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
Guess we are different.
I like front engine rear wheel drive cars.
5 years ago, that limited my choice to MB and BMW, and the bigger Lexi (would never pay the top dollar for the rwd Jaguars).
Now that the CTS is on the market, I look at it as a viable alternative to BMW.
The Azera and Sonata have stability control.
Does GM have stability control on any of their $20K cars?
-Loren
Big is what most Americans want. I haven't been in a Caddie lately but I am glad they are learning soft and spongy isn't necessarily better (as I told an ex girlfriend).
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I guess you can prove my theory wrong. (Last line of the previous post) Have you ever owned a BMW or did you simply look at and consider one?
If you have owned a BMW did you actually buy a Cadillac or just toying with the thought.
How about Toyota? The Toyota Camry Hybrid base model at about $26,000 (plus a $2600 tax credit) puts it close to this class range. It has a safety management system that includes traction control & skid control and has 7 airbags standard.
BS.
Who had a MORE rapid growth in demand in the 80's and 90's: Toyota or GM? Toyota.
Who had more available capital to keep up with demand? GM.
What about the rapid growth in demand that GM WAS able to (apparently) meet following WWII?
"Large scale manufacturing cannot be compared to commodities such as Head and Shoulders or television companies."
Why not? If I have Product 'A' in a market, what OTHER measure would you use to gauge your success in that market?
Are you saying that the success of Toyota should NOT be gauged by looking at the change in their market share? How then WOULD you gauge their success?
If you have owned a BMW did you actually buy a Cadillac or just toying with the thought.
I have owned a BMW in the past, yes. My sister and brother in law have had BMWs for the past 10 years. My brother owns a BMW.
Right now I live in Manhattan and do not keep a car. As I may move, I am thinking about getting one. A BMW or a CTS are both viable options.
-Loren
Too simplistic. Again, read the WSJ article. GM had capital yes. But how do you explain to shareholders that you are going to either make an all new 500 million SUV factory when you have a profitable 400 million SUV factory already in operation?
GM opted to spend its capital keeping the existing factory running. Under the circumstances at the time, I think the SH would accept no less.
PASSENGER CARS:
Premium Luxury Car Lexus LS
Entry Luxury Car Cadillac CTS
Luxury/Large Car Hyundai Azera
Premium Mid-Size Car Volkswagen Passat
Mid-Size Car Mercury Milan
Image Compact Car MINI Cooper
Compact Car Honda Civic
Sports Car Chevrolet Corvette
Sporty Car Acura RSX
The Cadillac CTS did win this award and it was noted in a GM inner office memo or pep rally for the company. These awards are of some value but cars are awarded based on a variety of factors, subjective, factual, opinions....etc.
This one seems pretty minor but congratulations are in order and it is nice to see CTS can't be written off.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
You've almost proved my theory wrong. Drive one, buy one and my theory is out the door.
My brother-in-laws CTS has a drooping headliner, worn carpet and basically looks like it's been trashed after 2 years. He's not hard on cars.
Right now I live in Manhattan
Cool, but not much use for anything with 4 wheels there except for cabs.
Cabs NOW there is a good place for Cadillacs. My last trip to Houston I was driven into town in a beat up chevy with no A/C. On the way back to the airport I caught a ride with a buddy in a "private" cab. It was a Lincoln Town Car. No worry about the 0-60 time, or that it wallows on curves or that it gets poor mileage (what doesn't in traffic - oh except for my hybrid)it was THE way to sit in traffic.
A three series may have good seats for curves but for sitting in traffic give me a Town car with a driver
New York is Town Car city.
I use them when I have to take clients to multiple locations (I am a property manager) and when I go out for the night. The leg room, head room and plush, yet firm seats cannot be beat.
I only order non-modified Town Cars. The stretch versions make me motion sick (plus, at my age if you pick up a date in a stretch Town Car she will assume you are hiding some short comings :P )
At end of April 2006, BMW sold 31,779 3 Series to 17,913 CTS.
I'm wrong, maybe we should be writing the CTS off...let me reconsider (haha).
Those are serious numbers logic1 because not only is the 3 taking buyers away from Cadilac but they are coming from somewhere else too. Probably the boomers who are making it are buying bimmers (boomers buying bimmers, I like that) instead of the usual I've finally made it car - Caddie or Lincoln!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
All I'm saying is that GM had more available capital with which to invest. Much more. Yet Toyota cleaned their clock as evidenced by the massive surge in demand for their product and the legions of folks LEAVING GM for Toyota.
You seem to be implying that one shouldn't pay any attention to a halving of market share because......it was inevitable? GM's loss of market share was due to....space aliens?
Yes, but the test is very unscientific. They add in it is new, it is half the price of the other cars in the segment, it offers a lot of value.
It is quite a coup for Hyundai, but it is one survey that is a mixture of good common sense and giving credit where it is deserved.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Nah, just kidding
I think when you look at auto companies world wide, a possibility presents itself.
The companies that are currently doing the best are French, German and Japanese. The British auto companies are gone. The Italian, a joke. The US auto companies compromised.
The common factor I see among the French, German and Japanese in the 1970s through the late 1980s is a protected domestic market, direct of indirect government support that allowed them to invest more capital without getting pressured from their share holders, and cheaper capital for investment.
If GM could have convinced its shareholders in 1990 that they should go without fat dividends while GM invested billions in new factories in spite the fact its existing factories were profitable, then GM may have been able to stave off Toyota. Personally, I do not see how that ever could have been possible.
Another theory I have, which I fear if I detail too much will be shot down by the mods as going too far afield is that the US alone among the major economies has a sprawling lifestyle that can be supported only by the automobile. I believe our auto to mass transit use is something like 89% auto, 11% mass transit. Europe and Japan are almost dead opposite.
In my opinion, this is not sustainable. Indeed, no nation's economy could have created such a bizarre, sprawling lifestyle. The only way it could have worked would be for other nation's to concentrate their internal investment on sustaining the lifestyle.
Well, yes. But if I toss my cookies the mood kind of dies.
How about Toyota? The Toyota Camry Hybrid base model at about $26,000 (plus a $2600 tax credit) puts it close to this class range. It has a safety management system that includes traction control & skid control and has 7 airbags standard.
Actually VSC can now be had on a 4cyl camry. (although i hear its pretty hard to find em equipped with VSC, without going overboard on the options)
I know the Solstice has it as an option.
I believe it is available on some of the other new sedans as well. Moreover, if I recall, GM only recently announced a push to make stabilitrack and option or standard on almost all their cars.
In my experience, the Town Car has more comfortable room than the Explorer.
Explorer are big sloppy vehicles and though you have to allow for the fact they are cabs.....I would have no desire to own one.
If you tow a boat or carry heavy merchandise, the truck base Utes have their plusses. I never understood them as basic transportation, however.
Let's assume, for a moment, that Japan had a completely open market in the 70's through the late 80's (or even upto 2006).
What vehicles do you think GM of North America could have offered which would have gained them market share in Japan? Vegas? Chevettes? Pintos? The Japanese home market is small (and micro) car heaven. It's not like GM was sitting on several world-beater micro and small cars here in the U.S. that they couldn't sell in Japan due to a 'closed market'.
"...the US alone among the major economies has a sprawling lifestyle that can be supported only by the automobile. I believe our auto to mass transit use is something like 89% auto, 11% mass transit. Europe and Japan are almost dead opposite."
And this is relevant to GM's loss of market share....how? Americans buy lots of cars - yes. Americans drive themselves around lots and lots more than Europeans and Japanese - yes.
Waitaminute, I think I understand now. What you're saying is that the more folks actually DRIVE, the more time folks spend behind the wheel, the more inclined they'll be to prefer European or Japanese; right? Under this theory, the more oriented we become to a society built around the automobile, the less we'd prefer GM?
Not sure I agree, but it's an interesting theory....
GM and all the rest, must be very worried.
Short term reliability seems to be good with Hyundai now. Still have no idea how good a five to ten year old car these are, as the new, more reliable cars, seem to be those of the last few years.
-Loren
In the early days of SUV's I had 3 Explorers. They were not bad for the times. I quit driving them in 2000. Would'nt you know it, My company then gives me an Explorer as a company vehicle. It's beating me to death, rough riding, twichy on the interstate at speed and poor gas milage. However it does go off road and is good in the mud and winter. It's a pain the rest of the time.
I have not drove his yet so I'm interested to see if it has a "cheap" suspension like most mid size cars in this price range. They do give you a lot of content for the $.
Do any of you even have kids? SUV's/minivans are about the only vehicle that can handle that lifestyle. Always need the capability to carry up to 4-5 kids(in the back) and all the stuff that goes with them. A sedan just does not make sense. I know my dad always put us in a sedan but the extra kids used to sleep in the back window when we traveled. It is different now. We go for a vacation and the back end gets packed full. I guess I could buy a trailer? That is why in the pickup line at school it is 90% SUV/Minivan.
Has anyone noticed the odd movement of Priuses as they roll down the highway. It is a slight wallow side-to-side. Is it because the heavy batteries are low in the car and the geometry of the suspension has to be compensating for that and still try to give a good Corolla ride? The look of the movement is a little like sitting in the rear of a DC9 type airplane with two engines under a high tail. The rotation is around the tail center rather than the body center.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well, my theory is one that needs a lot of detail to fully hash it out. When you go into too much economic detail here, the mods - rightfully so, I understand and respect the rules - get annoyed.
Thumbnail of my theory is the US market got to where it is only because the Japanese, French and German makes with their regulated markets and government encouragement, invested huge sums of money and expertise in the US. Had they not done so, the Big 3 alone would not have been able to meet market demand, meaning the US probably would have had less sprawl, or at least figured out how to sprawl with mass transit.
I know many think China and India are going to become huge car markets like the US. I believe they will not. Simply because I believe the unique factors that lead to the post WWII US suburban economy cannot be duplicated.
Time will tell, I suppose.
Well, again, BMW is launching its new 3 and Cadillac is in the last year of the CTS. Especially in this segment, where the market is well informed, that plays a huge factor with sales.
Remember too, BMW continues to grow while GM continues to shrink.
But since Cadillac went art+science RWD, its sales have been growing. The rest of GM not so well, although one hopes they are learning from Cadillac.
Funny, last Friday I was in a Lincoln Town Car cab in Washington. I was glad in a way, because it is a big tank of a thing and you feel fairly safe...though in that traffic you never really feel safe. On the return trip I had an Explorer. These made good cabs, but I wouldn't want to be driving around in these big dumb vehicles. I have been in 2 Camry cabs lately and they were smooth, quiet, tasteful interior, comfortable...and probably safer, because they are made with safety in mind. The Lincoln and the Explorer are big sloppy vehicles and though you have to allow for the fact they are cabs.....I would have no desire to own one.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
We will see. I read the numbers differently although that is what happens with statistics. The 3 Series is the leader in this category, with several contenders in a close second spot...
IMO I read the numbers to say, Caddie's numbers are getting smaller, and 3 Series is up a whopping 50% which means more than a new model at play here. Remember too, BMW continues to grow while GM continues to shrink.
Statistics can be used to prove almost anything, but that is the way I would read it.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
At least it hasn't rolled over yet!!!!!!
How does a company not acknowledge that their vehicles have a major safety issue, and try to solve the problem before more lives are lost?
As I said, I tested the Explorer before buying my Jeeps. I can't understand why it was a #1 seller. Rough, no power, no trade in value, vague steering, shudders to get moving....that was enough to stop buying American right there.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Wishbone front, multilink rear. The suspension tuning is rather soft to suit Americans accustomed to marshmallow cars. European and Asian-market Sonatas get tighter specs.
Well, that could be a very interesting side discussion as I've a few thoughts (go figure) on this issue.
Short version - I don't think that sprawl/poor mass transit is due to the mass availabity of vehicles.
"...the Japanese, French and German makes...invested huge sums of money and expertise in the US. Had they not done so, the Big 3 alone would not have been able to meet market demand..."
That makes no sense to me.
The domestic auto industry would NOT have been able to meet market demand without foreign makes building plants in the U.S.? Why not? Are you saying that if there were no foreign competition to take some of the load, that the domestics simply would have been unable to build enough cars to meet demand?
So, GM lost market share because they were unable to produce enough cars and, out of frustration at the empty car lots at the Chevy dealer, folks HAD to turn to the foreign makes?
Strange, I don't recall any shortage of vehicles on the domestic lots in the late 70's and into the 80's. If anything, the ONLY ones who were having problems keeping a selection of cars on their lots were the imports.
"I know many think China and India are going to become huge car markets like the US. I believe they will not."
Well, yes and no. China and India won't approach the % of car ownership as we have in the states (not without a fusion energy breakthrough leading to plunging energy prices), but just based on the shear population #'s involved, both China and India will become extremely important markets.
Nope, hadn't noticed. I'm not that fond of the driving dynamics of my dad's Prius (a bit too slow for my tastes and the tires give up quickly), but I've never noticed any wallowing.
"Is it because the heavy batteries are low in the car and the geometry of the suspension has to be compensating for that and still try to give a good Corolla ride?"
I always thought that a low CG was a GOOD thing..... :confuse:
Yes. I do not think there was enough available capital in the economy to grow the market from around 9 million new cars per year to the current 16+million cars per year.
Arguably, GM could have accessed the foreign capital that Toyota, VW, Renault, etc. accessed to fund their expansion in the US market.
But much of the foreign makes investment capital came from organizations such as the Postal Fund in Japan and quasi government or direct government sources in Europe. Much of this money had to be invested in national assets by law. Because their options were limited, these financial companies were forced to be patient when it came to returns.
On the other hand, the US investors and banks were free to invest both in the US and elsewhere. Investing in an all new GM factory when GM already had profitable factories may have paid off handsomely in 10 years. But investing in US real estate, South American Loans (at least through the 1970s through the early 1980s), the tech industries, oil, etc. had instant high value returns.
It is not only the Big 3 that suffered from a derth of cheap capital. In almost every category, US heavy industry has declined in the face of foreign competition.
Unlike many here, I do not think that shows poor US management or labor. Rather it is because US capital was traditionally more free than capital in other markets and it went to where the profits were greater.
Looking back in 2006, investing in Toyota or GM in the mid-1990s made more sense than investing in Silcone Valley or Enron. At the time, the US capital markets were not interested.
Sure, GM, Ford and Daimler could have shrunk their dividend or killed their bottom line borrowing money to make what at the time would have been redundant facilities. But the shareholders would have killed management for that. Maybe they could have marketed themselves better.
but just based on the shear population #'s involved, both China and India will become extremely important markets.
We shall see. I think there are signs these markets may have already peaked. India is a democracy and does not have the ability to force change the way China can. There are many in China who are very worried about allowing any more sprawl and auto based life styles. Short money is betting on the latter winning. I am not so certain.
Agreed. That should help, not hurt.
The car is probably just softly sprung. It is not marketed toward performance drivers.
Speaking of which, I see where Honda has revived the double wishbone in the Civic.
Interesting, and misleading. GM's 4.51 million for 2005 was its lowest total since 1992 ("one phone call away from bankuptcy"), lower than the strike year of 1998, and well below its performance in the mid-80s. 2005 was also the first year that sales were higher outside the US than in it, a trend which shows no signs of abating. I'll be amazed if the General clears 4.3 million in the US this year. Comparing GM's performance over recent decades versus its more adept competitors gives ample cause for alarm.
When I take it for a test drive I'd like to have a mechanic check it out, does anybody know any decent mechanics for old domestics in the Hollywood area?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I dunno... Mom and Dad managed to put themselves, three kids, and all our crud in a '88 Colt Vista wagon just fine.
Ah, that's the low-rolling-resistance tires. They have a harder rubber compound which reduces the rolling drag for better mpg, but that also reduces grip and makes the car susceptble to wiggling on grooved pavement.
I went for the new GTI, myself. The hatchback design makes it practical as well as sporty.
:P
PS: Did you opt for the leather sport seats or with the cloth?
Now that you mention it, I've read about that from a few sources.
In my mind, one of the highlights of VW is the quality of the cloth they use. The GTI plaid and the ultrasuede GM has been using (but may stop?) in a few models is my favorite auto upholstery.
(new Rabbit - base price of $14,900)
How does a company not acknowledge that their vehicles have a major safety issue, and try to solve the problem before more lives are lost?
As I said, I tested the Explorer before buying my Jeeps. I can't understand why it was a #1 seller. Rough, no power, no trade in value, vague steering, shudders to get moving....that was enough to stop buying American right there."
Well, yes, you're right, and the rest of America are morons, that's why they made the Explorer #1 since the day it arrived - because it's so bad.
As to the rolling over comment - the NHTSA cleared the Explorer and Ford of any wrongdoing. In their exhaustive testing (Car & Driver did the same testing) they could not get an Explorer to roll over due to tire failure. Neither of them could. Also in their favor was the fact that no Explorers with any tires other than Firestone rolled over.
Firestone was making a bad tire - that's where the fault lies. Since the recall, Explorer rollovers have actually been LESS than Blazers, Jeeps, and I don't know about Trailblazers.
Ford has their share of issues - but this one, as was the exploding gas tanks in the GM trucks, was not their fault.
Funny how, even after the rollover craziness began, sales of Explorers remained above any other SUV in their class - again, because they're so bad.
What I don't understand is why GM immediately started putting Firestone tires on their SUVs..... Of course, different Firestone tires....