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
Loren
Adequate cars, good transportation cars, refreshed cars, just ain't gonna cut it. GM needs NEW cars. Solstice is a start. Look how lowly poor ol' Hyundai was at one time trying to sell poor cars here in the States, and look at the great turn around. Certainly GM can change, if they have a heartbeat left.
:shades: Loren
The majority of buyers want a nice and pleasant modern car. Many of them will think that a company that makes cars that look like they're from the '60s, will be as advanced as the '60s. They'll buy Hondas, which look like they're from 2010.
Muscle cars are revered because that was the Golden Age of American motoring. Well, start a NEW golden age instead!
Please, look what time of year it is. He states that he sold a small part for tax purposes. Perhaps he is lieing but who really knows?
I'm with you, but to be fair, the GTO was never developed with an S4 in mind and they are completely two different cars. It's kind of like comparing an BMW M5 to a Mustang. Both are fine cars, but the M5 is completely out of the Mustang's league in terms of performance, refinement, technology etc, and it's squarely reflected in the price and the fact the two cars are developed for very different reasons and purposes.
Perhaps he chose the GTO because it was 1/2 the price? The S4 starts at almost $50K!! Perhaps he really feels the GTO suits his lifestyle and needs better? Maybe I am wrong but the S4 is a smaller car?
Wonder if Safeway will want there milk brand name back? I know the Beretta stolen name was contested by the gun company, claiming it hurt the image of their quality products.
I guess Lucerne won't taint the milk
Loren
Who really knows but him and his chiefs? But one article I read said he wanted the tax advantages AND to force the price down so he could buy some more next year even cheaper. That does seem to be working. If he really thought he was losing out he should have sold it all. Not sure what is going on. Maybe he is playing chicken with GM. "let me on the board or I will sell it all and there goes your stock value" Wow, chicken with millions of mulla.
All hypothetical mergers aside, would anyone really want to buy GM given the enormous heathcare, and pension liability? Along with being anchored down with excess salaried and UAW employees
GM's market capitalization is so low these days, and there staffing levels are disportionately huge, each employee can probably cough up 20g (from being paid well for decades), and the employees should buy out the company.
Employee ownership is one way GM can correct the downward spiral. Rather than coming to work expecting entitlements, and unrealistic compensation, if the rank and file bought out the company, they can best address the pension liability, and pay structure.
They would have to make the decision to forgo the pension in place of larger stock gains, or bury to company. Six years ago GM was 80 dollars a share, and now its 18 and change. By eliminating the pension liability the company can easily exceed its 20 year highs.
Also if the employees had a larger stake in the companies future, nobody would ever let a car like the Aztec come to market.
Anyway, regarding GM.... I sat in the back of the new Buick Taurus....I mean LaCrosse and my head touches the roof (I'm 5'11"..not a giant).... I have sat in the back seat of a lot of other family sedans and my head does not touch the roof. I sat in the back of the new Impala and rested my head against the rear headrest and I was shocked to feel the metal frame against my skull. The ONLY other car that I experienced that in was the Neon. You should not feel metal when you place the back of your head against a head restraint/rest. Also, when getting out of the Impala's driver's seat...my shoe kept getting caught on the parking brake. When I sat in the new HHR, I could not believe how HUGE the blind spots are from the roof pillars....not only that...the sticker price was $25,000 and it STILL had DRUM brakes in the back.
What I'm saying is.... GM still doesn't know or care about what they are doing. They need to concentrate on making a several excellent cars instead of dozens of so-so cars. It's pretty pathetic.
I like your idea of employee ownership - unrealistic, but in the abstract, it would fix lots of their problems.
I think GM is only good if broken up. Only Toyota is big enough to do that. And they don't care.
JAE5
Reason for the lower headroom is the sleeker styling of the roof line and the higher cushion in the rear seat for better comfort.
Reason for the lower headroom is the sleeker styling of the roof line and the higher cushion in the rear seat for better comfort.
===end quote===
So what you are saying is that the Buick will feel good on your tush, but you may have a terrible headache due to your head hitting the ceiling??? Hummm? Ya know, the LaCrosse is not too bad a design. At first sight it looks good, sort of traditional rounded lines which should wear well in time. If it is not practical for seating four, and it is in that category, it may fail. I buy cars with consideration for seating two, but most wanting a sedan prefer good seating for four. As a whole, the package is not too bad for what I would need. Now price wise, is it at least $3K under the price of the Accord? If so it may be an average deal. Well, there is one other caveat of course, the future of the manufacturer. You buy a car, a dealership, and a manufacturer, so it is good when all the elements are doing well.
Loren
Drum brakes? I still see them on Camries and Accords. I guess they're cutting-edge technology when the Japanese use them, but plodding, old-fashioned, and obsolete when domestics use them.
I don't know if I would call the Lacrosse "sleek" although it isn't awful. I've seen leather/moonroof models advertised at 17.9K locally.
Do the same, and I'm 6-0. Also do this at car shows. This last year, "tried" to get into Pontiac Grand Prix and G6 back seats. Very difficult to even get in, then when in, lack of head room. Pontiac just does not seem to get it when designing 4-doors as does Accord and Camry. Most people buy a 4-door car because they expect to use the rear seat - either for kids or sometimes adults. If all else were equal between Pontiac and Accord/Camry, which it is not anyway, this back seat issue would be deal breaker for me. Do have to admit that the G6 looks nice, but the styling alone would not get me to buy it.
The G6 in general almost seems too "clean" to be attractive. So clean it's sterile. They may have gone too far the other way from the old cliche overdone Pontiac styling.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
You're always gonna have the people in the midwest who buy American made cars out of patriotism but if you go to the coasts and tell someone you really like your Ford Focus you will get laughed off the road.
Can someone please name an American made car that can compete with any of these cars in overall looks, quality, reliability and performance:
Toyota Camry
Honda Accord
Nissan Maxima
Honda Civic
Toyota Corolla
Nissan Altima
Lexus LS430
Lexus GS400
Toyota Tundra
Nissan Titan
Acura TL
Infiniti G35
Infiniti QX56
Lexus LX
Lexus GX
Lexus RX
Infiniti Q
Lexus IS
Nissan Pathfinder
Toyota 4runner
Toyota Avalon
Toyota Prius
Shall I go on? Toyota is also coming out with its brand new Tundra this year. They are also coming out with an FJ cruiser and the Yaris for gas mileage.
In my mind I think Toyota, Honda, and Nissan are WAY better than any American made piece of crap.
Even if the American made cars are half the price there resale is a freaking joke. Can someone please explain to me why I would want to buy a $20,000 dollar American made car when I see ones on TV for sale a year later for $7900 dollars?
I'll take Toyota, Honda, or Nissan any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I would also take just about any German car over any American made.
American cars and trucks are just too ugly for me to even consider and their interiors are laughable.
I have a feeling Toyota is going to help GM out of their problems and show them how to build real cars.
My 2 cents...
You saying american cars are ugly?? have looked at a Camry lately? or any Nissan? haha those are some ulgy cars. To me Toyota and Nissan make ugly boring cars. I would take any GM or Ford Product anyday. over those 2.
Heres to anwser ur other question
Toyota Camry- Ford Fusion
Honda Accord- Mercury Milan
Nissan Maxima-Chrysler 300
Honda Civic- Ford Focus
Toyota Corolla- Chevy Cobalt
Nissan Altima- Chevy Impala (06)
Lexus LS430 - Cadillac STS
Lexus GS400 -Cadillac STS
Toyota Tundra- Ford f-150
Nissan Titan Ford F-150
Acura TL - Lincoln Zepyphr
Infiniti G35- Lincoln LS
Infiniti QX56 - Lincoln Navigator / Cadillac Escalade
Lexus LX- Lincoln Navigator
Lexus GX - Lincoln Aviator/ Cadillac SRX
Lexus RX - Cadillac- SRX
Infiniti Q- Cadillac DTS/ Lincoln Town Car/ Chrsler 300C
Lexus IS- Lincoln Zeypher
Nissan Pathfinder- Ford Explorer
Toyota 4runner- GMC Envoy
Toyota Avalon - 300C( has a hemi for the same price)
Toyota Prius - Ford Escape Hybrid
Here are some for You.. wat do Honda.. Toyota or Nissan have to comepte with this???
Chevrolet Corvette Z06
Ford GT
Dodge Viper
Cadillac CTS-V
Cadillac STS-V
Ford Mustang Shelby Cobra(07)
Chrysler 300C or SRT-8
Jeep Grand Cherokee- Hemi or SRT-8
Chevrolet Corvette Z06
Ford GT
Dodge Viper
Cadillac CTS-V
Cadillac STS-V
Ford Mustang Shelby Cobra(07)
Chrysler 300C or SRT-8
Jeep Grand Cherokee- Hemi or SRT-8"
These are niche vehicles. The Camry alone sells more than all of these combined. That's the problem, big motors on pretty faces aren't enough anymore. It's not that Detroit can't build musclecars, its that there aren't enough people to buy them, thus they aren't the saviors of the Detroit Auto industry...
But you are correct, Japan inc. doesn't have much on those cars.
Now comparing a Camry to the Fusion is interesting, since it is a longer Mazda6 -- pretty fair comparison there. For handling and style, score one for Ford, since they had the goodness of a Mazda6 to build upon.
As for comparing the Maxima to a 300, well it is apples and oranges - both good for what they do. One FWD and the other RWD, and very different style line.
Civic compared to Focus or Cobalt.... ummmm, I guess in base models, they do compare. In top line models, or the Si compared to say the Cobalt SS, there is no comparison, Honda wins. I owned a Corolla and the interior and exterior looked like new more than 7 yrs. later - will the Focus and Cobalt age as well? Could happen I guess.
Infinity G35 compared to a Lincoln LS ??? Are they still making those LS cars? Would not be surprised to see Lincoln line die soon. G35 vs. an LS, well come on now, you can't be serious. LS is no doubt a good car, but far too sleepy to look at, if for no other reason, not to be compared to a G35. Sort of cool vs. old school.
As for hybrids, who cares, at this point in time, they are but a novelty item of the day. A sort of status symbol of the 2000's. The Ford Escape, non-hybrid or better yet, the Mazda Tribute is a solid value, when sold discounted between $15K and $20K. Not bad looking for an SUV.
Acura TL vs. Zephyr ??? A dressed up Mazda6 based, Fusion, FWD Ford, smaller car for $30K to $35K??? This car is DOA.
Best bets for Ford would be the Fusion and Mustang.
And for GM, I guess the Solstice, if you are looking for a drop top, 2 seater, without a trunk. The Impala used. And in luxo class, I guess the DTS will make a good used car. The CTS still looks somewhat overpriced used. Corvettes are unique. In German cars, the Chrysler 300 3.5V6 seems like a pretty good deal. The 2005 PT is a great value. And if ya need a cool looking, if not too practical station wagon, there is the Magnum. Seems like most all the new cars suffer from too tall door syndrome, and Chryslers are that list. But some people do not mind this.
Judging by how fast used 300M cars sell, I take it others still like the lower door window sills and the lower and sleeker look. But then again, this is like comparing the Nissan 300Z vs. the 350Z. I sure like the old style better than the new one with the little windows and rather claustrophobic interior.
Loren
Rocky
:surprise: <- Not me !!!!
Rocky
I never liked the name Vega personally.
Rocky
However, GM seemed to have forgotten about taller passengers in this move. Count me in as one who can hit his head on the rear window area of the LaCrosse, as well as the older Century/Regal. Another problem is that with the raised seat cushion, as the position of your legs becomes more horizontal, you need more space between yourself and the back of the front seat. So if you're a taller passenger, chances are your legs will mash into the seatback while your head hits the ceiling.
The Impala is better in this regard, though, as it has more legroom and a different roof shape. Other cars where I could hit my head on the rear window include the '97-03 Malibu (can't remember if I can do it on the '04+ or not) and oddly, the '91-96 Caprice! That one really came as a shock to me. On the Taurus it's not so bad with the rear window, but the curvature of the sides is so bad that the C-pillar is almost against the side of my head. Oh, and I can hit my head on the rear window of the new Charger, too.
I think it's pretty sad, actually, that cars can be this tall and upright these days, and still have this problem. I can sit in the back seat of low-slung cars like a Dart hardtop or GM's '73-77 intermediate coupes with the fastback roofline (like my '76 LeMans) and not have this problem...although those cars did have poor legroom in coupe form. Oddly I could fit better in the back seat of the compact Dart than the midsized LeMans! :surprise:
I think it's pretty sad, actually, that cars can be this tall and upright these days, and still have this problem.
With GM trying various retro styled cars (SSR, HHR) that are niche for sure, they could be well served by looking at 77-82 full size Chevy for reincarnation. This car came in 4-door and station wagon. These were rear-drive V8 cars that had relatively flat floors in front and back seats and could comfortably seat 6 adults. (Might have been some V6 sedans offered, but not the way to go.) The style back then was conservative and acceptable. I had a 77 Caprice station wagon. The seating was upright and there was lots of headroom. And, you could haul a lot, including 4x8 sheets of plywood. There are not very many SUVs today that can carry 4x8 sheets except for Suburbans.
Now if GM were to update these 77-82 styles to 2008, offer with V8, with 4 cyl operation optional at cruising, and of course with all latest safety air bags, curtains, crush zones, rollover, abs, traction control, etc., I believe that there would be a huge market for them. Got to think that if it were attractively styled and priced similar to trailblazer, that a lot of folks would be interested. Dodge apparently thinks there is market for full size what with its Charger and station wagon offerings. While Dodge wagon is styled attractively, the low roof line would not be a good idea for Chevy. Functionality should be most prominent for station wagon type vehicles as opposed to flashy style.
They already exist, but you have to go to Australia to buy them.
http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/A_55508/newsarticle.html
Loren
I think when something pegs her crapometer, it doesn't really matter if it is a Impala, Malibu, Taurus, or whatever. They are basically the "same" car to her.
I never said there was anything wrong with drum brakes. There is something wrong, however with drum brakes on a $25,000 and higher car though. I was referring to the HHR and Torrent / Equinox. I don't know who GM is trying to appeal to with this: People who like drum brakes.... or people who don't know the difference?
Now I expect to hear from a few people on how there is no difference and perhaps they are suited better towards those particular vehicles.
I guess I could also see the argument being made for the original Nomad being a hatchback. However, on your criteria of a car having room for a third row of seats, I dunno. There are a few cars out there that I'd consider wagons, but didn't have the room. For example, the Ford Escort wagon, Cavalier wagon, those little Datsun 510 wagons from the 70's, etc.
In white especially, both are hard on the eyes, so maybe she was blinded.
Also, there's more to it than disc versus drum. You also have to keep in mind the size of the brake systems and how well they're designed. My old '89 Gran Fury was a disc/drum setup but it worked better than the disc/disc setup of my Intrepid. It was almost impossible to lock those brakes up, and the car always stopped much more sure and steady than the Intrepid. I think the reason here is that the Intrepid just has generic, only adequately-sized brakes, whereas the Gran Fury was a police car, and had oversized brakes all around.
Disc brakes also make for a very poor parking brake, so most makers still design a little mini-drum in the back that's dedicated to the parking brake. Because it's so little, it won't hold the car back like an emergency/parking brake that works off a standard-sized brake drum. And it adds cost and complexity in having to supplement the disc setup.
So yeah, while disc brakes are better (provided they're adequately sized), drum brakes aren't totally without merit.
So cars with drums have front-wheel-ABS. Not a problem if you're ready for the rear locking up and sliding out, but who ever is?
Yes you can. Most FWD cars don't have ABS on rear drums because it's just about impossible to lock the rear drums on them. Pickup trucks have had it since around 1990.
I have never heard of a modern day vehicle with ABS that do not actuate the rear brakes using ABS. Which vehicles have this "lack" of feature?
I think in sporty and high-performance cars it would make a difference, but in your typical everyday family car, probably not, unless you're really pushing your car to the limit. IMO, the biggest advantage to a disc brake is that they're more resistant to fading after multiple hard stops. You might be able to get a few hard stops out of some decent drum brakes, but afterwards you better let them cool down or you're going to have some serious brake fade the next time you try to start.
But then, it's the front brakes that do most of the work, so I doubt you're going to overheat the rear drums on most modern cars, especially FWD models.
I've heard that disc brake cars are also better when wet, like when you run through a puddle. But I don't know if that's true or not, as I've had both disc and drum brake cars lose their braking ability after running through a puddle, to where you practically have to stand on the pedal to stop the car. And again, on the back brakes it probably wouldn't make much difference.
Truthfully, in everyday driving, I doubt most people would know the difference if their car had 4-wheel drums, just as long as they had a power assist. They'd get a bit iffy after multiple panic stops (but how often do you have repeated panic stops...usually one is enough!), and in wet weather you'd have to use a bit more caution. But unless you're really pushing your car to the limit, for the most part you're not going to see a difference.
Chevrolet Lumina
There's also a high-zoot Caprice, also rear drive with a 5.7 V-8:
Chevrolet Caprice
GM needs cars like this here.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6