price. The 3.5 is a worthy competitor in mpgs with any of the other 4 cyls in the section.
In terms of size, the A-class compares most closely to the Vauxhall (Opel) Corsa, VW Polo, etc., which are all in the smaller category of cars that are about 3.8 meters long. But whereas the VW and GM products retail in the UK for under GBP 10,000, the retail pricing for the A-class is much higher at GBP 13-20,000, a substantial premium over other cars in its size range.
No denying that - so are GM Europe and Ford Europe. VAT is charged to all vehicles, not only imports. In its structure and idea it is a tax that's paid by the final consumer, regardless of the origin. It is taxed ones - the difference on imports it's simple, as there is price of X and tax is added to that and paid by the consumer. The reimbursements are just to avoid multiple taxations, as the manufacturer paid VAT on supplies, so they get reimbursed for it (hence the name Value Added Tax).
I personally do not like VAT (too beaurocratic) and whole European subsidy system makes me sick. So my request is that nothing of that sort comes here - I do not wish my tax money be spent on failing entities that would otherwise die. What people do in Europe is irrelevant, especially that they are gouged, robbed, overcharged and the economic growth is "negative" there for quite a while (especially in revered Germany and France). Nothing to be exactly proud of and not much to copy.
The 3.5 is a worthy competitor in mpgs with any of the other 4 cyls in the section.
That's exactly what is wrong with GM's attitude - they put 6-cylinder with performance of 4-cylinder then make some bogus claims making comparisons to those convenient (power to 4-cylinder, mpg to 6-cylinder) that are of course repeated by their faithful.
Since it's and ancient technology that paid off 10 times over already, they can price it in pair with others' 4-cylinders. Then they make those idiotic commercials comparing G6 with V6 to Altima 2.5 ("and the most powerful V6 is not in Nissan Altima 2.5" - of course bozo - 2.5 is a four, try Altima 3.5).
Old pushrods have their place - mostly as V8 trucks - I could see them also in some "American muscle" type of a vehicle, like Charger/300C or even Corvette. But in midsize sedan class and smal SUV they have long been liability to GM. Their biggest advantage - price - have long been outweighed by old-tech stigma (PR damage) and weight penalty (mileage and power/weight, front/rear weight distribution) and others. Making bogus claims based on "convenient" comparisons will not cut it anymore, even if all GM fans launch a global screaming campaign. For Joe Consumer it becomes very simple: Joe Frugal looks at mpg and goes for 4-cylinder, Joe Performance looks at HP and goes for 6-cylinder Camry. Only Joe Diehard GM goes along the official GM marketing "strategy" (do they even have one?).
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Having only owned cars with 4s, I could hardly be called faithful to V6s. However, I have rented Japanese mid-sizes with 4s and GMs with the 3.5. The 3.5 with its wide torque band is ideal for typical stop and go US driving. It gets the same or better gas mileage than the 4s.
Then they make those idiotic commercials comparing G6 with V6 to Altima 2.5 ("and the most powerful V6 is not in Nissan Altima 2.5" - of course bozo - 2.5 is a four, try Altima 3.5).
The commercials of the like I have seen compare price, not performance. The 3.5 sells for the same price as the Altima 2.5. The more expensive GM midsizes come with the 3.9 (or in the case of Saab, the 2.8 turbo). The 3.9 has pretty decent acceleration numbers and better economy than the Nissan engine.
Joe Frugal looks at mpg and goes for 4-cylinder, Joe Performance looks at HP and goes for 6-cylinder Camry. Only Joe Diehard GM goes along the official GM marketing "strategy" (do they even have one?).
Again, the GM 3.5 turns in mpg performance at or better than competitors' 4s.
HUH?
Malibu 3.5 = 22/32
Accord 2.4 = 24/34
Camry 2.4 = 24/33
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I may concede that the GMs pushrods might actually have better mileage in higher highway speeds, especially when driven steadily, as you need to rev those Camcords in those speeds and the mileage drops really fast when you start revving them. The larger V6s, on the other hand, would rev steadily at lower rpms, as they do have more torque available. I just wonder if they (GM) put more modern transmissions than those ancient four-speed autos, the results would have been even better, both for city and highway. By the way, the transmission is probably single thing to blame for lackluster numbers in Ecotech 2.2 Malibu. The general rule is, the narrower the powerband, the more gears you need.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
and as far as differences in tolerances and driving habits, that's absolutely true. But whereas those differences might make a particular chevy as efficient as a particular toyota in one case, they could just as easily make the difference even greater than the EPA numbers dictate in another case. Law of averages means we have to take everything for face value and not try to read too much into it or stretch the statistics one way or the other.
Now, if you really want to insert personal habits, I'd have point out that my personal experiences over all of these years with many different vehicles has been that I get towards the low end of the EPA spectrum in GM vehicles and towards the high end in Hondas and Toyotas. But, really, that means nothing in the way of real facts.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I did not say at or better by EPA rankings.
My point is at or better in US driving conditions. The majority of us live and drive in crowded, sprawling urban areas where stop and go is the norm.
As boring as the push rods may be on open road conditions, their wide torque band leave them surprisingly frugal in stop and go rush hour conditions.
Now that the weak logic about pushrods vs ohc (old, tired discussion) failed we try the transmissions-just-ain-t-good-enough talk!!!
:P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Pushrods aren't boring.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My point is at or better in US driving conditions.
Oh, my apologies. I thought we were dealing with facts, not opinion. You are certainly welcome to your opinion. If you "feel" you can get better mileage in the chevy V6, then have at it. More power to ya.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
GM's 4-speed transmissions use an overdrive gear of .667:1. So mate that up with, say, a 2.94:1 axle, and your effective top gear ratio is around 2.00:1. I suspect that with today's cars, you can't get much taller (lower number) than that. I had a 1985 LeSabre with a 2.73:1 rear, which means that in overdrive it was effectively about a 1.82:1. I also had an '86 Monte which, IIRC, had a 2.56:1 rear, so in overdrive it would be pulling about 1.70:1. Those cars would tend to loaf along fine on flat ground at 65-70, but they'd downshift in a heartbeat under the lightest load condition, such as acceleration, hills, passing, etc. But peg the speedometer on them, and they'd stay in overdrive just fine. Probably because at 85+ mph in 4th gear, those engines were back up to around their peak torque range.
I'm guessing at really high speeds, a 5-speed automatic would help fuel economy a bit because in higher-load situations, the tranny could probably get by with shifting down to 4th, which wouldn't be as short of a ratio as 3rd would be on a 4-speed auto. But just at a steady 65-70 I doubt it would help much.
But then you never know. The Altima 3.5 used to be rated at 19/26 with the 4-speed auto, but is 20/30 with the 5-speed auto.
It would defy logic to expect better economy in an engine that gets its power from being larger, thus capable of burning more fuel on quick demand. Only at steady speed and well-matched gear ratios one could take observe some fuel savings due to powerband (as inertia is already overcome), not at constantly changing speeds, where even a touch of accelerator feeds that chamber really well (as opposed to some smaller engines, where driver may get quickly discouraged by screaming engine and go easy on the accelerator, unless they really intend to use the whole power.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
SUV are small percentage of total sales (except for Lexus) of Japanese when compared to GM and Ford.
If you do the ratio of cars sold over with 35mpg to ones with less than 20 mpg for Toyota/Honda/Nissan vs GM/Ford/Dodge it is going to look really ugly.
GM corporate fuel economy is around 18mpg, Honda 25mpg.
To me it seems GM supporters are the ones who are having selective amnesia.
I believe that certain brands make really good deals a few years used, but trying to say that all cars depreciate the same is hard to support.
You obviously haven't done your homework. This issue with residuals is well known across the industry, just not evident in your error-ridden website. I'd go with a more accurate source such as Consumer Guide and its reference to the industry standard for setting lease residuals, the Automobile Lease Guide
Import-brand vehicles scored the top spot for residual value in every class according to Automobile Lease Guide (ALG). Residual value refers to the price of a vehicle at the end of its lease. They are calculated by ALG and used by commercial lenders to help determine lease rates. These same figures can also be used by consumers to assess the true cost of vehicle ownership.
Class / Vehicle
Compact Car / MINI Cooper
Midsize Car / Honda Accord
Fullsize Car / Toyota Avalon
Sports Car / Porsche 911
Near Luxury Car / Acura TL
Luxury Car / Mercedes-Benz CLS Class
Minivan / Honda Odyssey
Crossover Utility Vehicle / Land Rover Range Rover Sport
Compact SUV / Toyota RAV4
Midsize SUV / Toyota 4Runner
Fullsize SUV / Toyota Sequoia
Compact Truck / Toyota Tacoma
Fullsize Truck / Toyota Tundra
Domestic makes fared slightly better when brand residual values were calculated. According to ALG, the following are the brands with the highest residual values:
Non-Luxury vehicles:
1. Honda
2. Toyota
3. Volkswagen
4. Subaru
5. Nissan
6. Jeep
7. Mazda
8. Saturn
9. GMC
Luxury vehicles:
1. BMW
2. Lexus
3. Land Rover
4. Mercedes-Benz
5. Acura
6. Infiniti
Residual comes in play for determining the lease fee, as MF*(MRSP+Res), that's why it is an MSRP percentage.
Again, not a full picture for cars with high cash incentives.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
1. Dodge Neon — 26.1%
2. Chevrolet Cavalier — 26.3%
3. Pontiac Sunfire — 27.4%
4. Mercury Sable — 27.5%
5. Ford Taurus — 28.5%
6. Chevrolet Aveo — 28.6%
7. Dodge Stratus — 30.1%
8. Buick Park Avenue — 30.7%
9. Ford Focus — 31.4%
10. Chevrolet Malibu — 31.7%
In the interest of full disclosure, feel free to post the above sources on your website.
What's this thread about?
"We will obviously disagree about the reasons: I say the product sucks, you say it's the media/NAFTA/globalization/Japanese bribe conspiracy that prevents idiot-consumers from seeing how fantastic the product is."
That was pretty stupid. IF you can find where I said GM's products are ALL great and ALWAYS have been great please let me know. All I said is that GM isnt as bad as import fanatics believe they are. It's really a simple argument and its one that cant be disproven based on objective evaluation of the facts. Now if we want to use typical simple minded GM criticism to evaluate their cars thats a differnt story. Most people like yourself believe that we should evaluate the products based on GM's market share, plat closures, the UAW, poor managment teams from prior decades, the fact that GM stopped making muscle cars and other interesting criteria that have nothing to do with the competence of GM product in 2006. OF course GM must suck because they are the first large industrial corportation in America to experience signifcant financial problems partially due to unsustainable cost structure related to pension and expensive healthcare in this country. Oh no wait, I forgot almost every major manucturing company based in the US has either gone under or shifted all production to countries with cheaper labor. I guess all those companies fell apart due to great products from Japan and poor quality.
All your CR lovers should check out truedelta.com and read what they have to say about CR's results and the problems with how they report data. Of course, I'm sure the guy is just mad because his favorite Ford didnt get a great rating. Forget about logic or fairness. CR cant be biased because it doesnt take ad money from carmakers!
I'm glad you said that because you are omitting quite a few things.
1. The whole bet on gas hogs argument is stupid. Gas was cheap and people wanted SUvs so the Big 3 provided them. If SUVs were such a bad idea what's up with teh 4Runner, Sequoia, Armada/GX56, PAthfinder and Pilot? Why were the Japanese tripping over themselves to push new SUVs into the market? Why were the press hailing the Japanese for finally making inroads into the last segment dominated by Detroit? Now in 2006 everyone has forgotten about the import trucks that were being praised and only detroit is guilt of focusing on trucks.
2. the Aura with 3.5 was promised from the beginning. Again, if you dont know the facts don't comment on the vehicle. There was no slight of hand or lying or trickery. GM announced the base engine would be a 3.5L OHV many months ago. They decided to give the car a standard V6 instead of a 4 cylinder for the same money as some competing 4 cylinder models. What is so hard to understand about that? They didnt need the Aura to mirror the G6 and Malibu exactly. On top of that the "old" pushrod isn't even old, has a 6400rpm redline and it has VVT. This engine has only been out since last year when the Impala debuted and they have added another 13 hp and it outpowers the Fusion/Mazda6.
3. I wish you would give some examples of domestic vehicles being too expensive. I can think of many values such as the Impala SS, 300C, Fusion, Malibu SS, Vette, Grand Prix GXP, HHR, Cobalt, etc. What domestic vehicles are overpriced in your mind? I can think of a few like the Lacrosse or STS V8 AWD, but by and large domestics offer better value and more incentives.
Unlike domestics, Japanese big 3 offers the choice of gas guzzlers and fuel-misers.
For every SUV Nissan/Honda/Toyota has launched they also have number of fuel-efficient vehicles. This year alone they have released Versa/Fit/Yaris - all of them with over 35 mpg. Now try to name one GM vehicle that gives over 35mpg from their lineup of 70 models.
case closed.
It almost feels like nobody in Detroit has contemplated an America with permanent $4 a gallon gas prices at all. If low-sulfur diesel winds up enabling automakers to produce EPA-acceptable diesel US cars in 2008 or later, it will very interesting to see how quickly automakers can adapt.
I'd bet money against GM or Ford being among the most agile, though.
I guess that's why if I'm going to buy a Japanese car, I'd probably go with a new one, and if I buy another domestic, I'll try to get one a year or two used!
Oh well, if nothing else, I've always liked the Park Avenue...guess I could get one dirt cheap if I wanted! And if I could find one...I think the 2005 model is pretty rare.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
But that only highlights another problem for GM and Ford - too many of their vehicles are much better buys as USED cars than as new ones.
Even many of the GM boosters on this site boast about getting their cars used. No doubt that saves them money, but I'm not seeing how this helps GM over the long haul any more than someone who buys a brand-new Camry.
I think most people feel this way because they know that Hondas and Toyotas are basically problem free run-forever cars that will cost little to maintain until they reach 15 years or 300K miles.
So even if resale value hits 60% after 5 years, there will still be buyers wanting something that will run reliably. Afterall, people spend money on cars so that they can get from A to B. I'd rather spend 10K on a used Honda than spend 5K on a used Big 3 vehicle and be stranded everywhere with a car that needs to be towed all the time.
Not to mention shop repair time, costs, and inconveniences.
I agree that 15 years is often the limit for any car (if it's automatic), and that makes an older Toyota or Honda less useful as a used car purchase.
Since I am not swooning over the latest GM wonderbomb, I'll never be accepted as anything but biased huh?
Alright, lets hear those kudos. And if you do give them kudos on the few cars you like, then why is your name anythingbutGM when you obviously like a few GM models?
The 4 speed is a great transmission, because its smooth, and reliable. In fact, in several reviews on edmunds I've read, theyve praised it. In one, they were comparing two cars, one a GM with the 4 speed, and one a Toyota, I think, and while the toyota had more gears, they said they preferred the GM 4 speed, because it was much smoother and more responsive, and offered very similar economy. However, you're remark about why even bother with a new tranny if the old one is so great, and blah blah blah is stupid. GM makes great transmissions, as evidenced by the fact that BMW used them in their 3 and 5-series, and the new 6 speed should offer the same signature GM smoothness and responsiveness, with even better economy. My point is, ppl defend the 4 speed because its a great transmission, not because they think it's stupid to make a 5,6, or even 7 speed tranny.
Yes, I can get a used Impala or Taurus, but I just can't bring myself to buy one. I just don't like how they drive, even though you can get them for very little $$.
and I bet that if everyone jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge you would too.
I would love to have a 6 speed auto in my Suburban. Sure, the 4 speed is fine for running around town, but at highway speed and particularly when I'm towing the 5.3 4 speed combo basically sucks. I don't care what the torque curve looks like, the fact is, the 5.3 needs to rev for power. When I'm towing my near 5,000lb boat, I have very little towing power under 3000rpm. The spacing between 2-3 gear is brutal. Since the torque peak is at 4000rpm (4200 on the DOD 5.3), that means I always have to be in 2nd gear when going up any hill when towing. With a 6speed, the extra ratios would make a huge difference. instead of going up a hill at 50 running over 4000rpm, I could be going say, 60 and be able to run 3k rpm with enough power to pull, or better yet, have access to 4000 rpm in the 60-65mph range.
With the 4 speed 4000rpm in 2nd is around 45 and in 3rd well over 80mph, that is basically useless for towing and I have the 3.73 gears. I couldn't imagine how bad it would be with 3.42s. If I were to get another tahoe/suburban with a 5.3 and a 4 speed, 4.10 gears would be a must.
That's what you base your decision on? The fact that the ford has irs and folding rear seats makes it better than the chevy? So I guess the fact that the 5.4 in the ford makes very little pwr (and is an ohc, compared to the chevys ohv), and tends to run out of breath when any load is placed on it, and the fact that even with solid rear axle, the tahoe rides and handles better, and that the interior of the Chevy is far superior to that of the Ford makes no difference?
The one thing I like about Ford's 5.4 is its torque output. They are great to tow with, you don't have to rev them. Unfortunately, a Ford truck/suv weigh so much that they are fairly slow when not towing.
For towing, I'd take Ford's 5.4 all day long over a 5.3. 365ft-lbs of torque @ 3750rpm vs. 340 @4200 with the 5.3 is a significant difference. The old 5.4 used to produce something like 360ft-lbs of torque at under 3000rpm and was a real stump puller, it just was slow when not towing.
Nissan's 5.6 is even more impressive with 385ft-lbs of torque at 3600rpm. I've test drove one and the Armada feels like it has a big block in it when compared to a 5.3 powered tahoe/Suburban. That thing is faster than most family sedans.
Yes, I can get a used Impala or Taurus, but I just can't bring myself to buy one. I just don't like how they drive, even though you can get them for very little $$.
I could buy a used Impala in a New York second, but I could never buy a used Taurus. Now a used Crown Victoria on the other hand...
Infinitely better, IMO. I like how the Chevy looks, finally, and the interior is also, finally nice, very nice. But from a technology, function and design standpoint, they STILL can't get it right, even though Ford showed them how 5 years ago. GM isn't just a slow learner, they just don't care. They know their mind-numbed customers will buy a significant number of them anyway because they are well made and reliable, and most soccer moms have no clue what's under their truck. Doesn't matter to them. But it does to me, and the power folding seat in the way-back is a deal breaker to me. Only Nissan and Ford have it, and I won't buy an SUV without it. Period.
The 5.4L Triton 3V engine is award winning, has no piston slap, and will pull anything you want better than the 5.3L pushrod wheezer in the Chevy. That's why Chevy needs the 6.0L to tow with. Ford doesn't need it.
As to "riding better" than the Ford? You must be drunk. :shades:
The new Tahoe is miles ahead of what it replaces, but it's all cosmetic. There's nothing new under the truck from GM......ever, it seems... sigh.....
The Suburban still offers plenty of room behind the 3rd row. We use our 3rd row quite a bit in our burb. The new extended Expedition will also offer plenty of room and more towing capacity than a 1/2 ton burb. While going to a 3/4ton Suburban is an option, you loose what little driving quality a 1/2 ton offers.
I'd say at this point it's a little early to be saying an 07 Tahoe/Suburban is clearly superior to an 07 Expedition/Expe EL. More torque at lower rpm along with 2 additional gears is clearly superior for the Ford IMO. GM needs to offer a 6speed in a Tahoe/Suburban.
The folding 3rd row is nice, I don't know to many women that could comfortably remove 3rd row seats if they needed to. Heck, I regularly work out and I don't like removing it. I wouldn't make my buying decision on a folding 3rd row alone, to many other areas to consider, but I could see where it could sway a decision one way or another.
This is actually one of the big reasons we picked the Explorer over a minivan. Most minivans still make you take the second row seats out and store them to use that cargo space whereas a couple of lever pulls gives me a flat cargo floor in the Explorer. Sure it's a smaller space but it's enough for us, it's convenient, and my wife can do it with one hand.
If you look at overall mileage of non-hybrid vehicles I wouldnt be surprised if GM and Toyota werent very close. Although Toyota's small cars get better mileage than GM's small cars, GM's trucks and SUVs get better mileage than their toyota counterparts.