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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
197 hp dated pushrod with a 4 speed is unacceptable for a flagship vehicle. Diehards can make excuses all they want, but that is not a sign of Automotive progress... :sick:
I wonder if GM would've done a bit better if they put the 3.5 from the Impala in this car as the base engine? Or just use that OHC 3.6 from the LaCrosse?
A piece of junk dressed up with leather is still a piece of junk. A while ago I rented a base Camry - 4 cyl, cloth, no options whatsoever except A/C and PW/PL, 18,000 miles on the odo. That was still a very nice car, light years ahead of its GM competition.
I think the domestics would be better off if they never sold another rental car again,
Domestics would lose another 10-15% of market share if they stopped fleet sales. Rental sales is their lifeline.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It would be like offering a Corvette with an Ecotec 4 banger and wondering why they're not selling with the Solstice's and Saturn Sky's in the Marketplace.
It's a cheap and inefficient way of selling a model with a supposed "Premium" label...
I haven't had a chance to experience the Lucerne close-up yet, but I've sat in the LaCrosse. It's comfortable for me up front, but the back seat is horribly cramped for my body. A shorter person might not notice it so bad, but for me it's horrible. Feels just like my Dad's '03 Regal. I'd imagine that the Lucerne would be much more generous in rear seat legroom, just as the LeSabre was. Other dimensions though, like shoulder room, front seat legroom, and headroom are probably not much different from the LaCrosse though. And I think the trunks are close in volume. IIRC, the LeSabre had a much larger trunk.
The Impala would probably offer similar interior room, and I think even has a bigger trunk, but I'd imagine that the LaCrosse is still trimmed more nicely inside. Also, GM's full-sized platform, the G- or whatever they call it these days, is very stiff and sturdy. The platform itself is a high-quality piece, even if the interiors, engines, suspensions, trim pieces, etc haven't always been. The Impala, while full-sized, is based on the midsized W-body. Now the W-body is pretty solid and sturdy, and has been starting with probably the '97 Grand Prix/Regal/Intrigue and then the '00 Impala/Monte Carlo, but the G-body is just more solid.
I thought rear seat headroom was severly lacking in the new Buick greenhouses, both Lacrosse and Lucerne.
I think GM has had a problem for a long time, with the W-body and the G-body (and the older H- and FWD C-bodies) just being too close together in size. I think for awhile, the Lumina was actually a tad longer than the LeSabre, Bonneville, and 88. The full-sized models were always laid out for better space efficiency though, at least IMO. But if you look over at Chrysler, the Intrepid/Concorde always seemed considerably larger than the Stratus/Breeze/Cirrus/Sebring, and the Crown Vic literally dwarfs a Taurus!
I'm kinda curious now, to see how the back seat of the Lucerne is for headroom.
You no listen so good. You clearly didn't do your homework before yapping on. I say again: big difference between stripped domestic rentals and upgraded models. And, um, I own a 4 c. Camry, and it's a decent car but pretty dull to drive (and poor paint -- and just a touch of rust developing in the trunk weld seam areas after five years.) I also own GM stuff, and when I buy a new car I'm aiming for GM. Lower cost of ownership, better driving experience. Course, I hold a car for a long time....
Shoulder room is identical, but Hip room is greatly increased, as is leg room.
Loren
My understanding is that the 2006 Impala will be the last new car on the W platform and that the 2006 Lucerne/DTS will be the last new cars on the G platform. The next generation Epsilon platform will be larger than the current version, and there are still lots of rumors about the Zeta platform for a new Camaro and large Chevrolet and Buick sedans.
Long story short, never even got an interview. I heard from one lady who got a job there that out of 132 people hired, 878 were turned down, or never really interviewed.
Over 1000 people applying for those jobs
It's a trip. There's little work up there, and people scratch and claw for a 7-8 dollar an hour job!
Even Wal-Mart has a steady stream of applicants.
So, it's one of the "Marts"(K or Wal) or Lowe's, maybe Krogers(they never hire any more),or a fast food restaurant.
Only 2-3 small factories up there, and they are the 90 days temp-to-(never) hire.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Bad for small business owners, better for small business employees.
Egad, my GTI has 180 hp, 5-speed transmission, and a sport suspension. And it's was about $20,000...
For a large vehicle like the Lucerne... it must perform like a pig.
I guess GM is target customers who want vehicles that perform like pigs.
And they wonder why less and less consumers are buying GM?
:confuse:
9.5 isn't too horrible, considering the car's size, but still toward the bottom of the barrel for this type of car. It would blow away the Chrysler 300 with the 2.7 (0-60 in around 11 seconds), but is behind every engine choice of Impala, as well as the Ford 500 and Charger/300 with the 3.5.
Still, it's probably enough for most day-to-day driving. It's not like you're going to be holding up school buses and farm trucks with it!
The Chyrsler 300 is really a lot of car for the money. GM really does not have anything like it or the Dodge Magnum.
WOW. You mean the Chrysler has such a small motor in a large car! The trolls need to go there to ridicule the company and their choice of a base car. Let's watch to see if they show up... :P
/direct/view/.ef16de5/4495
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think Chrysler got off lucky with the 300, that it was enough of a hit that people were willing to overlook the wimpy base engine. Also, I don't think it accounts for very many sales. For awhile, the Hemi alone was accounting for about 40% of sales, leaving the 3.5 Touring, 3.5 Limited, and 2.7 base model to scrap for the rest. I'd imagine most 2.7's are in rental fleets.
FWIW, there is a 2.7 Charger available, but again, only as a rental model. I honestly wish Chrysler would just can this engine and be done with it. It was okay in the Intrepid and Stratus/Sebring, but it's overmatched in a 300/Magnum, and I'm guessing the new 2007 Stratus/Sebring will use Mitsu engines. Maybe they're just trying to deplete their existing stock of these engines, and once they're gone, the 3.5 will be the base engine?
At $23.5, it is in the same ballpark as a Lacrosse with a 3.8. It would be a tough choice between the two, but I'd probably go with the 300 for the RWD setup and better side test crash ratings...
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison;jsessionid=D9CG10yx0Wx- hnvTWsfzT1llGNwFlfBxhxpfB465pL9klQyDDKpGW!-2117035196?styleid=100532625&styleid=- 100569952&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=ratings
*Edit* NEvermind Andre, you are correct, the 2.7 is a Chrysler design that supplanted the old Mitsu which was a 2.4l
Loren
Like being able to merge onto an interstate from a very short on-ramp... would the Lucerne leave you feeling like you might be risking your life?
And on the handling side... can the Lucerne handle a sharp swerve to avoid a potential accident without the driver feeling as if the car is 'out of control'?
GM doesn't build base-model cars with that in mind. So those that look for the above go elsewhere.
Anybody here willing to bet when GM will figure this out? Myself, I say that they'll never understand. It's a mental block on the part of everyone at GM, from top to bottom.
And on the handling side... can the Lucerne handle a sharp swerve to avoid a potential accident without the driver feeling as if the car is 'out of control'?
No the Lucerne would not feel like you were risking your life since there are many, many vehicles out there today that are slower. Of course your definition of safe may be different than most of the buying public. Just a few years ago 200HP was a very respectable size engine in just about anything. It was totally safe. Yes there is a HP war on today but anything over 200hp is just not needed to be safe. In Consumer Reports the base Lucerne should test at about 9.0. Here are the cars that are unsafe this year by your definition:Acura RSX, TSX, BMW X3 2.5i, Chevrolet Aveo, colorado, Equinox, Malibu, Suburban, Chrysler Pacifica, PT Cruiser, Sebring, Dakota, Caravan, Ram, Stratus, Ford Escape, Freestyle, Honda Accord,
element, Insight, Jeep Liberty, all Kias, Land Rover, Mazda MPV, Mini Cooper, Mits Eclipse, Lancer, Nissan Quest, Pontiac Vibe, Saturn Ion, Scion xA and xB, Camry, I am tired of writing. The point is that the base Lucerne is not unsafe.
Have you driven the base Lucerne? It reaaly sounds like you are making assumptions. Do you feel the Camry is unsafe? How about the last Avalon or ES330? The base Lucerne will be "safer" in handling than those three.
Now if you take a driver who's used to a much more powerful car and put them behind the wheel of a base Lucerne, they might kill themselves. But I'd blame that more on the driver than the car.
FWIW, 0-60 in around 9.5 seconds is what my '00 Intrepid will do. It's perfectly adequate for merging onto highways, and emergency maneuvers, although that's more a function of the car's suspension, steering, tires, and wheels than engine performance.
Now if I'm trying to merge onto a highway and some idiot in a more powerful car wants to play road games and speed up and not let me in, there isn't a whole lot I can do about it other than hit him, or slow down and cut in behind him.
But no matter how fast your car is, there are always going to be situations where someone can speed up, close the gap, and not let you in, no matter how slow their car is.
You're determining it doesn't drive well because it's a base level car for the Lucerne level?!!! Give me a break!
>Anybody here willing to bet when GM will figure this out? >Myself, I say that they'll never understand. It's a >mental block on the part of everyone at GM, from top to bottom.
It seems you're stretching really hard to find something to criticize GM for? Let's get back to reality. LOL
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
On another thread, it was discussed that the DOHC 2.7L engine was probably more expensive than the SOHC 3.2 to build. However, the 3.2L engined cars were more expensive because the engine is better, even if the engine cost less to build.
Where this is going is why do car makers put borderline base engines in their cars when better engines probably cost very little more? This goes way back. I think that they do it so that you want to buy the more expensive car. Most people won't drop the extra money and then get a car that they are not happy with. In the cars discussed in this thread, Chrysler should have made the 3.2L base on the Intrepid and the 3.5L base on the Chrysler 300. The Lucerne should get a base engine that puts out at least 225-250 HP.
Then if you chose to shop for a Chrysler 300 or a Lucerne, before you walked in the door, you would know that any car you looked at would be adequately powered, and that any car you saw driving down the street would be adequately powered.
I still laugh when I see 300's and think that they might have the 2.7L engine which I felt was inadequate in a lighter Intrepid six years ago.
Given what chevy put out in the 80s and 90s, that would be a good thing.
Bland (but clean) styling is what sells in the midsize/large sedan market. see: Accord/Camry. The 06 Impala is a huge improvement over the 05 both inside and out. Ditto for the Cobalt being an incredible improvement over the Cavalier. Are these cars the equivilant of the offerings from the competition? I'm sure there are some strong opinions about that on both sides here. At the very least, they're much much closer than their predecessors were.
Please see the posts 2 up. Seems like one of your loser buyers. too bad he is so satisfied with his purchase.
Ford #2
Chrysler #3
Toyota# 4
I don't understand where all this hype about Toyota overtaking GM as #1 is coming from.
Rocky
It's a combination of horsepower, torque, transmission, and weight that is important. And all that is it comparison to other cars in the same class/price range.
After all... put 150 hp and 150 ft. lbs. torque in a Chevy Aveo... with a suspension and transmission to match the power, and you have a pocket rocket.
Put 200 hp and 200 ft. lbs. torque into a full sized Cadillac or Buick (or for that matter, a Hummer)... with a 4-speed transmission and a weak suspension, and you have a accident waiting to happen.
What do you think GM is going to do? We already know the Lucerne has a 4-speed transmission... and from my experience with GM products, I'll willing to bet money that they're going to put a ultra-soft, pillowy suspension that will nose-dive at the slightest bump in the road. A suspension that will have your passengers grabbing the "Oh Sh@t!" handles at any turn taken above 15-20 mph.
That's just how GM is, it's their corporate design philosphy. Which, at least according to the sales numbers, is what less and less Americans are wanting in their cars nowadays.
But fat chance of GM ever realizing that.
And I've driven the following:
Aveo - weak acceleration (but you get what you pay for).
PT Cruiser - no power at all... and that's in the turbocharged 180 hp version! Why? Because the transmission can't handle the power. I could hear the engine rev mightly, but none of that power ever reached the wheels.
Acura RSX - good highway power, but you really have to rev the engine for it. Ie - weak in the torque department.
Element - decent acceleration and handling, probably due to an efficient transmission and suspension.
Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix - underpowered for the weight of the vehicle, sluggish acceleration. The Corolla is better suited to that engine due to it's lighter weight. Handling was neither here nor there.
Mini Cooper S - heh heh heh... nice. Good power and suspension, but way too small and expensive. But then, that car doesn't weight as much as a Lucerne, does it? Or have a 'GM' suspension... Or a 4-speed transmission, either.
And while you didn't mention the Trailblazer, it has more than 200 hp, and I still consider it a hazard on the road. With the suspension and handling that GM put on that wheel disaster, I'm surprised that there haven't been thousands of Trailblazers rolling over while turning. I felt like the vehicle was about to roll over each and every single time I made a turn, or had to swerve out of the way of an 'idiot' driver, etc, etc. Plenty of power, though, but you ended up being too afraid to use it, because the suspension did feel up to the task.
(I've driven quite a few others, but in the interest of brevity and all...)
---
Heck, my GTI doesn't have 200 hp, but it's a lighter car than the Lucerne... and has a 5-speed transmission, and a sports suspension.
So it works out pretty good.
PS - I was in the market for a car last January, so I test drove about 20 different kinds before choosing my GTI. But you're right, I've not driven a Lucerne as of yet. But regarding the ES330, it does seem a bit sluggish under normal driving situations. But if you hit the gas, the power is there. To me, it just seems to be hidden when it's not needed. But it's way too big of a car for my taste.
American car makers really need to get their collective heads out of their collective *ahem*. Wait, let's rephrase that. GM really needs to get it's collective head out of it's collective *ahem*. Ford is starting to realize it, just look at the Fusion. If they bring over the new European Focus... well, that'll just cinch it right there. Chrysler kinda knows it, but they haven't applied it to the PT Cruiser yet. GM, though, doesn't even recognize the problem.
Just how hard is it to match a car's suspension and transmission to handle the engine and power?
As well as design a well thought out interior that is not filled with thin, hard, hollow plastics. With an logically thought out placement of buttons, switches, dials, etc.
I mean, for Pete's sake, I didn't even have to read the driver's manual to figure out where and how to use all the buttons and switches in my GTI. And I'd never owned a Volkswagen in my life. It was all laid out in a intuitive manner, so you just knew where the light switch was, and how to activate your windshield wipers, etc, etc.
Try saying that about a Trailblazer, or a Malibu?
But you can say that about a Corolla and a Civic (well, except for it's DVD-navigation system). Heck, even a Focus is pretty well laid out in the cabin, it's just very, very, very cheap.
This is not a small car, either.
Then compare it to other, similar in price range/class vehicles.
If you read that to mean 'poor driving characteristics'... well, I guess you think the same as me.
:P
How's it look on the inside?
How's the ride? Is it soft or a hard ride? Do you feel that you could make a sharp turn without being thrown around the car?
I'm not criticizing when I ask. I think the Impala might be a good car, but I don't know enough about it. That, and I have a co-worker who's looking into one, but wants my advice (I seem to have a 'car guru' aura at the office).
:confuse:
Global sales. People in other countries also buy cars, and they buy many more Toyotas than GM's.
To sort of tie this back into the styling issue, it appears GM styling is quite popular in China. see here. I don't see how Toyota plans on passing GM in global sales while GM is rapidly expanding sales in what is potentially one of the largest markets on the planet.
And may I add, sold at a profit. Bottom line is Toyota, and Honda are selling cars for a profit and have far less debt. GM and Ford are in a perilous state.
Loren
1- Chevrolet: ----------- 2,669,932 down 3.5%
2- Ford:----------------- 2,648,814 down 4.7%
3- Toyota: -------------- 1,957,401 up 10.8%
4- Honda: --------------- 1,252,862 up 5.1%
5- Dodge: --------------- 1,179,008 down 1%
6- Nissan:--------------- 940,269 up 10.3%
7- Chrysler:------------- 649,293 up 10%
8- GMC:------------------ 566,322 down 5.9%
9- Jeep: ---------------- 476,532 up 12%
10- Hyundai:------------- 455,012 up 8.7%
11- Pontiac:------------- 437,806 down 7.7%
12- Lexus:--------------- 302,895 up 5.5% ---------- (1)
13- Buick: -------------- 282,288 down 8.8%
14- Kia:----------------- 275,851 up 2.1%
15- BMW:----------------- 266,200 up 2.5% ---------- (2)
16- Mazda:--------------- 258,339 down 2%
17- Cadillac:------------ 235,002 up 0.3% ---------- (3)
18- Mercedes: ----------- 224,421 up 1.3% ---------- (4)
19- Volkswagen: --------- 224,195 down 12.5%
20- Saturn: ------------- 213,657 up 0.8%
21- Acura: -------------- 209,610 up 5.7% ---------- (5)
22- Subaru: ------------- 196,002 up 4.6%
23- Mercury:------------- 195,949 up 1.2%
xx- Scion:--------------- 156,485 up 57.6 %
24- Infiniti:------------ 136,401 up 4.5% ---------- (6)
25- Mitsubishi:---------- 123,995 down 23.3%
26- Volvo:--------------- 123,587 down 11.1% ------- (7)
27- Lincoln: ------------ 123,207 down 11.4% ------- (8)
28- Audi:---------------- 83,066 up 6.6% ----------- (9)
29- Suzuki: ------------- 82,101 up 11%
30- Hummer: ------------- 56,727 up 93.3%
31- L. Rover: ----------- 46,175 up 30% ------------ (10)
32- Mini: --------------- 40,820 up 13%
33- Saab: --------------- 38,343 up 0.5% ----------- (11)
34- Porche: ------------- 31,933 up 1.5% ----------- (12)
35- Jaguar: ------------- 30,424 down 33.7% -------- (13)
36- Isuzu: -------------- 12,177 down 55.2%
Of course, this means the cobalt will continue to lose market share to the competition.
Oh wait, GM released their end of year sales numbers today.
2004 2005
Cavalier 195,275 18,960
Cobalt 4,959 212,667
Total 200,234 231,627
So cobalt sales in 2005 were up 9% over cavalier sales in 2004 -- Chevy's total compact sedan sales were up over 15%. And, GM didn't even launch several of the Cobalt trim levels until late in the year. (SS sedan and coupe, SS supercharged coupe) Is it the best selling compact car out there? no, but it is gaining ground on the leaders, hardly the mark of a car that is, as you so colorfully put it, a turd.
by comparison,
Civic sales were only up .1%
Corolla sales were only up 2.8%
Focus was down 11.3%
Neon sales were flat