Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Rolling along in overdrive at 1200 rpm hardly uses any more gas than a diesel. Of course, iff there's more than a 1-2% slope, the rpms jump to 2000 quite quickly and the incredible mpg drops to 28 or so rather quickly.
My personal best was when I was 20 miles from gas and the low fuel light went on. By going exactly 50mph in overdrive and drafting a semi, I got 40+mpg for that short run. I don't think the rpms rose above 900-1000 once.
Oh - it took me about 45-50 seconds to get 50mph from a dead stop using this technique, but it saved tons of gas.
OTOH, in rush-hour traffic, I consistently got 15-16mpg. City driving isn't what the 3800 is good at.
Rocky
I also have read comparo's where the solstice you dislike wins against the under-powered miata. If I was a few pounds lighter and a few inches shorter I'd probably get myself a Solstice GXP or Sky Redline.
I appreciate you insight as always but the current CTS, is filled with unexcusable flaws which hopefully are corrected with the next generation.
Just my $0.02 :P
Rocky
Rock, you just now figured that out? :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Sludge problems, hesitation in transmission problems, flare during shifts, "alleged" wrong part used for snap rings in assembly in transmissions. LOL. They'd be better off sticking with proven designs!!! :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And Ford should still be making the Model T and Chevy's best were around 1930. They would probably be flawless by now!!!!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
And how much is that worth imidazol97? People who shop for a new car will not care that your LeSabre got 37 mpg on the highway, nor will they test the Saturn for mileage. They will simply look at the car window that says 20/29 mpg, a dissapointment for a car than is less powerful than a Camry V6: 268hp, 0-60 in 6.1 seconds and 22/31 mpg.
Most European designs that I find attractive are on the high-end sedans and exotics. I like the look of Mercedes-Benz, but BMW has really lost me with its current look.
Among Japanese designs, the only one that I really like is the Lexus LS, perhaps because it resembles an S-Class and comes with none of the hassles of owning a German make.
Per macho styling, my girlfriend and I were looking for a car for her about two years ago. One of the cars we looked at was a Chrysler 300. I loved the car, but she thought it was "too masculine-looking." She instead bought a Buick LaCrosse which she thought looked more like a "woman's car."
I know styling is subjective, but I think the latest Camry is a bit on the tacky, overbloated side. The nose is too swollen, and the whole thing is just a confused mess of incoherent angles, curves, and swoops. Something about the back of it reminds me just a bit of the bustleback '80-85 Seville or maybe an '81-83 Imperial, only not quite as tasteful! :P
One thing I DO like about the new Camry is that it has some pretty cool colors. There's a light blue and a light green that I've seen that really catch my eye. And mechanically it seems like a great package. Maybe it'll grow on me with time? I couldn't stand the '02 Camry when it first came out, but once they did the mild refresh around '05, I kinda liked the SE model.
Going just on style, I think I like the LaCrosse and Impala better. But style is only skin deep.
That's funny! But IMO Camry's and Corona's look much better than those overbloated, tacky looking Pontiacs and Buicks. There is something to be said for clean lines and sensible styling, without adding all the gross extras. I see brand new DTS's with vinyl rooves and polished chrome wire wheel looking discs. Now that is American styling at it's worst. It was bad in the 70's and is pathetic now.
Now to be fair, the CTS is a great design though could be refined a little more too, and the grill on the 2008 that we saw on 60 minutes was a little over the top - what is with the macho look American cars need, women drive and buy cars too. Bet not too many women like the looks of a Magnum, my wife thought it was a hearse when she saw one the first time. I doubt if women like the CTS, but it is more nutral, but still leans to masculine.
Since we are talking style, most American cars are not attractive if you look at European designs, and Asian cars are closer to Euro design, but between Euro and American.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Nah- just drop 600lbs from the design.
Here's what happened with GM. They made excellent RWD cars, but hadn't really made very decent FWD models, so they built one and just kept adding metal and length to it until it had enough crumple-zone to survive a crash test well. It was big, long, and heavy, but gas was 95 cents a gallon, so who cared?
Ie - designed by look/feel(old way) rather than a complete modern redesign by computer to be as light as possible. This is painfully obvious in most of the midsize sedans, like the LaCrosse and Grand Prix, which are slight evolutions of the original Buicks from the late 80s.
Compare:
The Altima is roughly 3000lbs. It needs a much smaller engine. Smaller transmission, smaller tires and brakes, and of course, this all creates a situation where you need less weight as you save weight.
GM doesn't need to put more power into the engine. It needs to drop the bloat. The Solstice, for instance, fails utterly to be a roadster. Why? Because 3000+ lbs isn't a roadster. There is no agility, there is no quickness. It is just a roadster-looking sedan.
Please remember that the discussions for this particular thread need to specifically relate to the subject of "GM Styling."
Thanks!
EltonRon
Automotive News & Views Host
The Solstice's weight is due to the stiffer body structure that it has. Car magazines that have done comparision tests note that the Solstice has the better body structure, but the extra weight does slow performance slightly. GM probably could have spent more time, delaying the introduction of the Solstice, and gotten some of the excess weight out without compromising the structure too much.
I'd say that the 3-series is the one of the lesser screwed of the Bangled designs but I really don't care for it either. The only BMW today that I like, stylewise, is the 6-series coupe. I just don't like BMW's latest trend of appearing to get two car-rumps stuck together. And they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I'm not buying it. Back in the 2000 model year, the Aztek flew in the face of all that is tasteful, and I think in some ways, its bad, incoherent, jarring styling has trickled down to just about every maker. Since the 2000 Aztek it seems proportioning has just gone to hell in a handbasket in most vehicles.
Another funny thing about BMWs...for the longest time, Pontiacs looked like they were trying to ape BMW, but with the latest crop, it looks like just the opposite! Instead of doing that little twin-kidney thing in the center of the grille, BMW's are going for that Pontiac-ish split grille.
As for 20 year old Benzes? Yeah, they're not bad looking, although some of them look a bit cataract-ic with those glazed-over composite headlights. I think they used glass instead of plastic though, so at least they shouldn't yellow up. I never really cared for the BMW's of ~20 years ago though. The 6-series coupe was okay, but the rest of 'em were just too slab-sided and boxy.
A 20 year old Jag is good looking but unfortunately, mechanically probably IS ready for the scrap heap! Now a 20 year old GM car I wish I still had is my '86 Monte Carlo. I thought THAT was a good looking car! :P
This latest trend in cars where the rear fenders seem to be separate from the body and the trunklid is higher makes them look old fashioned to me. That's how cars looked in the late 40's and early 50's. Back then, the next evolution was tailfins. Are we going to go through that again in the near future? :surprise:
The first few times I saw the new Camry I had exactly the same thoughts, angles that don't go together. Although I prefer the last version more, I am getting used to the new version, and it has a lot going for it. It is trim, looks bulky and solid, and it does make it more appealing to the younger crowd which was the reason for this design - and it is working! Although it is jazzed up and looks like something out of a Batman movie, it still looks very new and different from other cars, and kind of makes the Accord, Sonata, Malibu etc. look a little aged.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
http://www.plan59.com/cars/cars164.htm
http://www.plan59.com/cars/cars193.htm
http://www.plan59.com/cars/cars200.htm
http://www.plan59.com/cars/cars219.htm
which leads to this:
http://www.plan59.com/cars/cars324.htm
http://www.plan59.com/cars/cars323.htm
To be clear, most cars look OK, hopefully all car makers can find designers that are fairly competent. But, there is a balance between bland and non-offensive, and being a little bit creative and cutting edge. The LaCrosse and Lucerne couldn't offend anyone, but they certainly are not cutting edge and for sure not an original line on either one.
IMO the BMW 3 Series is one of the nicest designs in carland. Smooth timeless lines that blend together and the car will still look good 20 or 30 years from now. The 5 and 7 take longer to get used too, but like the Camry, once you see it enough it becomes bold and creative, while keeping the regular buyers happy. Not only that, but now everyone is copying itincluding Mercedes, Camry, and I saw a Hyundai with the same look. Also, many people loved the bustle back Caddie LaSalle and this is a much softer use of that idea. I guess you could say GM came out with the idea first, but it took BMW to execute it again in a more streamlined more refined way.
Take a look at a 20 year old Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, they still look good today. A 20 year old Buick, Dodge, Corsica, etc. would be considered suitable for the scrap yard!!
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I doubt if we'd ever go back to tailfins though, because today's cars are just too stubby in the rear for it. I think the current cars can kind of pull off that look of the separate rear fender and raised trunklid, but they'd never be able to pull off a tailfin! Then again though, the way beltlines angle upward as they move to the back of the car could kind of suggest the start of a fin.
That old fashioned rear look that the Camry took on is also an example of form over function. IIRC, the 2007 Camry lost something like 2 cubic feet of trunk space compared to the 2002-2006. I'm guessing a great deal of it is due to that sculpting on the rump.
Since many of you seem to be so interested in the subject of vehicle warranties in general, a new discussion thread has been created entitled "What are your thoughts on vehicle warranties?". Some posts related to this topic have been moved accordingly.
For a discussion related to GM vehicles specifically, please feel free to join the GM Warranty discussion via the following link: GM- 100,000-mile warranty starts now. Posts specifically related to the GM warranty have been moved here.
To discuss issues related to the topic of vehicle depreciation, please visit: Depreciation... Foreign vs Domestic Vehicles
For discussions regarding the subject of new vs. used vehicles, please visit: Buying New vs. Used Vehicles
Finally, for discussions involving the broader issue of vehicle safety, please feel free to visit: Car Safety Groups & Discussions
We appreciate your ongoing cooperation in making the Edmunds forums as useful and user-friendly as possible for all members by sticking to the specific topic at hand within each discussion (i.e. Please remember... the subject of this particular discussion thread is "Will Styling Save GM?").
Enjoy the discussions and thanks for your participation!
EltonRon
Automotive News & Views Host
With respect to BMW's rear end styling, the station wagons do not have the problem.
Oh, they weren't totally useless. Chrysler's tailfins added strength and stability at highway speeds. Their words, not mine. I found out though, that you really had to get them up to 80-90 mph to really benefit from it.
And on a '59 Chevy, supposedly if you got it up to 100 mph in the right wind conditions, you could make the rear wheels lift off the ground. Now what purpose that would serve, I do not know. :P
On the right car, they do help with parallel parking, because they give you something to aim with. They do allow for taillights that are mounted higher up, in a more visible location. And they increase trunk volume. After all, they are hollow! Nice place to tape your stash or something like that. :shades:
So they're not TOTALLY useless.
For parking, my Seville has the sensors on the rear bumper that let you know when you are close to hitting something behind you. This is probably much more useful than a fin.
Consumer Reports showed a pic in one of their issues of a 1957 Plymouth parked behind a 1957 Buick, and had a little girl standing between them. With the rearward thrust on the Buick and the forward thrust of the Plymouth, the implications were pretty gruesome.
My DeSoto's tailfins are a bit pointed, but not as extreme as some of those fins were. If I smacked my open palm down on the point it would hurt like hell I know. Umm, not that I'm about to try it out in person! Still, if something flat-faced and tall enough like a pickup or van ran into it, it would probably exacerbate the damage to both vehicles.
I have a friend who has a scar on his cheek from when he was a little kid. Neighbors had a '61 or '62 Cadillac, and one day it was parked out on the street. He was running around, playing with his friends, goofing around, and before he knew it one of those pointy fins was rearranging his face forever.
2 problems I know of:
My Dad's 1960 Ford had fins that were horizontal. He hit a parking meter on the way out of a parking spot because of the arc of the fin on a 45 degree angle on the way out.
1959 Chev's were supposedly taking off in the rear end at high speed. Suppose that could be an urban myth, even though they weren't called "urban myths" at the time...we just believed everything!
I do like the idea of using the fins for stuffing your valuables up there though.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I believe Pontiac started the split grill in 1959. Since then some years looked pretty nice, some were pretty ugly. The first BMW with a split grill could be this 1961, and I doubt if they copied Pontiac, and it is not kidney shaped.
1961 BMW
If you look at the 61 BMW it looks pretty smart even today. A few updates like flatter headlights, a more sloped front windshield pillar would help but weren't possible at that time.
Most 1961 cars were pretty good, but this car with a few minor changes could be driven around today, and people would think it was a new car....maybe a little squarish, but....
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
They were nice looking.....in 1986.
We've come a long way since then. It was a nice design at the time, but they look really dated if you saw one driving down the street today. Big hulky fenders, huge hood, small passenger compartment (cab rearward design), lots of chrome and trim.
Now a 20 year old Mercedes, BMW, Jag, Volvo, would fit right in on todays roads.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Some 1986 GM's looked pretty good, like the Parisianne (how'd they get that name?) and the rest in that ilk.
But, it is dated, not saying it isn't pleasant, and it was a nice design at the time. However, a 1986 Mercedes will look almost the same as a new one. They modernize it, but the basic design still holds up, because it is so good, so timeless, so sensible, so tasteful.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
If was kind of unusual to see, because it had all the stickers applied over the original tan paint and the interior looked mostly intact except for the racing buckets, harness and cage. I think that the landeau top was even still there.
It was cool.... just kind of unusual.
As for the Parisienne, that was a name GM used on Canadian Pontiacs originally. Pontiac dumped the big Catalina and Bonneville here after 1981, and transferred the Bonneville name in 1982 to what had been the LeMans, a midsize. The Catalina name was never to return. Then, suddenly big cars started to sell again, so Pontiac rushed out the Parisienne in mid-1983.
I don't know if the 1983 Parisienne in the US was the same as the one in Canada. However, it was basically a Chevy Impala with a Pontiac grille insert (I think you could put it on an Impala or Caprice if you really wanted to), and the rear-end was modified from the Impala (the Caprice's rear was a bit different, with fuller-width taillights). Inside, instead of having the Impala's square gauge cutouts, the Parisienne had 4 round ones, kinda like a '64 GTO!
While an '81 Catalina/Bonneville was substantially different from a Caprice/Impala, the Parisienne was more of a badge-job. In 1985 they did revive the '80-81 Bonneville rear quarters, decklid, and taillights, possibly the bumper as well.
I think an '85-86 Parisienne is sharp looking in black, without the skirts, and with the Rally wheels. I always liked the Parisienne regardless though, so even a skirted, wire-wheeled one wouldn't scare me away. After all, you can get those skirts off faster than a Catholic high school girl, and swap out the wheels.
-Loren
Current 3 is OK. The Z4, in its own way is interesting. Yeah, it is way out there in design, but someone has to go out on a limb. Now a Z8 = WOW!
As for GM, a couple of the new ones are interesting. And the last 2002 Eldo, I did like, looks wise.
-Loren
Some of those early model SL Mercedes look as sharp as the slickest current models. Won't mind owning an older Mercedes or BMW sedan or coupe. And a Lotus or Aston Martin - wow! Interesting how a well rounded and sporty lined MGB became more squared off from the MGA models great looks.
-Loren
Yes, some GM cars in their 20's do look good, and feel very lucky not to have been sent to the crusher, like most of that era have. And the Vettes will always look cool.
Cutlass Supreme seemed to lead the way for a lot of good stylin' years at GM, but sadly the good looking RWD cars are sadly gone.
-Loren
-Loren
All the different varriants of that design look great!
In the cab forward, I liked the 300M and the LHS the most. The Eclipse in all forms is nice indeed.
-Loren
-Loren
The Sonata seems to be the value leader in it's class. Style wise, it looks better than the Malibu, and as good as the Impala. Best compared to the Impala.
-Loren
Oh don't get me wrong, I like the Dodge Dart. I just never considered them the forefront of modern styling. Maybe a '67 Dart, which was an all-new design, was more modern looking than a '67 Chevy II or a Falcon. But then the '68 Nova was considered by many to be more stylish than a Dart, although I prefer the Dart.
I think the main reasons that I preferred the Dart over its peers were that it was roomier (at least I fit in it better) and usually engine-for-engine a better performer. For instance, a slant-six Dart was usually quicker than a 6-cyl Falcon/Chevy II, a base V-8 Dart was usually quicker than a base V-8 Falcon/Chevy II, etc.
When it comes to squared-off cars though, there are some I like and some I don't. Same with rounded cars. And in a twisted sort of way, I do kinda like the Dynasty and its New Yorker twin. I just don't consider them a good example of modern styling.
And I'll admit that I like plenty of things that haven't really aged well. Heck, I'd off two of my co-workers for a nice '77 Catalina coupe. And I have just the two in mind. :shades:
I kind of liked those Dynasty's, for looks. Had them as rentals and I found I got big shocks when I got out of them though, don't know what they made the seats out of.
But, I thought you liked the Dodge Dart. They were square but looked great, and still would. I like the square Volvo's and the idea of a square car...I am not crazy about the bubble look of the Eclipse, Toboran, Enclave, Intrepid,
Taurus etc. etc. etc.
Faster than a Catholic girls skirt. You should have a column in a nationally syndicated newspaper. Also, good info on the history of Pontiac and fins.....
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~rschild/mbgc.html
The typical sedan was not:
http://www.mbzponton.org/pax058/people/schumacher/schumacher.htm
http://www.pontiacserver.com/pch65_1.html
compare the mercedes of that era:
http://www.geocities.com/mbz109/
Well yeah, '60's Pontiacs are cool, but I already have this. And I had a '69 Bonneville. So I'm not exactly lusting after any additional ones.
Besides, I should be able to get something like a '77 Catalina pretty cheap. 60's Pontiacs, at least the cooler body styles, are getting kinda pricey, at least for my wallet. I've sworn off buying anymore cars though at least until the summer of '08.
Like this
That 108/109 is a timeless design and the details can be traced all the way to modern S-class. Mercedes in particular has done an excellent job at heritage or legacy designs - carrying a sense of proportion and theme through the decades. Kind of the opposite of modern retro stuff. In some ways Corvette has exhibited this...not much (or anything) else by GM has used this idea. It does usually lead to a good design, and keeps brand identity strong. Styling has certainly been a problem for GM, esp in the past 15-20 years. A few goodies, too many dogs.