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
Today for just over 50K you can get a E320 CDi, which is a lot cheaper figuring for inflation. I remember the 190 cars costing almost 30K, 20 years ago! Base C-class/190 prices are almost identical after all those years.
My old 1989 300SE stickered at 54K, this was for a SWB 6cyl bottom of the line S class. That's gotta be 80K+ adjusted, if it is anything, today. They couldn't get away with that today, even though it was an excellent car. But that was the last year they had no competition (Lexus), so they sold every one they made.
I still see tons of 126 cars still on the road...I think these were the last of the really overbuilt cars that weren't scarily complex. The 140 was also over-engineered, but I see them with more faults.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060123/AUTO01/601230326/1148-
Compared to a Mercury Grand Marquis, not to mention most other domestic cars. You pointed the Grand Marquis' rather steep depreciation rate as proof of its supposedly inferior quality. But depreciation isn't only influenced by the vehicle's long-term reliability. If that were the case, a VW would depreciate worse than a Grand Marquis - or even a Chevy Impala.
I'm not saying that the Grand Marquis is the smartest choice for most drivers - but it IS a sturdy, reliable machine that is likely to last quite a long time (and be easy to repair when it does break).
habitat1: Again, not sure about the relevancy here. It's been several years since I was a 150,000 miles per year frequent flier, but Hertz ususaly had a Toyota Camry waiting for me and it's resale is among the best in the industry.
If I recall correctly, only about 10 percent of Camrys go to fleet customers. The figure is much higher for the Grand Marquis. If Toyota sold as high a percentage of Camry production to rental fleets as Mercury does with the Grand Marquis, the car's resale value would be hurt.
habitat1: That said, my hard working middle class parents got killed by GM, Chrysler and Ford unreliability in the 1960's-1990's. I never saw a car turn 100k miles until my own $4,000 1978 Datsun B210 GX made it in about 1986. I think that has burned a bad impression on me that will likely never be overcome.
That's interesting, because my parents had several Oldsmobile 88s - from 1967, 1976 and 1982 - that easily turned 100,000 miles, and still had plenty of life in them when they were traded for a new model. And my parents did NOT baby their cars, at least not until the 1982 model. If anything, by today's standards, the 1967 and 1976 88s were abused - especially the 1967 model, which wore like iron.
Now, if your parents had the misfortune of owning a small domestic car - say, a Vega, Pinto or Gremlin - I can understand their bad luck. My father's 1973 AMC Gremlin was shot at 96,000 miles...and getting to that point was not a pleasant experience.
Through the early 1970s, most imports could not match the longevity of American straight sixes and V-8s...at least until the downsizing frenzy swept the industry in the wake of the Arab Oil Embargo, and the domestics really began cutting corners. And the imports were more vulnerable to rust. A neighbor had a 1975 VW Rabbit with a front suspension that literally fell off the car one morning in the early 1980s because of rust!
People always recite the problems with domestics from the 70s and 80s (and 90s). They seldom mention the failings of the motors in Hondas after 70-80K in the 80s early 90s. One car repair show called them the BIC lighters of the auto industry. Got lots of hate calls from the salesmen.
People don't recall the light metal that rusted away quickly and the small size compared to the cars that carried 5-6 passengers. The Datsun, Hondas and then Toyotas weren't up to snuff.
I recall the VW Rabbits and Foxes sitting when the temps hit below zero because they quit running on the road.
The long-running leSAbres, Bonnevilles, ParkAves, Olds 88 and 98s from the 90s are running around more and more as people trade them and others buy them for their dependability and long life. There are maintenance repairs and parts do fail. But a neighbor takes high mileage cars and cleans them up and resells them as a fun sideline. He says one well-maintained from the beginning is good for 250-300K.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If you lived in the parts of the heartland where there's lots of snow and the roads get salted, chances are your import rusted apart in about 15 minutes, and finding someone to work on it was next to impossible. Even if you lived in an area where cars lasted longer (for instance, I remember in Oklahoma City there were tons of old cars around in good shape, so I'm guessing the winters aren't that bad...or they just don't use alot of road salt?), you still probably had a nightmare of an experience when it came time to finding parts and servicing for it.
Where I live, the DC area, our winters aren't THAT bad, but enough to make the cars rust. I'd imagine that the dealer network for imported cars was fairly good around here back in the 70's. So you probably had a mixed bag, where some people would swear by them, yet others would just dismiss them as being cheap junk.
Basically, buying a car is a toss of the dice. You can hit the jackpot or you can crap out. Your chances of crapping out were much greater in the 70's, regardless of what you bought. Basically, if you crapped out on a domestic in the 70's, and went to an import and got a reliable one, you just got lucky. You could have crapped out a second time. It's not like all domestics were consistently bad and all imports were consistently good. Quality was very spotty back then. Plus, when you factor in other conditions, like how the car is driven, maintained, dealer/service support, and even the climate, chances are no two cars that rolled off the same assembly line would last the same.
Even today that's true, though, although I'd say the quality on the assembly line is a bit more consistent. These days, I think shoddy dealers and repair shops cause more grief than the cars themselves. Part of that is just that the cars have gotten so complex, and difficult to diagnose.
Honda certainly had their act together by the late 80s and early 90s. I had an 89 Accord that served me well to 127k at which time it was donated to charity while still running fine.
Check the classifieds, you'll see plenty Civics and Accords of the 88 to 92 vintage running fine with 150k to 200k on them.
I've heard that head gasket problems were actually somewhat frequent, but at the same time it really wasn't an expensive fix. And the real kicker is that they still got $4,000 in trade for a 5-year old Civic with 80,000 miles and a blown head gasket! I'm guessing that if a head gasket went on my Intrepid, it would be totaled. :mad:
Yeah, that's pretty much how I am at this point...I'm going to buy whatever I want and what suits my needs and likes the best, regardless of who makes it. Even though I've always liked Chryslers, the next time I get a truck it'll probably be a Chevy. I've never had a Dodge truck, but when it comes to trucks, I mainly just want an appliance workhorse, so when my Silverado does finally go belly-up, it's going to get replaced by whatever I can find that does the job for the lowest price. And of late, it seems that Silverados are going for less than Rams, which I guess are a bit more in-demand and don't need quite as much of a rebate.
When it comes to cars, I like the 300C and Charger, but I also like the Altima.
The Saab plant in Trollhattan will soon quit making Saabs as Saab production will move to the Opel plant in Germany. 3000 workers there built 100,000 9-3's and 9-5's in '05. Now that will be gone. This will happen in '07/'08 timeframe as the cars will be based on the Epsilon II arch.
GM plans to have four vehicles in Trollhattan by 2009.
They include the:
Cadillac BLS, 20,000 units.
Cadillac BRX SUV, 30,000 units.
Saab 9-4X (based on the BRX), 15,000 units.
Saab 9-1 or 9-2, a competitor for the Volvo C30, 50,000 units.
there are also a couple other possibles going in there.
The two Cadillacs and the 9-4X would all use the Epsilon II platform.
Saab is breaking sales records in Europe. They do have a new 1.9L diesel which is increasing sales.“We were on the spot with the product mix,” a Saab spokesman says, noting
the U.K. has moved from almost zero diesels five years ago to nearly half the market now.
In addition to 3,000 plant workers, Saab has about 1,700 employees at Trollhattan in the Saab Brand Center.
Perhaps GM should give up Saab here in the states and let them battle ahead over there?
The plus's to keep Saab-a plant to build a multitude of different vehicles, 1.9L diesel, Engineering facility, Saabs keep the Opel Germany plant to capacity, 4700 employees kept working, Saab brand name, ???
Reasons to sell-Money from sale, fewer nameplates to advetise and manage here in the states, can put 4700 employees out of work,
Own experience was great. Had an 84 Honda that I kept till 195K and then sold for $800 in 98. We also had an 86 Honda that we kept till 247K and then sold for $1000 in 2000. Had a few calls on that one from want ad in newspaper. Engines (carb on one, fuel inj on other) were solid, no oil burning, never a problem. However, both cars had to have alternators replaced. Mufflers also needed replacement, plus usual tires/brakes, etc.
The 9-5 has reminded me an awful lot of a very expensive Saturn L-series for years now. I like the 9-3 though. It's hard to believe that it comes from the same platform as the Malibu and G-6! But is it enough for buyers to care?
Interesting that Ford has just about as many salaried employees as GM, yet GM has so many more models and platforms and sells a lot more cars. Looks like Ford is awful heavy and does need to reduce by 25% as announced.
Was an 84 Prelude. Had 2 carbs on it and they were never touched by me or Honda dealer. Always have used name brand gas (Shell, Mobil, etc.). Had 5-speed and trans never touched. Think that clutch might have been adjusted once. It was a great car and wanted to hang on (in barn for a couple of last years) but a contractor spotted it and wanted to buy.
Getting on topic, I think that styling of 84 held up well over years. Can't think of any small GMs of 84 (with 4-cyl) that looked as good as Prelude. Test drove some of them at the time and they were no match for handling or quality of Prelude.
06 GM styling getting better and a number have better styling than some German makes.
All were purchased from a small town dealer that sold only SAAB since 1956, and the three mechanics knew every nut and bolt on all the models, past and present. The dealer was like the old-fashioned British car dealers in that you were on a first name basis with the mechanic (not because of poor reliability, just because of mid-America friendliness), and you were allowed in the shop area. Heck, I can remember helping the mechanic work on my car many times. Although this dealer won the national service award several years in a row (SAAB owners would drive over 200 miles one way to this dealer for service), GM finally succeeded in closing the dealer's doors because of its location.
Presently, my closest SAAB dealer is 100 miles, but I've performed all maintenance on both 900's since 2000. If you take care of the Classic 900, it will last a very long time. Note: This is true of most cars of course. The '85 900 8-valve SOHC has over 200K and the only mechanical items replaced on the engine or transaxle are the clutch and pressure plate. And, the mechanical fuel injection is still going strong. These are unbreakable cars, and very well engineered and built.
It's really too bad that another unique marque is evolving into a pseudo-vanilla automobile. Simply placing the ignition switch on the floor between the two front seats, does not make a SAAB.
Also, you had to equip those cars properly. GM had the bad habit of putting tiny 9.5" Corvair drums on its midsized musclecars. NOT a good combination! IIRC Chrysler usually used 11" drums with its bigger engines, so it was better-equipped. You could usually get disc brakes back then as a cheap $26 or so option, but then that made power brakes almost mandatory, and I think that ran around $100 back then.
One thing I've noticed about those old musclecars, though...usually people say bucket seats are better than the old benches, but I found just the opposite to be true. The buckets were usually too small, and had too short of a base cushion. I drove a buddy's '66 Charger once, and even the backrest only came about to the base of my shoulder blades. If I got rear-ended in that car, I'd be screwed!
I've had a Dart with both buckets and a bench, and I think the bench was a little more comfy...better padding. The buckets were still pretty good though, better than that Charger. Even in the 70's, the benches just seemed more comfy to me. For instance, I checked out a '75 Cutlass with buckets at Carlisle over the summer, and didn't think it fit nearly as well as the bench in my '76 LeMans. And those 70's models with the swivel buckets just felt HORRIBLE!
As for making the rear axle hop, well, I thought they were SUPPOSED to do that! That's part of the fun!
But yeah, any modern musclecar that got brought back would most likely have all those comforts built in these days. Like the '94-96 Impala SS (a musclecar with a few too many doors) or the new GTO.
Yeah, the new cars sure are better in so many ways. Of course what we consider top technology now, may someday seem like a Yugo. OK, maybe not that lowly.
I kinda like some of the 90's cars, when we have the computers to manage car engines, long lasting autos, and perhaps a few less of the new items or changes I do not want in a new car. Even some of the styles, like the Aurora, in its last fashion, seemed to look better than say an Impala.
Loren
Looking back at Camaros, Firebirds, Mustangs back in late 60s. The 67-68 Mustang GT or Shelby 350 or Shelby Hertz Black or 65-66 Shelby White were the toughest looking. Check out Bullit movie for dark green Mustang of McQueen. Camaros and Firebirds did not quite have the cachet.
Had a 67 Mustang GT fastback 289 High Perf and 68 Firebird 400. Did own work/mtce on both of them - Konis, brake pads, ext lighting, etc. The Firebird (might have shared chasis with Camaro) definitely had beefier frame and suspension parts. Mustang was relatively flimsy. Think that GM back then did better job than Ford.
06 Styling of Camaro show car may be too gimicky.
Also, just look at the how the Mustang was "widened" - if you can call it that - to carry the FEs in '67. That was a driver for the 67 restyle, to make it wider to put the 390 (puke) and 428 (yippie) in it. But try to do a plug change on one and you'll be crying the whole time, except for maybe a Boss Nine. But will agree on the 64 - 66 Mustangs, even putting in a 351W will give you a headache, especially if you don't dimple the shock towers.
But now time to get back to the topic, GM styling.
Interesting advertisement recently states how GM is now number one in sales, and that they are lowering prices. What? So things are so good, cars are selling like hotcakes, out of the goodness of our hearts we are lowering prices? It IS a good thing indeed that they lower the prices to match the value of the car, and find the true market value. The problem is that the price is a moving target. It is not the lowest offer, not exactly the lowest it will be in the future as they indicate that red tag type sales will continue, and when mixed with an ad stating how good things are, seems ridiculous.
Between GM and Ford, in my eyes, Bill Ford has delivered a better message. Others may see this differently, but it appears to me that the message from GM management remains the same as it always has been, only delivered in a new and ever changing spin. Bill's latest speech gave at least the appearance of someone with a grip on what has to be done, and with a firm commitment to make things work. GM just seems tired to me. Ford, like GM though is in trouble. They say they must reduce by 30,000, which will cost what, say $3B to save money in the future? How many billions more will the whole transformation cost?
Ford plans on building uniquely American looking cars, with bolder styling. They will be bringing cars to the market faster. In short, they got the Chrysler message of the 1990's to date. They want to be a leading company again. No NOT in numbers, but in quality product, sold at a profit. GM can shoot for the high volume, sold at a loss, if they wish.
Loren
I mentioned them because habitat1 said that his family had owned several domestic cars from the 1960s through the 1990s that didn't make it to 100,000 miles. I was trying to find out what type of car his family owned.
I agree that the Vega does not reflect on what GM is producing today, in 2006.
But that doesn't change the fact that GM DID make the Vega, and it was one of the worst pieces of junk ever foisted on the American public by any car manufacterer - foreign or domestic.
If someone mentions a bad experience with American cars during the past three decades, it's logical to start with the most likely culprits.
imidazol97: They seldom mention the failings of the motors in Hondas after 70-80K in the 80s early 90s. One car repair show called them the BIC lighters of the auto industry. Got lots of hate calls from the salesmen.
They seldom mention Honda engine failures because they seldom happened. Sorry, but those engines have earned a deserved reputation for fuel economy, performance and reliability, regardless of what some nameless show host once said.
Plus, I wonder which competitive American engines from that time he views as superior. By the early 1990s, for example, GM had offered American buyers who wanted a four-cylinder the Vega four, the Quad 4 and the Iron Duke (although not necessarily at the same time). The first two were notoriously unreliable and rough running, and while the Iron Duke would at least make it to 100,000 miles, it made a John Deere tractor engine seem refined.
imidazol97: People don't recall the light metal that rusted away quickly and the small size compared to the cars that carried 5-6 passengers. The Datsun, Hondas and then Toyotas weren't up to snuff.
In my post, I specifically said that most domestic cars had superior rust resistance compared to the imports. Of course, the Chevy Vega rusted as badly as an import. And that was the problem - people weren't cross-shopping Cutlass Supremes with Honda Civics. They were comparing Civics to Vegas. And as someone who once had a 1977 Civic, I can assure you that even with its faults, it was ten times the car a Vega was. And it was five times the car a Chevette was, for that matter. I guess that represents an improvement for GM, but not quite enough to make a difference over the long haul.
imidazol97: The long-running leSAbres, Bonnevilles, ParkAves, Olds 88 and 98s from the 90s are running around more and more as people trade them and others buy them for their dependability and long life. There are maintenance repairs and parts do fail. But a neighbor takes high mileage cars and cleans them up and resells them as a fun sideline. He says one well-maintained from the beginning is good for 250-300K.
No doubt they do last that long...but then, so do 1990s Civics and Accords, from what I've seen. And the cars GM offered as the direct competitors to the Civic and the Accord in the 1990s (the Cavalier/Sunfire; Grand Am/Achieva/Alero/Skylark and Impala/Regal/Cutlass Supreme/Grand Prix) do not.
For the record, most of my parents cars in the 60's-90's were mid to large size domestics: Pontiac Catalina, Pontiac LeMans, Olds Cutlass, Chrysler Lebaron, Chevy Malibu...
That said, this is only anecdotal evidence. Not statistically significant. But personally upsetting, nonetheless and the reason I'm not losing any sleep over GM's loss of market share.
I think the Marquis problems with horrendous depreciation is due to more than simply fleet sales, but I'll let that dead horse alone.
imadazol97,
I think you are living in a fantasy world. It's Ford that's laying off 30,000 workers and GM that's dancing with bankruptcy. Honda, Toyota and Nissan didn't get where they are by building inferior products.
Perhaps the Mercury Marquis or other domestic model is what you personally think is the pinnacle of styling and quality. Fine. But wake up and smell the coffee. You don't have a lot of company. And the situation isn't getting any better, that's for sure.
I concede the Vega. It was nothing like the larger cars of the period that were much better built and compared to other full-sized cars of the era and were better IMHO.
I didn't understand why GM screwed up so much on all the parts of the Vega design. It rusted. It had new technology with the sleeves in an aluminum motor (not really new, was it?). It just didn't cut it. The other earlier small cars were mostly large car parts put into a smaller, but heavy car. I think of the Falcon when it first came out. Not really more economical to operate.
People didn't cross shop the Civic at the time. I hardly knew it existed an couldn't tell you a dealer in the area here in the Midwest. Might have been one 50 miles away in Dayton? The experiences on the coast varied I'm sure.
>nameless
I am sure he has a name. Putting down his comments by referring to him as "nameless" doesn't change what he experienced as a mechanic working on cars everyday. His big complaint was he had customers in suburban Dayton who needed their engine rebuilt but they were not rebuildable, in his opinion. You either threw away the car or put in a new motor. That was the eventual end to my friend's CVCC Civic whatever year it was in Charleston, SC. I'll post the mechanic's name when I hear it again; he's still around.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Thank you for your opinion. The reality is the UAW, older workers on this continent for them, healthcare is not subsidized by the government (us taxpayers) as in other countries, and a whole bunch more factors.
I have my coffee right here; 7/8th decaf and 1/8 French vanilla capuccino. Smells good but it smells a lot better than GM's and Ford's situation.
As others, or maybe yourself have said, overpaid workers in all respects, inept management and designers and vehicles built based on plant capacity that can't be shut down easily rather than building the new Scion Sc type car to capture the youth market who eventually become buyers who shop little other than buzz shopping.
Overpaid workers: talked to a past acquaintance at the local Walmart last Saturday late when she recognized me. She and hubby work for GM plant that's losing 3rd shift. They have a juice business on the side (sounded like MLM to me). They don't worry; they get paid for a year of unemployment, which I figured is the 95% of takehome amount. Who knows what else they'll get. She's looking forward to the time off!!! At the company's expense and the State of Ohio's expense.
Ford workers at Batavia (Ohio) transmission plant get 2.5 years of pay before they're off the roll. I could find a new vocation, train for it, and be working in it probably and still getting a check from Ford. It is poetic justice for the local township and county who screwed the locals to subsidize building the plant there without the plant paying the costs that other plants would have had to pay. I lived in that area for a time when they built there.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I was raised on Detroit iron and used to be a domestic loyalist. I've owned 14 cars and the first 11 were domestic. 8 of those were GMs and 3 were Chryslers.
You know what happened? I had an 89 Camaro that I bought in 92 when it had 23,000 miles. That car was so unreliable by the time that it had 50k on it, that I was forced to sell it and bought an 89 Accord. The Accord had almost exactly the same number of miles.
I ran that car up to close to a hundred with only doing a timing belt and a clutch. When I would drive that Accord (and I drove it all over the place) it would sometimes pop into my head, how many more repairs would I have dumped into the Camaro by now? Being that the Camaro was in the shop 3 times in the 6 months before I sold it, the probably answer is plenty.
After I passed that Accord on to my sister, why would I go back to GM? Now I've had 3 so called imports in a row. I say so called, because they all came out of American plants. The other 2 have been a 99 Civic (leased) and an 03 Altima. They've all proven to be excellent cars and good values.
So again the question is, when I'm laying out 20k for a car, and I've had so much of a better experience with the imports, why would I take the chance to go back?
Everyone else in my family buys domestic so I do have experience with more recent products. They've all been reliable as far as breaking down, but I haven't driven one that made me say, this is a better deal than what I have now.
btw: I had a 70 Chevelle and the factory buckets were great. My friend had a 67 Firebird with a very worked 400. Once the sub-frame connectors were in, that car held up fine and that one was faaaaaaaaaaaaast
Good Lord, Habitat, did I end up with your parents' old cars after they got rid of them, because I swear, I've owned every nameplate you mentioned! :P
I have a '67 Catalina convertible that supposedly only had 44,000 miles on it when I bought it, but I knew it was bs. Still, it was in great shape, and only $3775. I haven't regretted it.
In April I picked up a '76 Grand LeMans coupe that only had 76,000 miles on it. I'd believe this one, because the interior is just too nice for a 30 year old car. It's not like you can easily find replacement parts for something like this, so it's not like the interior was trashed and then replaced.
Now my '82 Cutlass Supreme was the biggest POS I've ever owned. But I only paid $800 for it, and it was 11 years old and had 61,000 miles on it when I bought it. First the tranny went out, and then the engine, although it was still running when I sold it.
My LeBaron was an '88 Turbo coupe. Uncle bought it in 1990, sold it to me in 1995 when I got married, and I gave it to the ex-wife when we divorced. It was totally shot by around 115,000 miles. Turbo was burnt up, a/c shot, power antenna broken, radiator had been replaced, head and gasket had been replaced, but it still ran like crap. My mechanic (not the one the ex-wife found to replace the head/gasket) said compression was shot in two cylinders and not much better in the others, so don't sink another dime into it. Oh, and the paint, while still shiny, was actually faded down to primer in some spots, and the trip computer lied. About the only thing that still worked was the transmission, and even that was leaking!
And my first car was a 1980 Malibu that my Mom gave me, which she bought new. It wasn't a bad car. I sold it with 100,000 miles on it, and a year later saw the people who bought it from me. They had 115,000 on it and loved it. Almost made me regret selling it, but back then I was still in college and had recently bought a much better car, a 1969 Dodge Dart GT, and couldn't afford to keep up two cars.
Now, if you tell me your parents also had a Newport, Bonneville, and NYer, I'm really going to flip
You are correct. However, I had a 1973 GT hatchback that I bought new. I must have been blessed (or something)
because it was actually a good car....yes I said good! It was impeccably maintained without fail oil changed every 3,000 miles, belts and hoses every 25,000 miles, etc. Unfortunatally in 1980 and 85,000 miles it was hit from behind by a Cadillac and totaled!
Don't set the bar so low. All the domestics in my family don't have breaking down problems except for my sister's 96 Taurus, but they have other nits that take away from the ownership experience.
For instance, my mother's 2000 Impala. It's been reliable, but it's got little problems like the lettering wearing off of the radio, speed sensitive volume control on the radio that is way too sensitive and needing a brake job at 18k. These things are not acceptable but GM loyalists think that it's business as usual. It's alos a heavy, floaty boat with a tiny back seat.
Compare what you just said to Toyota. Toyota offers the same large SUV's and trucks as GM with lower EPA mileage. Yes, the Trailblazer offers an SS and it will sell a low volume to a market that wants it. GM also offers 30 vehicles that get over 30 mpg on the highway (look at their advetising). GM basically offers a vehicle in every segment that Toyota does (except the hybrids, which is a subjhect we have alreay gone into) and none of the newer models are "cheap and tinny" and I do not think any of the models offered today meet your criteria.
The Aveo you mentioned is the number 1 best selling sub compact in the US. So GM has an entry there.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Reviews/Sedans_and_Coupes/2004_Chevrolet- _Aveo.S180.A6646.html
In the compact segment they offer the Cobalt in various forms. While it seems to not be a class leader it is not a "cheap and Tinny" car.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Reviews/Sedans_and_Coupes/2005_Chevy_Cob- alt.S180.A8691.html
From there, there are a number of entry mid size cars offered. None of which are "cheap and tinny".
Issue is is that GM offers a wide segment of vehicles and there are those in this country that feel their needs should be met and others should follow their lead because they are right. Over 50% of the buying public in 2005 saw trucks as their preferred mode of transportation. Even with gas at $3 there was no huge drop off of truck sales. There is a change in what a truck will be. Crossovers like the Enclave will replace many large and mid size truck sales.
GM offers the small vehicles. Yes they do have a cheap stigma but todays models are not the cars of past. We have discussed this forever on how the cars were so bad in the past and that is the domestics greatest hurdle.
It's adjustable.
tiny back seat
Campared to what? It's bigger than a Camry or Accord all mid size cars.
I saw a blue Cobalt SS that was a sharp looking car.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Campared to what? It's bigger than a Camry or Accord all mid size cars.
I don't know what horse's rear-end they pull legroom figures out of, but I've also found the Impala's back seat to be small. Oh, shoulder room is good, although the high beltline still makes it feel claustrophobic. But I'm going to hit my head on the rear window sill unless I lean forward. And with the front seat all the way back, which is where I'd put it if I were driving, my knees go into the seatback.
In contrast, I fit fine in the back of an Accord or Altima, and my knees just graze the seatback on the Camry. Larger cars don't necessarily have larger interiors. For example, my knees also hit the seatback in a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, plus there's no footroom under the seat. Oddly enough, I can even sit in the back of a Neon, and my knees don't touch! And in all of these cases, it's with the front seat all the way back.
GM's W-bodies have always been funny when it comes to back seat legroom though. I find that the actual seating experience just doesn't live up to the published measures. The Impala is better than the LaCrosse, Grand Prix, Century/Regal, and Intrigue, but I still find it to be cramped. Honestly, I think the Malibu's back seat is better! :surprise:
Campared to what? It's bigger than a Camry or Accord all mid size cars.
Compared to my 03 Altima which is a lighter car by about 500 pounds. Also my brother has a Regal and my father has a Century and the backseats are cramped in all of them.
To be fair, my station car is a 93 Lesabre and the back seat in that car is fine.
As for the 1967-69 Camaros, I agree-they were beautiful cars. But I understand that they had only a partial subframe-which meant that they would break in two , in most crash situations-not a good situation for the occupants! You might have your seatbelts on, but if the front of the car breaks off and leaves you strapped in to a seat (which is heading for a tree), it can definitely ruin your day!
What is driving down the sales of Domestic cars in that they are not offering the best pick when consumers comparison shop.
Here's an example:
Someone wants to buy a car.
What do they do? Figure out how much they can spend.
Next, they look at all the cars that fit the bill.
Then, they eliminate the cars that don't fit their style and the cars that don't have the specifications they want.
Finally, they test drive the remainder. And the one that has the best test drive is the one that is bought.
Currently, domestic cars have problems in all of those steps.
Their price is generally more than imports, if you compare models with the same features. And sometimes, the domestic don't even offer the features found on imports.
---
Example:
5-speed automatic Civic vs. any similar domestic.
Is there a 5-speed automatic found in a small, economy domestic car?
If that option is a make-or-break dealbuster, then the consumer WILL NOT buy domestics. furthermore, since a 5-speed automatic is considered better than a 4-speed, consumber expect any car with the 4-speed to cost less.
That goes for any option. If one car has it and one doesn't, then the one without is expected to cost less (which can be negated if it has other options not found on the first).
---
Furthermore, while styling is subjective, a drop in sales is a pretty good indicator that domestics are not releasing cars with the styling that consumers want.
So, the last problem is in regards to the test drive.
Test drives are one of the most important areas for selling a car. Dirty or run-down dealership, restrictions to how and where a buyer can take the test drive, and salesmen obviously out to make a buck are major negatives that contribute to lost sales.
And there have been a number of articles written in newspapers about the poor facilities and shark-like salesmen at domestic dealerships.
That isn't a good thing for domestics.
------------------------
For myself, I was in the market for a car last year. So I figured out how much I wanted(could) spend for it. Then I researched cars on-line for those that were in my price range.
Then I figured in what options and specifications that I wanted. For me, the best transmission and handling, most HP/Torque, and best fuel economy(in comparision to other similar vehicles) all packaged in a small car were my top criteria.
I then found all the cars that matched my price and needs/wants. Then I eliminated all the vehicles that looked 'bad' in my view.
Test drove the rest.
Which narrowed it down to 2 models.
Then I picked the one that gave me the most 'car' for the money. Which wasn't the cheaper of the two.
And it wasn't a domestic.
It's slightly too small for my tastes. But it's a good choice if your looking for something like a Scion xA.'
Though, with GM's past reputation (and that the Aveo is nothing more than a rebadge Daewoo Kalos), a longer warranty would attract more buyers.
After all, consumers are going to think "If I'm going to buy a Korean car, shouldn't it come with a Korean warranty?"
I think one problem though is the "theater height" seating in GM's W-bodies. The higher you sit, the more straight-out your legs tend to be. As a result, you need more distance from the back of the front seat. And with taller passengers, it will be more noticeable.
Consumer Reports used to do a measurement that measured the distance to the back of the front seat, which is different from legroom, which I think measures down to the footwell area as well. You can have a car with a tall seat that shows a good legroom number, because that vertical (well, diagonal) portion will be included, but if you have long legs, you might still feel cramped.
Also, that "theatre style" seating will put you closer to the ceiling, unless the roof has been raised accordingly. But in GM's case, it hasn't.
The W's are on an old architecture. The epsilons are new and have a relatively longer wheelbase and better packaging for the rear seats.
Anyway, in this case you can see how the sub-frame extends up under the passenger cabin. However, it doesn't look like it's anchored very well. My Dart (and any untized car for that matter) uses a subframe as well, but it's beefier, extends further back, and I believe is welded, where the Camaro's looks like it's bolted, probably with some subframe bushings in there to isolate harshness.
I had always heard that the sub-frame of the '67-69 Camaro actually ended at the firewall, instead of extending up under the passenger compartment. I don't think they were so bad in a crash necessarily, but as they aged, fatigued, and rusted, that's when you'd have to worry. I heard a story (might have been an urban legend) about an old guy whose Chevy II broke in two when he went too fast across a railroad crossing!
Before I bought the Alt, I cross shopped 6 or 7 cars including Camry, Accord, Sonata, Sebring, Malibu, Sable, and Impala. In differnt people's eyes, the comparison may have come out differently but to me I thought that the Altima managed to have the biggest interior (although somewhat lacking in materials) and feel the sporties at the same time. I also liked the powerful 4 cyl that the domestics couldn't touch.
I drove all of these cars and it was the Alt that made me think, "oh yes... this is what I'm looking for". I didn't leave the dealer at that point without taking the car home with me.
As I recall, it was very expensive to fix. So before I bought my '79 NYer, those sub-frame bushings were the FIRST thing I checked!
And when it comes time for a new car again for me, the Altima is definitely in the running. Although by then, it might be redesigned...I'm planning on holding off on any new cars for as long as possible!
It's got 32k on it now and will be paid off in about a year and a half. As a new home owner, you can bet that I'm holding on to it once it's paid for. I guess that it will be in the 45k to 50k range by then so I'm looking forward to 4 or 5 payment free years before I even have to start thinking about a replacement.
How could Ford take a great Volvo based chassis and molest it buy using the horrible Duratec 3.0. This engine is the poster child of those who prefer pushrod engines.
I can honestly say I like the interior style, comfort, and the overall solidness of the car. The CVT trans is very cool and works wonders while under way, unfortunately the coarse groans of the engine sound like a scalded dog.
I just shake my head in amazement that someone at Ford actually thought that using this engine as the only option was a good idea. Sure the new six speed and CVT help performance, but it can't hide how unrefined this engine is.
It's painfully obvious why ford is laying off employees and shutting down plants.