Ford PU down 15 Chev PU up 22 CAmry up 6 Corolla up 11 Accord down 25 Civic down 9 Impala up 33 Altima down 13 Cobalt up 6 Pilot up 38 Mustang up 64 GMC PU up 34 Pontiac G6 up 41
It seems to me, that with Fords, they either go a long time or have perpetual problems.
My dad put 250k miles on a '92 CrownVic only replacing a starter and fuel pump. His current '00 Taurus has 140k and has only failed him once, requiring a new shift interlock. What's sad for Ford is he is now looking for a new car and he doesn't like any of Fords current offerings.
I kinda like the Fusion, except for one nagging little thing. The low domestic content. I think it's only 35% US content. And I still like the Altima better, although I dunno how well I'm going to like the 2007 replacement.
A buddy of mine had a '95 Grand Marquis that he bought used in 1999, with about 54,000 miles on it. In 2004 he traded it for an '04 Crown Vic LX with about 10,000 miles on it. He had the Grand Marquis up to about 175,000 miles. It was still on its original engine and tranny, although the tranny had been worked on and the engine was getting tired. I know he also needed ball joints (forget if it was upper or lower, but it was the cheaper set) around 90,000 miles. And I think a power window motor failed at one point. And the windshield wiper motor acted up and started parking in the upright position, and ultimately failed. I hear that's a common problem with Ford products.
I think he has his '04 Crown Vic up to about 80,000 miles already!
I think with something like 75% of all MB ever sold in NA still being on the road, that a lot of these cars have hit 200K...of course a lot of these people become attached to their cars and will replace an engine etc without hesitation. The less "dispsable" the car, the better chance on it hitting a huge mileage. My 126 was pristine and drove like a normal car with 30K on it at 182K.
Perhaps the most drastic changes in sales this year are in the SUV market where gas-guzzlers fell sharply and more ecnomomical ones rose. Let's take a look:
2006 Sales through August:
1- Ford Explorer: ----------- 127,569 down 31% 2- Chevy Trailblazer: ------- 118,718 down 30% 3- Ford Escape: ------------- 112,968 down 6% 4- Chevy Tahoe: ------------- 110,577 down 3% 5- Honda Pilot: ------------- 109,336 up 18% 6- Toyota RAV4: ------------- 104,133 up 105% 7- Honda CR-V: -------------- 103,839 down 1% 8- Jeep G. Cherokee: -------- 98,124 down 34% 9- Jeep Liberty; ------------ 90,847 down 24% 10- Toyota Highlaner: ------ 85,001 down 13% 11- Chevy Equinox: --------- 80,955 down 18%
Keep in mind that the Explorer used to sell almost as twice as the next SUV. Note the absence of the Expedition and Durango which used to be in the top 10.
CR-V, Escape and Highlander are down, but their replacements are around the corner.
shameful about the new Tahoe and the relatively new Grand Cherokee.
The Equinox is down. This I can't understand. This could have been a winner for Chevy. They blew it up somewhere. Maybe the underwhelmeing engine?
I do understand that a longer warranty will cost the manufacturer money, so there has to be a limit. My 4 year-50,000 mile warranty on the Seville was not bad. But most new cars are driven about 15000 miles per year on average I think, this is about what the normal mileage tables use to determine value of a used car. So a 3 year warranty should cover 40 to 45 thousand miles, and a 4 year warranty should run at least 55,000 or 60,000.
I think that a warranty could run something like this: the first 3 year/40,000 miles are full coverage; after that there is a deductable so the manufacturer is only covering major problems, for say 7 years/100,000 miles.
of course a lot of these people become attached to their cars and will replace an engine etc without hesitation.
Considering that the old MB engines were good for 500K+, they reality is that virtualy nobody has had to replace an engine in the older Mercedes'. The new ones aren't built as well and account for most of the "deaths" - like the ill-fated 190 series in the early 90s.
Those old Mercedes are easily built to last a lifetime, or close to it. As for modern cars, any GM built today can easily last 200K miles. Even my sister's 1988 Park Ave is still running at nearly 200K miles. And it's not half as well built as my mom's 2001 LeSabre.
The reality it that the longer warranty isn't really needed anymore than it is for Honda or Toyota. They already are at 4 years for Buicks, and that's fine, because you pay for the warranty in the price of the car.
Take a Kia Rio. The Korean version of it sells for $7500-$8000 in Korea. The rest is profit, warranty, and a few changes to the bumpers to comply with U.S. regs and so on. Most of it is due to the warranty.
I'd rather have an inexpensive car and pay for my own repairs, to be honest. Of course, GM does the same thing with its small cars. The Aveo sells for $8000 in Korea, give or take. $10,000 will get you one loaded with every amenity and some we don't have here, like sunroof and leather.
Of course, to me the warranty is moot. I dont buy new. It's bad economics and you can always get a better, more solid and reliable semi-luxury car for the price of a new econobox. What's a 3 year old LeSabre run? 13K? I know which will last longer and be three times nicer to drive compared to a Fit or a Scion.
Kind of a DUH choice. $13K maybe gets you a stripped-down Xa after you add in dealer prep/delivery, and so on. (checks Cars Direct) $13,320 out the door - no options at all. Pretty close to my estimate.
Even a stripped-down Rio LX(AC isn't optional, sorry) runs you $12,455.
Three year old Semi-Luxury or a box on wheels. I know what I buy every time. And so far the warranties aren't a factor. Buy at 30K, things start to break at 70-100K. That's years of essentially not even needing a warranty - and low payments.
And the windshield wiper motor acted up and started parking in the upright position, and ultimately failed. I hear that's a common problem with Ford products.
Yes, it's a VERY common problem. My windshield wipers went bad TWICE on my '90 Mercury Sable. They wouldn't work properly in the intermittent settings. I took a chance the first time on a small "country" Ford dealer, instead of going to my usual independent shop. Well, they replaced the turn signal/wiper switch, but apparently didn't bother to test the wipers afterward! So I immediately complained, so they kept the car another day and replaced the wiper motor, which did fix the problem. Total cost: about $300 (after the warranty had expired, of course).
Then, a few years later, the same problem cropped up again -- failure of the intermittent settings. This time, my employer happened to have a '95 Taurus that was going to be sold for salvage. I took a gamble and purchased the turn signal/wiper switch and installed it myself. Success!
I complained to NHTSA after the second time I had the problem, and mentioned I had seen many Ford products with their wipers parked in the fully upright position. Plus, our company car at the time, a '92 Crown Vic, was starting to exhibit the same symptoms as my Sable.
There eventually was a recall -- but only for '93 Taurus and Sable models.
My daughter has an Explorer. Its a "truck" and gets the same sorry mileage as a truck, turns over like a truck. If 15 mpg is want you want then get a truck.
Interesting that gas mileage on a Mustang is worse than the previous model, yet sales are up. Are you sure that sales are up? Humans are the strangest of animals. :confuse: I guess if you buy a stick V6 and got 28 MPG it is OK, yet all the figures are worse than before.
Impala sales are up and Accord are down??? Something has to be wrong here. Start playing the Twilight Zone music....
Impala sales are up and Accord are down??? Something has to be wrong here. Start playing the Twilight Zone music....
There is nothing wrong with your television set; do not attempt to adjust the picture. :P I think the main reason that the Accord is down but the Impala is up is because the Camry is such a strong seller. And I think a lot of that is coming at the expense of the Accord, moreso than the Impala. Plus, the Impala really doesn't have much direct domestic competition anymore. At one time there was the Taurus/Sable from Ford and the Intrepid from Dodge. But the Taurus/Sable are on their way out and the 500/Montego just hasn't caught on. And while the Charger is selling fairly well, it's RWD, and its styling is a bit more polarizing, so that might benefit the Impala a bit.
As for the Mustang and fuel economy, well people usually don't buy Mustangs for the high MPG! :P
Impala is up from last year and the same players you mentioned were there. Taurus/Sable has been gone from retail for awhile.
Perhaps the midsize SUV buyers have moved to the largest car they can get? GM's large SUV's are selling well even with the $3 gas. Of course that may change with gas under $2.50 today and maybe down to $2.25 by the end of the year.
I think you are right, Camry is eating Accords cake.
I also read in Automotive News that the Accord won't be redesigned until the 2009 model year. Can this be right? I had assumed all along that it would remain on a 5-year redesign schedule, meaning the new one would be an '08 model. Maybe that explains why Honda spent so much restyling the rear of the Accord for '06.
Then again, I don't put a whole lot of stock in the monthly sales totals. Year-to-date is much more meaningful, especially of course late in the year.
Hard to believe they're up by 64% compared to last August. Has the GT 500 version just been introduced?
I know that year-to-date (excluding August), Mustang sales have been marginally down (on the order of -0.5%).
No doubt, the Mustang is still hot, as is the Chrysler 300. And the Dodge Charger is coming along nicely in sales also, apparently at the expense of the Magnum.
'09 seems a long time. If things keep going the way it is the Camry will be taking a lot of accord sales.
I also wonder if the G6 is taking Accord sales and if the Aura will. G6 keeps gaining volume. Through July, G6 is up over 46% and was up 75% in July. No, Accord has been holding steady over last year.
EUROPE: 5-Door Astra: 1.8L Gas Engine 140HP - starts at 12.626E MSRP (about $19.000 CAD) *Cosmo is 14.126E ($22.000 CAD)* 5-Door Astra: 2.0L Gas Turbo 170CP/200CP - 15.635E/18.786E ($23.000 CAD/$28.000 CAD). $1 USD = $1.2 CAD
The 3-Door is roughly as expensive as the 5-Door. Still, Saturn can use NA GM engines, so the price will probably drop by about $1k (more or less). Hopefully that will be it, but GM is going to cheapen the interior as they always do (it has to be a GM right?). If we get the Astra made in Brazil (or somewhere around there - it's the same as the European one, just that it's called a Chevy Astra) IT'S OKAY, JUST DON'T CHANGE A THING... PLEASE GM! The Brazilian Astra is probably cheaper, so it will fit the American buyer better than the Euro made car.
The only reason the Accord was down significantly in August is because dealers were selling as many Accords as possible during last year's August in preparation for the 2006 face-lifted one. This year, it did not matter much since 2006's and 2007s are virtually the same.
I don't get it! What's SOOOOOO wrong that the Magnum is a station wagon? There is still a market for them. I never hear any criticism about Bimmers Mercedes etc. wagons. But let an American manufacture build one.......
I don't get it! What's SOOOOOO wrong that the Magnum is a station wagon?
Nothing wrong about that it is a wagon. I think what is funny is that they push it as a revolutionary new concept, when it is really just a station wagon with a chopped down roof.
I don't find it a nice feeling being in one. You can barely see out the side or rear windows. You feel like you are in a tub looking out the front and the hood is at about eye level. This makes no sense from a safety or comfort stand point, it was done for looks.
I saw a Dodge Charger police car the other day, in white. They make great looking police vehicles. The white sets of a big huge black hole where the grill is, and the very plain smooth looking side panels along with that rear haunch that looks like it is going to leap make it look like what it is...kind of a mean functional look, just like a police car should be.
According to the press release they sold over 5000 magnums in August, up from last year. Sales to date are slow based on autosite, but 30,000 annually is not bad. There is a Dodge sedan now, so the Magnum should not sell as fast.
No it is station wagons in general. They just do not sell well in this world of SUV's and CUV's. To sell a wagon you have to make it look like something else. i.e. the HHR. It is a cobalt station wagon but looks like a small SUV. Another example is the SRX, a raised CTS staion wagon.
Why would a wagon sell? Minivans and SUV's do a much better job of doing what a station wagon does. The only advantage of a wagon is perhaps handling and people do not buy wagons for handling. The other may be MPG but the advantages of a minivan or SUV overcome the station wagon.
The SRX is NOT a CTS wagon. It is more like an STS wagon. The CTS body is 190 inches long and 70.6 inches wide. The SRX is 195 by 72.6. The STS is 196 by 72.6. So both the STS and SRX are wide enough to fit the V8, while the CTS is not (I guess).
The SRX does have the CTS interior, till 2007. However, I think that if Lutz had not stop them, the STS interior would have looked like the SRX.
The SRX burns fuel like an SUV though, not like a sedan. The sedan based wagons get about the same fuel economy as the sedan.
The SRX, CTS and STS are on the same Sigma architecture. The SRX was out before the STS. Since it uses the CTS interior GM used the CTS as the springboard for the SRX.
All the Sigmas use the same front black metal so a V8 could fit in the CTS if they wanted to. It has basically the same interior dimensions as the CTS (except for interior height and rear trunk area.
The CTS gets 17/26 and the SRX gets 16/23. Not much difference when you figure in the heavier weight and frontal areas. What is amazing is that the STS gets even better MPG at 18/27.
don't they make a CTS Spec-V or something like that, which has a V-8? I think it's the Corvette V-8 though, which is probably more compact than the Northstar.
was able to get the Magnum classified as a truck, so its biggest value is in helping to raise DCX's CAFE average for trucks, not necessarily in sales. Even with the 5.7 Hemi, it's enough to help bring up the averages.
Perhaps if you are looking at the 3rd seat area in the SRX, but there is 2 inches more shoulder room in the SRX than the CTS in the first two seat areas, and the hip room is 3 inches more. The third seat in the SRX is not as big.
While the CTS is wide enough to fit a Corvette pushrod engine into the engine bay, I doubt that the northstar would fit. The AWD fuel consumption is not great, and most dealers get AWD's. The CTS is rated 18/27, only a couple of MPG better. Driven at a moderate pace, the SRX V8 with six speed automatic might do fairly well.
The EPA is listing the Magnum under Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV's). I don't care what the reasons are for that, the Magnum is really a wagon, not an SUV. The SRX on the otherhand, is an SUV not a wagon. The SRX is very similar in concept to BMW's X5 SUV. BMW designed the X5 to be a sporting SUV or an SUV with better handling. Cadillac has done the same with the SRX.
Well, what is an SUV? A true SUV is based on a truck chassis/frame. A CUV is based on a sedan chassis/unibody.
A truck acording to the government has a flat load floor. Wagons meet this criteria. I am prety sure the HHR and PT meet truck requirements and asre considered trucks by the EPA but are sedan based.
SRX is a Sigma architecture. A sedan unibody chassis. CUV's can be based on sedan unibodies.
To my way of thinking a crossover should be taller than a sedan, but less than 65 inches tall. Sedans are usually under 60 inches tall. So a crossover should be about 62.5 inches tall or so.
The wikipedia states that the crossover utility vehicle is a fuzzy definition. Not well defined. I say that a crossover should be a "tall wagon", a few inches taller than a sedan wagon would be.
Oh well in the long run, who cares. Seen one crossdresser ya seen 'em all. :surprise: Just ain't the real deal :shades: The need is limited on crossover vehicles. I can see some popular, as the stylin' will look a bit fresher, but really now. If I want an SUV, there are many, actually too many to choose from. Station wagons: the Magnum should handle that need in larger class, and the new little S3 Volvo and A3 Audi are good examples of hatches that look sort of mini-wagons. My PT is a specialty car, but they can slot it into a class of mini-mini van. The Toyota Highlander is a car, another version of a mini-van. So now we have the crossdressers coming - whoopie! Just a little taller car. If cars do shrink, as the seem to be, perhaps the return of the hatchback to America is in progress. And they shall multi ply like Rabbits. -Loren
Minivans and SUV's do a much better job of doing what a station wagon does.
You may be right. But not everyone....like me....WANTS a minivan or an SUV. I welcome the NEW choice a CUV, which I think is a better one than an SUV or minivan or even a station wagon. I see the CUVs being the popular choice in the future.
Absolutely the CUV's will take over the world!! CUV's can be designed so that no one can tell the difference between them and a SUV.
SUV's are truck based. CUV's are car based.
I really do not want a minivan or a SUV or a CUV. I want a family mobile. Can carry 4 kids in the back, can carry the dog in the far back, can carry a bunch of 2x4's / plywood sheets, carry the luggage for 4 people and carry the 4 people. Station Wagons cannot fit the bill for me. Cars cannot do it. I have taken a small CUV on a family vacation week trip and it worked but barely (Torrent).
That is why the school lineup is full of SUV's and minivans. For todays lifestyles families need them. Sure you can get by with a car but it is awful inconvenient.
"You may be right. But not everyone....like me....WANTS a minivan or an SUV. I welcome the NEW choice a CUV, which I think is a better one than an SUV or minivan or even a station wagon. I see the CUVs being the popular choice in the future."
I agree completely. When we were looking for new cars a ew months ago we looked at many SUV's and CUV's, but in the end we bought a Dodge Magnum. It has good looks, space, its stands out, and handles and performs great. (We got the HEMI) I've owned other Chrysler's before so I know they will last, as Ive had no problems with any of the others. To me, it DID do the same task better.
...did a recent article predicting that CUVs will garner the largest percentage of sales among all vehicle types within about 5 years, IIRC.
But it's debatable if the Magnum is a CUV. I'd call it a Charger/300 wagon. But as Andre pointed out, DCX made use of gov't classification loopholes to get it designated as a truck for CAFE purposes.
Even stranger, the PT Cruiser wagon is a "truck," because of the flat load floor that is possible, but the convertible is officially a car!
BTW, Automotive News refuses to classify the PT as a truck, so all of their sales stats show the PT wagon and convertible as cars.
I am in Houston Texas. When I bought my '99 Plymouth Voyager it was registered as car...while my previous '96 Aerostar as a truck. No one could tell me why either! :confuse: So I gave up!
14. Who classifies vehicles for the purposes of CAFE and how is it done? Authority to establish vehicle classifications for the purposes of calculating CAFE was delegated to NHTSA. Specifically, the definitions are as follows:
Passenger Car – any 4-wheel vehicle not designed for off-road use that is manufactured primarily for use in transporting 10 people or less. Truck – a 4-wheel vehicle which is designed for off-road operation (has 4-wheel drive or is more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR and has physical features consistent with those of a truck); or which is designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) transport more than 10 people; (2) provide temporary living quarters; (3) transport property in an open bed; (4) permit greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) can be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor with the use of simple tools.
When I bought my '99 Plymouth Voyager it was registered as car...while my previous '96 Aerostar as a truck.
Not sure but I think the Voyager is a van body on a car platform. Aerostar is actually based on a truck frame. Voyager handles just like a car, Aerostar handles just like a truck.
What American built car could become a "classic" 20 years from now?
I can't think of too many. Perhaps a CTS or Solstice? For sure not Impala, Magnum, Charger, Fusion. Maybe 300 but I doubt it.
Although it is controversial I think the 7 Series BMW, upper class Mercedes, could be classics, but I can't think of too many American cars. Maybe it is that designer school theory, which I think is acurate. All designers go to the same schools of design and come out losing their creativity.
Can think of two - Mustang and Ford GT. The 1994-96 Impala SS is already something of a special-interest car. Definately cars like the Dodge Viper, Chevrolet Corvette or Cadillac XLR.
I can think of few Japanese cars outside of a Datsun Z or original Honda S2000 that are currently collectible.
Sad thing about budding designers' creativity being nipped. I guess we'll see no more Harley Earls, Bill Mitchells or Virgil Exners. Love 'em or hate 'em, at least their designs were original.
Comments
Ford PU down 15
Chev PU up 22
CAmry up 6
Corolla up 11
Accord down 25
Civic down 9
Impala up 33
Altima down 13
Cobalt up 6
Pilot up 38
Mustang up 64
GMC PU up 34
Pontiac G6 up 41
My dad put 250k miles on a '92 CrownVic only replacing a starter and fuel pump. His current '00 Taurus has 140k and has only failed him once, requiring a new shift interlock. What's sad for Ford is he is now looking for a new car and he doesn't like any of Fords current offerings.
Would think a Fusion is worth considering. Maybe a 500 if you need a large car and don't mind bland!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
A buddy of mine had a '95 Grand Marquis that he bought used in 1999, with about 54,000 miles on it. In 2004 he traded it for an '04 Crown Vic LX with about 10,000 miles on it. He had the Grand Marquis up to about 175,000 miles. It was still on its original engine and tranny, although the tranny had been worked on and the engine was getting tired. I know he also needed ball joints (forget if it was upper or lower, but it was the cheaper set) around 90,000 miles. And I think a power window motor failed at one point. And the windshield wiper motor acted up and started parking in the upright position, and ultimately failed. I hear that's a common problem with Ford products.
I think he has his '04 Crown Vic up to about 80,000 miles already!
2006 Sales through August:
1- Ford Explorer: ----------- 127,569 down 31%
2- Chevy Trailblazer: ------- 118,718 down 30%
3- Ford Escape: ------------- 112,968 down 6%
4- Chevy Tahoe: ------------- 110,577 down 3%
5- Honda Pilot: ------------- 109,336 up 18%
6- Toyota RAV4: ------------- 104,133 up 105%
7- Honda CR-V: -------------- 103,839 down 1%
8- Jeep G. Cherokee: -------- 98,124 down 34%
9- Jeep Liberty; ------------ 90,847 down 24%
10- Toyota Highlaner: ------ 85,001 down 13%
11- Chevy Equinox: --------- 80,955 down 18%
Keep in mind that the Explorer used to sell almost as twice as the next SUV.
Note the absence of the Expedition and Durango which used to be in the top 10.
CR-V, Escape and Highlander are down, but their replacements are around the corner.
shameful about the new Tahoe and the relatively new Grand Cherokee.
The Equinox is down. This I can't understand. This could have been a winner for Chevy. They blew it up somewhere. Maybe the underwhelmeing engine?
I think that a warranty could run something like this: the first 3 year/40,000 miles are full coverage; after that there is a deductable so the manufacturer is only covering major problems, for say 7 years/100,000 miles.
Considering that the old MB engines were good for 500K+, they reality is that virtualy nobody has had to replace an engine in the older Mercedes'. The new ones aren't built as well and account for most of the "deaths" - like the ill-fated 190 series in the early 90s.
Those old Mercedes are easily built to last a lifetime, or close to it. As for modern cars, any GM built today can easily last 200K miles. Even my sister's 1988 Park Ave is still running at nearly 200K miles. And it's not half as well built as my mom's 2001 LeSabre.
The reality it that the longer warranty isn't really needed anymore than it is for Honda or Toyota. They already are at 4 years for Buicks, and that's fine, because you pay for the warranty in the price of the car.
Take a Kia Rio. The Korean version of it sells for $7500-$8000 in Korea. The rest is profit, warranty, and a few changes to the bumpers to comply with U.S. regs and so on. Most of it is due to the warranty.
I'd rather have an inexpensive car and pay for my own repairs, to be honest. Of course, GM does the same thing with its small cars. The Aveo sells for $8000 in Korea, give or take. $10,000 will get you one loaded with every amenity and some we don't have here, like sunroof and leather.
Of course, to me the warranty is moot. I dont buy new. It's bad economics and you can always get a better, more solid and reliable semi-luxury car for the price of a new econobox. What's a 3 year old LeSabre run? 13K? I know which will last longer and be three times nicer to drive compared to a Fit or a Scion.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=179970245
And that's the asking price.
Kind of a DUH choice. $13K maybe gets you a stripped-down Xa after you add in dealer prep/delivery, and so on.
(checks Cars Direct)
$13,320 out the door - no options at all. Pretty close to my estimate.
Even a stripped-down Rio LX(AC isn't optional, sorry) runs you $12,455.
Three year old Semi-Luxury or a box on wheels. I know what I buy every time. And so far the warranties aren't a factor. Buy at 30K, things start to break at 70-100K. That's years of essentially not even needing a warranty - and low payments.
Yes, it's a VERY common problem. My windshield wipers went bad TWICE on my '90 Mercury Sable. They wouldn't work properly in the intermittent settings. I took a chance the first time on a small "country" Ford dealer, instead of going to my usual independent shop. Well, they replaced the turn signal/wiper switch, but apparently didn't bother to test the wipers afterward! So I immediately complained, so they kept the car another day and replaced the wiper motor, which did fix the problem. Total cost: about $300 (after the warranty had expired, of course).
Then, a few years later, the same problem cropped up again -- failure of the intermittent settings. This time, my employer happened to have a '95 Taurus that was going to be sold for salvage. I took a gamble and purchased the turn signal/wiper switch and installed it myself. Success!
I complained to NHTSA after the second time I had the problem, and mentioned I had seen many Ford products with their wipers parked in the fully upright position. Plus, our company car at the time, a '92 Crown Vic, was starting to exhibit the same symptoms as my Sable.
There eventually was a recall -- but only for '93 Taurus and Sable models.
Impala sales are up and Accord are down??? Something has to be wrong here. Start playing the Twilight Zone music....
-Loren
Rocky
There is nothing wrong with your television set; do not attempt to adjust the picture. :P I think the main reason that the Accord is down but the Impala is up is because the Camry is such a strong seller. And I think a lot of that is coming at the expense of the Accord, moreso than the Impala. Plus, the Impala really doesn't have much direct domestic competition anymore. At one time there was the Taurus/Sable from Ford and the Intrepid from Dodge. But the Taurus/Sable are on their way out and the 500/Montego just hasn't caught on. And while the Charger is selling fairly well, it's RWD, and its styling is a bit more polarizing, so that might benefit the Impala a bit.
As for the Mustang and fuel economy, well people usually don't buy Mustangs for the high MPG! :P
Perhaps the midsize SUV buyers have moved to the largest car they can get? GM's large SUV's are selling well even with the $3 gas. Of course that may change with gas under $2.50 today and maybe down to $2.25 by the end of the year.
I think you are right, Camry is eating Accords cake.
Then again, I don't put a whole lot of stock in the monthly sales totals. Year-to-date is much more meaningful, especially of course late in the year.
I know that year-to-date (excluding August), Mustang sales have been marginally down (on the order of -0.5%).
No doubt, the Mustang is still hot, as is the Chrysler 300. And the Dodge Charger is coming along nicely in sales also, apparently at the expense of the Magnum.
I also wonder if the G6 is taking Accord sales and if the Aura will. G6 keeps gaining volume. Through July, G6 is up over 46% and was up 75% in July. No, Accord has been holding steady over last year.
When I first saw the Magnum concept, I said to myself, "Are they really going to sell this thing?"
about the Astra now:
EUROPE:
5-Door Astra: 1.8L Gas Engine 140HP - starts at 12.626E MSRP (about $19.000 CAD) *Cosmo is 14.126E ($22.000 CAD)*
5-Door Astra: 2.0L Gas Turbo 170CP/200CP - 15.635E/18.786E ($23.000 CAD/$28.000 CAD). $1 USD = $1.2 CAD
The 3-Door is roughly as expensive as the 5-Door.
Still, Saturn can use NA GM engines, so the price will probably drop by about $1k (more or less). Hopefully that will be it, but GM is going to cheapen the interior as they always do (it has to be a GM right?).
If we get the Astra made in Brazil (or somewhere around there - it's the same as the European one, just that it's called a Chevy Astra) IT'S OKAY, JUST DON'T CHANGE A THING... PLEASE GM! The Brazilian Astra is probably cheaper, so it will fit the American buyer better than the Euro made car.
Nothing wrong about that it is a wagon. I think what is funny is that they push it as a revolutionary new concept, when it is really just a station wagon with a chopped down roof.
I don't find it a nice feeling being in one. You can barely see out the side or rear windows. You feel like you are in a tub looking out the front and the hood is at about eye level. This makes no sense from a safety or comfort stand point, it was done for looks.
I saw a Dodge Charger police car the other day, in white. They make great looking police vehicles. The white sets of a big huge black hole where the grill is, and the very plain smooth looking side panels along with that rear haunch that looks like it is going to leap make it look like what it is...kind of a mean functional look, just like a police car should be.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Why would a wagon sell? Minivans and SUV's do a much better job of doing what a station wagon does. The only advantage of a wagon is perhaps handling and people do not buy wagons for handling. The other may be MPG but the advantages of a minivan or SUV overcome the station wagon.
It is a niche market. Nothing wrong with that but still small potatoes in the big picture.
The SRX does have the CTS interior, till 2007. However, I think that if Lutz had not stop them, the STS interior would have looked like the SRX.
The SRX burns fuel like an SUV though, not like a sedan. The sedan based wagons get about the same fuel economy as the sedan.
All the Sigmas use the same front black metal so a V8 could fit in the CTS if they wanted to. It has basically the same interior dimensions as the CTS (except for interior height and rear trunk area.
The CTS gets 17/26 and the SRX gets 16/23. Not much difference when you figure in the heavier weight and frontal areas. What is amazing is that the STS gets even better MPG at 18/27.
While the CTS is wide enough to fit a Corvette pushrod engine into the engine bay, I doubt that the northstar would fit. The AWD fuel consumption is not great, and most dealers get AWD's. The CTS is rated 18/27, only a couple of MPG better. Driven at a moderate pace, the SRX V8 with six speed automatic might do fairly well.
A truck acording to the government has a flat load floor. Wagons meet this criteria. I am prety sure the HHR and PT meet truck requirements and asre considered trucks by the EPA but are sedan based.
SRX is a Sigma architecture. A sedan unibody chassis. CUV's can be based on sedan unibodies.
I give up. Anything can be called anything!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_utility_vehicle
to arbitrate? The EPA considers the SRX to be an SUV. Wikipedia lists all of the current SUV's in production, the Magnum is not listed.
The wikipedia states that the crossover utility vehicle is a fuzzy definition. Not well defined. I say that a crossover should be a "tall wagon", a few inches taller than a sedan wagon would be.
The need is limited on crossover vehicles. I can see some popular, as the stylin' will look a bit fresher, but really now. If I want an SUV, there are many, actually too many to choose from. Station wagons: the Magnum should handle that need in larger class, and the new little S3 Volvo and A3 Audi are good examples of hatches that look sort of mini-wagons. My PT is a specialty car, but they can slot it into a class of mini-mini van. The Toyota Highlander is a car, another version of a mini-van. So now we have the crossdressers coming - whoopie! Just a little taller car. If cars do shrink, as the seem to be, perhaps the return of the hatchback to America is in progress. And they shall multi ply like Rabbits.
-Loren
You may be right. But not everyone....like me....WANTS a minivan or an SUV. I welcome the NEW choice a CUV, which I think is a better one than an SUV or minivan or even a station wagon. I see the CUVs being the popular choice in the future.
SUV's are truck based. CUV's are car based.
I really do not want a minivan or a SUV or a CUV. I want a family mobile. Can carry 4 kids in the back, can carry the dog in the far back, can carry a bunch of 2x4's / plywood sheets, carry the luggage for 4 people and carry the 4 people. Station Wagons cannot fit the bill for me. Cars cannot do it. I have taken a small CUV on a family vacation week trip and it worked but barely (Torrent).
That is why the school lineup is full of SUV's and minivans. For todays lifestyles families need them. Sure you can get by with a car but it is awful inconvenient.
I agree completely. When we were looking for new cars a ew months ago we looked at many SUV's and CUV's, but in the end we bought a Dodge Magnum. It has good looks, space, its stands out, and handles and performs great. (We got the HEMI) I've owned other Chrysler's before so I know they will last, as Ive had no problems with any of the others. To me, it DID do the same task better.
But it's debatable if the Magnum is a CUV. I'd call it a Charger/300 wagon. But as Andre pointed out, DCX made use of gov't classification loopholes to get it designated as a truck for CAFE purposes.
Even stranger, the PT Cruiser wagon is a "truck," because of the flat load floor that is possible, but the convertible is officially a car!
BTW, Automotive News refuses to classify the PT as a truck, so all of their sales stats show the PT wagon and convertible as cars.
Authority to establish vehicle classifications for the purposes of calculating CAFE was delegated to NHTSA. Specifically, the definitions are as follows:
Passenger Car – any 4-wheel vehicle not designed for off-road use that is manufactured primarily for use in transporting 10 people or less.
Truck – a 4-wheel vehicle which is designed for off-road operation (has 4-wheel drive or is more than 6,000 lbs. GVWR and has physical features consistent with those of a truck); or which is designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) transport more than 10 people; (2) provide temporary living quarters; (3) transport property in an open bed; (4) permit greater cargo-carrying capacity than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) can be converted to an open bed vehicle by removal of rear seats to form a flat continuous floor with the use of simple tools.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.d0b5a45b55- bfbe582f57529cdba046a0/;jsessionid=E8Ey1aNrgW1aj4kWH1VFKEXS6j4V2v1L0fwzktwAYlegf- XOL2LYF!-1033868678?javax.portlet.tpst=f2d14277f710b755fc08d51090008a0c_ws_MX&ja- vax.portlet.prp_f2d14277f710b755fc08d51090008a0c_viewID=detail_view&javax.portle- t.begCacheTok=token&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=token&itemID=199b8facdcfa4010VgnVC- M1000002c567798RCRD&viewType=standard#13
Not sure but I think the Voyager is a van body on a car platform. Aerostar is actually based on a truck frame.
Voyager handles just like a car, Aerostar handles just like a truck.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
What American built car could become a "classic" 20 years from now?
I can't think of too many. Perhaps a CTS or Solstice? For sure not Impala, Magnum, Charger, Fusion. Maybe 300 but I doubt it.
Although it is controversial I think the 7 Series BMW, upper class Mercedes, could be classics, but I can't think of too many American cars. Maybe it is that designer school theory, which I think is acurate. All designers go to the same schools of design and come out losing their creativity.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I can think of few Japanese cars outside of a Datsun Z or original Honda S2000 that are currently collectible.
Sad thing about budding designers' creativity being nipped. I guess we'll see no more Harley Earls, Bill Mitchells or Virgil Exners. Love 'em or hate 'em, at least their designs were original.