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.
Options

General Motors discussions

1237238240242243558

Comments

  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738

    If they bring this car out within the current price structure and offer a decent 4 banger, this will be a step in the right direction. If it's still a pushrod 6 mated to a 4 sp auto, it'll be good enough to cannibalize Impala sales but won't make a dent in the Camry/Accord/Altima sales.


    Look, all it needs are five things:
    - Lower price.
    - Big trunk. This is because almost all police forces require RWD cars.
    - RWD. Even with an ancient engine and transmission, RWD is a massive improvement.
    - Stickshift. On their biggest engine as well. Spend a few hours making sure it will appeal to the crowd that still wants a car like this.
    - Drop in that inline-6 engine. GM has one. Use it.

    If they do all of this, it's goign to be a hugely different car than a Camry or Accord. Just what police and taxis are looking for, as well as most of the U.S. public that are fed up with FWD boats want.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Good point...they need to make sure they can tie it to cool 60s vehicles rather than to dull plasticky 90s vehicles. I wonder what the average 16 year old thinks of Malibu...a nice 1968 hardtop or a crummy 1998 rental car?
  • torque_rtorque_r Member Posts: 500
    Would GM not be better off starting with a new name for this product? "

    Maybe Malibu is not meant for young people. Anyway, The Aura is new enough, although a bit pricy for young costumers. Chevy ruined it with the Cobalt, except for the SS coupe. Speaking of names, Scion went for sort of high-tech meaningless names like xB, which sounds more in place with an electronic device, and maybe that's why it works. they sell over 6,000 units monthly of these boxes.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    ...lights a little big, but that's a common disease out there.

    the bigger the lights the bigger the reflector, the better the light throw.
  • escambiaguyescambiaguy Member Posts: 35
    The Malibu did have some problems when they first came out in 1997. Some were equipped with that awful "Quad4" engine and then the V6's had the famous intake gasket issue back then. I think the Malibu nameplate has been tarnished by that. I think GM would be better off getting rid of the that name for awhile.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    I am seeing some models move to smaller lights, or at least narrower (horizontally) lights. I suspect these aren't inferior, as they are on some very well engineered cars.

    Gigantic lights (or light covers - much of the room covered by the gigantic eyes aren't actually involved in lighting) are a 2002 fad...Camry/Solara, ES, Q, and so many others. It's styling....and running with a 5 year old fad will make you look dated.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Was the Saturn for sale the engine upgrade version? They did not supply a model number? The $22K seems a bit steep, if it is a more base Aura. Would be about right for the top line one

    Loren, pricing on Saturn is pretty simple.

    XE:$20,595
    XR:$24,595

    No haggling, some option packages.

    $22K car is an XE with preferred package and the premium trim package.

    Top if the line starts at $24,595 so it could not be the top of the line one.

    Darn good price when compared to Camry.
  • chuck1959chuck1959 Member Posts: 654
    IMO changing names often is too confusing for the consumer. A far as the young people....they need to get a grip! There is too much positive history with the "old" names!
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    2008 Malibu is the larger Epsilon 2 platform. Aura/Malibu/G6 are on the current Epsilon platform. Malibu will share no body parts with any other GM midsize vehicle.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Right, it's the reflector size that counts. Which models have moved to narrower lights?
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    I do have to say if I wanted a Camcord, I would look at an Aura. The Camry is just too ugly from the front to bear (are there aftermarket front clips for this thing yet?), and the Accord is getting old and I think will become Saturnized (in a bad way) like the Civic.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    Lexus LS, ES look smaller, Mercedes S looks smaller, or at least better proportioned.

    That's one thing that irks me about Lucerne styling - the lights seem huge. Reminds me of the 2002 Infiniti Q, which really went too far. Smaller/less tall lights look better!
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    that IMO at least, are showing the trend to smaller headlights are the latest Camry and the latest Civic. The Passat's headlights really aren't that big, but I don't think they're any smaller than previous generations.

    The first car I can remember going towards the oversized headlight look was the 1996 Civic, a look that was often referred to as "doe-like"

    If GM is coming out with a whole new Epsilon platform for this 2008 Malibu, then why, pray tell, are they releasing the Aura on the old platform? Seems to me they should've just waited until the new platform was ready and then released a new Malibu/G6/Aura/9-3 at the same time.

    The way they're doing it, it seems like they're setting up the Aura to fail, especially if the 2008 Malibu ends up being something to write home about.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,412
    "the bigger the lights the bigger the reflector, the better the light throw."

    If only cars were designed so functionally. It's function follows form.

    If the Malibu name is done, how about Chevelle or Alticordry?
  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    Wasn't this what Lutz stated about the Monaro/GTO, a 3-series competitor?
  • driver100driver100 Member Posts: 32,590
    Andre said about the Aura; . I don't think the car really does anything to advance the design of the modern automobile or anything like that, but it's not bad looking. I

    I have to agree. It is pleasant looking, one of GM's better efforts. I might have estimated $22,000 because base model in just under $26,000 in Canada. It is priced high in relation to the exchange rate...that is why $22,000 sounds high.

    It looks much more expensive from the inside. Like I said, nice fake wood trim, huge trunk, fair bit of room in the back.

    The things I did not like and they mean a lot to me; front seats were not that comfortable, vision out front and back is not great (partly that huge trunk), and the hood fades into oblivion. Can't judge fenders or front end.

    For looks, well, I cried when I saw the new Camry, but I got used to it, same with the raised trunk on the BMW 5 Series, but it is very clever, these new designs actually are very intelligent, because they make that look the new standard, like fins did in the 50's, and if you don't have it your car is out of date. You have to be gutsy and a leader to use this trick, but it does work...makes the Camry much edgier, fresher than the Accord!

    2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250

  • jae5jae5 Member Posts: 1,206
    Please, please, please not Chevelle!!! :cry:

    Besides, I think GM is planning to put that name on an hi-perf Aveo SS
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    RWD Impala is a good idea. It should have always been RWD.

    FWD Impala is fine for the masses. Think that vast majority of Impala buyers are better off with FWD, especially those who have to deal with snow and ice. FWD is safer in bad weather than RWD. Think that most buyers of Impalas, as well as similar vehicles, are just buying an appliance and do not care about so-called ultimate handling/cornering/etc. and "feel" that RWD can provide.

    GM could bring back the Caprice Classic RWD and make it a little bigger than Impala. Make it in an SS version for those who care about handling and a tame version for others. This could be a step-up car for Chevy just like Avalon (FWD) is for Toyota.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    And it's that "appliance mentality" that is digging GM its grave.
    Look - when Mazda, a tiny company that's barely a small pet compared to GM's elephant can do it right and make a profit by offering cars peopel want to actually own, GM should take a hint.

    Build exciting cars that nobody else does. Not by making an incrementally better version of someone else's design. All that does is leave you playing catch-up once their new design comes out.

    "A step up" won't cut it. They need a total redesign like the new Mustang or else they are treading water again.

    I-6, stickshift, RWD, under 3000 lbs is the goal that they need to be aiming for. Automatics of course can then go to the fleets that use them.

    Oh - FWD is only advantaeous in snow, and only in cars under about 2500-3000lbs and/or are more than about 60 front-heavy. Bigger RWD cars do just fine in snow. Of course, not knowing how to drive in snow is your own fault. Most of the U.S. doesn't drive in much snow to be honest - and those people who do almost always have SUVs or something to deal with it.(or wait until the roads are de-iced/plowed)
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Teh ES are shorter up and down than the Lucerne because the ES are HID and Lucerne are Halogen.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    If GM is coming out with a whole new Epsilon platform for this 2008 Malibu, then why, pray tell, are they releasing the Aura on the old platform? Seems to me they should've just waited until the new platform was ready and then released a new Malibu/G6/Aura/9-3 at the same time.

    The way they're doing it, it seems like they're setting up the Aura to fail, especially if the 2008 Malibu ends up being something to write home about.


    Soem car has to be first on the new platform and some car has to be last on the old one! To keep Engineering under headcount control you cannot design/develop/release/advertised/marketed all models at one time. They have to be staggered. With the Aura, GM picked a car that was already out there (Opel) and gave it to Saturn. It is a great car and will sell well. The Epsilon 2 needed to be bigger because the W cars were going away and they will replace both the Epsilon 1 and W car vehicles (in most cases).
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Manaro/GTO is a much larger car. Lutz is talking about a smaller compacter car the size of the 3 series.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    the bigger the lights the bigger the reflector, the better the light throw

    Hence the invention of the projector-beam headlamp. You will find them on older Japanese cars.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    I-6, stickshift, RWD, under 3000 lbs is the goal that they need to be aiming for. Automatics of course can then go to the fleets that use them.

    That would be our old friend the R3x Nissan Skyline.
  • lahirilahiri Member Posts: 394
    GM is good at getting rid of names, e.g. Century, LeSabre, Grand Am, Lumina, Cavalier, etc. GM names invariably get associated with low quality and rental car stigma - so, GM has little option. Contrast this with Accord/ Camry/ Civic/ Corolla - the reasons of Detroit's nightmare. Ford has killed Taurus, Escort, and I won't be surprised to see Explorer fall of the charts. I don't think UAW or workers can be blamed. Greedy managements lying to the customers and investors have systematically destroyed GM and Ford. They are lying even today. Great Wagoner and Lutz are still cooking up excuses everyday - I'm sick of hearing about rising healthcare costs. When I shop for a car, I don't ask which manufacturer has higher healthcare costs - I owned GM products and I wouldn't have if I worried about healthcare costs. Now I don't own a GM and the reason is lack of products that can satisfy me - I don't want to bear the burden of poor quality and resale value any more, and I don't want to buy cars that don't have safety options standard. GM should build a $25K RWD Chevy alternative to BMW X3 with decent interior and standard safety features if it seriously wants me back - otherwise, I will keep driving CR-V's - at least FWD CR-V starts below $20K and retains its value very well. Oh! I forgot - I don't want vehicles that are sold to fleets any more.
  • escambiaguyescambiaguy Member Posts: 35
    I think GM has done a good job with the new full size truck. The Silverado sold really well up until they came out with those ugly headlights in 02, or was it 03?. It seems most people I talked to hated them. Looks like GM partially went back to the 99-01 front end styling.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,412
    Since the mission of Chevy is an appliance car for every driver and the mission of Pontiac is to build excitement, wouldn't it make sense if the Chevy's retained FWD while the Pontiacs moved to RWD?

    If Pontiac had the distinction of RWD, it would make their excitement slogan make sense and seem more realistic to the target audience of performance enthusiasts that understand and accept the trade-offs of front vs rear drive.

    Chevy being more the appliance maker, FWD makes sense due to it's advantages in safety, cost, interior layout and trunkspace.
  • lahirilahiri Member Posts: 394
    Yes, Ford did a good job with F-series as well. They loved the F-series so much that they decided to kill Taurus, the top-seller in mid 90's. GM is finally making some decent cars - still, winning back customers from Accord/ Civic/ Camry/ Corolla/ Altima will be tough. And, GM has reduced fleet sales slightly. Still, most rental cars that I see are GM or Ford.
  • lahirilahiri Member Posts: 394
    Since the mission of Chevy is an appliance car for every driver and the mission of Pontiac is to build excitement, wouldn't it make sense if the Chevy's retained FWD while the Pontiacs moved to RWD?

    No. For every Pontiac dealer in any area, you have three Chevy dealers. To me shopping for a Chevy and servicing a Chevy would be a lot easier.

    Also, I don't want a Pontiac - who wants a Pontiac (with the exception of Solstice)? Most of my friends even don't know what Pontiac is. They know Chevy because of the omnipresent bowtie.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Nissan to shift part of North America output to Japan

    TOKYO -- Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. plans to move some of its manufacturing operations to Japan from North America as part of its efforts to improve profitability, the Nihon Keizai business daily reported.

    Production of two Nissan models -- the Quest minivan and the Infiniti QX56 SUV -- was expected to be relocated from Nissan's plant in Canton, Miss., to factories in Japan in 2008 and 2009, the newspaper said Sunday, Oct. 1.

    Nissan sold 40,000 Quests and 15,000 of the Infiniti QX56 in North America in 2005, the paper said.

    Since both vehicles are mainly sold in North America, local production offers the company lower distribution costs, it said.

    But given their small sales volumes, Nissan believes that it would be able to cut costs by producing them in Japan for export because domestic plants can switch between models and build them more quickly, the daily said.
  • logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Not probable.

    The North American factories GM is keeping open have the hot swap features of Nissan's Japanese plants.

    The Korean GMDAT plant and plants in Belgium and Germany also are hot swapable. But they are pretty much at maximum capacity already.

    This is more a case of Nissan moving slow sellers to facilities where it can quickly turn on and turn off capacity where needed from a factory where you either have the line running or it is off. As part of the restructering, GM is closing almost all its older factories.
  • gsemikegsemike Member Posts: 2,412
    Chevy is positioned as the broader market car maker than Pontiac (the appliance maker). That's why they have so many more dealers. The average buyer doesn't know that difference/doesn't care about front drive vs rear drive.

    If all the Chevies went rear drive, those folks would sit in the car and wonder why the middle hump was so big, trunk was so small and traction so bad compared to the Camcord, Corolla, whatever.

    A much smaller segment of the public will seek out rear drive. Pontiac with the smaller dealer network can survive on that audience. Being the affordable rear drive division (as opposed to Caddy) would instantaneously have more cred with the performance set than 15 years worth of plastic cladding and red lettered guages ever got them.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    Why would GM, move production to Japan ? What benefits would they get from it ? Would it open up the Japanese market to GM ? If it would benefit them then sure go for it. I'd rather them build a new plant in Japan, than in China or Mexico.

    Rocky
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    RWD is simple correct. Even the traction is better. Just try launching a FWD and see the spin going on. Steering is better, handling is better, less complicated with not all that business going on up front, stronger, better weight distribution, no spinning front wheels-which is just so wrong, better shifting feel without the surge or rubbery FWD feel of the tranny, better control of the car, no under-steer problems, no torque steer, the engine is not in sideway, and the tire smoke is all behind you, so you don't wonder if you car engine is on fire. :D

    Even my little PT Cruiser in first gear will tend to pull that steering wheel out of your hands if turning right and applying lots of power. You are likely right however. The average buyer is not a driver. They know little about the appliance they sit in. It is just point A to point B and little else. Perhaps this is why they have so many more roll overs these days. Always interesting to ask people if their car has anti-lock brakes. Many will say they don't know. Ask them how then do they know how to apply the brakes and they will say, what's the difference. I see so many SUV and trucks driving at high speeds, it is a wonder more don't lose control. They must see little difference between their big hunk of rolling steel and a Corvette. I am sure the manufacturer will be blamed for roll overs or not being able to stop in time. Yeah, why didn't this truck stop like that Corvette? Maybe the average buyer won't see the difference between a golf cart and a fine RWD car. You are probably right.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    The Sonata is FWD, large inside, and has more safety features than the Impala. Perhaps, it is the ultimate appliance? Better warranty, and price too! The Impala then makes absolutely no sense.

    As far as safety goes, I take it under-steer is what people are liking. It does work both ways though, and under-steer can send you off a cliff. The front end not turning would send the front head on into oncoming, or straight on over a cliff -- whoopee! Maybe common sense speed with both FWD and RWD helps just a little bit there. ;) Good tires for rain, as in all weather tires helps too. FWD may in some cases help at slow speeds in light snow to keep ya moving along. Heck, why not with the 65% or so weight over the front wheels.
    -Loren
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Doesn't the Camry V6 have more HP and resale value than the Aura? So is the price good compared to a Camry. Not sure. Perhaps the base model is the deal. Top model favors Camry.
    Both cars will get the job done.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Big light - smaller lights, it doesn't matter, as most of the time you have the headlamps dimmed so as not to blind the oncoming cars. Driving at night is mostly a matter of blind faith. At higher speeds you really are not seeing far enough ahead to take proper action like you could during the day. Oh well, so far so good. And I drive very little at night.
    -Loren
  • escambiaguyescambiaguy Member Posts: 35
    Wasn't one positive result of FWD more interior room created by eliminating the driveshaft?
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    No, the XR is a hire price. The warranty is about the same. Most drive 15K per year. Multiply that time 5 year = 75K. Camry warranty is 60K. The gas mileage is worse on the Aura. The HP is lower. The real winner then is? The XE Aura, on sale, say a couple grand off, may be an alright buy. .
    -Loren
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    I could walk out the door with a Saturn Aura XR, with what you'd pay for a Camry LE. ;)

    Rocky
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Well eliminate the drive shaft and the car is "Like a Rock." Yeah, I know what ya mean. A little more room to seat six, if the cars were wide enough. Most are really four seaters anywya. And then there is the mini-van, for soccer moms, and car appliance lovers. Best to buy a mini-van. And yes, FWD have more trunck space. It is basically a two wheeled vehicle, pulling the passenger space and tunk like a truck and trailer. In a broader sense they are automobliles :D:D:D
    And I will admit some are pretty good handling. The Toyota Celica did handle well. No longer being made thought. Then there is the Audi and Saab/Volvo of the this world. Why pay all that money for a FWD, I haven't a clue. A VW is less expensive and seems to be rated well for handling. Would not pay over $20K for FWD cars.
    -Loren
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    Top models favor the Camry :surprise: Are you crazy. The XR with Morocco brown leather kicks the Camry's butt in looks ;)

    Rocky
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    I could walk out the door with a Saturn Aura XR, with what you'd pay for a Camry LE. end quote

    See now there is the difference, if I bought the Camry, I could drive out. Buy the Saturn you still had to walk. Got ya!!! Didn't know the broke down leaving the showroom. :surprise: :D
    -Loren
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    Why pay all that money for a FWD, I haven't a clue.

    Well I can see why some have. You can drive it in the snow and get good mpg's.

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    You got me, I admit it. You are just wrong. :P

    Rocky
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    Most people want a car that drives well. FWD do that in most, if not all, kinds of weather for the typical driver.

    Some will say that FWD will slip BUT most drivers aren't doing front wheel drive jack rabbit starts at full throttle that may have slip--that's why traction contol works on FWD.

    I've driven RWD in all kinds of weather and FWD has better traction 99% of the time. I've had RWD with limted slip differentials and those will dig you through snow almost as wellas the FWDs I've had since BUT they are dangerous for the hotshot or nonphysics-oriented driver. FWD eliminates that. I have no trouble with torque steer on my FWD. I can accelerated while turning right or left and the steering wheel stays steady. These are GM cars, of course.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Yet there is a large segment of buyers(and police departments a well as others) that want a RWD vehicle. And if you think that RWD won't sell, notice how just about every RWD vehicle on the market is selling well. You can't even attempt to approach the European sports sedan market without going to RWD. And many people know this. There's a large pent-up demand for such a car at a non-yuppie price. I mean, 40-50K for a car with RWD? I don't need leather or a race engine with 350hp, I want something like my old Volvo 240. Small, comparatively inexpensive to BMW/Mercedes/etc., and decently adequate(and a 240 Turbo wasn't a snail to be sure).

    Wasn't one positive result of FWD more interior room created by eliminating the driveshaft?

    Well, this is all about the design. Most modern cars have a 4-6 inch hump in the middle anyways in the rear. And a center console instead of a bench seat that goes all the way into the dash as one monstrous unit. The tranny could easily fit there, since it already is 5 passenger car as it is.

    As far as implimenting it, the Volvo 960 had a three part driveshaft and sitting in it, you couldn't tell the difference between it, a RWD car, and the 850, a FWD car. Both were the same size inside, or too close to call. You look under it and you can't tell it's RWD very easily - the driveshaft is all hidden/tucked away.

    But driving it, it was no contest which provided a smoother more luxurious ride. Having the front wheels free to steer and less weight up front made it a wonderful car. Ever wonder why Mercedes refuses to jump in on the FWD bandwagon except for a few cars every so often? Same reason. And nobody seems to complain about them in bad weather.

    So, yes, it's definately possible to take something like a LaCrosse make it RWD without changing the interior at all. Automakers are just lazy is all. There's no reason they can't make a 2.0-3.0L I6 and RWD. In fact, Lexus DID EXACTLY THAT with their GS300. Sit inside the GS300 and the ES300 and there's hardly an inch of difference. And it sells incredibly well.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Drove an Accord this weekend. V-6. Was surprised that no torque steer was evident under any street conditions or hard acceleration. Knew it was just a matter of time before Honda & Toyota would figure it out, but it was not apparent that the car was FWD.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    NV, yeah they solved that problem for 2006. I have read that the new TL Type-S does tug. I think you can muzzle it up to a certain point and the Type-S might just have to much power. I hope Saab adds more power and goes AWD. They also have some torque steer problems.

    Rocky
  • derrado1derrado1 Member Posts: 194
    Why does Chevrolet have to field two mid-size entries anyway? The Malibu and Impala both target the Accord/Camry. The '08 Malibu is growing in size, so it should hit the Camcord directly, leaving the Impala to go upmarket.

    While Chevy is GM's appliance division, I think they could use a RWD Impala as somewhat of a halo/image-builder.
This discussion has been closed.