Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The car based SUV market is huge. It will replace many of the truck SUV's that are being sold for their inside people and stuff hauling capability. I am only guessing since I do not want to go figure it out that about 25% of the vehicles sold are SUV trucks (over 50% of vehicles sold are trucks). That is over 3 million vehicles a year. Also many that currently buy cars and do not want to buy a "truck" will see the positives of CUV's and buy them. Also many minivan owners will switch over. I know I would love to get rid on my minivan. I need to be able to carry 5 kids in the rear seats and have the utility to carry stuff (4x8 plywood a must in my case but probably not for many others).
I know many long time Buick sedan owners who have starte buying Rendezvous's for the utility.
A friend of ours turned in her Park Ave for a RDV the year they came out. She loves it. Still has it. Another friend has leased two.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Next thing you know the Pontiac showroom was taken over by Honda, the Pontiac/GMC moved into the very small Honda building next door, and of course eventiually Pontiac/GMC faded away. With the exception of the recentally acquired Chrysler/Jeep dealer in a nearby small town, they are totally a foreign dealership.
Just my opinion, actual mileage may vary.
Loren
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I back my opinions with ownership experience I've had with my Suburban, which quite frankly has been horrible. That doesn't mean all GM products are bad, but I have good reason to think long and hard to determine if I want to give GM another chance.
And yes, I keep bringing it up everytime you say that someone who buys a Honda or Acura will have expensive repairs and that GM products don't have similar problems.
Suzuki does not export its GMDAT to Japan because Suzuki has capacity to meet demand in Japan. The GMDAT factories are running well above what had been hoped, selling product in the US, South Korea, other Asian nations, South America and Europe.
(1) The AVEO as we know it here in the US is sold as the Suzuki Swift and the Pontiac Wave in Canada, And the "Suzuki" Verona is a Chevrolet in Canada, (2) My point here is that GM is the big dog in the GM/Suzuki/Daewoo family and I believe they are calling the shots in the US market.
How does One prove Two? The US and Canadian markets are different. So the assortments are different. Canadian Chevrolet, Pontiac and Suzuki dealers all want to sell a version so they do.
(nb: GM/Suzuki/Daewoo One of these things is not like the other. GM and Suzuki are both actual car companies. Daewoo no longer exists. Some factories that once belonged to Daewoo are now part of a company called GMDAT. GMDAT in turn is wholly owned by Gm and Suzuki).
Equinox, I can't really believe that anyone would seriously shop the GV against the Equinox, the two are just to different in both size and intended audience.
I do not follow at all. The 'Nox and GV are both small, 6 cylinder cute-utes selling at near the same price. The 'Nox offers a little more size and probably better road manners. The GV is built on a ladder frame which ought to be somewhat more proficient off road. I'm thinking most serious off roaders will go to the far more off road proficient Liberty or NSX over either.
Also based upon how the New GV turned out, it looks like Suzuki was really going after the Honda CRV, and some non-US market vehicles with the Grand Vitara.
The GV and its predecessors have been Suzuki's primary US seller for years. If not for the little UTE, Suzuki would have nothing.
I feel that the Swift was most likely designed with US regulation in mind (which would help the keep the US regulation cost to a minimum) and just hasn't been introduced here for other "business" reasons.
If you could show even one thing other than your own feelings that support your claim the Swift is US legal, you may have an argument. If the Swift were US legal, the Swift would be on the market in the US.
Well, I am going to say I agree with the points made by Hairchetz (did I really just say that?) and Jlawrence (don't mind saying that at all) above.
Suzuki has what? less than 10% the dealers Chevrolet has? Plus, it does not move vehicles in the numbers GM can to allow it to contract with the rentals.
Suzuki selling 3,000 or so Swifts a year in the US would not have made much, if any difference for GM.
There is no way GM is going to make Suzuki lose money (and indirectly GM itself - it does want to make money off its Suzuki investment - doesn't it?) cutting off Suzuki's chances to sell more cars in the US.
Suzuki wanted to sell a GV here. So that is where it put its money. Plain and simple.
Thanks, I needed to laugh!
Anyhow, yeah, the GV may have been the correct move for right now.
They will be tweaking the Forenza line-up soon, anyway.
So,all is good
jlawrence01:
In my area, we live about 36 miles from the closest foreign car dealership.
And it's in Indiana!
Honda: 2 dealerships in 40 mile range.
Toyota/Scion: one is 36 miles, the other is 41.
Hyundai/Kia: 1 is 37.5 miles away.
Mitsubishi: around 55-60 miles(one was in richmond, IN, but closed a few years ago. It was 40 miles away)There are 2 ... both over 55 miles away.
VW is about 40 miles away.
Anyhow, you get the idea.
Luckily,if your car breaks down during warranty on most of these, you get a free tow to the nearest shop, and a free rental car from Enterprise, or off of their lot.
Just gotta know the toll-free numbers to call for help.
After that, have AAA.
On the other hand I just sold a 1995 Nissan Pickup truck that served me and my family for 11 years with no problems what so ever. No repairs, no problems. And after 11 years of service I sold it for 20% of the purchase price. And the person who purchased it from me was happy to get it for such a low price. That is because Nissan Pickup trucks have a reputation for being bullet proof.
I'm certainly keeping a keen eye on the new Tahoe and upcoming Suburban. I haven't seen a new Tahoe in person yet, but from the pics I've seen and the articles I've read, seems to have addressed some areas that needed improvement.
I just read in this month's Motor Trend that the Suburban may not be out for another year to 18 months. That seems a bit odd to me, I wonder why GM was able to bring the Tahoe to market, but not the Suburban. Is the Suburban going to have more differentiation than just a longer wheelbase?
Honda: 10 dealerships in a 40-mile radius
Toyota/Scion: 14 dealerships in a 40-mile radius
Hyundai: 5 dealerships in a 40-mile radius (don't know about Kia offhand)
Mitsubishi: again don't know, but these guys aren't plentiful. I know of 3 in that radius
VW: 9 dealerships inside 40 miles
Suzuki? Ha ha. There are two dealerships in that radius, nearest is 20 miles away. When I wanted to check out the GV, I decided to go look. The closer one, 20 miles away, is a mega-monster corporate dealership with about a dozen brands, stocking a couple of leftover XL-7s, a Reno or two, and not much else.
So on I went, to the second dealership, which is about 35 miles away. LOL! At least the first place had a portion of one of the showrooms devoted to Suzuki. The second place was a dirt lot with one of those trailers and a "Suzuki" banner hanging from the roof. They did actually have one of the new GVs, so my trip was not in vain. They did NOT, however, have servicing facilities, and only had about a half dozen Suzukis on their muddy lot.
The truth of this thread is that GM is not destroying Suzuki in America, Suzuki just doesn't have the money it will take to pay for a meaningful rejuvenation in the States.
And logic, don't underestimate the sales power of a really good car, which the Swift appears to be. Aveo has been selling well in Rebate City, but bring on some good cars within about 10% of the sticker, and Aveo sales will evaporate. GM has to be careful. Of course, right now it is totally focused on big big trucks, so maybe now is the time for Suzuki to slip the Swift into its North American line-up, if it is true that GM doesn't call the shots over there (doubtful).
Here's a thought: if GM really wanted to help Suzuki out, it could put some money on the table to turn all the Pontiac dealers into Suzuki dealers. Drop GM's "problem brand", save some money in the long run, and give Suzuki a leg up in America in the short run, all in one fell swoop! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I bet you have a couple of Chevy dealers near by. And probably have seen some Aveo's at your Enterpise rental as well.
Which I think is all our points. Suzuki has limited dealer penetration. The few places it has a bit of a presence - California for the most part - are not Chevy's biggest market anyway.
No way is GM going to undercut Suzuki when the Swift would probably sell up market from the Aveo anyway (and would most likely not attract the same people who buy the Cobalt.)
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
NOt sure how GM flooded the markets with minivans and also flopped?
Funny how I thought I had something unique in my old '88 Park Ave only to see four others like it today in various conditions. One was in really nice shape. I also saw a LeSabre coupe from that period today. Buick must've done something right for me to see so many survivors in one day excluding my car.
The problem with a dealership 30 miles away is that when your car needs service, you spend all day taking it in and retrieving it. Sure, you can do the Enterprise route - and heaven knows that was a salvation in Cleveland when I had three cars with 125k+ miles - but that really adds up if you have to pay for it (as well as making car payments and repair bills).
Also, AAA-Chicago is a real PITA in that they are putting pressure on you to use THEIR shops which has always been a real bad decision (I NOW direct them where to go).
Personally, I like to buy cars that can get repaired at ANY shop ... and that is not the case with some of the smaller brands.
But it sounds good to say it, even though it disproves its own tenet!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee8e39f
The point is, people may drive 30 miles to buy a lux or sport car. They probably won't even drive 10 miles to buy an econo-box if they can get just about the same thing 4 miles away.
If the Swift is a straight up competitor to the Aveo, Chevy is not going to mind it in the market because Chevy has so many more dealerships. If the Swift actually compels people to drive out of their way to buy it, then the car is appealing to a different market than the Aveo, which GM has never tried to market as anything other than basic inexpensive transportation.
Looks like the New Camaro may suffer this as well. The Charger may have too tall doors, but it looks like a little more glass area. Unless it is my imagination, the Mustang doors grew in height for 2005. The first one to look totally wrong was the 350Z. The Tiburon has it too, but it doesn't seem as bad. Test drove one, and the arm rest is in the right spot. But I would prefer the old style where one could hang an elbow out. Looks better too! New car seem too flat sided and kinda fat. I guess the best looking of the fatties is the Chrysler 300, which carries its weight well. Still, it may be harder to see out of, and more closed-in feeling. The looks is 100% different than the 300M, which in some ways I miss. Can not help but feel that the 300M will outlast the new, bolder 300, as a classy style. Same line of thought goes towards all these new tall door cars. Will the last of the normal balanced designs, by height, width, heaviness to the eye, be those more sought after in a few years. I looked forward to new designs each year, until I viewed the current trend. Call me old fashioned, or is that middle of car era fashioned, but low and wide, with a good sized hood out front is style baby.
Loren
FWIW, the sills on my Intrepid (same as the 300M) seemed high to me when I bought the car, because compared to the older cars I was used to (1989 Gran Fury, 1979 Newport, 1985 LeSabre, etc), they WERE high! But then, once I got used to those high sills, and especially the way the beltline kicks up in the rear, then whenever I'd go back to one of those older cars it would feel like the suspension was sagging in back because the beltline DIDN'T kick up! :confuse:
He had a Dodge Magnum for a loaner and said he wouldn't take one again because it was like being in a tunnel. He's a relatively tall person.
The rear passengers in some cars get even higher beltlines; but the seats sit higher in some. I don't like feeling entombed in backseat areas.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I guess you'd get used to a Magnum after awhile, though. It took me awhile to get used to my Intrepid, which may have an open, airy interior compared to the way cars have gotten since then, but was a shock to me at the time. Then, add in the fact that I can't see the hood or decklid of the car. There's something to be said for those old cars with tailfins and forward-thrusting fenders. My '57 DeSoto's at least a foot longer than my Intrepid, but at least I can tell exactly where the car ends!
My Dad's '03 Regal is actually pretty easy to see out of. When I drive it I can actually see most of the hood. On my Intrepid, all I can really see is the little windshield wiper nozzles rising up. I can also see more of the decklid on the Regal. I wonder how the LaCrosse compares?
Loren
Loren
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2006-Chevrolet-Camaro-Concept.htm
So, I wonder which car looked the best at the auto show? Always a bit hard to get the real feel of a car without seeing it standing there in the metal. Challenger looks very clean. I do like some of the work done in the designing of the Camaro. Both are good efforts.
Challenger is most true to the original, with graceful lines. Always thought of the Camaro and the Challenger as the pretty girls, and sexy, as opposed to the more male junkyard dog meaner Mustang design. But, maybe that's just me.
The new Camaro has a bit of the Chrysler new car attitude, with plenty of hints of the original. Something tells me it will look good, but maybe not as good as the '69 Camaro. The Challenger may actually be a better looking original. Alas the danger could be the too retro syndrome. In this case, who cares, it is awesome.
The New Stang is a very good effort indeed, but they better add something to her. Seems like the front now looks a bit sad, like she, or is it a he, is not happy. That big fish lip front has to go. If I was god at Ford, I would be asking for a design which is totally modern, yet RWD. Yeah, I know all the FWD efforts for a replacement failed. And for goodness sakes, an independent rear suspension. No not now, but in the modern Stang. The current car is fine in many a way, but it looks close enough to be compared to the '68 and '69 which looks better. The new Camaro I see as fresh look, and the new Challenger as an improved original. Not sure the new Stang blows away in the looks department compared to the original. And I still kinda like the '94 and '99 Mustang efforts, as having the spirit of a Stang, in a current day look. Just my opinion- everyone sees something different viewing the same thing.
Loren
Loren
Some think I have a grudge with GM because I won't let GM gloss over their failures every three months when GM announces yet another re-vamp of their corporate structure.
Six months ago it was the Soltice that was GM's savior. Now I guess it's the Camaro Concept?
I still can't get over the $1 billion Fiat buyout and how it is something that too few posters here care to acknowledge as a perfect example of whats wrong with this company. A One Billion dollar "mistake" and all the principals responsible kept their jobs! A Billion Dollars! And that's just the tip of the iceberg as far as GM's record of throwing away money.Twelve months ago GM labeled Hybrids as a "fad"and not worth their time.Now GM says it'll be a leader in Hybrids in 3 to 5 years? Yeah, right.Six months ago GM announced it was rushing up the 2007 Full frame SUVs, and now they say they want to feature more car based SUV's. Who would want to put up a deposit for a 2009 Camaro made by such a company?
They are indeed playing up the future with a big splash, but that's nothing new for GM. I have to believe that in spite of the GM stalwarts, no way are there enough buyers out there willing to support GM anymore. A GM turnaround would take two years at the very least. Can they tread water and lose money for two more years without the buying public taking more notice? Is Honda/Toyota/Hyundai/Nissan and the Chinese going to just sit still for two years? With more import names building plants here , will GM have enough political clout to legislate some advantage for them? Besides the smoke and mirrors, GM has nothing that can justify anyone picking a GM over a competitor. Bill C.
Bill C.
What's really disgusts me is not just the incompetance of the management, but how they somehow get to keep their cushy jobs while all the grunts suffer.
But, I gotta admit, the new Camaro look awefully sweet!
If you look at a Volkswagen, or a BMW, or Mercedes, or Nissan, or just about any foreign car maker out there... you'll find that most of the cars have a good amount of 'greenhouse', or window space.
My 2005 VW GTI has a superb amount of 'greenhouse' space. Which is a big reason why I wanted it.
This is what they should have done in the first place.
- Getting major concessions from UAW on healthcare and benefits
- Developing products for people, not for Avis and Hertz fleets
- Streamlining engine choices
- Engineering better interiors and use higher quality materials to silence whinners on Edmunds.com (myself included)
- Getting away from employee pricing. Toyota and Honda command high prices and continue to gain market share because of product demand, reputation
- Turning on the marketing machine to reverse negative consumer attitude towards domestic brands
I would like to see the Chrysler Challenger selling around $21K too. Bring back the base models like the old days. I don't need the anti-lock brakes, stability control and all that jazz. I want a car, not a techno gadget people carrier.
Loren