I disagree if we are comparing what cars we want to buy.
Sometimes you guys are talking about the larger issue and sometimes the more personal one. Why does anyone's personal autobuying decision factor in the "groundbreaking" factor? The issue is, is THIS car right for me.
I am not even sure that GM needs all its new products to be groundbreaking. No Camry buyers buy the Camry because it is groundbreaking (since it isn't). Wouldn't we all agree that the vast majority of auto purchases are by people who just want something that is dependable, has reasonable utility (4 doors and a trunk and 25 mpg or so), is decent looking, and is reasonably priced? People choose the Camry over the Lucerne because of rhe reliability factor, no?
The Solstice/Sky may help GM, but a car like that, or even a groundbreaking CTS, is not going to save the company.
To succeed in America (and I mean that to include producting cars IN America), GM needs: (a) some concessions from the UAW and (b) REAL STATISTICS that show that their products is as dependable as the foreigners.
Since none of us has any faith in the reliability numbers, GM can not make the showing necessary in (b). I doubt word-of-mouth re GM reliability is going to help enough.
Sorry, but the LaCrosse is a yawner and the sales totals support that. The 300 has presence and it still is a looker, IMO.
GM could probably have had many thousands more sales (with same levels of quality/reliability) of Buicks and Pontiacs if it had gotta-have, knockout styling like the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum. They can probably find some nice styling cues/themes from their past, but definitely not fake portholes.
Buick could look at 60's Riv and Pontiac the first few Grand Prixs. With some exceptions (Corvette, Solstice, Cads) GM has mediocre/bland styling. When they want to extend the envelope, we get the Aztek or the comic book Camaro show car. Its either bland or Bizarre. Can they steal some stylists from Acura, Chrysler, BMW or for gosh sakes even Hyundai.
No Camry buyers buy the Camry because it is groundbreaking
You cannot compare Toyota to GM. Toyota has an excellent reputation in the marketplace for building highly reliable, solid vehicles. On the other hand, GM has a reputation for building products of variable quality and absent of compelling features.
GM has a bad reputation to overcome, while Toyota does not, which means that GM has no choice but to make dramatic leaps ahead of its rivals so that it gets positive attention and attracts more buyers. Years of building mediocre products has given us the current results -- falling sales, falling market share, and economic losses.
To succeed in America (and I mean that to include producting cars IN America), GM needs: (a) some concessions from the UAW and (b) REAL STATISTICS that show that their products is as dependable as the foreigners.
Concessions from the UAW will not create profits. Despite all the talk of "legacy costs", GM could completely eliminate them and it would still lose money. Cost reductions don't help if people don't buy the products.
As for "real data", we are swimming in it, and we know the results of it: a quality gap still exists, albeit not consistently across all products and not at the same levels across the board.
Building another Blandmobile will ensure GM will continue to slide. It needs to build some interesting, innovative products in key segments so that it can sell such products in large numbers. It's nice to have a car such as the Solstice succeed, but selling 20,000 units in a 7 million unit market won't really accomplish much, unless it pulls people into showrooms to buy other products. Given that the G6 appears to be a flop except on the rental lots, it doesn't seem to be working so far.
I agree that the Solstice isn't enough. Nor the CTS. Nor the Escalade.
Do we need a groundbreaking sedan for middle-America? Would they even know how to drive it?
Again, what are the biggest-selling cars in America? Can GM build a competitive vehicle? Does the competitive vehicle need to be "groundbreaking" or does it need to meet the criteria I outlined above, which does not include being groundbreaking?
The use of cues from past cars seems to earn GM more of the constant ridicule from a poster or two when other companies are given accolades for doing so. No matter what GM does it doesn't earn the credits due.
I guess a couple think if they keep repeating the same constant criticism that they will just make the company go away.
Even the idea of portholes is criticized; were they ever 'real' portholes? Are air-bleeding portholes needed now for motor cooling?
Toyota Camry total 40,203 Toyota Corolla total 36,155 Honda Accord total 31,608 Honda Civic total 31,259 Chevrolet Impala 25,879 Nissan Altima 20,176 Chevrolet Cobalt 19,249
Odds would be pretty high that the houses that these ladies came from would be significantly different. On the finer points of styling, Mercedes would be the original with panache while the Buick was the ersatz Jaguar/Taurus/etc.
You'd think so, but the reality would be that they both are woefully bad. the GM is better than before - by a small margin, but the Mercedes are... well, they look and feel like they are price-built assembly-line cars no different from Lexus or Infinity. The term I use and hear as well on various forums is "plastic-cedes".
So while Mercedes has fallen a lot, GM is doing what Hyundai did to GM a decade ago - try to build a better Chevy for less. I really think if GM can wean itself from its corrupt and inept management, it can survive this quite easily. The problem really isn't the marketing or styling but the rotten apples at the top.
JD Power earns millions selling its data to the automotive industry. Obviously, the industry sees some value in it, otherwise it wouldn't purchase it. (And please don't assume that what you get for free online is the entirety of the data that JD Power generates, you don't get all of it because you aren't paying for it.)
Despite complaints from the GM fans, Consumer Reports provides the largest survey pool of any reliability survey on the market. I've also posted the survey, which makes it pretty clear that despite the bogus allegations made by some posters here, the survey is neutral, and the survey pool large enough to make it useful.
So there is plenty of data, and as it generally correlates, it is consistent enough to be useful. In my experience, the only people who seem to have a problem with it are GM fans (which is ironic, considering that CR and JD Power actually give some distinctions to certain GM products.)
Do we need a groundbreaking sedan for middle-America? Would they even know how to drive it?
Of course they do, they were buying Accords with OHC multi-valve motors and variable valve timing while increasingly ignoring GM products that languish with pushrod motors that lack the same sophistication and smoothness. Soon, I expect that many will be buying Camry hybrids with the same fervor.
Obviously, consumers like technology if it translates into things that they like, whether that be refinement, fit-and-finish, reliability, performance, etc. Disrespecting the consumer, and assuming that the consumer doesn't appreciate good products is what got the domestics in trouble in the first place. It is sometimes possible to fool the consumer at the beginning of a product cycle, as Hyundai did with its unreliable Excels of the '80's, but that sort of cynical treatment of the customer will generally lead a company to eventually fail as the word gets out and consumers learn what to avoid. That is what GM has done to itself, and it will have to work hard and generate consistent results to work its way back.
"No Camry buyers buy the Camry because it is groundbreaking (since it isn't)."
Correct. So, why are more and more folks buying Camry's/Accords (and Chysler 300's) and fewer and fewer folks buying GM? Is it entirely the fault of 'media bias'?
"Wouldn't we all agree that the vast majority of auto purchases are by people who just want something that is dependable, has reasonable utility (4 doors and a trunk and 25 mpg or so), is decent looking, and is reasonably priced?"
Don't forget 'piece of mind'.
Toyota (rightly or wrongly) is perceived as giving the owner 'piece of mind'. Many of those folks who have LEFT GM over the last 5-10-20 years have done so because they HAVEN'T had 'piece of mind' and a feeling of the warm-fuzzies with their GM product.
So, the question becomes (talking about the larger issue here): how does GM get butts BACK into their cars? If Toyota/Honda owners of appliance grade cars (Civic/Corolla and Camry/Accord) are seeking 'piece of mind' more than anything else, and they are happy with their current rides, how else do you expect GM to reverse their trend WITHOUT offering groundbreaking vehicles?
So, the question becomes (talking about the larger issue here): how does GM get butts BACK into their cars? If Toyota/Honda owners of appliance grade cars (Civic/Corolla and Camry/Accord) are seeking 'piece of mind' more than anything else, and they are happy with their current rides, how else do you expect GM to reverse their trend WITHOUT offering groundbreaking vehicles?
When I said "dependable," I meant that to include your "peace of mind" factor.
Maybe GM needs to say, "Listen, I know you are busy. You can't afford to be without your car when it is in the shop. I know our cars are as dependable as the competition. More dependable, in fact. So, if you EVER have to have your GM car or truck repaired, if you have that repair done at a GM-authorized service shop, we will lend you another GM car to use, at no cost. Because your time is valuable, and being without your car wastes your time."
And I really like the idea of pushing its better cars into the rental fleet, instead of its models equipped at a basic level.
I'm all for GM making groundbreaking stuff. I just don't know that that is what will save the company.
Despite complaints from the GM fans, Consumer Reports provides the largest survey pool of any reliability survey on the market. I've also posted the survey, which makes it pretty clear that despite the bogus allegations made by some posters here, the survey is neutral, and the survey pool large enough to make it useful.
I agree with you 100% on that.
Interesting sidelight: Automotive News reported recently that Lori Queen, a GM executive, made some disparaging remarks in an e-mail about Consumer Reports. It seems the magazine gave only a lukewarm review of the "all new" Cobalt, plus the car earned a much worse than average first-year reliability record.
Two weeks later, a letter to the editor from CEO Rick Wagoner apologized for her remarks, without mentioning her by name, and commended Consumer Reports for the fine work they do.
How would you like to be criticized in public by your top executive?
Many of those folks who have LEFT GM over the last 5-10-20 years have done so because they HAVEN'T had 'piece of mind' and a feeling of the warm-fuzzies with their GM product.
Didn't a lot of folks leave GM because they wanted MPG and GM just didn't offer it? And then once they were driving Toyotas, they just stuck with Toyotas? [I'd guess that only applies to folks who switched in the late 70s]
Buyers have left for all sorts of reasons -- reliability, product features, drivability, fuel economy, etc. -- but at the end of the day, they still left.
In order to win back buyers, it's not enough to simply imitate the new leaders and innovators. (Not many people are going to want a Chevy Camry or a Ford Accord, when they can get the genuine article from a more trustworthy source.)
At least Daimler seems to have learned this with the 300, by building a product that was distinctive and unique, rather than building a soapbar that would naturally not measure up to its inspiration. Looking at cars such as the Impala, which ventures into new standards of blandness, or the Cobalt that can't possibly compete with the more reliable and appealing rivals, you can't help but wonder what GM is thinking that it would go to all this trouble to build stuff that is so uninspiring and unimpressive and would doom them to finding their greatest success in rental lots across America. An attractive design doesn't cost any more to create than does an unattractive one.
The 300 is definitely very masculine and I am sure almost no woman would buy a Magnum. My wife thinks they look like a hearse. I think the car would have looked a lot better with a lower belt line and with bigger windows.
For a woman, the Buick would probably be more appealing and it is not offensive, but it sure aint leading edge, and it will never become a classic!
"When I said "dependable," I meant that to include your "peace of mind" factor."
Two different things IMO.
'Dependable' is something which we can ATTEMPT to define quantitatively (JD Power surveys, CR ratings, etc.)
But 'Peace of mind' is essentially the consumers PERCEPTION of their vehicle purchase. And that often includes past experiences with other cars. If they PERCEIVE a new Camry will be more dependable (or that a new Impala might not be) then they will lean towards the Toyota.
It's been said before: it doesn't take long for a manufacturer to screw up a good reputation, but it will take a long take to get it back. GM can make decent, reliable transportation for years but they won't get that reputation back quickly.
Offering something notably DIFFERENT (as DCX did with the 300) can short circuit that process. Which is one reason why I think that GM must offer something positive (groundbreaking) which their competition doesn't.
I'm not sure lower belt line and bigger windows is possible, given the new crash safety standards out of Europe, Japan, etc.
Low beltline leads to higher mortality in side impacts from SUVs, eh?
2 buddies of mine bought Magnums. They are both gone, now. They hated them. Couldn't see a thing. I asked if they knew how to use their mirrors. They both glared at me.
yes, I agree - though I still meant to include it in my discussion
I agree that the majority of American car buyers need "peace of mind" when buying a car. Not so much for those of us who might gravitate towards a BMW or a Porsche, but that's not the big fat middle of the car market.
> So, if you EVER have to have your GM car or truck repaired, if you have that repair done at a GM-authorized service shop, we will lend you another GM car to use, at no cost.
That's exactly what's promised with a new Buick purchase since ???? at our dealership. That's true even of cars out of warranty. That's true of used car purchases. Perhaps that why our perception of our Buicks has been so good. Take it in for something I can't repair myself out-of-warranty and I have a loaner car with a smile. The bill for repair seems to be normal for dealerships of the American brands.
Increasing the warranty length drastically would be another good start for improving perception. If the company thinks they're good to 60K and 5 years, shouldn't the buyer. 100K and 10 years on powertrain would be a great icing layer also.
For many of the cars the groundbreaking doesn't need to be some styling change but could be the warranty change. I don't think the Camry slant-eyed rear lights and puffed out front fenders and the hog snout is needed to give cues to Buick type buyers that a good car is there; the Lexi do it without all that. In some cases the Lexus model, Avalon, and Camry now all seem to look the same.
Sounds like you have one of those rare-bird small family-owned dealerships that still takes care of its service customers. Consider yourself very lucky.
But the increasingly common mega-dealers will pad your repair bill no matter whose manufacturer nameplate is on the building.
I patronize dealerships only when I have to -- warranty and recall work -- and hold my nose when I do so. Otherwise, I use an independently owned repair shop. No loaners, but free shuttle service.
Actually, the cars in GM future offering should be uniquely style, offer more than the Toyota or Honda, and have a warranty of at least 5 years 60,000 miles, bumper to bumper. You can become so fixed on what your competition is selling, that soon you are building knock-offs of their products. While say a Sonata may be seen as a knock-off of an Accord, Hyundai is able to pull it off by offering more content, such as the stability control and a V6 for the price of an Accord. But how many companies can afford to do the same? How many more cars need be Japan clones? Let Japan and Korea duke it out, and stay out of the fight.
GM has lost so many of these copy the leader fights. Why not learn after the, " let's build a Beetle " fiasco of the Corvair era, that unless you do one better, have it ready for prime time before the curtain call, then do not go head to head. The last years of Corvairs, I am sure are better, but my goodness, if they did not have it all correct, why push it out to the customer. The Nova was a pretty sturdy RWD basic car with a six cylinder, or for a power play some neat V8s. Certainly was safer and easier to live with than driving the VW. Now if GM had made the Corvair a mid-engine, or more of a specialty sports car, then yes, perhaps it could have made it. But, like the Chevette was to foreign baby sized cars, the Corvair was not the best effort.
Now GM could sell in high volumes, some China/GM smaller cars I guess. Those would sell on price alone, and not do much for the GM image in America, nor employ any workers here in the States. I, for one, would rather see a smaller GM making cars that would make the designers of the Malibu and Camaro back in the late '60's proud of. Car which say buy me- gotta buy me, when you walk into the show room. Just being different, like the Charger, ain't going to cut it. I am talking bringing back beauty and grace to a modern day car. And please, put some real tires on these cars. My word, cheap tires, with plastic hub caps on Buicks??? Sorry, but Hyundai is out classing Buick on that front. No need to even talk engines, and stability control, an automatic air conditioning and such, when they won't even give you a nice set of shoes.
If Buick had a RWD, with fresh styling, as much engine as a Hyundai, the basic safety content for the modern age, pretty shoes, it could sell for $5k more than say a Sonata. As it is the Sonata and Azera look as good, if not better, and offer more in yet another FWD offering. Add Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and all the rest, and well let's just say it -- Buick is lost. Being yet another good FWD car means you are selling from the same pie, and fighting for the little slices left. A LaCrosse looks fine, but something like the Altima still stands out. After all these years, it stands out more than the latest offerings of GM. Altima compared to the G6? Sort of a cool and tepid. They (Pontiac)need to go from Tepid back to a Tempest ! -Loren
What about Subaru? Wonder how things are going with them these days. Are they struggling along with GM and Mitsu?
Anyone out there owned one of these interesting cars. I say interesting due to the boxer engine and AWD. Are they still having any issues with that style of engines? Was it leaks?
Would you buy a Subaru? I see the Subaru Legacy is looking a bit more stylish. As for the rest of the Subaru line, it ain't my cup o' tea.
Seems like for all they have to offer, they would sell more cars. Not effective advertising; or is it in the number of dealerships, or ??? -Loren
Lower beltlines should be possible, unless they need all that metal to keep the occupants safe, due to poor design. Subaru models have big windows and get 5 star ratings. Volvos have great visibility and big windows. My wife's 2004 Mercedes C240 Station wagon has the most amazing vision and these cars are safe. If Princess Diana had her seat belt on she would be alive today. By the way, we have had no problems with my wife's Mercedes or the 1999 before it.....and they are built as solid as any car...and the steering and handling are amazing. I would chance another one because I think they will get their act together soon. And, they are built to be safe! Before we picked up the 1999 they gave us a 10 year old loaner. It was rock solid with great handling. I would rather buy that than most of the new cars out there! The salesman could show you safety features that American cars don't even think about, like a pin in the back door so that if the car is rear ended, you have a greater chance of opening the back doors. American manufacturers would rather hide these things, like exploding gas tanks, or cars rolling over etc. One more thing too. Look at a 10 year old or even 20 year old Mercedes, and it looks better than most of the new American cars out there!
...a 2003 Subaru Outback that he bought new because my mother liked it so much. Dad is a Ford diehard. His other vehicle is a 1997 Mercury Mystique, also purchased new. According to him, he thinks there's no real difference between Subaru and any other make. If anything, I guess the all-wheel drive is a plus.
A person I know is looking for a new car, to replace her Saturn. She tried a Camry, Altima, Honda and Suburu Legacy. She will go with the Altima or Camry. She liked the Suburu but felt it was rough riding, not a great interior. She likes the Camry, but wasn't pleased about the dealerships attitude....doing her a favor by showing her a car. Overall, she liked the Altima. It must be nice to be so popular you don't have to worry about trying too hard with your customers.
I wouldn't want to have a rollover accident in this car
This would not be an issue.
The structural rigidity of a car is from the frame, not the 3/16" sheet metal that makes up the roof.
The Astra with the panoramic windshield has the same frame. It just replaces some of the tissue thin sheet metal with glass.
I suppose a rolled panoramic windshield Astra may shower you with a few more bits of glass. But the glass will be the tempered safety variety that breaks up into little pieces.
There will be no safety differences at all. Again, the only issue I would see is heat build up in sunnier climes. If it has a shading feature as suggested above, even that will not be much of a problem.
The 300 is definitely very masculine and I am sure almost no woman would buy a Magnum.
There's a girl at work who bought a Dodge Magnum, and she seems to like it. Before that she had a Jeep Wrangler, but I think she just outgrew it really quickly, especially once she got married.
I've driven a Magnum before, and as long as you don't have to back up do anything that requires too much looking out the back, it's not TOO bad. In those types of maneuvers though, it feels kinda like how my '85 Silverado did way back in the day when it had a camper shell on it.
As narrow as those rear windows look on the Magnum from the outside, well they're actually about half that size when you're inside looking out! :surprise:
Increasing the warranty length drastically would be another good start for improving perception. If the company thinks they're good to 60K and 5 years, shouldn't the buyer. 100K and 10 years on powertrain would be a great icing layer also.
That exact formula did a lot to rebuild Hyundai's reputation, but that was only half of it. The other half was building better cars that didn't *need* that warranty very often. I'm sure the GM beancounters have run the numbers on longer warranties and pooed themselves when they saw the results. The warranty won't work if the vehicles don't improve dramatically.
usually, the way those longer warranties work is that first the automakers get the quality up to where they think they can take the risk, and then they bump up the warranty.
For instance, Chrysler started their 5/50K powertrain warranty way back in 1962, partly in response to the '57 models, which had poor reliability and that, coupled with a recession in '58, did some serious damage to the company's reputation. Oddly though, the biggest problem with the '57 models was rust, water leaks, body integrity, etc. The powertrains were the LAST thing that was going to fail on them! And I don't know if anyone would have dared to guarantee that a car body wouldn't start rusting within 5 years or 50,000 miles back then!
Most people I've known who have had something major go, like an engine or transmission, usually have it fail within the first year or two. So I don't think bumping a powertrain warranty from 3/36K to 5/60K or even a bit longer would really cost the company much. Most people I've known who have had components fail around the 60K mark are people who just didn't take care of their cars and simply went too long between oil changes or let it run low, didn't change the coolant in time (back when cars still used the green stuff) etc.
My late aunt had one of those '57 Plymouths, a red and white Savoy sedan, purchased new. Well, although it was a great looking car with those enormous fins, she had lots of trouble with it. I was too young to remember the details, but she got rid of it and bought a '59 Chevy "batwing" Bel Air 4-door. No more Chryslers for her!
Weren't there some pretty big loopholes in those lengthy warranties of the 60s? Like you had to go to the dealer (only) for all service and maintenance, including inspections every 6 months or so? This was obviously before the Magnuson-Moss Act.
GM and ford both have spent alot of styling and enginering resourses on suvs like the new tahoe and expidition with little concern for mpg and little resourses on small cars. They have put their eggs all in one basket as gas hits $3 meanwhile honda and toyota redesign both pickups and small cars. The problem is not so much styling or even predicting the future it is simple economics. If you want a reliable return on your investment you must diversify.Unfortunatly GM looks like it did in the 70's right when toyota and Honda made inroads.
Look at Toyota this year: new or redesigned RAV4, Camry, FJ Cruiser, and Yaris. They're going to be unstoppable.
Over at DaimlerChrysler, they've already got the Caliber, which is selling quite well. To come: Jeep Compass, Patriot, and redesigned Wrangler, including a new 4-door stretch model, and a redesigned Sebring. Forward thinking, if you ask me.
Oh come on now. You know GM cars are unstoppable too. That is when the brakes go out. Just kidding!
The Caliber seems to be underpowered, and a little hard on the eyes to view. Will be interesting to see what the new Sebring looks like, riding on a Galant chassis, I think. Too bad it is not a RWD car. Not too many smaller RWD cars to be found. Part of the success of the Mustang, no doubt.
Not sure what is going on at GM. Chevy ads said something about An American Revolution. Maybe the people are revolting -- look out!
Perhaps the Saturn imports, as in Opel will add some excitement for 2007 model year. Anything else new? Cadillac gets a redo of the CTS for 2007?
I read an article a few weeks ago regarding Ford considering offering a 5yr 70k warranty. I can't remember where I read it. Anyway, the article basically said the Ford bean counters figured it would cost about an additional $4 billion to do so and they couldn't afford it.
I found on warrantyweek.com. Ford spent just $3.986 billion on warranty claims in 2004 affecting 2.6% of their vehicles and GM spent $4.7 billion on 3% of their vehicles.
The "revolution" theme debuted with the 2004 Super Bowl. Not that it hasn't been used before by other manufacturers.
Remember the "Dodge Revolution" in the 80s?
Anyway, "American Revolution" is going to be combined with elements of the 1974 "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet" campaign. Chevy at the time offered red, white, and blue pinstriped editions of the Impala/Caprice, Chevelle, and Nova if memory serves.
It'll make everyone run to their Chevy dealer in a nostalgic reverie, right?
Overview: The Impala was introduced for 2000 as Chevrolet's flagship sedan, reviving a name that once graced a much larger, rear-drive car. It is a family sedan that essentially replaced the Lumina. In tests, we found its performance to be just average overall. The Impala's ride and handling are sound. And while its V6 gets the job done, it isn't as smooth or refined as the V6s found in the Honda Accord, Nissan Maxima, or Toyota Camry. Up front, head and leg room are generous, and the seats are reasonably comfortable. The rear is spacious, but the uncomfortable bench seat is too low and its cushion is too short.
Just a review from Consumers Report...the report you pay for. Not exactly inspiring, doesn't make you want to run out to buy one!
Those numbers for minivan sales in Canada look a little odd to me.
Sales of the GM (Uplander and Montana) are up significantly from '05 to '06 (up 30% and 36% respectively despite very old platforms) while the sales of the 'industry leaders' (Dodge and Sienna) are down? Huh?
Where's the Odyssey in those numbers? Does the Caravan numbers include the Grand Caravan and/or Chysler Town&Country?
Do we really need the Uplander? Isn't it just a mini van with a hood on the front?
The factory that makes the Uplander and its cousins will be closed as part of the GM re-organization announced several months ago.
It appears that GM will replace the mini-vans with its new cross-overs. The Saturn Outlook and the Buick (forgot its name), have already been announced. I believe Chevy will have one, but not Pontiac.
Chrysler will have a cheaper version of it's mini van coming out soon,
I thought they already had one.
Chrysler did keep the Voyager around for a bit, even after the Plymouth nameplate was dropped. They just slapped a Chrysler badge on it and changed the grille a bit. It's gone now, though.
I know there's still a short wheelbase, 4-cyl version of the Dodge Caravan around, but I don't know if Chrysler still has one or not. It still has 3 rows of seats, but less cargo area in back.
I thought entry-level models of the Caravan/Town & Country were already pretty cheap? I dunno though, minivans don't register on my radar, and hopefully never will! :P
As for US sales though, here's the link to www.autosite.com. Just note that the header that reads "March 2006" should actually be "April 2005".
My understanding of the Canadian market is that Canadians on average are less willing to go into debt than in the US.
It is no secret GM sells the Uplander family of vans at discount rates and with low interest financing to boot.
Add to that the GM Vans are probably fairly inexpensive to own and maintain, and you have a modest number of people in LaBatt Heaven.
Unfortunately for the GM minivans, the numbers are not near enough to keep their factory from the chopping block. These vans will not be here much longer.
The Cross-overs should be able to pick up some slack, IMO.
Chrysler will have a cheaper version of it's mini van coming out soon, about $2,000 less as an option to a used vehicle. Should bring down the trade in value of people who have purchased. Here is the sales numbers of mini vans in Canada; Top-selling minivans
2006* 2005 Dodge Caravan 19,856 21,493 Chevrolet Uplander 7,758 5,961 Pontiac Montana SV6 7,009 5,156 Ford Freestar 4,241 5,349 Toyota Sienna 3,770 4,108
Do we really need the Uplander? Isn't it just a mini van with a hood on the front?
The GM vans are built in the Doraville, GA plant which is scheduled to close at the end of the 2008 model year. So the once-ballyhooed "crossover sport vans" will be put out of their misery.
Also, Ford will close the Atlanta plant that makes the Taurus in October of this year.
Meanwhile, in West Point, GA, Kia is planning to break ground on its first US assembly plant.
There's a metaphor in here somewhere; can someone put it in writing?
Comments
I disagree if we are comparing what cars we want to buy.
Sometimes you guys are talking about the larger issue and sometimes the more personal one. Why does anyone's personal autobuying decision factor in the "groundbreaking" factor? The issue is, is THIS car right for me.
I am not even sure that GM needs all its new products to be groundbreaking. No Camry buyers buy the Camry because it is groundbreaking (since it isn't). Wouldn't we all agree that the vast majority of auto purchases are by people who just want something that is dependable, has reasonable utility (4 doors and a trunk and 25 mpg or so), is decent looking, and is reasonably priced? People choose the Camry over the Lucerne because of rhe reliability factor, no?
The Solstice/Sky may help GM, but a car like that, or even a groundbreaking CTS, is not going to save the company.
To succeed in America (and I mean that to include producting cars IN America), GM needs: (a) some concessions from the UAW and (b) REAL STATISTICS that show that their products is as dependable as the foreigners.
Since none of us has any faith in the reliability numbers, GM can not make the showing necessary in (b). I doubt word-of-mouth re GM reliability is going to help enough.
GM could probably have had many thousands more sales (with same levels of quality/reliability) of Buicks and Pontiacs if it had gotta-have, knockout styling like the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Magnum. They can probably find some nice styling cues/themes from their past, but definitely not fake portholes.
Buick could look at 60's Riv and Pontiac the first few Grand Prixs. With some exceptions (Corvette, Solstice, Cads) GM has mediocre/bland styling. When they want to extend the envelope, we get the Aztek or the comic book Camaro show car. Its either bland or Bizarre. Can they steal some stylists from Acura, Chrysler, BMW or for gosh sakes even Hyundai.
You cannot compare Toyota to GM. Toyota has an excellent reputation in the marketplace for building highly reliable, solid vehicles. On the other hand, GM has a reputation for building products of variable quality and absent of compelling features.
GM has a bad reputation to overcome, while Toyota does not, which means that GM has no choice but to make dramatic leaps ahead of its rivals so that it gets positive attention and attracts more buyers. Years of building mediocre products has given us the current results -- falling sales, falling market share, and economic losses.
To succeed in America (and I mean that to include producting cars IN America), GM needs: (a) some concessions from the UAW and (b) REAL STATISTICS that show that their products is as dependable as the foreigners.
Concessions from the UAW will not create profits. Despite all the talk of "legacy costs", GM could completely eliminate them and it would still lose money. Cost reductions don't help if people don't buy the products.
As for "real data", we are swimming in it, and we know the results of it: a quality gap still exists, albeit not consistently across all products and not at the same levels across the board.
Building another Blandmobile will ensure GM will continue to slide. It needs to build some interesting, innovative products in key segments so that it can sell such products in large numbers. It's nice to have a car such as the Solstice succeed, but selling 20,000 units in a 7 million unit market won't really accomplish much, unless it pulls people into showrooms to buy other products. Given that the G6 appears to be a flop except on the rental lots, it doesn't seem to be working so far.
We are? WHAT real data?
I agree that the Solstice isn't enough. Nor the CTS. Nor the Escalade.
Do we need a groundbreaking sedan for middle-America? Would they even know how to drive it?
Again, what are the biggest-selling cars in America? Can GM build a competitive vehicle? Does the competitive vehicle need to be "groundbreaking" or does it need to meet the criteria I outlined above, which does not include being groundbreaking?
I guess a couple think if they keep repeating the same constant criticism that they will just make the company go away.
Even the idea of portholes is criticized; were they ever 'real' portholes? Are air-bleeding portholes needed now for motor cooling?
T
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Toyota Corolla total 36,155
Honda Accord total 31,608
Honda Civic total 31,259
Chevrolet Impala 25,879
Nissan Altima 20,176
Chevrolet Cobalt 19,249
Odds would be pretty high that the houses that these ladies came from would be significantly different. On the finer points of styling, Mercedes would be the original with panache while the Buick was the ersatz Jaguar/Taurus/etc.
You'd think so, but the reality would be that they both are woefully bad. the GM is better than before - by a small margin, but the Mercedes are... well, they look and feel like they are price-built assembly-line cars no different from Lexus or Infinity. The term I use and hear as well on various forums is "plastic-cedes".
So while Mercedes has fallen a lot, GM is doing what Hyundai did to GM a decade ago - try to build a better Chevy for less. I really think if GM can wean itself from its corrupt and inept management, it can survive this quite easily. The problem really isn't the marketing or styling but the rotten apples at the top.
JD Power earns millions selling its data to the automotive industry. Obviously, the industry sees some value in it, otherwise it wouldn't purchase it. (And please don't assume that what you get for free online is the entirety of the data that JD Power generates, you don't get all of it because you aren't paying for it.)
Despite complaints from the GM fans, Consumer Reports provides the largest survey pool of any reliability survey on the market. I've also posted the survey, which makes it pretty clear that despite the bogus allegations made by some posters here, the survey is neutral, and the survey pool large enough to make it useful.
So there is plenty of data, and as it generally correlates, it is consistent enough to be useful. In my experience, the only people who seem to have a problem with it are GM fans (which is ironic, considering that CR and JD Power actually give some distinctions to certain GM products.)
Do we need a groundbreaking sedan for middle-America? Would they even know how to drive it?
Of course they do, they were buying Accords with OHC multi-valve motors and variable valve timing while increasingly ignoring GM products that languish with pushrod motors that lack the same sophistication and smoothness. Soon, I expect that many will be buying Camry hybrids with the same fervor.
Obviously, consumers like technology if it translates into things that they like, whether that be refinement, fit-and-finish, reliability, performance, etc. Disrespecting the consumer, and assuming that the consumer doesn't appreciate good products is what got the domestics in trouble in the first place. It is sometimes possible to fool the consumer at the beginning of a product cycle, as Hyundai did with its unreliable Excels of the '80's, but that sort of cynical treatment of the customer will generally lead a company to eventually fail as the word gets out and consumers learn what to avoid. That is what GM has done to itself, and it will have to work hard and generate consistent results to work its way back.
Correct. So, why are more and more folks buying Camry's/Accords (and Chysler 300's) and fewer and fewer folks buying GM? Is it entirely the fault of 'media bias'?
"Wouldn't we all agree that the vast majority of auto purchases are by people who just want something that is dependable, has reasonable utility (4 doors and a trunk and 25 mpg or so), is decent looking, and is reasonably priced?"
Don't forget 'piece of mind'.
Toyota (rightly or wrongly) is perceived as giving the owner 'piece of mind'. Many of those folks who have LEFT GM over the last 5-10-20 years have done so because they HAVEN'T had 'piece of mind' and a feeling of the warm-fuzzies with their GM product.
So, the question becomes (talking about the larger issue here): how does GM get butts BACK into their cars? If Toyota/Honda owners of appliance grade cars (Civic/Corolla and Camry/Accord) are seeking 'piece of mind' more than anything else, and they are happy with their current rides, how else do you expect GM to reverse their trend WITHOUT offering groundbreaking vehicles?
So, the question becomes (talking about the larger issue here): how does GM get butts BACK into their cars? If Toyota/Honda owners of appliance grade cars (Civic/Corolla and Camry/Accord) are seeking 'piece of mind' more than anything else, and they are happy with their current rides, how else do you expect GM to reverse their trend WITHOUT offering groundbreaking vehicles?
When I said "dependable," I meant that to include your "peace of mind" factor.
Maybe GM needs to say, "Listen, I know you are busy. You can't afford to be without your car when it is in the shop. I know our cars are as dependable as the competition. More dependable, in fact. So, if you EVER have to have your GM car or truck repaired, if you have that repair done at a GM-authorized service shop, we will lend you another GM car to use, at no cost. Because your time is valuable, and being without your car wastes your time."
And I really like the idea of pushing its better cars into the rental fleet, instead of its models equipped at a basic level.
I'm all for GM making groundbreaking stuff. I just don't know that that is what will save the company.
I agree with you 100% on that.
Interesting sidelight: Automotive News reported recently that Lori Queen, a GM executive, made some disparaging remarks in an e-mail about Consumer Reports. It seems the magazine gave only a lukewarm review of the "all new" Cobalt, plus the car earned a much worse than average first-year reliability record.
Two weeks later, a letter to the editor from CEO Rick Wagoner apologized for her remarks, without mentioning her by name, and commended Consumer Reports for the fine work they do.
How would you like to be criticized in public by your top executive?
Didn't a lot of folks leave GM because they wanted MPG and GM just didn't offer it? And then once they were driving Toyotas, they just stuck with Toyotas? [I'd guess that only applies to folks who switched in the late 70s]
In my case, I left Ford, after lousy reliability with a 1990 Sable, purchased new and properly maintained.
Replaced with 3 Toyotas and 1 Nissan, and I'm not looking back!
BTW, when I sold the Sable in 2000, I kept the 1980 Volvo 240 I still had at the time, because the Volvo was far more dependable, even at age 20.
Double BTW, the Sable was arguably the best-looking car I ever owned -- check my profile.
In order to win back buyers, it's not enough to simply imitate the new leaders and innovators. (Not many people are going to want a Chevy Camry or a Ford Accord, when they can get the genuine article from a more trustworthy source.)
At least Daimler seems to have learned this with the 300, by building a product that was distinctive and unique, rather than building a soapbar that would naturally not measure up to its inspiration. Looking at cars such as the Impala, which ventures into new standards of blandness, or the Cobalt that can't possibly compete with the more reliable and appealing rivals, you can't help but wonder what GM is thinking that it would go to all this trouble to build stuff that is so uninspiring and unimpressive and would doom them to finding their greatest success in rental lots across America. An attractive design doesn't cost any more to create than does an unattractive one.
For a woman, the Buick would probably be more appealing and it is not offensive, but it sure aint leading edge, and it will never become a classic!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Two different things IMO.
'Dependable' is something which we can ATTEMPT to define quantitatively (JD Power surveys, CR ratings, etc.)
But 'Peace of mind' is essentially the consumers PERCEPTION of their vehicle purchase. And that often includes past experiences with other cars. If they PERCEIVE a new Camry will be more dependable (or that a new Impala might not be) then they will lean towards the Toyota.
It's been said before: it doesn't take long for a manufacturer to screw up a good reputation, but it will take a long take to get it back. GM can make decent, reliable transportation for years but they won't get that reputation back quickly.
Offering something notably DIFFERENT (as DCX did with the 300) can short circuit that process. Which is one reason why I think that GM must offer something positive (groundbreaking) which their competition doesn't.
Low beltline leads to higher mortality in side impacts from SUVs, eh?
2 buddies of mine bought Magnums. They are both gone, now. They hated them. Couldn't see a thing. I asked if they knew how to use their mirrors. They both glared at me.
:-)
ps Both wives hated the Magnums.
I agree that the majority of American car buyers need "peace of mind" when buying a car. Not so much for those of us who might gravitate towards a BMW or a Porsche, but that's not the big fat middle of the car market.
That's exactly what's promised with a new Buick purchase since ???? at our dealership. That's true even of cars out of warranty. That's true of used car purchases. Perhaps that why our perception of our Buicks has been so good. Take it in for something I can't repair myself out-of-warranty and I have a loaner car with a smile. The bill for repair seems to be normal for dealerships of the American brands.
Increasing the warranty length drastically would be another good start for improving perception. If the company thinks they're good to 60K and 5 years, shouldn't the buyer. 100K and 10 years on powertrain would be a great icing layer also.
For many of the cars the groundbreaking doesn't need to be some styling change but could be the warranty change. I don't think the Camry slant-eyed rear lights and puffed out front fenders and the hog snout is needed to give cues to Buick type buyers that a good car is there; the Lexi do it without all that. In some cases the Lexus model, Avalon, and Camry now all seem to look the same.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But the increasingly common mega-dealers will pad your repair bill no matter whose manufacturer nameplate is on the building.
I patronize dealerships only when I have to -- warranty and recall work -- and hold my nose when I do so. Otherwise, I use an independently owned repair shop. No loaners, but free shuttle service.
so the free loaner offered by the mfr won't really help drive people to the brand
You can become so fixed on what your competition is selling, that soon you are building knock-offs of their products. While say a Sonata may be seen as a knock-off of an Accord, Hyundai is able to pull it off by offering more content, such as the stability control and a V6 for the price of an Accord. But how many companies can afford to do the same? How many more cars need be Japan clones? Let Japan and Korea duke it out, and stay out of the fight.
GM has lost so many of these copy the leader fights. Why not learn after the, " let's build a Beetle " fiasco of the Corvair era, that unless you do one better, have it ready for prime time before the curtain call, then do not go head to head. The last years of Corvairs, I am sure are better, but my goodness, if they did not have it all correct, why push it out to the customer. The Nova was a pretty sturdy RWD basic car with a six cylinder, or for a power play some neat V8s. Certainly was safer and easier to live with than driving the VW. Now if GM had made the Corvair a mid-engine, or more of a specialty sports car, then yes, perhaps it could have made it. But, like the Chevette was to foreign baby sized cars, the Corvair was not the best effort.
Now GM could sell in high volumes, some China/GM smaller cars I guess. Those would sell on price alone, and not do much for the GM image in America, nor employ any workers here in the States. I, for one, would rather see a smaller GM making cars that would make the designers of the Malibu and Camaro back in the late '60's proud of. Car which say buy me- gotta buy me, when you walk into the show room. Just being different, like the Charger, ain't going to cut it. I am talking bringing back beauty and grace to a modern day car. And please, put some real tires on these cars. My word, cheap tires, with plastic hub caps on Buicks??? Sorry, but Hyundai is out classing Buick on that front. No need to even talk engines, and stability control, an automatic air conditioning and such, when they won't even give you a nice set of shoes.
If Buick had a RWD, with fresh styling, as much engine as a Hyundai, the basic safety content for the modern age, pretty shoes, it could sell for $5k more than say a Sonata. As it is the Sonata and Azera look as good, if not better, and offer more in yet another FWD offering. Add Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and all the rest, and well let's just say it -- Buick is lost. Being yet another good FWD car means you are selling from the same pie, and fighting for the little slices left. A LaCrosse looks fine, but something like the Altima still stands out. After all these years, it stands out more than the latest offerings of GM. Altima compared to the G6? Sort of a cool and tepid. They (Pontiac)need to go from Tepid back to a Tempest !
-Loren
Anyone out there owned one of these interesting cars. I say interesting due to the boxer engine and AWD. Are they still having any issues with that style of engines? Was it leaks?
Would you buy a Subaru? I see the Subaru Legacy is looking a bit more stylish. As for the rest of the Subaru line, it ain't my cup o' tea.
Seems like for all they have to offer, they would sell more cars. Not effective advertising; or is it in the number of dealerships, or ???
-Loren
Subaru models have big windows and get 5 star ratings. Volvos have great visibility and big windows.
My wife's 2004 Mercedes C240 Station wagon has the most amazing vision and these cars are safe. If Princess Diana had her seat belt on she would be alive today.
By the way, we have had no problems with my wife's Mercedes or the 1999 before it.....and they are built as solid as any car...and the steering and handling are amazing. I would chance another one because I think they will get their act together soon. And, they are built to be safe! Before we picked up the 1999 they gave us a 10 year old loaner. It was rock solid with great handling. I would rather buy that than most of the new cars out there!
The salesman could show you safety features that American cars don't even think about, like a pin in the back door so that if the car is rear ended, you have a greater chance of opening the back doors. American manufacturers would rather hide these things, like exploding gas tanks, or cars rolling over etc.
One more thing too. Look at a 10 year old or even 20 year old Mercedes, and it looks better than most of the new American cars out there!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
She will go with the Altima or Camry. She liked the Suburu but felt it was rough riding, not a great interior.
She likes the Camry, but wasn't pleased about the dealerships attitude....doing her a favor by showing her a car. Overall, she liked the Altima.
It must be nice to be so popular you don't have to worry about trying too hard with your customers.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This would not be an issue.
The structural rigidity of a car is from the frame, not the 3/16" sheet metal that makes up the roof.
The Astra with the panoramic windshield has the same frame. It just replaces some of the tissue thin sheet metal with glass.
I suppose a rolled panoramic windshield Astra may shower you with a few more bits of glass. But the glass will be the tempered safety variety that breaks up into little pieces.
There will be no safety differences at all. Again, the only issue I would see is heat build up in sunnier climes. If it has a shading feature as suggested above, even that will not be much of a problem.
There's a girl at work who bought a Dodge Magnum, and she seems to like it. Before that she had a Jeep Wrangler, but I think she just outgrew it really quickly, especially once she got married.
I've driven a Magnum before, and as long as you don't have to back up do anything that requires too much looking out the back, it's not TOO bad. In those types of maneuvers though, it feels kinda like how my '85 Silverado did way back in the day when it had a camper shell on it.
As narrow as those rear windows look on the Magnum from the outside, well they're actually about half that size when you're inside looking out! :surprise:
That exact formula did a lot to rebuild Hyundai's reputation, but that was only half of it. The other half was building better cars that didn't *need* that warranty very often. I'm sure the GM beancounters have run the numbers on longer warranties and pooed themselves when they saw the results. The warranty won't work if the vehicles don't improve dramatically.
For instance, Chrysler started their 5/50K powertrain warranty way back in 1962, partly in response to the '57 models, which had poor reliability and that, coupled with a recession in '58, did some serious damage to the company's reputation. Oddly though, the biggest problem with the '57 models was rust, water leaks, body integrity, etc. The powertrains were the LAST thing that was going to fail on them! And I don't know if anyone would have dared to guarantee that a car body wouldn't start rusting within 5 years or 50,000 miles back then!
Most people I've known who have had something major go, like an engine or transmission, usually have it fail within the first year or two. So I don't think bumping a powertrain warranty from 3/36K to 5/60K or even a bit longer would really cost the company much. Most people I've known who have had components fail around the 60K mark are people who just didn't take care of their cars and simply went too long between oil changes or let it run low, didn't change the coolant in time (back when cars still used the green stuff) etc.
Weren't there some pretty big loopholes in those lengthy warranties of the 60s? Like you had to go to the dealer (only) for all service and maintenance, including inspections every 6 months or so? This was obviously before the Magnuson-Moss Act.
Over at DaimlerChrysler, they've already got the Caliber, which is selling quite well. To come: Jeep Compass, Patriot, and redesigned Wrangler, including a new 4-door stretch model, and a redesigned Sebring. Forward thinking, if you ask me.
The Caliber seems to be underpowered, and a little hard on the eyes to view. Will be interesting to see what the new Sebring looks like, riding on a Galant chassis, I think. Too bad it is not a RWD car. Not too many smaller RWD cars to be found. Part of the success of the Mustang, no doubt.
Not sure what is going on at GM. Chevy ads said something about An American Revolution. Maybe the people are revolting -- look out!
Perhaps the Saturn imports, as in Opel will add some excitement for 2007 model year. Anything else new? Cadillac gets a redo of the CTS for 2007?
-Loren
The american companies (gm/Ford) have closed the percieved gap.
I found on warrantyweek.com. Ford spent just $3.986 billion on warranty claims in 2004 affecting 2.6% of their vehicles and GM spent $4.7 billion on 3% of their vehicles.
"Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet!" That's going to sell me!
Remember the "Dodge Revolution" in the 80s?
Anyway, "American Revolution" is going to be combined with elements of the 1974 "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet" campaign. Chevy at the time offered red, white, and blue pinstriped editions of the Impala/Caprice, Chevelle, and Nova if memory serves.
It'll make everyone run to their Chevy dealer in a nostalgic reverie, right?
As long as Chevrolet is retreading an old Camaro, how about:
The Heartbeat of America is today's Chevrolet (and have done by Heuy Lewis), or
See the USA in your Chevrolet, or
Like a rock.
Couldn't resist.
Just a review from Consumers Report...the report you pay for. Not exactly inspiring, doesn't make you want to run out to buy one!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Sales of the GM (Uplander and Montana) are up significantly from '05 to '06 (up 30% and 36% respectively despite very old platforms) while the sales of the 'industry leaders' (Dodge and Sienna) are down? Huh?
Where's the Odyssey in those numbers? Does the Caravan numbers include the Grand Caravan and/or Chysler Town&Country?
Has someone been into the Moosehead this a.m.?
The factory that makes the Uplander and its cousins will be closed as part of the GM re-organization announced several months ago.
It appears that GM will replace the mini-vans with its new cross-overs. The Saturn Outlook and the Buick (forgot its name), have already been announced. I believe Chevy will have one, but not Pontiac.
I thought they already had one.
Do we really need the Uplander? Isn't it just a mini van with a hood on the front?
IMO that was an improvement over the other "cookie cutter" mini-vans. To bad it didn't go over with the buying public.
I thought they already had one.
Chrysler did keep the Voyager around for a bit, even after the Plymouth nameplate was dropped. They just slapped a Chrysler badge on it and changed the grille a bit. It's gone now, though.
I know there's still a short wheelbase, 4-cyl version of the Dodge Caravan around, but I don't know if Chrysler still has one or not. It still has 3 rows of seats, but less cargo area in back.
I thought entry-level models of the Caravan/Town & Country were already pretty cheap? I dunno though, minivans don't register on my radar, and hopefully never will! :P
As for US sales though, here's the link to www.autosite.com. Just note that the header that reads "March 2006" should actually be "April 2005".
It is no secret GM sells the Uplander family of vans at discount rates and with low interest financing to boot.
Add to that the GM Vans are probably fairly inexpensive to own and maintain, and you have a modest number of people in LaBatt Heaven.
Unfortunately for the GM minivans, the numbers are not near enough to keep their factory from the chopping block. These vans will not be here much longer.
The Cross-overs should be able to pick up some slack, IMO.
Here is the sales numbers of mini vans in Canada;
Top-selling minivans
2006* 2005
Dodge Caravan 19,856 21,493
Chevrolet Uplander 7,758 5,961
Pontiac Montana SV6 7,009 5,156
Ford Freestar 4,241 5,349
Toyota Sienna 3,770 4,108
Do we really need the Uplander? Isn't it just a mini van with a hood on the front?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Also, Ford will close the Atlanta plant that makes the Taurus in October of this year.
Meanwhile, in West Point, GA, Kia is planning to break ground on its first US assembly plant.
There's a metaphor in here somewhere; can someone put it in writing?