Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I love you guys who hold one car company to one standard and another car company to a different standard
that's just nuts!
or lousy logic
I'm not saying GM makes all great products. Just that so much of the ligic displayed here is pretty weak. Obvioulsy many of you have a bias against GM, whether it's because you work for a competitor or because you just like to argue with people.
In 92, I bought a Lincoln Continental. It was superior in so many ways to the 91 Buick, I stayed with Lincoln ever since, until I bought my Lexus.
Yes, it would, like;
*Make cars that people actually want, (why spend money to develop low volume sports cars when the bulk of the market is the mid range?)
*Make cars that people will enjoy driving if it is a rental, might actually gain customers,
*Better quality. It has improved but resale value is a sign of reliability and GM resale value is below average.
*More exciting designs....Jeep has some new models, and the Chrysler 300 and Fusion are at least innovative!
This is a start. There are probably more ideas. Maybe there's still time to save GM if they will listen.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
In the past 25 GM has been trying, they still can't make a 40mpg passanger car. For this reason alone Civic and Corolla are groundbreaking by GM standards.
-Loren
The idea is to ONLY offer top-end models, and the few that are decent. The rest of the crud is dropped entirely from fleet sales. You want a midsize sedan? You can either get a LaCrosse with the sport suspension and the 3.6 or nothing. You want a full-size boat? Lucerne with the Northstar and magnetic ride.
Strip it down to roughly 10 models. Their best stuff - the G6 for a smaller car, with the glass sunroof and leather - and the Saturn Ion and a few others that are good with the luxury packages added.
If every rental is the best GM can make, then it's bound to change opinions. I can tell you that the Lucerne CXS is a better car than an Avalon, no two ways about it. GM has the cars - just they're buried in the mounds of crap.
I'm sorry but that's just flawed thinking. When I'm shopping for a car, I'm not willing to pay the extra money for leather and nav. There are definately redundant models, but the answer is not to get out of mid-market cars altogether. The answer is to build world class mid-market cars. That is what could get me into their showrooms again. Forcing me to spring for extra bells and whistles on a mediocre car will not. They actually already tried that tact with the Malibu Maxx which only came with a V6 and leather and the results is that there never was a single one sold for it's 24k + sticker.
Since 2006 is almost half over, I think that we can safely say NO, 2006 styling will not save GM. The 2007s will be out in a few months so we can always hope.
If Toyota and Honda disappeared tomorrow, I'm sure that he somehow would say this increases GM's chances for filing bankruptcy.
GM's problems are serious, and bankruptcy is a distinct possibility. But it is not inevitable - as thetruthaboutcars.com seems to believe - and there are still lots of things (eliminate the jobs bank, cut divisions, really reform health care benefits) that management and the UAW can do to prevent that outcome. I'm not saying that those actions will be easy or pleasant for the parties involved - far from it. But union and management can still take action before it's too late. Unfortunately, I think the company will literally need to have its back up against the wall before either side does them.
So that when a businessman rents a GM car, they are automatically exposed to the best that GM can offer, not the cheapest that GM can offer.
Yes, but the Civic doesn't NEED to be groundbreaking.
Here's the way I see GM's problem: for years and years they built boring, mediocre cars with so-so reliablity and fit/finish. Particularly when it came to the small/medium sized coupes/hatches/sedans, GM has ALWAY been a step or two behind the competition.
So what do they need to do? In order to RECAPTURE some of the market, they somehow have to get people's butts OUT of their Civic/Corolla/Mazda3 or Accord/Camry/Altima and into a GM car.
But if those folks are already satisfied with their current cars, and the new cars (ie. new Civic) is better in many ways, THEY AIN'T SWITCHING. See, the new Civic doesn't HAVE to be groundbreaking to keep current customers, and it already has a GOOD history and reputation to attract new buyers.
But what about the GM offerings? Do you think that some incremental improvements in reliablity, fit/finish, driving personality is going to suddenly make folks drop a known quantity (Civic) to take a chance on a Cobalt?
When you are behind, as GM is with almost everything except large trucks/SUV's, then YES, your offerings BETTER be groundbreaking in order to get people who are already satisfied with their current cars to switch back to GM.
The perception of the offerings from GM seem to be judged by a different drummer; I realize this is partly due to past attitudes and images. I realize this is partly due to past experiences rather than recent ones with owning a Buick, e.g., and people love to pile on when they don't like something much as they pile on when something has become popular (can you say "Starbucks?-no I've never had one).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Civic, at least, is pretty handsome up front IMO. Now the greenhouse and rear-end seem a little odd to me. Makes me think that they took some left-over Dodge Intrepid parts and tried to graft them onto the Civic. But while I find the rump of an Intrepid to be pretty attractive, it just doesn't translate well to the Civic, perhaps because the Civic's rump is flatter, narrower, and taller.
But if nothing else though, Honda does seem to have figured out how to work that "Cab Forward" angle. The '06 Civic is probably the first Civic where I felt comfortable inside, both front and rear.
They do seem more likely to give low scores, kind of like their school grades. A car here in the US has to be really, really bad to get one star.
The point is I don't have an axe to grind at all with GM, I hope they make it.
The problem is, in every segment of the market, there is a car that is way superior. IMO the backbone of the market is in the Accord, Camry, Mazda, Altima, Buick,
segment.....and IMO, the Buick is the weak link. And, if you want to fix it up to make it acceptable, why not go with an Audi, BMW, Mercedes 240, Lexus, Infinity Accura and put some fun in your life and have a trade in that will be above average when the time comes.
Even Chrysler has some exciting innovative products, Calibre, Charger, Magnum, Chryco 300. They are not engineering masterpieces but they show imagination!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
By showing that the idea had already been used.
:P
Yes.
But we must recognize a few facts:
One - GM market share is decreasing. It's been decreasing for decades.
Two - the market share for Toyota/Honda is increasing. It's been increasing for decades.
Three - people who are satisfied with their current cars generally STAY with that manufacturer. If they are satisfied, the competition must offer something head and shoulders above what they are currently driving to switch. PARTICULARLY if the competition has a less than stellar reputation.
Now, these facts tell me that, generally speaking, a much higher % of Toyota/Honda owners are satisfied and not likely to switch brands compared to GM owners. In other words, historically MORE folks are likely to move AWAY from GM that TO GM.
So, how does GM reverse this trend? Do they offer cars that are 'as good as, maybe slightly better in some areas' than the competition? If I'm a Civic owner, and perfectly happy with Honda, I might look at a G6 and say "yeah, looks pretty nice and drives okay, but I like Honda and so I think I'll move up to an Accord instead".
Consider yourself. You are satisfied with your GM car. Perhaps it would be difficult to lure you OUT of your GM car. In order for Honda to entice you out of your GM, they would have to offer something truely groundbreaking. And even then, you are likely to stay with GM. Well, the same thought process applies to owners of Hondas and Toyotas. The problem GM has is that a much higher % of their owners are satisfied compared to GM.
When you're behind, you can't simply keep pace with your competitors. Or in GM's case with small cars, GM's vehicle can't just be similar to a Honda or Toyota.
You have to be BETTER.
Then, and only then, will consumers look at your product.
And while GM's Cobalt is okay... and it kept pace with the advances in the Corolla and Civic... it is clearly not BETTER.
So the consumer ignores it.
This may seem obvious, but for GM to prosper, it needs to generate profits. In theory, you can increase profits by cutting costs, increasing revenues or a combination of the two.
Given that, here are the problems that GM faces:
-Cost reductions won't be enough. GM management has made much issue about the UAW, pension costs, etc., but if you pull the financial statements and do the math, there would still be losses even if you trimmed obligations significantly. So cost cutting alone won't do the job.
-Revenues get created through sales, and the product lineup doesn't hint at strong future sales. If you look at GM's offerings in key segments, the only place in which it is strong is in the truck and SUV markets, both of which are highly exposed to fuel prices. Product cycles tend to run 4-6 years, which means that the current lackluster lineup in the main lineup (Cobalt, Malibu, Impala, G6, etc.) will probably be with us until at least 2008-2010. Not a good thing for creating revenues during the next 8-10 quarters or so.
Meanwhile, people need to accept that in a competitive industry dependent upon branding as is automaking, losing market share is highly problematic, not just because of the revenue that you don't get, but because of the relationship created between your customers and your rivals, i.e. the switching problem. So when GM fails to make sales within the next 8-10 quarters with those cars, those buyers of rival products are more unlikely to be unavailable to GM in later periods, even if better products are in the pipeline. It is part of the downward spiral that does seem neverending.
The thing about bankruptcy is that would justify certain significant actions, i.e. killing off portions of the dealer network (there are way too many GM dealers in the US), cramming down the union contracts and eliminating many of the pension obligations. It would be very helpful to the balance sheet, while eliminating many expenses going forward.
IMO, I'd be watching the UAW contract expiration that is up for renewal next year. I suspect that GM may very well use BK in order to defang the UAW when the current contract expires. The current buyout plan thins out the size of the rank-and-file, and the bankruptcy court would help with the rest.
What seems to be lost on the diehards is that the basic challenge that GM faces is its need to conquer buyers from rival brands. For GM to maintain or increase market share going forward, it must get buyers of other products to switch to GM, and then keep them loyal. The current formula of losing customers and failing to capture rival customers is destined to fail, it simply cannot work over the long run.
Getting customers to switch requires giving them a better product, having them try it, and then getting them to purchase it. Given GM's weak and tarnished brands, the products have to be absolutely superior to get customers to switch. Not only do they need to like the product, they need to have confidence in it, and many of them don't have confidence. When you have a bad reputation, you have to work extra hard to lose it.
GM seems woefully unable to accomplish any of these things. As its rivals get stronger, it necessarily gets weaker, because it will get increasingly difficult for it to get future customers, which further limits its revenue potential. This is a serious problem that unless it is fixed will invariably lead to GM continuing to shrink.
I have my occasionally lucid moments.....
The 84 Chevy Celebrity Eurosport model and the 84 Pontiac 6000STE model got very good reviews by car magazines such as C&D, Motor Trend, etc. These were performance tweaked models. Test drove the 6000STE back then and liked it a lot. But the sticker was beyond our budget at the time. Probably just as well because I think there were reliability issues that developed on Celebrities and 6000's. Settled on an 84 Honda.
Couple years later also test drove an 86 Taurus and was impressed, but was more impressed with an 86 Honda that we bought.
GM did try to put some excitement in its 4-doors in 1984 (Eurosport, 6000STE) and then again in mid-90s with remake of bulbous Impala into Impala SS. Think that these 3 examples were better executions of mild-performance 4-doors (and were nicely balanced) than what GM did recently by stuffing V8s into FWD Impala and Grand Prix.
Nowadays, cars like the V-8 Impala and Grand Prix are probably more current-day equivalents of a musclecar, all wild and overpowered and a bit unweildy, than they are a well-balanced wanna-be Euro-fighter.
In 1984-85, Ford offered a similar package on their small LTD, called the LX. It featured a 165 hp 302, slightly more aggressive gearing, and some gray/blackout trim. I think they made about 3000-3500 copies. It was hardly a musclecar, as 0-60 came up in about 9 seconds, but the 3.8 LTD was more like 12 seconds, and many cars back then were still struggling to break the 15 second barrier.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'm sorry but that's just flawed thinking. When I'm shopping for a car, I'm not willing to pay the extra money for leather and nav. There
Um... I was talking about rental fleets. Only offer these to the rental companies - at a loss/base model price - to generate free advertizing.
To make matters worse for the big two, they now have Korean models which are superior to deal with. Better cars, with better warranties.
As GM suggests, do head to head test. They lose, Ford will lose. The problem is the cars are good enough to purchase compared to years-gone-bye, yet the are not equal to, let alone better than the competition. If you want some style, using Fusion as an example, and not worried about dollar value, then Ford makes a sale. If you want resale and quality, Japan makes a sale. If you want value overall, then Hyundai makes a sale. Fusion has less HP and no stability control and such, yet costs more than the Sonata.
You are very right in saying GM and Ford have to be BETTER than the competition. Just though I would add that they are not even in pace yet. Unless you want something different, as in CTS, Mustang, or something else totally unlike the Japan or Korean cars.
-Loren
Would Rick Wagoner also say what Lee Iacoca said back in early 80's - "If you find a better car, buy it"?
IF GM had vision and capability to continually improve this front-driver over the years, maybe today they would have a true "performance" FWD sedan car that might almost be in same league as Acura TL.
And 40 years of development of the 1967 RWD Firebird pony car might have put it close to BMW 3 series coupe territory.
Pontiac could have been the "performance" division. Instead, an empty shell just like the Pontiac big baloons put up at NHRA drag strips.
OK I did the comparison on Edmunds:
Impala LT $20,330
Camry LE $22,780
Perhaps the Camry has $2400 in more content?
In the warranty Camry has 5 year powertrain while Impala has 3 year. Everything else is equal except Impala has a longer rust thru warranty.
Powertrain: 211/214 vs 190/197 in Camry. Impala has about 10% more power (but needed for heavier vehicle). 12 valve vs. 24 valve. Camry has a 5 speed vs. Impala 4 spd.
19/27 vs. 20/28. Not much difference and the Impala is flex fuel.
1000# towing vs. 2000# in Camry
Camry has a tighter turning radius.
Camry advantages:
Split folding rear seat
Speed proportional steering
Audio controls on steering wheel
Overhead console.
Impala advantages:
Impala has P225 -16" tires while Camry has P205-15"
8 way drivers seat vs. 6 way
trunk cargo net
seatback storage
dual zone HVAC
floor mats
compass
DIC
Curtain air bags
Headlight dusk sensors
alarm system.
OnStar
Interior dimensions:
Impala larger in all dimensions except rear seat headroom.
Not sure how anybody can say Camry is a clear winner with the above comparison data. The $2500 is a lot of difference.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't know about the rest of the specs, but the current Camry LE 3.5 v6 has 268hp/248ft-lbs of torque with a 6speed. The 3.0 197hp v6 was last years model.
The Cobalt is to the new Civic what the Cavelier was to the old Civic.
Yes, the Cobalt is better than the Cavelier... but so the new Civic is to the old Civic.
Until GM realizes that it must build cars that are much better than it's competition (as opposed to the car that it is replacing), GM will continue to lose marketshare.
:shades:
I have little doubt that a 3-5 year old Camry in reasonable condition will have a value that is much more than $2,400 above that of an Impala with similar mileage and in similar condition.
And in any case, the fact that there are more retail Camry buyers than there are retail Impala buyers tells you that the Camry has qualities that customers prefer to those of the Impala.
Rather than putting heads in the sand and ignoring the obvious business problem, I would suggest solving it. This Impala-beats-Camry nonsense is about as valuable to GM as would have been folks on the Titanic fighting for the deck chairs. It's better to steer away from the iceberg than it is to run towards the light...
A. Pay higher price, just because?
B. Pay higher costs when at dealer and often
have higher required service levels
'required' by dealer.
C. Get higher resale value, we hope, in the future.
Maybe we should recommend Camrys as an investment in increase your money? If it's all that good in part A?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Impala larger in all dimensions except rear seat headroom.
I don't know what horse's rear-end they pull interior measurements out of, but all I know is that I can sit comfortably in the back of a Camry, with the front seat all the way back. In the Impala, with the front seat all the way back the only way I'll fit is sideways. And even if you moved that seat up, taking care of the legroom problem, I still have to slouch, or my head hits the rear window.
Now if I didn't regularly carry passengers in the back seat, I might consider an Impala. But that shortcoming keeps it off my list.
I fit easily in the back seat.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Trying to sell a used Impala in my market would be just about as easy as trying to sell a dead cat in a breadbasket. I would much prefer to sell a Camry that will retain strong residuals than compete with the likes of Avis and National when it comes time to sell an Impala.
The Toyota business model makes sense: Charge a little more, but give a lot more. GM needs to take a page from that playbook.
Blind loyalty? Too bad GM can't clone you.....
"Seems they are getting better. The LaCrosse is certainly a vast improvement over the Century and Regal, the Lucerne is even nicer than the LaCrosse, and that Enclave's interior absolutely blows me away!"
I'm sure they are getting better. I certainly HOPE they've gotten better. Problem is, so has the competition.
Vast improvement? How many generations/makeovers/freshenings (not to mention name changes) have we had when each and every time the new car was supposed to be a "vast improvement"? I've lost count.
"The interior of the Camry looks like it was done by the same guy who designed my Mom's circa-1965 Lady Kenmore washing machine."
:confuse:
Hmmmm, lemmee try one.....
The interior of the LaCrosse looks like it was done by the set designers for the first Star Trek pilot episode. It has all the motivation of an anemic hamster on quaaludes, the responsiveness of an arthritic rhino in a vat of peanut butter, and the ride quality of a Barcalounger perched on a king size water bed full of jello.
Gee, that was fun.... :P
I can understand disagreeing with it, but poking fun at it? That's just lame.
I know - the best way to elevate the discussion in any forum like this, is to ignore the lame posts and reply to the good ones. Still......
and I know we are all trying to be funny, so it's not really fair to be that critical.
I guess I just expect more when I come here
I gave you a thoughtful, reasoned reply to that which you ignored. I'd be more than happy to discuss why GM needs much better cars (not just much better than their old cars, but much better than the competition's CURRENT cars). And perhaps such a discussion would even be pertinent to the topic.
Or I can go back to being playful with lemko. Besides, he's a big boy and I'm sure he understands that my little excursion into the absurd was completely tongue in cheek.
Camry $23040 vs. Impala $23,730 (not counting rebates) (chose higher hp 3.9L)
268/248 vs. 242/242 (Camry has more power)
6 speed vs. 4
Camry advantages:
Proportional steering
turning radius
Overhead console
Braking assist
SIAB
Impala advantages:
trunk cargo net
Dual HVAC
Lighted vanity mirrors
rear reading lamps
floor mats
leather shift knob
compass
traction control
foglights
OnStar
Interior dimensions: Impala is bigger or the same except for rear legroom (3/4" more in Camry) (perhaps you felt more rear legroom in the Camry because at full rear the Impala has more front legroom?)
22/31 vs. 19/27 (bit better MPG for Camry, Impala needs 6 speed)
Looking just (that was the initial question) at the above data differences the Camry has an advantage if you were looking for the power. Impala is roomier and has more creature comforts if that is what you were looking for.
Impala LT $20,330
Camry LE $22,780
Perhaps the Camry has $2400 in more content?
Now compare trade in value. 2001 Impala LS 4 door worth $7170.
2001 Camry LE V6 worth $9375 (and I believe these prices are before Impala's got the big price discounts).
If I had to choose I would buy the used Camry because it will still be more dependable, to me it looks better (won't become dated as fast) and in 5 years will be worth even more in comparison.
Check used car prices at;
http://www.intellichoice.com/search/used/link">
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
While Toyota sticker prices can sometime seem (or are) high, the cars sure do age well, particularly the interiors.
That's one of my gripes about GM. I grew up driving mostly Pontiacs. GM clearly offered the best interiors around in the '60s. Sadly, that's no longer the case.
Only thing that blows me away is that Buick has lost 80% of it's sales in last 20 years. There is only one brand with worse record - Oldsmobile(100%)!
In the next five years, Buick will be competing with Maserattis and Aston Martins in sales volume - if they can survive that long.
There are all kinds of other reasons to buy or not buy.
268/248 vs. 242/242 (Camry has more power)
Now compare trade in value. 2001 Impala LS 4 door worth $7170.
2001 Camry LE V6 worth $9375
OK, so now things are a little different. Same price new.
Big difference in 5 years! Bigger difference in 10 years!!
Factor in reliability and Camry you will be ahead with Camry.....and if you lease it is probably less because of the residual value!!!!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250