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
GM seems to reward lousy stylist. Isn't Wayne Cherry still at GM? His fingerprints are all over the GM lineup from the 90's. Now we have Lutz with his super ego and confused half-hearted retro designs.
Here we go again.......Why quote "sales" numbers when they don't tell the true story. GM sells 75% of their line up at a loss. 75%!! Ford /Chrysler are no wall street golden boys, but GM is in a class all their own. ONLY styling will save GM, and they STILL don't have the magic.Bill C.
GM should keep working on how their cars feel more than anything else.
Why are we being sheltered from the new Suzuki Swift? This car is getting great reviews everywhere that it's sold, it was designed to be sold all over the world which means it surely can be made to meet our emissions and safety standards. The Swift is about the size of the MINI Cooper so it is not "too small" for the US, although I'll admit it would not appeal to everyone. Most importantly additional small safe fun little car choices with great mileage would be great and desireable for many US drivers. The Swift would be a great alternative to the Scion XA (and Scion/Toyota's difficult and customer unfriendly sales procedures, for example: try to actually get a Scion XA with the side air bags, it's nearly impossible here in Texas.
With a little fun and fresh marketing and smart packaging (an area where US Suzuki needs some work) the Swift would find a happy and willing audience. The US auto industry needs to catch up with the rest of the world in terms of what is available for consumers who want small, fun, safe, efficient transportation. The auto industry says the US doesn't want these types of cars. But they refuse to realize the each time a US manufacture tries to build or market a small car, they have always offered a cheap, unsafe, poorly built, over priced little pile of junk. (The AVEO may be an exception to this)
Suzuki is a small car master, and GM and Suzuki should be offering this great little car here in the US to help expand the quality small car market in the US and be one of the first players in this segment instead of one of the last.
I'm not sure how safe it is. Small cars in general despite all the airbags and other safety features they have will always do worse in crashes with just about any other vehicle on the road because the others are bigger.
In any case you should have classified this discussion in Auto News, not Future Vehicles. You're not discussing a specific future vehicle.
The LTZ has a very good ride. It is a bit stiff, without being harsh. I run 35lbs in the front tires, and 33 in the rear. I can take it through a turn on some of our twisty country roads at well over the speed limit without it feeling sloppy...and the seats do a pretty good job of holding us in position.
Originally, I was at the GM dealer to check out a Lacrosse CSX, but when I saw this LTZ for thousands less, it was an easy decision.
I would say it is the GM's quality inspector who has poor eye sight and cannot see the orange peel in the paint. But who knows with GM, maybe it was 'Good Enogth' for the average GM customer who does not expect anything from the car so it passed the internal targets for paint quality with flying colors.
GM and their line up of so-so products are not in the same league by any means. People are buying Mustangs & 300C's because of the styling, and they're probably not a bad car for the money. People who are buying GM cars are doing so because of "the deal."
On a level playing field cars like the G6,Cobalt,Lucerne,Impala, etc. may be decent cars but Hyundai makes decent cars for less. GM has decided to go after the fleet buyers,rental agencys,and government agencys. That's a lo profit but consistant customer.The only other market they can crack is the lowest price and gimmick market. They market the remainder of their products to the buyers with the weakest credit,lowest incomes,and people over 70. Not because they WANT to, they simply HAVE to.They are so out of touch with the buyers of the Accords/Camrys/Civics & Corollas that they'll NEVER get that segment back. N-E-V-E-R
As for GM needing to work on how a car "feels" ,that's all well and good, but you have to bring them into the showroom first.If the primary reason they are there is for cut rate loans, or dealer cost pricing , then the "feel" is not important. Your "feel" is very subjective.ie. Is overboosted power steering a good feel? Is a pillow ride a good feel? Where then is the middle? I think GM's feel is right where it needs to be.That's probably the only thing GM don't need to change. Bill C.
Washington DC January 6, 2005; The NADA newsletter reported that General Motors Corp.'s top North American sales and marketing executive, Mark LaNeve, said he now regrets launching the employee-discount program that drove GM sales to record levels last summer, and doesn't plan to repeat such promotions this year.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/01/06/206824.html
I will paraphrase because I don't have the magazine in front of me.
"Pontiac G6 is merely adequate product competing in a segment where the price of entry is an above average product."
I feel this perfectly sums up GM's cars. GM builds merely adequate products and tries to compete with excellent and above average products from other manufacturers. No wonder GM is going down the tubes. I was also surprised by the price of the G6, it was close to $30,000. This car should cost about $20,000 at the most and even at that price Honda Civic SI is a much better buy. I mean who in his right mind will spend this kind of money on a Pontiac G6?
First, GM does design and build several vehicles smaller than the Cobalt. They are called Opel/Vauxhalls and may be found in Europe. (in South America they are called Chevrolets).
Second, GM does not have anything to do with Suzuki's choice in what cars Suzuki brings to the US. GM owns around 25% of Suzuki's stock and has someone on the board of directors. Suzuki choses what autos to bring to the US.
GM and Suzuki bought pieces of Daewoo when it disolved into bankruptcy. Someone at Suzuki apparently thought some Daewoo designs were more appealing to the North American market. At the same time, Suzuki spent a bundle designing a new Grand Vitara - a vehicle that competes directly with the Equinox.
Suzuki is notorious (in a good way, I should think) for keeping true to its spending forecasts. More likely, Suzuki spent all of its North America design money on the GV and simply did not have cash available to make a US certified vehicle.
Which gets to my final point. US regulations are unique. If a vehicle is not designed with US regs in mind, it is almost always too expensive to get it to US standards than the investment is worth. That is why, for instance, Nissan is creating its own US mini-Car rather than bring over a Renault. It is also the reason, until now, you do not have Opel Corsas and Zafrias in the US.
If the US market is ready for a car smaller than the Aveo, GM will bring it. If Suzuki thinks the Swift will sell in the US, no doubt it is working on a US certified next generation Swift.
GM: ---------------- 26.2% down from 27.5%
Ford: -------------- 18.6% down from 19.6%
DCX: --------------- 14.9% up from 14.4%
Toyota:------------- 13.3% up from 12.2%
Honda: -------------- 8.6% up from 8.2%
Nissan: ------------- 6.3% up from 5.8%
Hyundai: ------------ 4.3% up from 4.1%
Volkswagen: --------- 1.8% down from 2.0%
Mazda: -------------- 1.5% down from 1.6%
Subaru: ------------- 1.2% up from 1.1%
Mistubishi: --------- 0.7% down from 1.0%
Suzuki: ------------- 0.5% up from 0.4%
Porche: ------------- 0.2% unchanged
Isuzu: -------------- 0.07% down from 0.16%
Others: ------------- 0.02% unchanged
The Swift is very small for America, even with the new wave of subcompacts due to arrive in the next year. But it does look like a fantastic car from everything I have read, and it would be nice if they offered it here.
And yes, this thread TOTALLY belongs in N&V, not here with the future models.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
bought 80% of New Process gear from DC and will take
the other 20% when the latest UAW contract ends.
Their new proposal for their employees....Take a 50%
pay cut and go non union, Try and transfer to a DC
plant or Say BYE BYE and go find other employment.............
Did they do the same at Gentex?
GM, is growing faster than anyone else outside the U.S. Since GM, has caught Toyota on how to do quality. They will remain #1. The gadgets like Navi, stability control, bluetooth, our all found in the 07' SUV's- Check em' out.
Tahoe gets 12 mpg ????? I've yet to see a figure that low. Maybe a Dodge or Ford, but not a GM
And if you wanna believe everything those biased yellow belly car mag editors say. Then fine. GM could build the perfect car and they'd still find something wrong with it because it has a GM brand emblem on it. For Example if you took the Caddy STS and put a L logo on it the yellow journalist would say it was a benchmark. If you took the LS 430 and put a Caddy emblem on it. It would be slammed. The radio dials are like chicklets, the wood looks fake. etc etc.
The yuppie conservative right wants free trade. Perhaps destroying GM, Ford, Chrysler, through bad media outlets like car mags they will accomplish their mission. They will teach Bill Ford, a lesson for asking them about fair trade. :mad:
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
What brand of dope are you smoking?
"GM could build the perfect car and they'd still find something wrong with it because it has a GM brand emblem on it."
I read at least as much crap that is too easy on GM because they don't want to appear anti-American. Forget what all of the magazines say. Look at average resale values for a 4-5 year old Honda or Toyota and compare that to the equivalent GM product. If GM had even remotely comparable product quality, they wouldn't depreciate at a rate magnitudes worse than their counterparts.
The yuppie conservative right wants free trade.
And the socialist UAW would like a government mandate that we have to buy GM?
I am too old to be a yuppie, but as a successful American businessman that sits on the board of several companies, I am PROUD that Boeing makes world class airplanes, GE makes world class locomotives and Marriott runs world class hotels. And the former two even do it with union labor.
Stop being a crybaby for GM and the UAW. The company dug itself into a hole over many decades and at this point simply needs to be dismembered. That may not be a politically correct statement, but if you privately polled world class business executives, they would concur. I do believe there is a future for auto manufacturing in the US, but it will take an entirely new breed of thinking and competitive spirit. That won't come from an attitude that free trade is bad or that magazine editors are the problem.
By the way, don't confuse being #1 with being the biggest. Porsche is the most profitable car company in the world and they are a fraction of the size of GM or Toyota.
And none of us are making 6-7 figures as an overpaid GM exec.
What brand of dope are you smoking?
Not sure what you ae exactly saying here but since I think you are new here you probably have not seen the latest statistics on GM quality. Right now Cadillac and Buick are #4 and #5 in initial quality. BUT most of the manufacturers are near the 118 problems per hundred vehicles industry average. In fact the numbers are so close initial quality should not even be a factor in purchasing a car unless you want the very best (Lexus, Jaguar, BMW) or to keep away from the very worst (Mazda, VW, Suzuki). It is basically the difference between having 1 problem per car or 1 1/2 problems per car.
JD Power-2005 IQS2 (initial quality study) - customer reported quality after 3 months of ownership:
Lexus: .. 81 pph (best name plate)
Buick: .100 pph
Cadillac: 104 pph
Toyota: ..105 pph
Hummer: 109 pph
Honda: ..112 pph
GMC: 113 pph
Acura: ..116 pph
Ind. average:..118 pph
Nissan: ...120 pph
Chevrolet: 121 pph
Pontiac: 129 pph
Saturn: .136 pph
VW ...147 pph
Mazda: 149 pph
Suzuki: ..151 pph(worst name plate)
I also think that auto-industry has a very bright future in USA, its just that I don't think that GM should be a part of that bright future. I truly from the bottom of my heart believe that GM should and will go bankrupt.
Just about all of the problems that the US auto industry is facing now were started by GM. These silly discount wars were started by GM with: "Lets keep America Rolling." This not only destroyed the brand image of GM, but also destroyed the resale value of existing GM cars. This caused the loss of untold billions of dollars to current GM car owners.
You really think that people would deal again with a company which on purpose destroys the resale value of your car? I am surprised that current GM car owners did not file a class action law suit against GM for the monetary losses these people suffered due to GM's actions.
And remember one more fact rockylee. GM is loosing market share. This means that CURRENT GM owners are not purchasing a GM cars again. Its the current GM car owners who are abandoning GM in droves. Why would loyal GM customers abandon GM if their cars are so good. I guess that current GM customers are just not that satisfied with GM cars.
Ford resale values haven't had a chance to sprung up yet. The Focus is rebated alot thus the poor resale value. The Explorer's resales value is down of because of the declining of the SUV market. The 500 is not selling well. The Fusion we will have to wait and see how the resale value is for that car. I'm sure resales on F-150's are pretty good. Resales aren't poor on Ford's because Ford is American. Chrysler doesn't even have a good selling mid-size car or compact car currently. Chrysler's sales success is mostly because of the 300, Charger, Cherokee, Liberty, and the PT Cruiser right now. The current Sebring and the outgoing Neon I don't think resales are good on them. The PT Cruiser has good resale value's as does the Libery I think.
Resales on GM cars I think only Caddy's have good resale value. GM's SUV"s used to have good resale value but like the Explorer like I said before the SUV market for big and large SUV's is shrinking thus decling resale value's.
Yeah but their Caddy line is still selling good as is the Equinox SUV. GM just doesn't have the product in other segments(besides Caddy and SUV's) to get showroom traffic in their dealerships.
In my opinion the Boneville was in the same boat as the Mazda Millenia and Mitsu Diamante in the late 90's. I guess people just didn't want a mid luxury car anymore. I also think the dramatic exterior look of the 1992-1999 Boneville turned off a lot of people.
Thats funny I thought the Lucrene looks what a Buick should look like mostly. The LaCrosee to me looks like a bunch of other cars.
OK, Please try and do an average GM in your head. I do not have that data.
JD Power-2005 VDS (vehicle dependability study) - customer reported quality after 3 years of ownership:
Lexus: .. 139 pph (best name plate)
Buick: .163 pph
Cadillac: 175 pph
Toyota: ..194 pph
Honda: ..201 pph
Acura: ..203 pph
Chevrolet: 232 pph
Ind. average:..237 pph
Saturn: .240 pph
Pontiac: 245 pph
GMC: 245 pph
Mazda: 252 pph
Nissan: ...275 pph
Suzuki: ..292 pph
VW ...335 pph
Kia: 397(worst name plate)
Bill Ford wanted a .50 per gallon tax of gasoline to pay for their project for hybrids. I don't recall Toyota calling Washington for such a request. All in all, Ford car line is looking better these days. They are slowly getting there. Nothing sounds better than a V8 Mustang. Not sure any of their other cars are leader in class, though the Crown Vic is. Has to be, as it is the only body on frame, and thus a class of its own. Personally the 50 cent tax request from Bill was not one smartest things he has done, at least in my mind. I was not too happy about that.
The wounds appear to be self inflicted, if you look at the total history of GM and Ford. This includes decisions made from the top all the way down to workers in the shop.
Massive debt is a business killer.
Loren
:confuse:
That's funny
Loren
With GM's focus on improving quality for the last 5 years we should see a big improvement in long term reliability. GM has focused on improving new models. The new LaCrosse had the best quality (IQS2) for a new model when it was introduced last year.
the new large trucks should have excellent quality and since they are a large portion of Chevrolet and GMC the overall numbers should go up significantly.
I am waiting for the 2006 model year IQS2 for the latest GM products to see how they are doing. What is surprizing to many is that last year the Japanese midsize cars did not even place in the top three of their respective segments.
Entry midsize was:
Malibu/Sonata/Jetta
Premium midsize was:
Century/[Impala/Grand Prix (tie)], LaCrosse
Full Size:
LeSabre/Grand Marquis/500.
No Camry/Accord/Avalon
In the Compact car:
Prius/[Civic/Corolla (tie)]
perhaps next year we will see the Cobalt here?
Well GM's designer Brian Nesbitt used to design cars at Chrysler in the 90's so thats probably why you think the new Impala looks like a Chrysler. Nesbitt also designed the PT Criser for Chrysler so thats why the HHR looks like a PT Cruiser to some.
I guess the HHR is an alright sort of van, with some interesting styling points to it. Seems more conservative than the PT.
After all the time spent on Cobalt, it seems rather bland. The new Civic, love it, or hate it, is at least new. Honda has some great engines. Perhaps GM could just let them do all their engine works.
Loren
Yeah Chrysler had some great looking cars in the 90's. Keep in mind the 300M didn't exactly fly off Chrysler dealers lots thus we have the 300's drmatic styling. I agree the 300M was a pretty good looking car but was not enough not enough to sway an import car buyer into buying one. To be fair Chevy is going for a different buyer(more conservative) than Chrysler did in the 90's or today. If GM wanted to challenge Chrysler head to head Buick or Pontiac would probably be the GM brands to do it with.
BTW, I just remembered there was a 1st generation and second generation Concorde. I always remembered the 2nd generation but the 1st generation just popped into my head. The 2nd generation I liked the headlights and nice interior plastics too from what I saw once from a view. I'll be looking for the next generation Sebring from Chrysler. I'm curious to what that will look like. The 1st generation looked more like a 50 year old businessmans car. The 2nd generation looked more sleek and better to me.
As for comparing a Chevy to a Chrysler styling wise while their not in the same class of car the 06 Impala looks better(or more my style)than the first generation Concorde but no way does the new Impala look better than the second generation Concorde.
With GM being in the primary business of making money (GMAC) and not making cars, I could understand why interior design/materials were abismal and reliability was questionable - why would GM build something that lasted longer than 60 months - the bean counters at GM want customer coming back for new loans.
With this in mind, I understand why the Aztec and other "trendy"/short-sighted exterior designs came about. Like clothing, why would you want to keep driving something that is out of style...time to go back for another loan...err, car.
Though Toyota and Honda always seem to come of as bland, boring and too conservative - atleast most of their designs have a longer "lifespan". Here in the midwest, you can still spot a early nineties Honda Accord...conservative lines, panel gaps still tight... Don't see many Celebrities or Pontiac 6000's ...but when you see one they look pretty sad.
It appears GM is learning from it competitors, but I think it difficult for their bean counter to wean themselves off the GMAC t*t, planned obsolescence model.
I thought I read elsewhere that Magna bought out
Gentex recently.
There was a big article in our local newspaper about
them being a union busters and such along with the NPG buyout thing.................Hmmmmmmm.....
I would like to see Suzuki bring over some more of its original designs, including the new Swift, but the Forenza sedan/wagon and Reno seem to be doing well for them. Only the Verona has turned out to be a flop, and the new one looks promising.
Rumor has it that Suzuki has somehow convinced GM to let it use the 3.6L Cadillac/Buick V6 in its next-gen XL-7, so that should be a competetive vehicle too.
-Andrew L
Perhaps because they were not made in the 90's?
anyway these sites came up first in my google search. Very tellng on long term reliability
http://www.19333.com/betsy-mae/
http://www.carsurvey.org/model_Chevrolet_Celebrity.html
I agree with you, obviously.
Suzuki invested in Daewoo with GM. Daewoo had designs and capacity. Putting the designs and capacity to use meant both a return on a very good investment for Suzuki (the GMDAT facilities sold for less than .10 cents on the dollar) and, as you point out, increased Suzuki's market share.
And face it, the Daewoo designs appeared more North American friendly than the more out there Japanese market Suzukis.
The new Forenza looks nice. There has been a lot of positive press about both the build standards and the enthusiastic young team GMDAT is working on. GMDAT is a good thing for both Suzuki and some of GM's foreign brands (and in the US as well, the Aveo is selling above expectations).
I am not certain why it continues to draw criticism.
I am not the one who made that comment. I only supply the factual data.
But you are right that the GM vehicles made 3 years ago have not, averaged together, been quite as reliable as Toyota and Honda. However I believe that if averaged together (you did not supply the number and it would have to be volume weighted) it would be just better than industry average of 237. The difference between 237 and Hondas/Acuras 203 and is pretty minor and might as well be a wash.
Of course this is based on vehicles built 3 years ago and what we should be talking about are the vehicles being built today. Honda/Acura is barely above the industry average. GM has some laggards with Chevrolet and Pontiac below the average by a bit. Overall though GM would probably just about the same as Honda corporation.
Anyway it's just the data I was reporting. And again the midsize cars built in Oshawa (Century, Regal, LaCrosse, Grand Prix, Impala) had better 2005 ISQ2 than the Camry and Accord so at least GM shows great promise in the quality of their meat and potatoes cars.