Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The way I am reading it now is that GM wants to be all things, as it once was. They are truly a general motors. Is this a good thing. Or would the image change if they were to build more upscale cars, with only the best - newest engines and transmission, with world class handling characteristics, and dump the rental car image? Stay the course? Is the recovery of GM for real? How about Ford?
My guess is that DCX may consider selling Chrysler to Chery, around 2010 or so.
-Loren
Rocky
"However, when the Aura consistantly being placed behind Camry (MT COTY) and Accord (C&D mid-priced midsize sedan comparo) then I don't think it is unreasonable to say: Maybe the Aura is good, but not good enough to be the class yet, wouldn't you think? "
I think not. The Aura was preferred by Autoweek and Automobile magazine. It was also selected as NACTY over the new Camry. I dont think there is a consensus that it cant measure up to Camry and Accord. Yes it lost to the Accord in C&D but when you look at the scoring it's hard to tell why it lost other than "gotta have" factor. It performed better than the Accord in every category and yet it didnt even matter in the end. What we can say is that the Aura has gotten poor reviews from the insitutions that rarely have anything good to say about GM products- C&D, MT and CR.
I'm sure you will love the new issue of CR because they slammed all three domestic entries (G6, Aura, Sebring) in their test, although they will be forced to recommend the Aura if the reliability is average. The comments in CR are almost totally contradictory to everything else written about the Aura. They liked the braking, quietness and engine in the XR model but thats about it. They criticized the ride quality, build quality, backseat, visibility, torque steer and materials. To say they were unimpressed would be an understatement. Keep in mind that when you look at the results page in the back the Aura APPEARS to fare just as well as the first place Altima in almost every rated area. Somehow the Altima magically ends up with an 89 score (tied with Accord for best V6 sedan) and the Aura ends up with a mediocre 70 ranking 10th (or worse) amongst family sedans. If anyone can explain CR's objective scoring to me I would love to hear it. The Sebring was absolutely trashed and got the 2nd lowest score out of every family sedan they have tested in recent years.
I like the new Mustang. It's my favoritest since the Fox body's. The only 2 I've ever liked is the Fox Body's 87?-93 and the 05-present.
They need to bring back the 5.0 and make a current 7-up car. :shades:
Rocky
I don't read CR. Never liked it
That is a great record of the car manufacturers and their switchover efforts druing the war. Didn't Ford produce airplanes at Willow Run? I just saw something about that again on one of the history channels.
I'm sure Nissan Smyrna and Toyota Georgetown and Suzuki W. Lafayette will be ready to switch their plants over if war defense products need to be built -- NOT. Of course in 10 years those plants may be closed after US builders are gone so that the other companies can ship in from China, Japan, Korea, Pakistan, etc., much more cheaply than paying labor here.
The past is easily discounted by some. Those who don't learn from history....
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If the Japanese government didn't back our policy's those plants wouldn't be allowed to help would they. Perhaps someday we will find out.
Rocky
That's my point exactly... if the plants are still here along with the jobs in that future event
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
??? They already have their low cost division over in Korea and also in China. No need for another one.
Rocky
Rocky
P.S. They need to give GM and Ford about $5 billion each for alternative fuel technology IMHO
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070130/AUTO01/701300343
Once UAW deal is settled then GM, can rest. They will get 7 million shares of stock which could really help GM, out in the future.
Rocky
GM was been building V8 and V6 engines and automatic transmissions long before the Europeans and Japanese. In fact Mercedes bought automatic transmissions from GM for years before they could make a comparable one. I question who is building antiques.
GM has the experience and know how to build world class vehicles. They used to and I believe they are well on their way to doing it again.
P.S. This is coming from a lifelong Ford guy.
I like you already......
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070130/AUTO01/701300344
Rocky
Shifty probably knows more about it then I do though and could explain the details.
You are correct that a 60 degree V6 engine is better then a inline four but a 90 degree V6 engine is probably worse then either.
GM saved money by just taking two cylinders off their 90 degree V8 engines to make V6 motors. Then they had to stick balance shafts in them to make the smooth.
Untill recently many ford and V6 engiens were just V8s missing two cylinders.
The inline 6 is superior to the V6 in almost every respect and that is why the BMW/Mercedes only mad Inline 6 engines for so long. Mercedes has gone away from the Inline 6 to improve packaging and improve economies of scale but the inline 6 is still superior.
Rocky
For looks and engineering, the Altima may be something to write about. Personally, I don't care for the CVT transmission and do not need the push button start, but it is different. The Aura is a good enough car -- car of the year, I don't know if I would go that far. One thing for certain, ugly car of the year award goes to the new Sebring. Please note, as always, IMHO. Your views and results may vary. This is why it is great that we have more than one car to choose from. :shades: -Loren
Early MB units had a fluid coupling system rather than a torque converter...I am not sure about the precise mechanics, but it did indeed produce harsh shifts. It was very durable though.
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070127/AUTO01/701270333/- 1148/AUTO01
Rocky
P.S. Well we are #1 for at least another year.
Things move pretty fast in this age as far as any major war. Could all be over in a flash or two. You think we would try to out build tanks, trucks, cars... whatever, in an effort to beat say China? We are at the limits now, as today's military was designed for 1.5 theaters of operation.
Today the tanks, ships, and planes are really complex and could not be built with such speed as WWII. That said, Boeing should use domestic workforce for security. And we should have more industry right here in USA. We should go back to producing more of our own goods. And for the car industry? People will buy once they are assured the product is right for them. If GM and Ford has enough dollars to spend on developing modern car, they will eventually start gathering a following again -- both with the customer and the press.
-Loren
Yes, GM has been making engines and transmission for a long time. But all the other manufactures seem to building a 21st century ones. Can't live in the past. Will agree the old tried and true 4 speed automatic for FWD does seem to work since 1987. My luck I bought an '87 -- oh well.
Since the 80's the story line for GM was that they were catching up, or had nearly as good a product as the Japanese for more value and perhaps more beauty to the product. Shouldn't the goal have been to surpass the competition. Considering an extra sixty years of selling in USA, you would think momentum was on your side, if nothing else. Certainly GM and Ford could build whatever classification of car they can afford to back. Perhaps it all comes down to return on the money and management culture, though Unions could play a part in all of this. That is a hot button issue, with both sides going crazy some times, so let's not go there. I think that some people do appreciate GM keeping some plants here in the States. And they have the Canada and Mexico operations. If they do go to China some day for workers, I would imagine those favoring GM for being All American as apple pie, would turn on a dime.
-Loren
I will admit that is true. I however don't expect that to ever happen. :surprise:
Rocky
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070127/AUTO01/701270376/- 1148/AUTO01
Rocky
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070126/FREE/70118010
had Belts instead of chains to drive the camshaft(s) and
also tended to have shorter strokes. Both are solutions
with drawbacks.
2. OHC engines are not a new "high tech" development, they
have been around for 70 years or more. In countries
with taxes on engine displacement, OHC and twin-cam
designs were necessary to get adequate power out of the
small engines. In the U.S., "nothing beats cubic
inches" - a simpler, cheaper, more effective and
thus more elegant way to get more power.
3. We don't need 'em in this country, but we have been
convinced OHC engines are the way to go and GM and Ford
have been forced to jump on the bandwagon. GM's 3.6
is as good or better than anything out there. Nissan's
VQ was terrific at 3.0 litres, but has lost some
smoothness at 3.5.
Rocky
P.S. Talked to dad today and he said Delphi Coopersville Fuel Inection plant is finally closed.
Rocky
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070130/BUSINESS01/701300346&im- w=Y
Rocky
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/COL14/701250381/1015/BU- - SINESS01
Video: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070125/VIDEO0302/70124056/1015- /BUSINESS01
Rocky
Rocky
convinced OHC engines are the way to go and GM and Ford
have been forced to jump on the bandwagon. GM's 3.6
is as good or better than anything out there. Nissan's
VQ was terrific at 3.0 litres, but has lost some
smoothness at 3.5.
I am so tired of the, "OHV engine design is really superior to the OHC engine design argument."
That has to be THE Second most common automtive argument on the internet right after which sports car is better the 911 or the Corvette.
The 911 Corvette argument of course always starts the OHV vs OHC argument. :surprise: :mad:
had Belts instead of chains to drive the camshaft(s) and
also tended to have shorter strokes. Both are solutions
with drawbacks.
I think this might be an advantage from a sales stand point. Many people could car less about the number of cylinders or distance of stroke but they do want a nice smoothing feeling engine and might choose it over a rougher one.
2. OHC engines are not a new "high tech" development, they
have been around for 70 years or more. In countries
with taxes on engine displacement, OHC and twin-cam
designs were necessary to get adequate power out of the
small engines. In the U.S., "nothing beats cubic
inches" - a simpler, cheaper, more effective and
thus more elegant way to get more power.
I think the old saying is “It isn’t about power, but what you do with it”. For instance you could couple a smoothing feeling but less powerful engine into a light body with a great transmission and have something that sells. Not counting that the smaller displacement probably helps fuel efficiency.
3. We don't need 'em in this country, but we have been
convinced OHC engines are the way to go and GM and Ford
have been forced to jump on the bandwagon. GM's 3.6
is as good or better than anything out there. Nissan's
VQ was terrific at 3.0 litres, but has lost some
smoothness at 3.5.
May be, but then again most countries tend to favor OHC for some reason.
They will care when they have to replace the belt ($550 on my brother-in-law's Kia) or maybe even the cyl. head on an interference engine.
OHC engines do exactly that; squeeze more power out of less displacement, yet there is always a disadvantage to that: higher maintenance (see timing belt replacement).
We have a saying here: There is NO replacement for displacement.
I am tired of the my engine is bigger than your engine argument over OHC and OHV. My motor needs to have great torque so it easily pulls away from stop signs in the country here. I even put her almost to the floor tonight when I pulled out of the school drive and a car was coming--there's usually no one who has turned onto the T-road from the highway. That tough old brut was up to 50 before I knew it and the traction control was catching because of the salt on the road from this morning's flurries. That's enough motor for me.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Your BIL got ripped off if all they did was a timing belt replacement. Now if they did the water pump or something else while they were in there then that is different.
Most motors now are using timing chains in place of belts.
I really can't think of a single engine off the top of my head that is using a timing belt anymore. Excluding the real, real cheap cars from Kia/Hyundai.
Wouldn't lighter engines, as in aluminum vs, iron, and smaller in size be a plus for FWD cars? Can't see how a larger lump of iron in say a G6 is better than a modern engine in an Accord. And yes, I know the DOHC has been out for many years. Honda engines, as well as, many other lighter, smaller engines seem like a win-win to me. I am thinking the 50 to 80 MPH range should be snappier with the DOHC. Now the advantage of OHV should be in ease of repair, and assembly at the factory. So they should heavily discount cars with that engine? Wouldn't it cost less to build than a DOHC four cylinder? I can live with the OHV six or eight engines. Seems like the smaller the FWD car is though, the more I would favor the DOHC. The long quality service record of the GM 3.8V6 engines is can not be overlooked - chalk one up for the old OHC there. And yes, would not turn down a set of keys to a new Corvette.
As far as reliability, in my day an engine going to 150K miles was a blessing. Later on, talk of miracle Japan four cylinders or Volvos going past 200K on the original engine. Now I hear the Sonata V6 was designed to last to 300K miles. Wow, if all the new engines last up to 300K miles, it will be hard to find reasons to sell the old car, other than tired of the same ol' thing, or the paint is bad.
Are new rules for pedestrian safety going to dictate hood height and thus make for possible size limits on engines. My understanding is that there has to be a great distance between engine and hood so that it has collapse room to soften the blow of a pedestrian hit by the car. Will all sports cars have to change? How is it a Porsche is not too sharp a frontal edge? Wasn't that some other concern?
Cars for USA and Europe will be nearly equal in design, won't they? A Corvette would have to match German laws, as much as a Porsche has to match up with our laws here in USA.
Overall, it seems that cars are getting taller each year. Have you noticed this. My Dad's Camry 2000 model year, is now like a half foot lower than the rest on the road -- OK, it seems that way. Seems like a Corolla towers over an older Cadillac. The lower and wider looking profile of my Stealth, I once owned, was wonderful. No big butt on her! :shades: -Loren
When I replaced the timing belt on my former '97 Camry, I had it done at 93K miles, and paid a co-worker (an ex-Toyota dealer mechanic) $100 to do the job. Parts cost was about $60, including the timing belt, both drive belts, tensioner spring, and crankshaft oil seal. I elected not to replace the water pump.
There are alternatives to the pricey dealerships.
You continue to beat this dead horse about GM making old transmissions and engines. I dont know if you understand this but when you make the most vehicles (for now) it takes longer to transition to new technology. Half of the industry that you feel is superior to GM in transmission development buys their 6 speeds from Aisin or ZF. MB developes its own trannies as does VW I believe. Toyota and HOnda do as well. Ford and BMW buy their RWD 6 speeds from ZF. You keep saying GM is behind the times but Honda, Hyundai and Nissan don't even make a 6 speed yet. Toyota is only using a 6 speed in TWO Toyota products right now. Lexus has 6 speeds in most cars, but none of their SUVs and that includes their best selling RX350 and the super expensive LX470. Yes 4 speeds have largely been phased out by smaller automakers but Ford, Chrysler and Toyota are STILL making them to this day just like GM. In fact, Toyota's second best selling car has a 4 speed automatic so I suppose that means the car is obsolete just like GM's offerings.
As for engines, you are stuck on the 3.5 V6 but that is just one of GM's many engines. Having an OHV layout doesn't make an engine low tech or old fashioned. If you honestly think only OHC engines are competitive than you should note GM has the 4.6L Northstar, 4.2L Atlas I-6 with 290hp, 3.7L DOHC I-5 with 242hp, 3.6L DOHC V6 with 252hp, 2.8L turbo with 250hp, 2L DI 260hp ecotec, 2L 205hp ecotec, 2.4L 173hp ecotec, 4.4L SC northstar with 469hp, etc. GM makes a lot more than "old" OHV engines these days and even their OHV engines are pretty good. The 3.9L 60 degree V6 makes more power than the Hyundai 3.3L, the Chrysler 3.5L and the Ford 3L all of which are OHC designs.
Again you are misinformed. OHV engines are generally lighter than DOHC engines. There are far more moving parts in an OHC engine which causes it to weigh more. The LIGHTEST type of engine is an all aluminum OHV engine. I assure you the small block alumium V8s in GM's trucks weigh less than their counterparts from Ford and Toyota. An OHV engine with an iron block MAY weigh the same or more than a comparable DOHC engine but the difference is likely small. As for iron blocks, I hope you realize that there are many OHC engines on the marker with iron blocks, especially in trucks. VW/Audi fours and V6s also have iron blocks so it's silly to act like having a OHC valvetrain makes an engine wholly modern.
GM hasnt made an OHV four cylinder in three years. The Cavalier was the end of such motors.
BTW, I am not saying OHV is superior. I am saying that GM has no legit reason to phase them out right now.
Why buy troubles? Oh yeah, I want a 10-speed transmission. More is better. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I happen to like m1miata's perspectives on these issues, with his rambling, laid-back, SoCal attitude and seat-of-the-pants viewpoints. Also, he's been around a while, unlike some of you younger guys, so he brings more experience to the table.
It's also not ALWAYS about numbers -- there's so much to the driving experience that's subjective, which is why those magazine and websites differ so much on which car is "better."
This is why you have to read, then compare, test drive, and decide for yourself what YOU like best. And yes, that pesky past experience (for better or worse) will play a role too.