General Motors discussions

m1miata

Are you sure about that? Nice cars, but I think the reliability is not quite there. And Consumers Guide shows some pretty expensive repair costs for certain items repair costs Perhaps a BMW may be less expensive. Within the Mercedes line, the SLK has been the most reliable of the current line.
-Loren

m1miata

Oh really now. Do believe analyst loved Enron at one time. OK, I will buy into the possibility of a turn-around, and no I don't see it. Glad that the analyst is impressed - for GM's sake. GM still has mainly the same interesting product they had some years ago, the CTS and the Corvette. Oh yeah, the Pontiac GTP looks a bit interesting. The rest is some fair to good, or blahhh. Well I suppose some other Cadillacs, and some SUVs are looking pretty good these days. Nothing too exciting. Seems to me a turn-around looks more like Hyundai rising from the ashes. Who knows!

Still looking for wow! You know, shock and awe cars. A revolution, and all that good stuff. Is it 2008 model cars???

-Loren

derrado1

It musn't include reliability... I thought that the Infiniti QX56 had a pretty dodgy record, being the only US-made Infiniti and loaded with luxury gizmos. And I swear I heard something about "300% less reliable than other Infinitis" or something to that effect.

Oh well. I don't really pay attention to QX56's. How are their sales going anyway? Don't think they've put much of a dent into Navigator/Escalade.

plekto

Mercedes can be expensive. That's why you don't get the fancy options like a sunroof or automatic transmission or GPS. Less to break.

BMWs are the same - it's the hundreds of bleeding-edge accessories and electronics that cause most of the problems. The engines rarely give you problems(course the window won't roll down and the radio gets stuck on 99.1FM and... :P

torque_r

Engine choices:

3.5 V6: 211 hp/ 214 lb-ft (21/31 mpg)
3.9 V6; 233 hp/ 240 lb-ft (20/29 mpg)
5.3 V6: 303 hp/ 323 lb-ft (18/27 mpg)

So it's the same as 2006, except that the 3.9L gets a DOD: power is 233hp, down from 242hp. Mileage is up from 19/27 mpg

torque_r

2007 Malibu is carried over from 2006, but the mid-level 3.5L now produces 217 hp and 217 lb-ft vs 201hp and 221 ft-lb for 2006.

torque_r

The 3.9L is dropped from the Monte carlo. It's either the 211 hp 3.5L or the 303 hp 5.3L V8.

torque_r

Sorry, but fuel economy is dissapointing for a car this samll: 27/37 manual and 26/34 auto.

torque_r

Not enough infomation, but it seems the 3.9L is standard now.

62vetteefp

Maybe, but to the buying public a Chevy is a Chevy, or a Hummer is a Hummer. I doubt that an outside company buying a part of GM will change the brands image jsut by buying into it.

That change will have to happen slowly with product changes and other enticements (marketing/advertising/"gimmicks") IMO.

62vetteefp

GM said its latest round of discounts would run until Sept. 5. Among the
offers: an extra $1,000 off on midsize and large pickups in Texas,
California and Florida; 10% off the list price of 2006 Saturns; and $1,000
off midsize sport-utility vehicles such as the Chevrolet Trailblazer for
company employees, supplier and dealer employees.

lweiss

I don't think that people that buy vehicles like Mercedes/BMW/Jaguar/Range Rover, or almost any vehicle about $40K are doing so for logical reasons. Status, excellent engineering, styling and some cool features maybe-but many cars half the price are "functionally equivalent" in the sense that they will get you and your gear where you want to go. At one point you could say that MB were safer cars, but everyone else has caught up.

As far as GM's turnaround, they have done some great things (had too or bankruptcy) to cut costs, re-structure, right size, but I still think that they need better and more compelling products for North American car buyers. Once that happens, their turnaround will "have legs"

jimlockey

For the past twenty years most CEO's in the USA have been ripping off the corporations they serve. So what's new?

scott1256

There are bad apples in any group. Certainly GM management has been weak over the last two decades.

But - as a group US corporations have performed very well for their investors.

Very, very few US corporations (imo <1%) have dishonest management.

Anyone who invested regularly in the top 500 US corporations over the last 20 years is wealthy.

sls002

The minivans (no Montana anymore) both get the 3.9. The Malibu gets the VVT 3.5 which is a different engine from last year.

sls002

Looking at the Edumunds used car price guide, a 2003 330 sedan is around $22500, and a 2006 model costs about $38,000 depending on options. I would say the real depreciation on a BMW is about $15,000 over 3 years. Still, it holds about 60% of its new value, which is very good, but not quite the 75% you were using.

driver100

I don't think that people that buy vehicles like Mercedes/BMW/Jaguar/Range Rover, or almost any vehicle about $40K are doing so for logical reasons.

Exactly right! No one wants to spend time and money on repairs. If the feel of the road and fine engineering and craftsmanship are important, than you might be willing to pay the additional costs or if it's a status thing...the same!

But then again; Lets say you buy an Impala for $24,000.
In three years it is worth 1/3 or $8000.
Cost of driving is $16,000 or $5,333 a year.

BMW 3 Series is $35,000
After 3 years it holds 75% of its value so is worth $26,250,
Total depreciacion is $8,750 or $2,916 a year.

Now I am not great at math, but tell me what I am doing wrong here. Also, you have a much better handling car, more safety features, some pizazz in your life - that difference could pay for a lot of repairs, but you won't need to get them for at least another year in the BMW, unfortunately you will in the Impala.

I know this is too good to be true but tell me where I am wrong. Probably getting the initial money in the first place. Any accountants out there that can explain where my theory goes wrong????? :confuse:

sls002

So many of GM's car are popular rental agency cars that the short term resale value is distorted by the rental agency business plan of loading up on new cars on a seasonal basis and then dumping cars in the off season. So, one to two year old rental cars are overloading the used market for nearly new cars.

A lot depends on how much you actually pay for the new Impala. If you can buy one at a significant discount off the suggested list price, then your actual depreciation may be much less. Still, my 2002 Seville has dropped in value a lot since I bought it, even at a significant discount off the list price. I expected this when I bought it, so I am not surprised.

If I had bought a new BMW 325 sports wagon, it would now be worth about $24,000 perhaps (at retail), but would probably have cost over $40,000 new if I had gotten everything I wanted on it.

lweiss

I would think that people that really cared about depreciation (and in a way, the overall costs of having the vehicle), you would go for a Honda Civic/Toyota Corolla/Accord/Camry. And that is reflected in their decent lease pricing also.

The people that really got clobbered on depreciation during the last few years seem to be the truck based SUV buyers- the rebates on new ones are so attractive, who would want a high priced used one?

driver100

Still, it holds about 60% of its new value, which is very good,I would say your figures are correct from what I can tell.
It is interesting to see which cars depreciate the most and which the least. Even though Buicks and Impalas have good reliability they lose their value way above average.
Depreciation chart

Even using a depreciation of 60%, it could cost less to drive a BMW instead of an Impala.

62vetteefp

But the SUV incentives have always been this high at GM, haven't they?

62vetteefp

For the past twenty years most CEO's in the USA have been ripping off the corporations they serve. So what's new?

Sorry, but how does this relate to my post?

I asked what benefit does this alliance give GM.

sls002

The longer you keep the vehicle after buying it, the less the long term depreciation is. On the other hand, after the warranty expires, repair costs will start to increase. Buying a used car, say one that is certified and has an extended warranty, can reduce the depreciation costs considerably. However, used cars may have been owned by a smoker, making it somewhat less desirable, or other issues.

autoboy16

I know that but i ment how Gm is selling (out) isuzu. If GM would rebuild Isuzu line up and offer a diesel for each vehicle, then Isuzus has a chance. If GM keeps Isuzu than the line-up should be:

Axiom: Built off Equinox/Torrent with a better v6 and optional diesel

Trooper: Built off Tahoe with 3rd row standard with optional diesel

Rodeo: Built off the Trailblazer and have optional diesel

Islander*: Built off Suzuki 2006 Grand Vitara and have a better v6 and optional diesel

Oasis: A new one of the Gm van quad(Terraza, Uplander, Relay, Montana SV6)

Hombre: New name for the I series with a v6 instead of 5 cyl and have a diesel optional

* I made it up. I kinda like it!

-Cj :shades:

m1miata

Interesting to see the Altima as a five star for resale. They can be had for under $19K.

Your right, a new Impala could be expensive if you are not keeping it for a decade. Or just buy one a couple years old, near half off.
-Loren

sls002

I have been happy with it. The warranty is nearing the end, so I need to see if extending is a good idea. The Seville FWD is no longer in production, so the closest thing is the current DTS, but the RWD STS is really the new Seville. I have been thinking that I would like a station wagon, something like the BMW sport wagons. The SRX is certainly a possibility, but it is more an SUV than a wagon, and does burn a bit more fuel than a wagon would.

The only problem I have had is a torque converter lockup solenoid that needed to be replaced - this required the engine/transaxle to be removed from the car. So, at this point I expect few additional transmission problems, and extending the warranty is probably not worthwhile.

lweiss

I don't think that SUV incentives were always this high. A good friend of mine has a 2001 Chevy Tahoe that I think he paid $40K at the time. He drives a lot, would love to sell it, but tells me that with leftover 2006 Tahoes going for barely $30K (pre-2007 redesign), he would take a bath on selling it. So he now has a Toyota Prius which he drives mostly, just uses the Tahoe for short trips or hauling. But you know, about a year ago, his wife was hit by another truck and she was riding in the Tahoe, just some minor injuries, I just wonder what would have happened in the Prius...

driver100

Still, my 2002 Seville has dropped in value a lot since I bought it,

The 2002 Seville is one of the nicer GM cars. What is your experience with your car? Would you buy another one...new or used? Any major problems?
Always liked the Seville...even looks a little Euro.

varmint

I don't believe Honda could purchase Isuzu even if they wanted. Japan has fairly strict anti-trust laws. That's one reason why Toyota couldn't take a larger share of Subaru when GM was selling off their share of it.

driver100

I would think that people that really cared about depreciation (and in a way, the overall costs of having the vehicle), you would go for a Honda Civic/Toyota Corolla/Accord/Camry

Agreed, and if I was interested in the most reliable car that would give me the most value....that's what I would choose, probably Toyota..little simpler to repair. For slightly more engineering and fun a Honda. For value but unknown resale Hyundai. If I needed an inepensive car but wanted some fun driving it a Jetta, and I would expect I will have more repairs.

alp8

I would think that people that really cared about depreciation (and in a way, the overall costs of having the vehicle), you would go for a Honda Civic/Toyota Corolla/Accord/Camry. And that is reflected in their decent lease pricing also.

I have a pet peeve. People (not you, lweiss) who criticize peoples' new car buying decisions based on only depreciation. If you ONLY consider depreciation, then NO ONE SHOULD BUY A NEW CAR. Period. Every new car (even the Civic/Corolla/Camcord) is going to depreciate more in year one than a used Impala in year 3. If you only care about depreciation, then you buy a used car (someone else has taken the bulk of the depreciation hit).

lweiss

Absolutely right- virtually all vehicles depreciate (1964 Mustang convertibles maybe an exception-haha), or as my late Father used to say, "Never invest big money in things that rust"!!! But the overall cost of a vehicle includes depreciation, fuel, insurance, maintenance, licenses and fees- and depreciation is almost always the biggest cost. And the other thing is that most people get rid of their vehicles way before the end of their useful lives- because they tire of them, too much maintenance, whatever. And sure, a used car is less in depreciation costs, but almost every used car I bought in my life was a headache in maintenance (or again as my Father would say- he was full of sayings- "you buy a used car, you buy someone else's troubles"). Plus that new car smell...

driver100

I would like a station wagon, something like the BMW sport wagons. The SRX is certainly a possibility, but it is more an SUV than a wagon,

That is interesting, and it is great that you are open minded about trying a BMW Sports Wagon. I would love to know your impressions of a SRX compared to a BMW and I hope you will try an X3 as well.

scott1256

wanting to make a deal with GM to foil the Nissan/Renault proposal. (Autoextremist link below has more)

"Toyota executives don't like the GM-Renault-Nissan alignment one bit...consider a link-up...with GM"

"Toyota does not want to be confronted with a GM-Renault-Nissan alliance"

http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml

driver100

new car buying decisions based on only depreciation.

Probably true, it would be a little over the top to base a buying decision on depreciation only. However, there is some good information in knowing how much your car depreciates. Some reasons are;
*If you lease you get more car for the money,
*If you have to sell your car fast you won't take as much of a hit,
*When you do buy a new car your car will be easier to sell, especially if you are doing it privately,
*Your payments on your next car will be less,
*Usually cars with low resale value have a reason for being low...think Hyundai Pony,
So, depreciation should not be the biggest factor, but it could be of some value in choosing a new car.

driver100

but almost every used car I bought in my life was a headache in maintenance (or again as my Father would say- he was full of sayings- "you buy a used car, you buy someone else's troubles").

IMO I have lost more than I have won with used cars and I don't like to gamble!

autoboy16

This link shows that Isuzu and Gm share a small percent. Isuzu and Mitsubishi are supposedly going to team up.... Two companies that relied on Gm... How will they do?

Honda and Gm are still doing a Joint venture. Thats why GM's onstar is is in Honda's Acura. Honda could buy GM but thats wasting money. It also turns out that Honda had a rebadged rodeo (honda Passport) and trooper (Acura Slx). Isuzu had Honda's Odyssey (Isuzu Oasis) and Hondas Accord (Isuzu Aska. The isuzu Aska used the 5th and 6th generation accord and stopped in 2002. Which also stopped the joint venture) So i guess honda could buy Isuzu. It'll be a Japanese trio of car companies. since Isuzu is going back to cars, It can carry on the Acura Rsx as the body for the "new bellett gtr" concept. The oasis could still be an odyssey and the Aska could be an accord, tl, rl, or tsx. The pilot could be the rodeo and the RDX could be the axiom.

Hey its possible. I have faith in isuzu !!

-Cj :shades:

m1miata

That's easy, just fine better used cars. So far my used cars have been as good, if not better than the overall average of all new cars bought. But, then again, those new cars included some GMs.

And the new car smell is just the toxins. Don't need those. :P
Last purchase is a PT and it has been reliable over all. Replaced a noisy fan, and it uses a little oil, unlike Japan four cylinder engines, but so far so good.

Depreciation is always a problem. I guess you could buy a used Corvette near the bottom of the swing, like a C4, and have it actually rise in value.

Unless I get a really good price on an American make, I go used. With Japan cars, it seems like newer used cars cost as much as new, so the warranty is worth buying new. I did buy a Datsun 510 once, drove it 2 1/2 years, then traded it in for a loss of $800. So I guess I could have sold it myself and made money on it.
-Loren

m1miata

This site HERE
has some information on typical repair cost. You choose a car, then click on RELIABILITY link then scroll on down to see the typical repair costs.

Yes, some RWD cars should be cheap to repair, like a Mustang. Many RWD on the market today have more expensive suspensions, transmissions and such, so considering they are high-end products, they would cost more than say the Impala. Now, if the Impala was a RWD, certainly it could be cheaper to repair.
-Loren

sls002

I probably would have a BMW sport wagon at this point if we had a BMW dealership nearby. The nearest dealers are about a 700 mile round trip from here, so I have not seriously considered a BMW. We also do not have a Saturn dealer any closer either, but at least a Saturn can be serviced by other GM dealers.

My Seville is probably only worth $15,000 or so if I try to sell it, and with the warranty about to expire, selling is probably difficult. If I did sell, I am not sure what I would replace it with. The Dodge Magnum is also a possibility.

driver100

I have heard that RWD cars should last longer, with fewer repairs.
Does this mean that if you want to drive a car for 10 or 15 years you will have a better chance of getting high mileage with fewer repairs if it is RWD?
Does this mean that a car like an Impala, or for that matter Camry, could run into expensive repairs before a RWD car (say Chrysler 300 or BMW 3 Series?

sls002

getting at the transmissions on RWD's is easier than some of the FWD cars, like Cadillac northstars that stuff the engine compartment so full of engine there is no room to get at much of anything without taking a lot of things apart. To get to the powersteering pump, the radiator has to be moved out of the way for example. To do any work on the transmission, the engine/transaxle have to come out of the car, an all day job.

fred222

I have heard that RWD cars should last longer, with fewer repairs.
Does this mean that if you want to drive a car for 10 or 15 years you will have a better chance of getting high mileage with fewer repairs if it is RWD?
Does this mean that a car like an Impala, or for that matter Camry, could run into expensive repairs before a RWD car (say Chrysler 300 or BMW 3 Series?

The biggest difference between older RWD cars and FWD cars was that FWD cars have constant velocity joints on the front driving wheels, while RWD cars have (had) solid rear axles on the drive wheels with simpler front end designs. Solid rear axles typically are more durable than than CV axles. Also, the frame/structure of a RWD car needs to be stronger than that of a FWD car to give the rear wheels something to attach to. Newer RWD cars mostly have independent rear ends and although they do not require as much a range of movement as FWD cars, they are more susceptable to failure than solid rear axles.

To answer, the real difference between FWD vs. RWD is replacing front axles more frequently than rear axles, and stronger RWD vs. FWD cars.

mlsel

Hi, just wondering if anyone knows when most of the 07 models will be out in Canada. Im looking at buying an 06 once they have to get rid of them.

logic1

Now is the time.

Chevrolet website is already allowing you to build '07s.

Most other brands have some '07s available.

Provided you are happy with what is on the lot, you should be able to work out a good deal.

lrcin

honda buy gm, never.I started off owning domestic and for a few years i had imports. The worst car i've ever owned was a honda accord. i traded it in with 60,000 on it. it was constantly breaking, and it wasn't the same problem over and over. I've even had a toyota in the driveway. Now all i will buy is a GM product. I've owned 2 new GM cars since the accord and i have never had to bring them back to the dealer for anything. To me the new hondas and toyotas are ugly and way over priced for what your getting, not to mention the fuel economy isn't all they want you to think it is. Its amazing a tahoe running e85 gets better milage than a prius, that just completely amazes me.

cccompson

I don't know about Canada but, judging by the "incentives" GM announced today for the U.S., it doesn't appear that they are particularly anxious to get rid of the '06s.

It's sad, really, how GM seems determined not to compete in the marketplace.

grabowsky

My understanding is a lot of GMs models are selling well without incentives. If this is true why would they go the DC route?

driver100

when most of the 07 models will be out in Canada.
Most new cars hit the showroom in September but you don't get really big savings until about November and especially if '06's are still around in December and January because those are slow months on top of a car getting older. Remember, you have to keep your car for awhile because it depreciates a lot just by being a year older to begin with. I have been in a situation where it was cheaper to lease a new model than the year older model....because of the residual value!!!!!

driver100

Thanks M1miata and Fred222 for the info on RWD vs. FWD.
Appreciated