Automotive News reported this week that the Impala may be renamed when/if it moves to the RWD Zeta platform around 2010. So you might see the Caprice return.
Motor Trend is very inaccurate in its predictions of future cars. No one should pay attention to it.
GM will have new RWD cars - the 2009 or 2010 Camaro, the 2010 or 2011 Impala and Lucerne (both may be renamed), and the 2011 DTS. They will be built at Oshawa, Ontario. Holden doesn't have enough capacity to produce a Grand Prix replacement. Automotive News, as well as two or three insiders on other boards, are the most accurate sources of information.
GM did the right thing with Vue - it borrowed the Accord's V6 engine. But Vue is not a Chevy and it can't change GM's fortunes.
Equinox's styling and roominess are impressive. GM needs to put a better engine in Equinox - the V6 that goes in CTS may be a good choice. GM should then make safety features like ABS, curtain airbags, stability assist, etc. standard. Finally, GM can start offering a slightly better warranty on the refreshed Equinox like it's doing with Buick. Cutting the fleet sales of Equinox and getting rid of 0% APR deals will further boost resale value.
But GM won't do any of this - GM will probably let Equinox die like it let Blazer die. Don't forget Blazer was 1995 Motor Trend Truck of the Year.
As to where water needed for extraction should come from, natch, the sea.
So let me make sure I understand this, - we're going to flood the desert with salt water - we use the almost ready bacteria to make hydrogen - since the process has low efficiency, we need to flood huge quantities of desert with saline water - since the seawater is lower than the deserts, we need to build pipelines for the corrosive water and use large quantites of energy to pump this seawater to the deserts - we'll manage to do this relatively soon - we'll get environmental acceptance to do this - it will be economically viable
Let's discuss styling and popularity. The following is telling:
GM will have new RWD cars - the 2009 or 2010 Camaro, the 2010 or 2011 Impala and Lucerne (both may be renamed)
A great indicator of the value of styling and the brand in general is the consistency of vehicle names. Apple isn't going to rename its next MP3 player from iPod to something else- the iPod name has tremendous value in the marketplace. For GM to already be renaming Lucerne is illustrative of the problem - if Lucerne had been a styling success, if it had been a noteworthy vehicle -- they would not rename. The day GM can consistently upgrade its vehicles and NOT have to rename is the day that they've achieved some success in the market - notable styling, good vehicle reputations.
Honda has been producing Accords and Civics since the 1970's. Toyota has had the Corolla since the 70's and the Camry since the 80's. Lucerne is brand new. What happened?
"Honda and Toyota, are the King and Queen of bland"
HaHa and maybe so (but people that hop up Civics and Scions may disagree with you) but for many people, bland is what they want in a vehicle- maybe like a refrigerator or coffee maker that just does its job in relative obscurity. But funny that the "Big 3" (especially GM) had their best years in the 1950's- 1980's when they sold many bland sedans year and after year. I guess the "bland" sedan market went to the Asians in the 1990's.
I see that GM is starting to advertise the new 2007 light truck line already- isn't availability still 3 months away? I kind of think that has the tendency to freeze current sales of what they have today. But heck, gas prices have come down some (I paid $2.69 for regular yesterday), maybe truck sales will come back somewhat.
wasn't the Vue a pretty good vehicle with that 3.0 V-6 that came from Opel? Or did it have problems?
As for the Blazer dying, I guess you could look at the Trailblazer as its replacement. The old Blazer and Explorer really were compact SUVs, along with the 4runner and Pathfinder. They were still much bigger than your typical cute-ute, but signs were there that the market was shifting towards bigger SUVs. The Explorer, 4runner, and Pathfinder have all grown up. Actually, this might be one instance where GM was at the forefront of a trend. The Durango had already been out for awhile, and was considered midsized, but in '02 when the Explorer redesigned and got a bit bigger, and GM launched the Trailblazer to replace the Blazer, they beat out the Japanese brands in upsizing by a couple years.
As for "truck of the year", one reason that the Blazer won in 1995 was that it was probably the only "all new" (or mostly "all new")truck introduced that year. To be in the running, a vehicle has to be new that year. So if every other truck is superior, but the designs are a couple years old, and a one new truck comes out that sucks royally, it will still win because it's the only new thing that year.
Motortrend also tended to pick cars that, at the time, seemed innovative and trend setting. So at that time in history they might seem significant. However, as time goes on, trends change and innovative often equals unproven and unreliable once it's been out for awhile, so "Car of the Year" often becomes a curse.
"wasn't the Vue a pretty good vehicle with that 3.0 V-6 that came from Opel? Or did it have problems? "
Heck no! My brother had one (purchased new) and it was in the shop like 30+ times before GM finally gave him another one. The replacement Vue was two years newer and started having the same problems.
Needless to say - he got mad one day and traded it on a Toyota...
TrailBlazer was no improvement over Blazer. Just bigger in every dimension (engine, interior room). TrailBlazer wouldn't sell without employee pricing, 0% APR and deals like that. Why not build a fuel-efficient JD Power quality and IIHS crash-test winner with a lovely high revving engine mated with 6 speed tranny and keep it away from fleet sales?
This is the first time Toyota is in real trouble. If Toyota resolves everything fast, Toyota will lose nothing. If Toyota lets the problems linger like GM did, Toyota will also the feel the heat like GM.
Still, Toyota is a better deal because you can trade it in easily if you don't like it (and that too for a good price). GM vehicles have horrible resale value (again this is based on my first hand experience of trading in a Blazer and not other sources).
I still marvel at the slant given to various reports of problems from recalls by local media (your media experience may vary). In our local paper "Toyota may delay some models in quality push" is the headline. If it were GM and reports of recalls it's "850,000 cars and trucks recalled by GM" with further explanation that the NHSTA has had "one report of a car catching on fire" as the force factor for the recall.
Instead it's a report that Toyota is trying so hard to maintain their wonderful quality and how the company is interesting in making sure their quality control procedures were actually followed. And further the article suggests that the problems come from a strong push for growth.
The same report for GM would have been "Growing too fast cause for recalls. GM trying to recover from terrible problems of a car fire."
Does Toyota have a much better PR machine than GM or is the print media just oriented to "feel better" about Toyota? Or is it that Toyo deserves better treatment?
What Motor Trend reported in this case was that Holden was proposing to build a RWD Pontiac. Now Motor Trend may have it wrong and Holden was simply showing GM North America was the Zeta platform is. Motor Trend did not say that a RWD Grand Prix would be put into production. They said this might be done, or could be done, NOT would be done.
Anyway, if the Camaro is a Zeta platform model, I should think that more Zeta platform models would go into production here.
Does Toyota have a much better PR machine than GM or is the print media just oriented to "feel better" about Toyota? Or is it that Toyo deserves better treatment?
I think Toyota right now is roughly at the same spot that GM was in the 70's. Back then, GM could seemingly do no wrong. Sure, it's easy to play armchair quarterback today and look back and nitpick about everything GM did wrong, but take yourself back in time, for a moment, to the 70's. GM truly could do no wrong it seemed, people were carrying on about it being too big, and it was even getting mentioned on primetime television shows like "All In the Family". Sure, GM drew some criticism, in the way that Toyota does today. But, just like how the Toyota critics today often get dismissed, so did the GM critics of the Disco era.
As long as Toyota doesn't just sit on its butt and revel in past glories, as GM did, they'll be fine. Remember, it didn't take just a couple years for GM to fall, it took decades. For all the criticism GM took in the 70's, by 1985 they had 7 of the top ten selling car nameplates, and the number one seller of trucks.
Information gets out quicker these days, but I think it would still take a long time for Toyota to fall. They'd have to screw up not once, but multiple times. In the past, it was rare that someone would swear off GM after just one bad experience. No, GM had such brand loyalty that people usually had to get screwed two or three times over, before seeking another brand.
"They'd have to screw up not once, but multiple times. In the past, it was rare that someone would swear off GM after just one bad experience. "
I completely agree. I was happy with my Geo Prizm. Then, I wasn't with my Chevy Blazer. One bad experience and I switched to Mazda, Honda, etc. And, I know many friends who are sticking to Toyota after bad experiences.
Of course, you missed one subtle issue - the customer service. If you call GM about a problem after expiration of the warranty, you hardly get any help - I can tell you this from my personal experience with my Blazer. On the contrary, my Toyota owning friends got plenty of free repairs from Toyota after warranty period. Very recently Toyota helped a friend of mine replace bad CEL (check engine light) sensors - his Camry is 6 years/ 51,000 miles and is well outside the warranty period. Toyota also gave him a free 60,000 mile service coupon. So, Toyota is trying harder to pacify frustrated customers.
Again, what I'm writing is based on what I have seen and experienced, and it may differ from what you have seen or experienced. So, please don't curse me for being anti-GM or anything like that.
While the car warranty is expired, there are government standards for emisssions that continue and the manufacturer has to meet those standards beyond the warranty period.
Instead it's a report that Toyota is trying so hard to maintain their wonderful quality and how the company is interesting in making sure their quality control procedures were actually followed. And further the article suggests that the problems come from a strong push for growth.
The same report for GM would have been "Growing too fast cause for recalls. GM trying to recover from terrible problems of a car fire."
Does Toyota have a much better PR machine than GM or is the print media just oriented to "feel better" about Toyota? Or is it that Toyo deserves better treatment?
Maybe one of the major differences between Toyota and GM is ATTITUDE - the attitude of high management and then how that is perceived and its effects on lower management and workers in the execution of their jobs.
Here is more info from yesterday's WSJ article on the Toyota recalls:
"For the most part, Toyota's recalls have involved relatively minor issues and nearly all have been voluntary actions by the company, not the kind in which consumer complaints prod the government into action, says manufacturing guru James Womack, chairman of the Lean Enterprise Institute in Cambridge, Mass.
Still, Toyota has painstakenly built a reputation for superior quality over the past three decades, and the soaring number of recalls has been highly embarassing for its management. At a news conference last month, Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe offered an elaborate apology.
'I take this seriously and see it as a crisis', Mr. Watanabe said. He then bowed deeply in front of the cameras, adding, 'I want to apologize deeply for the troubles we have caused'.
Has Mr Wagoner or any of his predecessors ever done the same for GM recalls?
On a lighter note on styling, maybe GM could learn something from Mr. Watanabe and have those responsible for some styling fiascos such as Aztek, Malibu, etc., apologize to the public for putting these designs into production.
The aerodynamics of the newer vehicles are so much better then old, especially the Caprice, with it's Brick Wall windshield, high center of gravity, and weight! My wife's Monte Carlo SS, gets awesome fuel mileage, has great visibility, aerodynamics, and is NOT a very heavy vehicle, and has a V6 that has more then enough power to keep up with anyone! I also drive a new Corvette, and PLEASE don't tell me that this car don't have everything that a car needs to pass any of the tests that your talking about, except Towing!
An updated and smaller rwd Caprice (compared to 77-90 vintage) and about 3500 lbs, with styling cues from past, could still be somewhat aerodynamic. It could be much more aero than many of current GM offerings such as the suvs and pickups. I think that it would lure many current GM owners of suvs and pickups who would come to realization that they don't really need these oversize and inefficient vehicles.
Styling and performance of Corvette has always been very good, but don't think that Corvette can pass all tests. I have looked for in past and could not find any Govt or IIHS crash tests for head-ons or frontal offset crashes. Would a Corvette head-on be like a water glass falling from a counter and hitting a ceramic tile floor?
"Bland styling is not GM's problem. " Since GM has other problems too, eliminating one wouldn't hurt. You and a few others like GM - there's nothing wrong with that. But saying that GM is as good or as bad as Honda in some respect doesn't help - Accord buyers aren't going to switch to a Malibu or G6 just because you like GM. Without fleet sales, GM card, employee and supplier discounts and 0% APR financing GM would have hard time selling 50,000 Malibus a year. Honda doesn't need any of this to sell 400,000 Accords.
"Without fleet sales, GM card, employee and supplier discounts and 0% APR financing GM would have hard time selling 50,000 Malibus a year. Honda doesn't need any of this to sell 400,000 Accords."
Amen. You hit the nail on the head. There's a dynamic where the GM detractors (some would call us haters) state our views on the general and the GM loyalists (some would call them apologists) insist that it's all a misplaced perception or illusion.
The facts don't lie. There are enough Chevy dealers out there that if the Malibu were as good as an Accord, they'd sell as many for the same price. They don't. After cutting the price to 15 grand, they move them.
We're all consumers here. If these efforts aren't winning us over, then their styling, design, warranty, dealership experience and whatever else, will not save GM.
An updated and smaller rwd Caprice (compared to 77-90 vintage) and about 3500 lbs, with styling cues from past, could still be somewhat aerodynamic. It could be much more aero than many of current GM offerings such as the suvs and pickups. I think that it would lure many current GM owners of suvs and pickups who would come to realization that they don't really need these oversize and inefficient vehicles.
I think another thing to keep in mind here is that we're talking about cars. Not buses, motorhomes, tractor trailers, railroad locomotives, airplanes, etc. A car just doesn't have that much frontal area, so aerodynamics aren't as critical as you might think. A slippery shape helps a bit, but the main reason the automakers went aero was to save their own butts and avoid paying CAFE fines. If the automaker's corporate average fuel economy is below the standard, they get fined $5.00 for every 1/10 of an mpg below the limit the whole fleet as an average gets.
So if their average is 1 mpg below the CAFE reg, they get slapped with $50.00 per car. Now that might not sound like much, but the automakers would sell their sould to the devil to save a couple pennies per car. Just imagine the hoops they'd jump through for 50 bucks!
Also, a car can look sleek but not really be very aerodynamic. And vice versa. Ford was infamous for awhile for making cars that looked slick but weren't. A Chrysler 300 or Dodge Charger has a windshield that's more upright than that on my '57 DeSoto, but I'm sure they're more aerodynamic.
Aerodynamics would matter more at higher speeds, but if you're talking the EPA city cycle they're inconsequential. Out on the highway they'll help a little, but we're still not talking vast amounts here. It's not like if you take a Camry or Accord or Malibu 4-cyl and change its drag coefficient from the low-mid .3 range to, say, .5, that your highway mileage will drop from 33-34 to the low 20's!
If you want to see a good test of how "vital" aerodynamics are to a car, get out on a level stretch of empty highway, get up to a good speed, and then put it in neutral and see how far it coasts. Friction (tires, the axle gears) and gravity are the main force slowing you down, not wind resistance. If you have bigger tires and a shorter axle ratio, chances are you'll slow down more quickly, as the bigger tires create more friction and more turning mass, and the gears in the differential are still engaged even if the transmission is in neutral.
Which brings me back to my contention that today's car windshields are getting too steeply raked (for the most part), with thicker A-pillars that hamper visibility. The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger do have more upright windshields, but they're too far forward of the driver, so visibility is still compromised.
At least Toyota can fix the problems. GM has many problems show up year after year (can you say "warped rotors"?)and even problems that can't be fixed with multiple dealer visits.
GM would not bother to delay a vehicle launch either. They would slap it together, sell it, and then try to fix it.
In general, you're right. I think Toyota and Lexus have a hard time with original, appealing styling. If a car can be "shockingly average", the Camry is that car.
But even bland Toyota came up with the intriguing FJ Cruiser, which appears to be a huge "must-have" sales hit despite being less practical than some of its competitors.
Staid Honda really nailed it with the new Civic. Yes, it's an economy car and not supposed to be a paragon of anything, except maybe practicality, but the new Civic coupe in particular is a handsome car. Don't forget Civic sales were languishing prior to the redesign. Honda has an inconsistent dash of style. Toyota trails here.
Regarding VW, I agree, the company has real problems (the Phaeton strategy being one obvious example) and a shaky cost structure. But, people buy VWs because the image is sophisticated and stylish. With reference to the original theme of this discussion, GM is far, far behind on this dimension. If you want to broaden the discussion beyond style, then yes, GM has VW beat in some areas.
I have NO IDEA what part of the country you live in, but in my area, New England/New Hampshire, if this is so BUTT UGLY as you put it, then tell me WHY whenever I use it, and come out of a Mall, there are always people looking at it, and asking me questions about it? There are so many on the road up here, you can't go an hour without seeing at least a few of them, and that is not bad for a Butt Ugly car! I've NEVER seen anyone standing around outside of a store, or any other place looking at a Lexus/Toyota/or any other "Pocket Rocket", no matter which make, model or anything else that may stand out on them! The Monte Carlo SS, with it's low ground effects w/off setting colors for contrast, laser cut wheels, and NASCAR looks, with a 7 inch spoiler sticking up in the rear, this is a very good looking vehicle, that is both comfortable and economical, and is also a great grocery getter! For a BUTT UGLY car, in YOUR opinion, it gets an AWFUL lot of attention, and seems to sell quite a few every year since introduction! BTW: the fuel mileage on this vehicle is really great, especially for a Full Size vehicle! I believe that not only modern Technology on the engine & drive train, it's body configuration has to be adding the the good fuel mileage it gets, and it's seating of 5 full grown adults, very comfortably without having to get VERY friendly with the person aside of you, or having to sit on someone else's lap (possibly Bubba's:}!!! But we are ALL entitled to our own opinion, regardless on how unfounded they may be!
Re: Monte Carlo so BUTT UGLY as you put it, then tell me WHY whenever I use it, and come out of a Mall, there are always people looking at it, and asking me questions about it?
Since style is an individual matter, I will try to explain; The Monte Carlo is a classic American designed car that has the elements of a car from the 80's. Long hood and trunk, small interior (for the size of the car), big swoopy fenders. It has a macho look, looks big, heavy and mean and that appeals to a large segment of the population in the U.S.A. Also, has a nostalgic feeling to it.
If you compare the looks to the common sense look of an Accord, Camry, BMW, Jaguar, Jetta, Audi, the difference is that these cars don't rely on a macho, heavy, mean look. They look efficient and are styled in a manner that will not as easily be dated. These cars come from countries where gasoline costs 3 or 4 times what it does in the U.S., so for the most part they are designed to be as efficient as possible....not too much extra fat (metal, chrome). If you drove a Monte Carlo down the street in London, Paris, or Tokyo you would get stares but for a very different reason.
Styling is subjective and so it isn't fair to call a design ugly or particularly butt ugly. Opinion on style is highly personalized. In the U.S. the Monte Carlo is a classic American design that would appeal to a pretty big following, IMHO I don't think it would be a contender in a world wide beauty contest up against Jaguars, BMW's, Mercedes, Lexus or Infinity's or even Maximas.
And that is only my opinion and doesn't reflect the opinions of the good people at Edmunds or anyone else.
>Jaguars, BMW's, Mercedes, Lexus or Infinity's or even Maximas
The Monte isn't priced in the range of those cars either. In it's pricing area it's a practical car.
I appreciate your ability to ignore the bias of some that if it's GM it's awful, ugly, out-dated, or whatever negative can be thrown that's off-topic of "GM styling."
I appreciate your ability to ignore the bias of some that if it's GM it's awful, ugly, out-dated, or whatever negative can be thrown that's off-topic of "GM styling."
There has never been an objective way to measure styling. You like it or you don't like it. It's always biased! Eventually, we rely on the common sense of the mass.
For example, Tom Cruise is considered more handsome than George Bush, not because we have measured them with a beauty-meter, but because most people thought so.
The same holds for cars. Toyotas are bland, but sleek (some are actually good: Supra). Some of the GMs are butt ugly.
Styling is subjective and the Monte Carlo is particularly love it or hate it. Count me with those that hate it. I think that it is a buffet or poor styling cues from a past era resulting in a bloated inconsistent design.
The Nascar crowd looks at it and sees a Muscle Car. That's cool. We can disagree. I think that the Accord coupe looks too flattened out. Alot of people like those as well.
It has the current Impala nose on the old body. Did GM hire the guy who made the 1962 Dodge 880? In that case, they put the 1961 Dodge front end clip on a 1962 Chrysler Newport.
I have a book on the 1984 Corvette which has a chart of horsepower required vs speed. They show chassis and total so the drag power is the difference. At 55 MPH they are equal, 8.2 hp each. At 120 MPH the friction (chassis) is up to 25 hp, but total horsepower needed is 110. At 80 MPH the chassis is about 12 to 13, but total is 37 to 38. So, from 55 to 80 MPH, the chassis power increases less than 5 hp (~50%), but the drag power increases by 7 hp (~90%).
>Jaguars, BMW's, Mercedes, Lexus or Infinity's or even Maximas The Monte isn't priced in the range of those cars either.
True, but good design doesn't cost that much more either.
GM hasn't come up with an original design in years and they used to be a leader in this field. With the exception of the Caddie CTS there isn't anything new or innovative in years, even Chrysler and Ford are ahead in being creative.
It amazes me that the largest car company in the world can't come up with some imaginative designs. Jaguars, BMW's, Mercedes might cost more, but paying a good designer wouldn't add much to the price of the car.
Maybe GM's are designed like American movies, by a committee. Well, we need some big name stars, at least 4 explosions, 2 car chases and 22 people killed for it to make money. It goes like this, we need it to be as big as possible, we'll use as much of that new plastic chrome material as possible, young people like those little round tailights - use them when possible. What car is successful that we can make a copy, let's bring back portholes for Buicks, how about a Pontiac that looks a bit like an Accord with very clean lines to make up for all that silly vinyl cladding we put on for all those years, we can call it a G6! Make the coupe model look like an Accord coupe while we are at it, maybe bring out a Saturn car that people might mistake for an Accord, call it an Aurora, even same letters. We can copy Jaguars to come up with a new Buick design, so what if it bulges in the wrong places. Now what can we do to compete with the Miata, and Mustang and PT Cruiser?
>It goes like this, we need it to be as big as possible, we'll use as much of that new plastic chrome material as possible, young people like those little round tailights - use them when possible. What car is successful that we can make a copy, let's bring back portholes for Buicks, how about a Pontiac that looks a bit like an Accord with very clean lines to make up for all that silly vinyl cladding we put on for all those years, we can call it a G6! Make the coupe model look like an Accord coupe while we are at it, maybe bring out a Saturn car that people might mistake for an Accord, call it an Aurora, even same letters. We can copy Jaguars to come up with a new Buick design, so what if it bulges in the wrong places. Now what can we do to compete with the Miata, and Mustang and PT Cruiser?
We can copy Jaguars to come up with a new Buick design, so what if it bulges in the wrong places. Now what can we do to compete with the Miata, and Mustang and PT Cruiser?
GM might take a lot of blame for copying things that other makers came out with first, but believe it or not, GM did that back in the 60's as well. Just about every new market that GM entered, someone else had gone there first. Compact cars? Well, the Corvair, Valiant, and Falcon all came out around the same time in 1960. GM tried to be innovative with the Corvair, wasn't all that successful, and followed the Falcon/Valiant pattern for 1962 with the Chevy II.
Upscale compacts? Well, Mercury was kind of there first, with the Comet. GM was there in 1961 with the Tempest/F-85/Special, and put much more effort into them than the Comet. Chrysler was a bit late to this game with the Dart in 1963.
Midsized cars? Ford was there in 1962, with the Fairlane/Meteor. Chrysler was there that same year with the downsized Dodges and Plymouths. They considered them full-sized cars, and they were actually pretty roomy, giving up little compared to a standard-sized Ford or Chevy. But the public wanted mass and bulk, so they weren't popular. The oddball styling didn't help much, either. GM wouldn't have its midsized cars until 1964, when the Special/Tempest/F-85 upsized, and the Chevelle was added.
Personal luxury coupes? Ford was there in 1958 with the T-bird, and dabbled a bit in the ultra luxury market with the 1956 Continental. GM would finally come around with the Riviera in '63, the Toronado in '66, and the Eldorado in '67. GM did respond, in a way, with cars like the '62 Grand Prix and the Olds Starfire, and perhaps the Buick Wildcat. They weren't as unique as the Eldo/Toro/Riv or T-bird, but were hi-spec versions of the B-body, with stronger engines and interiors that blended luxury and sport.
Ponycars? Well, in an odd sort of way, GM stumbled across a market for small sporty cars with the performance versions of the Corvair. The car was underwhelming as a mass-market compact, but found some fair success as a sporty compact. Still, Ford took it one giant step further with the 1965 Mustang. Chrysler reacted hastily with the 1964 Barracuda, rushing it out to the market a few weeks before the Mustang. GM didn't respond until the 1967 Camaro/Firebird.
More luxurious standard cars? Well, Ford had the LTD in 1965. Chevy reacted with the Caprice, but was quick enough to get it out the same model year. And Plymouth reacted with the Fury VIP.
However, GM had an excellent marketing team, and some of the greatest stylists of all time, who were really on the ball. So while Ford, and sometimes even Chrysler, may have entered a market before GM, the General at least had the uncanny knack of improving on that formula and having a smash hit on their hands.
It would be cool if they could somehow find that magic again today.
Let's drift back to a time when show date was an event. Cher still loved Sonny and GM ruled the market. I remember when the models changed annually. It was a big deal and the local dealer hide product at his house. The divisions all stood for something. Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, all had separate identities. Chevrolet and Pontiac offered value and performance. Buick, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac were revered and something people aspired to own. How times change.
Good point. I think the underlying issue is that GM doesn't have the knack, or maybe even the inclination, to pay for design houses like Pininfarina, Giugiaro or designers like Callum. You can tell, when looking at many Ferraris, that they are works of art sculpted around the mechanicals. I think GM just wants designers to put a few creases and badges on its boxes.
GM has had its moments - Jerry Palmer's 1984 Corvette, which is still the basis for Corvette design, was and is a handsome car on the outside. Whether it's committee-driven design, or cost-cutting, however, GM's lack of imagination is discouraging. How could they take a legendary badge like GTO and stick it on a rental-car-looking coupe? It's almost a textbook example of sacrificing style in favor of the parts bin.
But, our perceptions of style (as being cool or lousy) follow our perceptions of the brand. So, Bangle does some average-to-ugly BMWs and they're still seen as progressive, because BMW has a great brand image. GM starts with a handicap, because we expect them to fail. Frankly, I've always thought the Bangle-ized BMW 7 sedan is an eyesore, as bad as any of GM's sedans.
BTW, I had a rental Monte Carlo last year. It's a big slab-sided car that could have been built 15 years ago. It reminded me of a 1980 Caprice Classic. It's almost like GM is afraid to offend the last few hundred guys in the gold-chain set by pulling the plug on it. In my opinion, it's a big image-killer for GM. If GM is going to save itself with styling, it has to bury relics like these.
So if their average is 1 mpg below the CAFE reg, they get slapped with $50.00 per car. Now that might not sound like much, but the automakers would sell their sould to the devil to save a couple pennies per car. Just imagine the hoops they'd jump through for 50 bucks!
Or they could drop some of the bloat off of the chassis.
Look at the weight of a 1995 Camry. Now look at the weight of a LaCrosse. Or look at the weight of a new Altima. A lighter car means: - Smaller engine required - Less weight from said smaller engine. - Lighter brakes - Smaller tires - Smaller transmission. And of course, all of this adds up to smaller again in some cases, like the engine... creating a compounding effect.
And the list goes on. GM's problem is that one overbuilt part leads to another and then they drop in that pig of a 3800 engine and pretty soon they have a 3400-3600lb car what goes just as fast as the competition - but handles like a whale and gets poorer mileage.
GM needs to get light and efficient. And start putting 2.8-3.0L engines in the cars. With 1/6 less weight, they can easily get by with 1/6th less torque - and then some.
Frankly, I've always thought the Bangle-ized BMW 7 sedan is an eyesore, as bad as any of GM's sedans.
In fairness, the Bangle Butt might be controversial, but it is being imitated on Mercedes and on Hyundais and there is a bit of a problem when you have cars this well designed. The problem is, you have to keep elements of the original design to keep the fans happy, but you have to change it just enough to get them to buy another one. But, the overall design basic shape of a Mercedes, BMW, Audi hasn't changed for over 20 years...because they are classic long lasting designs. Monte Carlo's will be of interest on Cruise Nights but other than that it will be forgotten in time
BTW, I had a rental Monte Carlo last year. It's a big slab-sided car that could have been built 15 years ago. It reminded me of a 1980 Caprice Classic.
Now I think that might be a little extra cruel. What a horrible thing to say about a 1980 Caprice Classic. :P
Well, I didn't want to offend you. It's true that styling is subjective. But Aztek, Monte Carlo are butt-ugly. Scion xB is ugly too, but that shouldn't be an excuse for making something terrible as Monte Carlo. Impala's styling may not be eye-popping, but it's not butt-ugly. You know what I mean. And, the horrible plastic covering the tail-lamps of Monte Carlo is very very ugly (I don't know if the new Monte Carlos are using slightly different material). I have seen old Monte Carlo's (probably 20+ years old ones) - the rear-end looks similar, but not as bloated and out-of-place as the current Monte Carlo's.
Comments
The companies that are not suffering, Honda and Toyota, are the King and Queen of bland.
GM will have new RWD cars - the 2009 or 2010 Camaro, the 2010 or 2011 Impala and Lucerne (both may be renamed), and the 2011 DTS. They will be built at Oshawa, Ontario. Holden doesn't have enough capacity to produce a Grand Prix replacement. Automotive News, as well as two or three insiders on other boards, are the most accurate sources of information.
I agree with most of what you are saying but some friendly advice, tone it down a notch or you will upset some of the remaining GM fans
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Article at Bloomberg
Equinox's styling and roominess are impressive. GM needs to put a better engine in Equinox - the V6 that goes in CTS may be a good choice. GM should then make safety features like ABS, curtain airbags, stability assist, etc. standard. Finally, GM can start offering a slightly better warranty on the refreshed Equinox like it's doing with Buick. Cutting the fleet sales of Equinox and getting rid of 0% APR deals will further boost resale value.
But GM won't do any of this - GM will probably let Equinox die like it let Blazer die. Don't forget Blazer was 1995 Motor Trend Truck of the Year.
It was?!? Well, that rag has a penchant for picking losers! Such as Vega, Mustang II, Aspen/Volare, Omni/Horizon, GM X-cars....
So let me make sure I understand this,
- we're going to flood the desert with salt water
- we use the almost ready bacteria to make hydrogen
- since the process has low efficiency, we need to flood huge quantities of desert with saline water
- since the seawater is lower than the deserts, we need to build pipelines for the corrosive water and use large quantites of energy to pump this seawater to the deserts
- we'll manage to do this relatively soon
- we'll get environmental acceptance to do this
- it will be economically viable
Excuse my skepticism!
GM will have new RWD cars - the 2009 or 2010 Camaro, the 2010 or 2011 Impala and Lucerne (both may be renamed)
A great indicator of the value of styling and the brand in general is the consistency of vehicle names. Apple isn't going to rename its next MP3 player from iPod to something else- the iPod name has tremendous value in the marketplace. For GM to already be renaming Lucerne is illustrative of the problem - if Lucerne had been a styling success, if it had been a noteworthy vehicle -- they would not rename. The day GM can consistently upgrade its vehicles and NOT have to rename is the day that they've achieved some success in the market - notable styling, good vehicle reputations.
Honda has been producing Accords and Civics since the 1970's. Toyota has had the Corolla since the 70's and the Camry since the 80's. Lucerne is brand new. What happened?
HaHa and maybe so (but people that hop up Civics and Scions may disagree with you) but for many people, bland is what they want in a vehicle- maybe like a refrigerator or coffee maker that just does its job in relative obscurity. But funny that the "Big 3" (especially GM) had their best years in the 1950's- 1980's when they sold many bland sedans year and after year. I guess the "bland" sedan market went to the Asians in the 1990's.
I see that GM is starting to advertise the new 2007 light truck line already- isn't availability still 3 months away? I kind of think that has the tendency to freeze current sales of what they have today. But heck, gas prices have come down some (I paid $2.69 for regular yesterday), maybe truck sales will come back somewhat.
As for the Blazer dying, I guess you could look at the Trailblazer as its replacement. The old Blazer and Explorer really were compact SUVs, along with the 4runner and Pathfinder. They were still much bigger than your typical cute-ute, but signs were there that the market was shifting towards bigger SUVs. The Explorer, 4runner, and Pathfinder have all grown up. Actually, this might be one instance where GM was at the forefront of a trend. The Durango had already been out for awhile, and was considered midsized, but in '02 when the Explorer redesigned and got a bit bigger, and GM launched the Trailblazer to replace the Blazer, they beat out the Japanese brands in upsizing by a couple years.
As for "truck of the year", one reason that the Blazer won in 1995 was that it was probably the only "all new" (or mostly "all new")truck introduced that year. To be in the running, a vehicle has to be new that year. So if every other truck is superior, but the designs are a couple years old, and a one new truck comes out that sucks royally, it will still win because it's the only new thing that year.
Motortrend also tended to pick cars that, at the time, seemed innovative and trend setting. So at that time in history they might seem significant. However, as time goes on, trends change and innovative often equals unproven and unreliable once it's been out for awhile, so "Car of the Year" often becomes a curse.
Heck no! My brother had one (purchased new) and it was in the shop like 30+ times before GM finally gave him another one. The replacement Vue was two years newer and started having the same problems.
Needless to say - he got mad one day and traded it on a Toyota...
Bland styling is not GM's problem.
Also, you and I disagree completely if you think late 1950s through at least 1969 GM sedans were bland. That was a golden age of styling.
And the collection dollars running after those cars back me up.
Only to suffer multiple recalls.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5285196.stm
Still, Toyota is a better deal because you can trade it in easily if you don't like it (and that too for a good price). GM vehicles have horrible resale value (again this is based on my first hand experience of trading in a Blazer and not other sources).
Instead it's a report that Toyota is trying so hard to maintain their wonderful quality and how the company is interesting in making sure their quality control procedures were actually followed. And further the article suggests that the problems come from a strong push for growth.
The same report for GM would have been "Growing too fast cause for recalls. GM trying to recover from terrible problems of a car fire."
Does Toyota have a much better PR machine than GM or is the print media just oriented to "feel better" about Toyota? Or is it that Toyo deserves better treatment?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Anyway, if the Camaro is a Zeta platform model, I should think that more Zeta platform models would go into production here.
I think Toyota right now is roughly at the same spot that GM was in the 70's. Back then, GM could seemingly do no wrong. Sure, it's easy to play armchair quarterback today and look back and nitpick about everything GM did wrong, but take yourself back in time, for a moment, to the 70's. GM truly could do no wrong it seemed, people were carrying on about it being too big, and it was even getting mentioned on primetime television shows like "All In the Family". Sure, GM drew some criticism, in the way that Toyota does today. But, just like how the Toyota critics today often get dismissed, so did the GM critics of the Disco era.
As long as Toyota doesn't just sit on its butt and revel in past glories, as GM did, they'll be fine. Remember, it didn't take just a couple years for GM to fall, it took decades. For all the criticism GM took in the 70's, by 1985 they had 7 of the top ten selling car nameplates, and the number one seller of trucks.
Information gets out quicker these days, but I think it would still take a long time for Toyota to fall. They'd have to screw up not once, but multiple times. In the past, it was rare that someone would swear off GM after just one bad experience. No, GM had such brand loyalty that people usually had to get screwed two or three times over, before seeking another brand.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I completely agree. I was happy with my Geo Prizm. Then, I wasn't with my Chevy Blazer. One bad experience and I switched to Mazda, Honda, etc. And, I know many friends who are sticking to Toyota after bad experiences.
Of course, you missed one subtle issue - the customer service. If you call GM about a problem after expiration of the warranty, you hardly get any help - I can tell you this from my personal experience with my Blazer. On the contrary, my Toyota owning friends got plenty of free repairs from Toyota after warranty period. Very recently Toyota helped a friend of mine replace bad CEL (check engine light) sensors - his Camry is 6 years/ 51,000 miles and is well outside the warranty period. Toyota also gave him a free 60,000 mile service coupon. So, Toyota is trying harder to pacify frustrated customers.
Again, what I'm writing is based on what I have seen and experienced, and it may differ from what you have seen or experienced. So, please don't curse me for being anti-GM or anything like that.
The same report for GM would have been "Growing too fast cause for recalls. GM trying to recover from terrible problems of a car fire."
Does Toyota have a much better PR machine than GM or is the print media just oriented to "feel better" about Toyota? Or is it that Toyo deserves better treatment?
Maybe one of the major differences between Toyota and GM is ATTITUDE - the attitude of high management and then how that is perceived and its effects on lower management and workers in the execution of their jobs.
Here is more info from yesterday's WSJ article on the Toyota recalls:
"For the most part, Toyota's recalls have involved relatively minor issues and nearly all have been voluntary actions by the company, not the kind in which consumer complaints prod the government into action, says manufacturing guru James Womack, chairman of the Lean Enterprise Institute in Cambridge, Mass.
Still, Toyota has painstakenly built a reputation for superior quality over the past three decades, and the soaring number of recalls has been highly embarassing for its management. At a news conference last month, Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe offered an elaborate apology.
'I take this seriously and see it as a crisis', Mr. Watanabe said. He then bowed deeply in front of the cameras, adding, 'I want to apologize deeply for the troubles we have caused'.
Has Mr Wagoner or any of his predecessors ever done the same for GM recalls?
On a lighter note on styling, maybe GM could learn something from Mr. Watanabe and have those responsible for some styling fiascos such as Aztek, Malibu, etc., apologize to the public for putting these designs into production.
An updated and smaller rwd Caprice (compared to 77-90 vintage) and about 3500 lbs, with styling cues from past, could still be somewhat aerodynamic. It could be much more aero than many of current GM offerings such as the suvs and pickups. I think that it would lure many current GM owners of suvs and pickups who would come to realization that they don't really need these oversize and inefficient vehicles.
Styling and performance of Corvette has always been very good, but don't think that Corvette can pass all tests. I have looked for in past and could not find any Govt or IIHS crash tests for head-ons or frontal offset crashes. Would a Corvette head-on be like a water glass falling from a counter and hitting a ceramic tile floor?
I can tell you one thing: Monte Carlo styling will completely destroy GM - I haven't seen anything more butt-ugly
Since GM has other problems too, eliminating one wouldn't hurt. You and a few others like GM - there's nothing wrong with that. But saying that GM is as good or as bad as Honda in some respect doesn't help - Accord buyers aren't going to switch to a Malibu or G6 just because you like GM. Without fleet sales, GM card, employee and supplier discounts and 0% APR financing GM would have hard time selling 50,000 Malibus a year. Honda doesn't need any of this to sell 400,000 Accords.
Amen. You hit the nail on the head. There's a dynamic where the GM detractors (some would call us haters) state our views on the general and the GM loyalists (some would call them apologists) insist that it's all a misplaced perception or illusion.
The facts don't lie. There are enough Chevy dealers out there that if the Malibu were as good as an Accord, they'd sell as many for the same price. They don't. After cutting the price to 15 grand, they move them.
We're all consumers here. If these efforts aren't winning us over, then their styling, design, warranty, dealership experience and whatever else, will not save GM.
I think another thing to keep in mind here is that we're talking about cars. Not buses, motorhomes, tractor trailers, railroad locomotives, airplanes, etc. A car just doesn't have that much frontal area, so aerodynamics aren't as critical as you might think. A slippery shape helps a bit, but the main reason the automakers went aero was to save their own butts and avoid paying CAFE fines. If the automaker's corporate average fuel economy is below the standard, they get fined $5.00 for every 1/10 of an mpg below the limit the whole fleet as an average gets.
So if their average is 1 mpg below the CAFE reg, they get slapped with $50.00 per car. Now that might not sound like much, but the automakers would sell their sould to the devil to save a couple pennies per car. Just imagine the hoops they'd jump through for 50 bucks!
Also, a car can look sleek but not really be very aerodynamic. And vice versa. Ford was infamous for awhile for making cars that looked slick but weren't. A Chrysler 300 or Dodge Charger has a windshield that's more upright than that on my '57 DeSoto, but I'm sure they're more aerodynamic.
Aerodynamics would matter more at higher speeds, but if you're talking the EPA city cycle they're inconsequential. Out on the highway they'll help a little, but we're still not talking vast amounts here. It's not like if you take a Camry or Accord or Malibu 4-cyl and change its drag coefficient from the low-mid .3 range to, say, .5, that your highway mileage will drop from 33-34 to the low 20's!
If you want to see a good test of how "vital" aerodynamics are to a car, get out on a level stretch of empty highway, get up to a good speed, and then put it in neutral and see how far it coasts. Friction (tires, the axle gears) and gravity are the main force slowing you down, not wind resistance. If you have bigger tires and a shorter axle ratio, chances are you'll slow down more quickly, as the bigger tires create more friction and more turning mass, and the gears in the differential are still engaged even if the transmission is in neutral.
Which brings me back to my contention that today's car windshields are getting too steeply raked (for the most part), with thicker A-pillars that hamper visibility. The Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger do have more upright windshields, but they're too far forward of the driver, so visibility is still compromised.
GM would not bother to delay a vehicle launch either. They would slap it together, sell it, and then try to fix it.
But even bland Toyota came up with the intriguing FJ Cruiser, which appears to be a huge "must-have" sales hit despite being less practical than some of its competitors.
Staid Honda really nailed it with the new Civic. Yes, it's an economy car and not supposed to be a paragon of anything, except maybe practicality, but the new Civic coupe in particular is a handsome car. Don't forget Civic sales were languishing prior to the redesign. Honda has an inconsistent dash of style. Toyota trails here.
Regarding VW, I agree, the company has real problems (the Phaeton strategy being one obvious example) and a shaky cost structure. But, people buy VWs because the image is sophisticated and stylish. With reference to the original theme of this discussion, GM is far, far behind on this dimension. If you want to broaden the discussion beyond style, then yes, GM has VW beat in some areas.
so BUTT UGLY as you put it, then tell me WHY whenever I use it, and come out of a Mall, there are always people looking at it, and asking me questions about it?
Since style is an individual matter, I will try to explain;
The Monte Carlo is a classic American designed car that has the elements of a car from the 80's. Long hood and trunk, small interior (for the size of the car), big swoopy fenders. It has a macho look, looks big, heavy and mean and that appeals to a large segment of the population in the U.S.A. Also, has a nostalgic feeling to it.
If you compare the looks to the common sense look of an Accord, Camry, BMW, Jaguar, Jetta, Audi, the difference is that these cars don't rely on a macho, heavy, mean look. They look efficient and are styled in a manner that will not as easily be dated. These cars come from countries where gasoline costs 3 or 4 times what it does in the U.S., so for the most part they are designed to be as efficient as possible....not too much extra fat (metal, chrome). If you drove a Monte Carlo down the street in London, Paris, or Tokyo you would get stares but for a very different reason.
Styling is subjective and so it isn't fair to call a design ugly or particularly butt ugly. Opinion on style is highly personalized. In the U.S. the Monte Carlo is a classic American design that would appeal to a pretty big following, IMHO I don't think it would be a contender in a world wide beauty contest up against Jaguars, BMW's, Mercedes, Lexus or Infinity's or even Maximas.
And that is only my opinion and doesn't reflect the opinions of the good people at Edmunds or anyone else.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
The Monte isn't priced in the range of those cars either. In it's pricing area it's a practical car.
I appreciate your ability to ignore the bias of some that if it's GM it's awful, ugly, out-dated, or whatever negative can be thrown that's off-topic of "GM styling."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
There has never been an objective way to measure styling. You like it or you don't like it. It's always biased! Eventually, we rely on the common sense of the mass.
For example, Tom Cruise is considered more handsome than George Bush, not because we have measured them with a beauty-meter, but because most people thought so.
The same holds for cars. Toyotas are bland, but sleek (some are actually good: Supra). Some of the GMs are butt ugly.
The Nascar crowd looks at it and sees a Muscle Car. That's cool. We can disagree. I think that the Accord coupe looks too flattened out. Alot of people like those as well.
The Monte isn't priced in the range of those cars either.
True, but good design doesn't cost that much more either.
GM hasn't come up with an original design in years and they used to be a leader in this field. With the exception of the Caddie CTS there isn't anything new or innovative in years, even Chrysler and Ford are ahead in being creative.
It amazes me that the largest car company in the world can't come up with some imaginative designs. Jaguars, BMW's, Mercedes might cost more, but paying a good designer wouldn't add much to the price of the car.
Maybe GM's are designed like American movies, by a committee. Well, we need some big name stars, at least 4 explosions, 2 car chases and 22 people killed for it to make money.
It goes like this, we need it to be as big as possible, we'll use as much of that new plastic chrome material as possible, young people like those little round tailights - use them when possible. What car is successful that we can make a copy, let's bring back portholes for Buicks, how about a Pontiac that looks a bit like an Accord with very clean lines to make up for all that silly vinyl cladding we put on for all those years, we can call it a G6! Make the coupe model look like an Accord coupe while we are at it, maybe bring out a Saturn car that people might mistake for an Accord, call it an Aurora, even same letters. We can copy Jaguars to come up with a new Buick design, so what if it bulges in the wrong places. Now what can we do to compete with the Miata, and Mustang and PT Cruiser?
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Just make my point! :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM might take a lot of blame for copying things that other makers came out with first, but believe it or not, GM did that back in the 60's as well. Just about every new market that GM entered, someone else had gone there first. Compact cars? Well, the Corvair, Valiant, and Falcon all came out around the same time in 1960. GM tried to be innovative with the Corvair, wasn't all that successful, and followed the Falcon/Valiant pattern for 1962 with the Chevy II.
Upscale compacts? Well, Mercury was kind of there first, with the Comet. GM was there in 1961 with the Tempest/F-85/Special, and put much more effort into them than the Comet. Chrysler was a bit late to this game with the Dart in 1963.
Midsized cars? Ford was there in 1962, with the Fairlane/Meteor. Chrysler was there that same year with the downsized Dodges and Plymouths. They considered them full-sized cars, and they were actually pretty roomy, giving up little compared to a standard-sized Ford or Chevy. But the public wanted mass and bulk, so they weren't popular. The oddball styling didn't help much, either. GM wouldn't have its midsized cars until 1964, when the Special/Tempest/F-85 upsized, and the Chevelle was added.
Personal luxury coupes? Ford was there in 1958 with the T-bird, and dabbled a bit in the ultra luxury market with the 1956 Continental. GM would finally come around with the Riviera in '63, the Toronado in '66, and the Eldorado in '67. GM did respond, in a way, with cars like the '62 Grand Prix and the Olds Starfire, and perhaps the Buick Wildcat. They weren't as unique as the Eldo/Toro/Riv or T-bird, but were hi-spec versions of the B-body, with stronger engines and interiors that blended luxury and sport.
Ponycars? Well, in an odd sort of way, GM stumbled across a market for small sporty cars with the performance versions of the Corvair. The car was underwhelming as a mass-market compact, but found some fair success as a sporty compact. Still, Ford took it one giant step further with the 1965 Mustang. Chrysler reacted hastily with the 1964 Barracuda, rushing it out to the market a few weeks before the Mustang. GM didn't respond until the 1967 Camaro/Firebird.
More luxurious standard cars? Well, Ford had the LTD in 1965. Chevy reacted with the Caprice, but was quick enough to get it out the same model year. And Plymouth reacted with the Fury VIP.
However, GM had an excellent marketing team, and some of the greatest stylists of all time, who were really on the ball. So while Ford, and sometimes even Chrysler, may have entered a market before GM, the General at least had the uncanny knack of improving on that formula and having a smash hit on their hands.
It would be cool if they could somehow find that magic again today.
GM has had its moments - Jerry Palmer's 1984 Corvette, which is still the basis for Corvette design, was and is a handsome car on the outside. Whether it's committee-driven design, or cost-cutting, however, GM's lack of imagination is discouraging. How could they take a legendary badge like GTO and stick it on a rental-car-looking coupe? It's almost a textbook example of sacrificing style in favor of the parts bin.
But, our perceptions of style (as being cool or lousy) follow our perceptions of the brand. So, Bangle does some average-to-ugly BMWs and they're still seen as progressive, because BMW has a great brand image. GM starts with a handicap, because we expect them to fail. Frankly, I've always thought the Bangle-ized BMW 7 sedan is an eyesore, as bad as any of GM's sedans.
BTW, I had a rental Monte Carlo last year. It's a big slab-sided car that could have been built 15 years ago. It reminded me of a 1980 Caprice Classic. It's almost like GM is afraid to offend the last few hundred guys in the gold-chain set by pulling the plug on it. In my opinion, it's a big image-killer for GM. If GM is going to save itself with styling, it has to bury relics like these.
Or they could drop some of the bloat off of the chassis.
Look at the weight of a 1995 Camry. Now look at the weight of a LaCrosse. Or look at the weight of a new Altima. A lighter car means:
- Smaller engine required
- Less weight from said smaller engine.
- Lighter brakes
- Smaller tires
- Smaller transmission.
And of course, all of this adds up to smaller again in some cases, like the engine... creating a compounding effect.
And the list goes on. GM's problem is that one overbuilt part leads to another and then they drop in that pig of a 3800 engine and pretty soon they have a 3400-3600lb car what goes just as fast as the competition - but handles like a whale and gets poorer mileage.
GM needs to get light and efficient. And start putting 2.8-3.0L engines in the cars. With 1/6 less weight, they can easily get by with 1/6th less torque - and then some.
In fairness, the Bangle Butt might be controversial, but it is being imitated on Mercedes and on Hyundais and there is a bit of a problem when you have cars this well designed. The problem is, you have to keep elements of the original design to keep the fans happy, but you have to change it just enough to get them to buy another one. But, the overall design basic shape of a Mercedes, BMW, Audi hasn't changed for over 20 years...because they are classic long lasting designs. Monte Carlo's will be of interest on Cruise Nights but other than that it will be forgotten in time
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Now I think that might be a little extra cruel. What a horrible thing to say about a 1980 Caprice Classic. :P