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
I was referring to the 3.6 w/ a 6-speed.
And why the heck is it worth $30K? For a grand more I could buy the real deal -BMW3 sedan.
I suppose, but is it a "real deal" sports sedan (325i?)
That car has an inline six.
What's such a big deal about this ?
You can adjust the steering wheel for people with shorter arms. All service work is free for the first 50K miles. Why would I buy a Pontiac for more than around $20K? Maybe a RWD one up to say $23K, like the price of a Dodge Charger.
As I've said before the service is included in the inflated price, so it's not really free is it ? I wish GM, would do this since this sales gimmick works very well on some. :confuse: I think a G6 GTP is a better deal than a BMW base 3er. You can buy one for $23K
No not interested in a China car.
Well to buy the kind of new car you want at the price you want to pay Brickland, Geely, Chery, etc, are your best option.
At the moment would like a sports car, though my aching back may not approve. Narrowing it down to a used Corvette, SLK, or BMW3, or a new Mustang ( not sure how they are screwed together and reliability - still researching and keeping ears open ).
Well all would make good used cars I suppose.
I am thinking when the CTS '08 comes out, some will dump their older CTS in favor of the latest thing, and perhaps lower the resale value on the CTS. So far they want too much for what it is.
Yeah many current owners will want the new and improved CTS. I can't predict how much resale value the current CTS's will drop. I guess alot of folks are happy with the CTS, and are in high demand used keeping the prices up.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Well, given a just arrived Opel from Europe, with no track record in the US, perhaps this is a bit premature. It's great that GM appears to "get it" to some degree. They're working on their interiors, cutting costs, and may be starting to awaken. Still, 30 years of Accord and over 20 years of Camry experience and quality aren't going to be overturned in the 2 months since the Aura has arrived.
I don't know - what? The books? Just kidding!
The Aura looks very similar to the rest of the FWD sedans, and if the numbers add up and it is reliable, then sure just as good. Warranty is not all that different. 5 yr./60K vs 5yr. 100K. Most drive 15k or less a year, so in five years that is 75K and thus you gain 15K miles. Or if warranty is important, there is Sonata and Azera. With the Accord or Camry, the resale should be higher. Normally less shop repair time spent, however Camry may possibly still have some issues with the new model. I would research those issues before buying. Question: Does the Aura have electric assist steering? I think it has a foot emergency brake - yuk! I think Camry went that way too. If Aura is, like you say the greatest CamCord to date, I am not sure that is a victory which makes money for GM. I suppose it could play the game and make money doing so. We'll see now. I think plan "B" or was that "C" is best.
For those in need of FWD mid-sized GM car, the Aura looks like the choice. No need for the Malibu. Aura is the best effort to date.
-Loren
Rocky
-Loren
What they did to bling up the Impala was pretty remarkable. Really gave it a better image, in a chrome on the outside, and more Japan like interior sort of way. The car is the same in most respects, but you get a sense they did a good job of getting a better dress for the old gal. Great effort for the bucks spent. It paid out OK, no doubt. Since the Aura is out now, there is little to no need for the Malibu -- yuk!
Aura, or Opel is not the model design they may wish to use for all GM cars, but it may work for smaller cars, and Saturn. They need a different look for GM larger cars. Is Australia the answer? Holden and Opel the only looks for GM looking forward??? Ah, perhaps they got something up the sleeve. Not going to show the best cards just yet. GM does have a revolution in the works? Well they could. I think I need sleep, I am drifting into GM dreamland. Cars are flying, and who knows what. :shades:
A side note: The Opera browser is excellent for use with this forum posting. And it has its own built-in spell checker. Page rendering works well too. May have to make minimum font more like a 16 though in preferences.
-Loren
The facelifted Vectra, in my opinion, has a front that looks too fussy. The old front was a bit boring, but it fit better with the chunky, solid, Germanic looks. The back of the Vectra hatch looks great... sedan, pretty average.
I think the Aura's exterior looks pretty damn good... I believe the interior suffered the most. Nice, don't get me wrong, but it lacks that special something of the Vectra's interior. A little warmer though.
Uhh, would someone please tell me why most are so anti -stick shift. I used to have an automatic and I hated it. It was the most boring thing to drive. A stick shift on a Cadillac CTS sounds more than appropriate. It's a luxury sports sedan. The key word here is "sports.
I agree the CTS is way overpriced. The interior looks like cheapola as with most GM cars, and the seat belt inside the shoulder of the seat? What is GM smoking?
Based on the horrible resale value of GM cars it makes me wonder why anyone would pay top dollar (the best example of this is probably the now defunct Cadillac Allante)
CTS is overpriced by about $5,000 to 10,000, and the interior looks disgustingly cheap when it comes to the instrument panel and controls. If they want to compete with BMW they need to raise the bar. GM has a hard time doing this because they have too many overhead costs.
I wonder, does the Camry have a different body style in every country they sell in? Does BMW?
What's such a big deal about this?
The inline six has the most even arrangement of power strokes out of the commonly-used cylinder configurations. It is smoother than an I4, V6, or V8. You have to go to a V12 to get a better-balanced Vee engine (and the V12 is basically two I6s on a common crankshaft). Go find a Supra or Cressida and get someone to rev it up for you.
http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth1.htm
Not true. Similar dimensions to Aura except a bit larger except for the wheelbase. Current Impala is on old architecture (last on off W) and has an old fashioned wheelbase. The next Impala will be larger.
But your are sure right about the Corrola.
Do you have data for that statement or it more perpetuation of the mantra? I read the Camry woes, various honda problem discussions. Starting with the 03 Accord, it sounds like regression to the mean is occuring.
>GM cuts corners wherever they can
I found that when I test drove Camry and Accord I felt and saw minimum in everything. I called it minimization. That was in 02. Have things drastically improved?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06214/710304-185.stm
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Too bad GM killed off this thing back in the day:
I'd say it depends on the size of the people, but IMO, there aren't any sedans out there that can hold 6 people for very long in any degree of comfort. I think the biggest deterrent to good 6-passenger seating is the fact that they tried to make cars better 4-seaters, with split split front seats, armrests, and more contouring and side bolstering. By the time you adjust the driver's and passenger side seats up front, the center spot of a bench seat car is usually an inhospitable place to sit. And in the back seat, the armrests, even in the upright position, usually make it uncomfortable to sit there.
Consumer Reports used to say that you needed at least 57 inches of shoulder room to get good 3-across seating. That was ages ago though, before cars started getting the serious curvature of the side windows and roof pillars. I always thought a "true" full-sized car should have at least 60" of shoulder room.
My Intrepid has, IIRC, something like 58.1" of shoulder room in back, and I've been able to get 3 people across back there, and people tend to remark at how roomy it is! I have bucket seats, but I've seen the bench seat models and there's no way you'd want to put an adult in the center spot. The center part of the dash juts out into that area, so there's no knee room. So I'd call it a 5-seater. The replacement Charger/300 have a huge driveshaft hump, and the center spot of the back seat is hard and raised up, making it useless IMO. I'd consider it to be a roomy 4-seater.
One of my friends has a 2004 Crown Vic. You wouldn't want to put anybody in the center spot of it, either. The dash juts out too far and there's a low spot at the center, plus a huge driveshaft hump. And the back seat feels like it's contoured for two fat people. Put three regular sized people back there and the outer passengers kind of tip inboard, while the center passenger has the armrest digging into his back.
As for the Impala, I'd say the last one that could hold 6 people in any degree of comfort might be the '85. The Impala was pretty basic at that time, with a solid bench seat up front and a fairly flat backseat. My Grandma's '85 LeSabre was the same basic car, but its seats were more overstuffed and had some contouring to them, plus the armrests. A '76 Impala, the last of the mastodon class, would probably hold 6 people fairly well. Back then the dashboards tended to be higher, so there was more room under them. And since there was more room under the hood, they didn't have to tuck the transmission as far under the passenger cabin, so it didn't rob as much foot room.
If you regularly need to haul 6 people around, a minivan is probably your best bet, although I have seen some of them with uncomfortable 3rd row seats. But then most SUV's have 3rd row seats which are much worse. And since the middle row seats are often designed to flip forward, I usually find them to be too flat, thin, and uncomfortable.
Now it probably wouldn't be feasible with a smaller platform or one where the FWD variant uses a transverse engine, but with a larger platform with a longitudinally-mounted engine, it should be doable. IIRC, at one time Chrysler had considered making RWD and AWD versions of the Intrepid/Concorde platform, which is FWD but has a longitudinally-mounted engine. I think at one time, the LX replacement, which ultimately became the Charger/Magnum/300, was going to offer FWD, RWD, or AWD versions.
It's not that "more cylinders is better", it's that an I-6 has a lot less weight, less gears inside it, one common camshaft - and it's the third most smooth non-boxer engine possible. A V12 is actually exactly as smooth as an inline 6 - though because you typically have smaller displacement per cylinder, the two "pulses" aren't as strong as the 6's one. Optimal? Inline-12. Just literally put the cylinders in a row and presto. Short of a WWII airplane engine, though, none exist today except in museums.
I-6 engines are very hard to kill. Very easy to overbuild and engineer to be tougher. The smartest designs are basically V12s chopped in half - so you get 2-3L I-6 engines. These are small and efficient enough to fit in many cars today. They also work perfectly with RWD applications since they have virtually no vibration. They don't generally wear out motor mounts. They also are easier to work on - one valve cover and presto. One headgasket. Go drive a GS300 with the I-6 in it and then drive a Lexus with a V6. Best of all, though, is the weight - the center of gravity is closer to the car's midline and also lower than in a typical V engine - so it handles better.
Oh - and there's plenty of room to actually work on them in RWD applications. No nonsense like the Audi A4 has - can't barely change the belt without removing half the engine.
So why did they move to V6s if I-6 were so much better? Well, the problem was when they went to small cars. The choices were either a V8 - way overkill - an inline 6, which barely fit, or a V6.
Note how the I-4 wasn't listed. The power old 4 cylinders in the 70s and 80s put out was pathetic compared to a V8 - so a something-6 had to be used(or a turbo 4), as the cars still weighed a lot.
Now, though, with 6s gone out of most small cars in favor of higher compression 4s that put out 150-160HP(or that have a supercharger), the small V6 isn't needed anymore. Ie - find me a small car with a V6 in it. Maybe 5-6 exist that are too small to fit a tiny I-6 in there instead.
All of the bigger cars, though - if they can fit a Northstar V8 in a Buick, they certainly could fit a small I-6 and toss the 3.8 V6.
Better pics:
http://motoexotica.com/scripts/ebay/view.asp?vID=ebay&user=dmb&i=1039/16.jpg
http://motoexotica.com/scripts/ebay/view.asp?vID=ebay&user=dmb&i=1039/18.jpg
http://motoexotica.com/scripts/ebay/view.asp?vID=ebay&user=dmb&i=1039/19.jpg
http://motoexotica.com/scripts/ebay/view.asp?vID=ebay&user=dmb&i=1039/21.jpg
The Malibu might be slightly bigger than a Carolla. Well isn't that better ? The Carolla might get better mpg and that's fine. OTOH both are priced relatively cheap and If I buying a car in this price segment and wasn't biased then the decision would still be a hard one. The new FWD Malibu, looks good. I guess I need to find some interior pics. I think the Malibu will remain a FWDer while the Impala goes to RWD and I'd be willing to bet the size grows to accomidate 5 or 6 comfortably.
The Saturn Aura, I agree should have gotten a 2.4 ecotec as the base engine. I also think GM, should of made a 6-speed auto standard. The malibu would of been cooler if a manuel option was available. What about the Saab 2.0T engine as a base ? It was after all a Wards Top ten engine, right ?
I think GM, is headed down the right track and their is plenty of room for improvement. I suppose we will see a 6-speed auto as a base transmission in the next yr or 2.
Rocky
Hell a I-5 that goes into the Hummer H3 would work wouldn't it ? The turbo version is going to have 270 hp. which I believe will be standard on H3's this yr. or next ? What about the new G6 GXP engine ? It also is going to have 270+ hp. also. I agree the 3.8 needs to be put on the sheleves unless GM, can overhual the engine and VVT it to make it a credible player again
Rocky
most peoples opinions on here. I do see advantages of I-6's but if that were soley the case then it would seem like like Toyota, Honda would scrap here "V" engines in favor of straight 6's ? I think most all of us agree that Honda, is the best manufactor of engines in the world.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
BMW could make the hood longer and put a longer and bigger I6 under there, but Buick was forced to give up the straight eight in the early 50's because GM wanted to reduce hood length and put the underhood space into the cabin. So, do you want a longer engine and less rear seat leg room? :P
Rocky