The question in the title sets this one up. Will good looks be the difference maker in turning GM around? What would you like to see coming off the drawing board from GM? What do you think they need to do to enhance the image of the GM brand?
The current GM cars are the best looking cars that GM has ever made. Will it help? Yes, to a degree—but it's far from the solution.
The problems affecting GM are much more involved, as has been elaborated here many times and in many areas at Edmunds. Styling is perhaps 10% (if that) of the solution.
The domestic manufacturers find themselves with more capacity than they can support and seem tohave no choice other than to scale back. Will the announced plant closures at GM and Ford be enough to stop the bleeding?
I got to do a little test on the road yesterday with regard to this issue. We were coming back from a family gathering and came up on a new HHR, the first one I've ever seen on the road. So I decided to ask my wife and two teenaged daughters (one a licensed driver) what they thought. A synopsis of the comments:
Well... it's different
Is that the new PT Cruiser?
Looks like they put big wheels on a PT Cruiser.
Not that my wife and kids are a good sample of the market, nor is the HHR completely representative of GM's styling direction, but the feeling in the car was along the lines of "I don't get it. What are they trying to do? I don't think I'd buy THAT".
Well the most stand out styling for GM recently has been the Solstice. At least that's getting people's attention about GM and especially getting some people into Pontiac showrooms. I think GM should start developing more distinct cars, on the outside AND inside. Granted their cars right now, such as the update impala are great but they're bland and if you want a bland car most people will go with the Japanese for that. If GM can steal some potential or current Japanese car owners and bring them to GM, then you know GM is doing something right. Although...who knows when that'll be.
Check out Sunday's NY Times-interesting article on pushrod engines. Apparently, GM sees a big future for this engine technology-especially as pushrod engines are easier to fit with variable displacement sytems 9turn-off of unneeded cylinders). I also think that pushrod engines may actuallly be the next technology for ultra-low emissions vehicles, as the concept of a relatively low-revving , variable displacement makes controlling No2 emissions easier (rather than using multiple cat converters and preheating converters. I also wonder is a variable displacement pushrod engine is more reliable than variable valve timing with OHCs? Of course, the pushrod engines save manufacturing costs-fewer parts count. Something to think about.
The reason I am not purchasing a GM vehicle (or American) for that matter is one of perception of quality and reliability; bottom line. I do not want to spend $20K + on a vehicle and have it start collapsing on me after 40K miles. When it comes to recommendations for vehicles, you instantly hear Honda or Toyota. They have that good image when it comes to reliability. GM does not and they need to work on it. If they do, they will do just fine since I think their vehicles are better designed than toyota or honda. As seen with the Camry, many people will buy a reliable vehicle if they know they will have the peace of mind associated with reliability. Car problems are a headache few people like to deal with
Well, I think the HHR is a very nice vehicle...it has just hit the market about 5 years too late. IMO, it should have debuted around the same time as the PT Cruiser.
I have a friend that just bought an HHR, and I have driven it several times. I know what they paid for theirs, and it is a very nice vehicle, with a lot of featues for the money - and very quiet.
It makes a nice alternative to the PT cruiser, but it should have hit the market closer to the time that the PT cruiser hit.
I think styling, inside and out, is a big reason for GM's loss of market share. Even if their cars were reliable in the 90s, they looked so much behind. Chevies were less elegant and more bland than anything else. Pontiacs... well I don't know how they sold in such high numbers. Lots of Batman fans out there I guess. I could go on.
Now they're getting a lot better. But they don't have enough styling home runs that I'm going to say I'm convinced.
They're still behind, sometimes. Look at the Cobalt; looks good, but you know those big eye-like headlights? Well, the competition has started to move away from them. (Honda steered everybody towards that kind of headlight, and after everyone else has followed, they're changing the game to narrow headlights.) The G6 is transitionary... a clean-up of the old Pontiac look, but nothing new yet. Worse, the facelifted Vue is scary and the Torrent looks like a pig. And if GM decides to join the domestic retro craze, they'll have cars that look good, but don't look modern. They'll get old people buying their cars again...
Their sports cars and their European-designed cars look great. Modern, too. Everything else is "okay" to "good," but not quite "the Messiah."
I think the biggest advantage to a pushrod engine is that you only have one camshaft for the whole engine. The only OHC engine that would only hae a single camshaft would be an SOHC inline engine. Any V-block is going to need two camshafts if it's SOHC, and four camshafts if it's DOHC (2 for each bank of cylinders)
Also, on a pushrod the camshaft is closer to the cranshaft, so you can get by with a shorter timing chain.
As for moving parts, well, an OHC engine would actually eliminate some moving parts. First off, the pushrods would be eliminated. And since the camshaft is in the head, and opening and closing the valves directly, wouldn't that also eliminate the rocker shafts and rocker arms?
IIRC, the OHC engine was actually developed before the pushrod. I'm wondering if one reason OHC engines didn't catch on sooner was because the technology just wasn't there yet to make a timing belt that would last. And the advantages of a chain are reduced as you go to a longer chain, as a chain can stretch out. They've figured out how to work with belts and long chains nowadays, but I'm sure back in the old days it was quite a stumbling block.
We seem to be drifting off topic already... I think styling is critical to GM's recovery, both body styling and interior styling. I looked at the new DTS when I had my oil changed last week. The interior is an improvement to some extent, however, the finish on the plastics did not seem that much better than my 2002 Seville. The DTS on the showroom floor was the top of the line performance model. The arm rests were nicer and the door panel was an upgrade from my 2002.
Motor trend indicates that the DTS interior is very similar to the Buick Lucerne, which is good for Buick but not for Cadillac.
...because they will be cutting to be at or near their current market share. However, even if they have the best dang products in the world coming and their turnaround plans are fantastic, their market share is going to sink further before it starts heading back up, due to the current, unrefreshed models they have and quality perceptions that will take years to reverse. So they'll be in the same situation in 5 years with more capacity than market share.
Well, the Aztek was a Pontiac and so is the Solstice, so there is hope...
A furthur comment on the large FWD styling: I think that the larger FWD cars, with the front wheels set just in front of the front doors do not look as good as RWD cars which have the front wheels set closer to the front bumper. Compare side views of the DTS and STS for example.
Well, if the market continues at the 17-18 million rate in the US, then GM's capacity of 4+ million is still 20+% of the market. I don't know how many Asian brands (Toyota, Honda, others) to count, but with 3 domestics (GM, Ford, Chrysler) and European imports, one thinks that 1/7'th of the market is probably an upper limit. So GM should base profits on building about 15% of the market (that is under 3 million).
To me, saying the DTS' interior bits are the same as those in your 2002 Seville SLS is a good thing! I'm very pleased with the fit and finish of materials in my STS. I think the sleeker facelift does help the once rather chunky previous design. At least the taillights don't look like they were lifted from a 1986-90 Lincoln Town Car anymore.
The finish on the plastics in the DTS are not the same as my 2002 Seville, but are perhaps equally good. The door panels are better for styling and material use. The arm rests in particular are done better. On my Seville the arm rest is padded behind the door pull but not in front. The DTS seems to have a fully padded arm rest, with cut outs for the controls that are placed there (power windows, etc.). The Buick Lucerne interior bits are similar I think, so why pay $50,000 for the DTS when one can get the Lucerne for under $40,000?
The current GM cars are the best looking cars that GM has ever made.
"Ever" is a powerful word. I respectfully disagree. I think GM's best styling (for the corporation as a whole) occurred during Bill Mitchell's early years - about 1963-69. Think of the first Riviera, the first Toronado, the Corvette Sting Ray, and the '68 2-door intermediates.
there's nothing from GM out there that's styled well enough to make me lust for it. On the flip side, they're not dogs either. They're just kinda there.
Now I do think that, by and large, they've improved over what was around earlier in this decade, or much of the last. And build quality, fit and finish, etc, has greatly improved with the latest crop of new cars.
If you want "innovative" styling, by definition it's going to be different. And different is going to get reactions that run all the way from "brilliant" to "downright ugly".
The Aztek or HHR might or might not be my cup of tea, but I'll give them credit for making something that gets my attention at the very least.
Getting that balance would seem to be a key to getting the companies on solid ground. Whatever the reasons, the market share for the domestics is where it is. That's where they have to start from. It may not be where they want to wind up, but it's the condition that they're facing.
Reducing capacity could and should get them back into a position where they get to someday say positive things like, "We can't build enough of them to keep up with demand".
Trying to maintain capacity that went with 'the good old days' of domestic dominance would seem to be a sure fire course towards disaster to me
be more to come. In neither case will the announced closures be enough. If Ford closes both Wixom and Atlanta as rumored, it may be getting close. GM will need to lay off at least another 10% after the 30,000 they say they are going to lay off. AND they need to lay off the projected folks and execute the announced plant closures as fast as possible, faster than they have announced probably. Will it be possible? Probably not.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I concur with pf_flyer. GM's biggest problem is their reliability or perceived lack thereof, not their styling. Toyota Camries and Honda Accords aren't known for their styling but sell well because of their reputation for being the market leading reliable cars.
I've considered the Pontiac G6 in my current car shopping, and while its styling is perfectly fine by me (not outstanding, but definitely not ugly) and on paper, it seems to offer a lot of car for the price, everybody else in the family just has doubts about its long term reliability. "Buying junk at any price is no bargain".
GM needs to do what Hyundai did to commit to improving their quality to match that of Toyota and Honda. Hyundai is now finally getting good press and they back their cars with the longest warranties in the business, something like a 10 year, 100k mi powertrain warranty. The fact that GM only has 3 year, 36k mi powertrain warranty is not reassuring.
Well styling is subjective, so you'll never get 100% agreement on topic. Having said that I still say the current crop of GM cars are the best-looking that GM has done to date. Would I buy one? Nope.
I don't think it's the quality of GM cars, but the PERCEPTION of quality. For the most part they're pretty reliable. However, there's more to quality than reliability. Otherwise, VW would be out of business by now! :P
The main areas where GM gets hammered is fit and finish, interiors, too much plastics, annoying ergonomics, etc. They have been improving in recent years, though. Compare an '04 Malibu or Grand Prix to the '03 equivalent, or the '05 LaCrosse to a Regal or Century, or an '06 Impala to an '05, and they're a pretty big jump in quality. Body panels line up much better, gaps are tighter, and even if the interiors are still too plasticky, they're at least making the parts line up better, and having parts that butt up against each other, instead of just overlapping, which gave them a cheaper feel.
to the showrooms that the consumers are searching for, they would be ramping up production, opening new plants and hiring more workers. Its as simple as that, they just have to make cars that are sexy and that look good and feel like quality from the seats to the dash all the way to the paint. Visions of lates sixties Mustang GT's, Pontiac GTO's, Dodge Charger, have been just in consumers dreams until finally the Big 3 woke up and started the retro brands lately but what about the Chevy Camaro SS, Ford Cobra's, with a 'Cuda or a Challenger. Where are cars with the mystic of the Boss 302, the MachI, the Chevelle SS 396, the Road Runner, the Shelby, the Sting Ray........
Build cars like that and the buyers will come, and demand will put the Big 3 back in the drivers seat, but will they do it, can they get over this obsession to build as cheap as possible with the most basic design........I dont know if they can let go of that mindset and it will be their doom unless they turn it around and build what people want .........
The 50s and 60s were not some halcyon days. There were plenty of ugly vehicles out there.
There seems to be a sort of "ooh, those old cars were sooooo big....they were 'beautiful'"
not really
Then again, a few tail fins wouldn't be bad
* * * Styling won't get GM anywhere until the public has sufficient information about reliability. I'm not sure if GM understands that the public does not have that information. Thus, the public continues to think that Toyota and Honda are the only reliable cars out there. If GM does not counteract that, then they are unlikely to sell cars to people who are buying Hondas and Toyotas. Of course, GM may not care about those folks, and that is GM's call.
GM's styling was attractive in the 60s to those who were old enough to think those cars were desirable at that time. To younger people like myself those cars were nothing special. GM is definitely doing their best design work right now. Most everything GM designed from the 70s through the mid 90s was dull and now they are coming out with some distinctive designs. I would rank GM's styling best out of the Big 3 and superior to that of Toyota/Nissan/Honda. I can name a total of about five Japanese cars that I genuinely find attractive. None of them are made my Toyota or Nissan (excluding luxury divisions).
it's a cliche...but style over substance... i'm sure we ALL auto mags every month. Whenever it's a 6 car comparo, a Toyota always seems to finish second to last, with comment like "uninspired driving, or bland Toyota design"....
Then, the flavor of the month wins the comparo. ( see Ford 500 or chrysler 300)
my question to the magazines is if YOU had to make the payments...and hope the car last more than 60 months of paying it off with your money.....my choice would NEVER be GM / DC / or Ford... That simple.
i'd love to see them do a 5 year / 100k comparo.... THEN see what a Toyota can do... when the others have fallen apart.
yes, i own a 1999 4runner... 109k, runs like a champ.
what do you call a ford / GM / DC with 100k on it? Junk
what do you call a toyota with 100k on it? just getting broken in...
if you don't believe it, see how many domestic cars are for sale with over 100k on the clock? not many...
Buick has been #2 in JDpower for at least a few years now. All GM brands have improved in quality dramatically year over year for the past 15 years.
There is just too much evidence to support the fact that GM is an equal or better than toyota and honda in quality, especially in these last three or so years.
Now what there is lack of evidence for is which toyota department you work for :P
GM waking up. Their cars have begun to look like they belong in the 21st century. Eureka! Make a good-looking vehicle that works. Who knows what might happen. God knows they've tried everything else. Cadillac started first. I notice Caddy isn't giving their cars away, lately. Chevy has some nice new-looking vehicles that don't necessarily look like perfect designs for a rental car agency. Even their lowly mini-vans have an interesting new look. Who knows what Pontiac is supposed to be, but Buick is has been doing a good job of selling generic cars that are darn reliable. The new LaCrosse is (may I say) close to handsome. In this new world, you gotta be awfully pretty (you gotta admit MB/Chrysler does a darn good job at that) or awfully good (Toyota/Honda, even though neither make vehicles as pretty as GM did in it's heyday.) All GM has to do is make good-looking cars and trucks that are reliable, or make generic cars that are very reliable like Toyota. We shall see if they can do one or the other. I've had 4 Tahoes. They have been very reliable and (IMHO) pretty darn cute in their husky and muscle truck way.
>what do you call a ford / GM / DC with 100k on it? Junk
That mantra is out-of-date. Pick a new one.
1998 Buick LeSabre Limited: 130 K miles. Runs great! Traded 1993 LeSabre Customer: 150 K Miles. Ran great! Wife made me trade it. Earlier 1989 Buick Century: 150 K. Miles.
What's this mess about junk?
Old mantra. Try a new game to push your favorite vehicle. This topic is GM styling.
one reason lately that Toyotas have been losing out in comparison tests is that they were often the oldest designs in the test. For instance, I remember last year one of the buff rags put an Avalon up against a 300 Touring, a Ford 500, and a Buick LaCrosse. The Avalon came up last. It was also a design that dated to the 2000 model year, while the other three were introduced '05 models. But then a bit later they did the same comparo with the redesigned '05 Avalon, and it came out on top!
Those buff rags like C&D and MT also tend to prefer performance and handling over ride, comfort, isolation from the road, etc. And long-term reliability never comes into play.
I think the biggest problem with used Ford/GM/DC products is resale value. It's not hard to get high miles out of one. I have an '00 Intrepid with around 112,500 miles on it, and it still runs fine, on its original, un-fried tranny and its original, sludge-free 2.7. But with that many miles on it, it's practically worthless. Back in September 2003, when it had around 86,000 miles on it, I thought about trading it on a newer, but used '02 Intrepid R/T with around 35,000 miles. At first they only offered me $3500 for it, but then upped it to my payoff, which was around $4700-4800 at the time.
IMO, getting a car to high miles depends more on how you drive it and maintain it than who built it in the first place. For instance, my Mom & stepdad took an '84 Tempo to 160,000 miles, on the original driveline. They also took an '86 Monte to 179,000 miles, gave it to me, and I got t-boned with 192,000 miles on it. They now have a '99 Altima with around 190,000 miles on it. It went through its first tranny at 35,000, but has been fine ever since. They have a long commute to work, carpool together, and it's mostly highway. And my stepdad is a bit anal about preventive maintenance.
But back to GM's style. In some ways, I do think it's improving. I'm starting to like the new Lucerne the more I see it. I think Chevy made a big improvement to the Malibu, Monte, and Impala with the 2006 facelift. The Cobalt's a decent looking car. The Solstice isn't my thing, but it's kinda cute. More butch looking than the Miata, at least! :P
It'll be interesting to see how the '06 Impala does. It looks like GM addressed most of the issues about the car. Build quality/fit-and-finish is now respectable. The interior doesn't make me cringe anymore. And while the pushrod versus OHC debate will probably rage on forever, GM has greatly improved the engine choices with the '06 Impala.
I think I'd still take a 300 or Charger over an Impala, and I do like the Fusion, although I haven't tried one out yet. But the Impala certainly seems to be a decent, capable car. I would at least consider one, which is more than I'd say for the '00-05!
...I saw a television commercial last night showing the profile of a beautiful car. I'm thinking it's a Lexus or Infiniti only sleeker and it turns out to be the Lucerne! This car is beautiful! Nice job, Buick!
What do I call a domestic with 156K on it? My 1989 Cadillac Brougham that is still in excellent condition!
What do I call a domestic with 235K on it? My brother's, (formerly my) 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue that is still going strong!
Man... I totally do not understand the names domestics come up with for their cars. "Fifth Avenue"? "Town Car"? "Town and Country"?
I'm not saying that "Mazda MAZDASPEED Mazda6" is a great name, but at least it has a lot of z's in it. Z's are cool. Towns and avenues just aren't.
To put it another way... I know you can say silly things about any manufacturer's car names, but "old-sounding" names will turn off many more buyers than any other kind.
What do you call a 94 Honda Accord (bought new) which blew crankshaft seal at 12K miles - a champ? Honda Prelude (bought use with 75K) losing transmission at 86K - a marvelous engineering? No Problems with 02 Acura (leased) thou... Everyone has its share of problems.
Back to GM: The other problem with GM - they take us for idiots Take Equinox - "The American Revolution". Car assembled in Canada with engine build in China and transmission from Japan. Chevy Aveo - GM kept 5/60K powertrain warranty on Korean car, but any "The American Revolution" Chevy comes with 3/36. I guess that is how GM values its own design and quality.
Shoot, I LOVE those old-school names, especially the long, drawn-out ones like "Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham d'Elegance" or "Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency" or even "Ford LTD Crown Victoria LX!" I can't stand the stupid alphabet soup names they use today.
The Lucerne has been ridiculed for its name but GM has done a great job with the presentation. It's about 200% above many other commercials they've done lately.
If this car had Toyota as its owner company or Honda as its owner company, it would be welcomed with open arms by the hot-rodding loving car mags. They would have a soft word for the ample-powered 3800 as the lower engine and love the V8.
I've already seen a few Lucernes on the road. It looks like an Acura in white paint on the one I saw last weekend from Ontario. Black is dramatic. I'd like to see a Crimson Pearl Red.
...be a worse name than Avalon? When I hear that name I think of the actor who was in all those silly '60s beach movies. If it were the Lexus Lucerne, you guys would be salivating like Pavlov's dogs.
actually have the nerve to stretch it out once to "Ninety-Eight Regency Brougham Elite"?
My grandma's '85 LeSabre was technically a "LeSabre Limited Collector's Edition" :P Nevermind the fact that they made more "Limiteds" than the cheaper Custom. And IIRC, every single Limited was also a Collector's Edition. :confuse:
BTW, I know I've asked this before, but would it be more prestigious to live on 5th Avenue or Park Avenue? :P
Add me to the list of people who actually like the names of domestic vehicles. What sounds better when you tell your kids about your early vehicles: A Monte Carlo or a B210?
Gimme an Olds Cutlass Supreme any day over a Toyota Camry . (what the hell is a Camry?)
I think Camry actually means "crown" in Japanese. Nevermind that Toyota still sells a Crown model in Japan.
I really don't have a problem with words that don't mean anything like "Catera" or "Integra," for example. What I don't like are the stupid alphanumeric names that are super-confusing. BMW's alphanumeric names, OTOH, are straightforward.
Speaking of long names, wasn't the original GTO really the Pontiac Tempest LeMans GTO?
Comments
The problems affecting GM are much more involved, as has been elaborated here many times and in many areas at Edmunds. Styling is perhaps 10% (if that) of the solution.
Bob
Well... it's different
Is that the new PT Cruiser?
Looks like they put big wheels on a PT Cruiser.
Not that my wife and kids are a good sample of the market, nor is the HHR completely representative of GM's styling direction, but the feeling in the car was along the lines of "I don't get it. What are they trying to do? I don't think I'd buy THAT".
Of course, the pushrod engines save manufacturing costs-fewer parts count. Something to think about.
I have a friend that just bought an HHR, and I have driven it several times. I know what they paid for theirs, and it is a very nice vehicle, with a lot of featues for the money - and very quiet.
It makes a nice alternative to the PT cruiser, but it should have hit the market closer to the time that the PT cruiser hit.
Now they're getting a lot better. But they don't have enough styling home runs that I'm going to say I'm convinced.
They're still behind, sometimes. Look at the Cobalt; looks good, but you know those big eye-like headlights? Well, the competition has started to move away from them. (Honda steered everybody towards that kind of headlight, and after everyone else has followed, they're changing the game to narrow headlights.) The G6 is transitionary... a clean-up of the old Pontiac look, but nothing new yet. Worse, the facelifted Vue is scary and the Torrent looks like a pig. And if GM decides to join the domestic retro craze, they'll have cars that look good, but don't look modern. They'll get old people buying their cars again...
Their sports cars and their European-designed cars look great. Modern, too. Everything else is "okay" to "good," but not quite "the Messiah."
Also, on a pushrod the camshaft is closer to the cranshaft, so you can get by with a shorter timing chain.
As for moving parts, well, an OHC engine would actually eliminate some moving parts. First off, the pushrods would be eliminated. And since the camshaft is in the head, and opening and closing the valves directly, wouldn't that also eliminate the rocker shafts and rocker arms?
IIRC, the OHC engine was actually developed before the pushrod. I'm wondering if one reason OHC engines didn't catch on sooner was because the technology just wasn't there yet to make a timing belt that would last. And the advantages of a chain are reduced as you go to a longer chain, as a chain can stretch out. They've figured out how to work with belts and long chains nowadays, but I'm sure back in the old days it was quite a stumbling block.
I think styling is critical to GM's recovery, both body styling and interior styling. I looked at the new DTS when I had my oil changed last week. The interior is an improvement to some extent, however, the finish on the plastics did not seem that much better than my 2002 Seville. The DTS on the showroom floor was the top of the line performance model. The arm rests were nicer and the door panel was an upgrade from my 2002.
Motor trend indicates that the DTS interior is very similar to the Buick Lucerne, which is good for Buick but not for Cadillac.
A furthur comment on the large FWD styling: I think that the larger FWD cars, with the front wheels set just in front of the front doors do not look as good as RWD cars which have the front wheels set closer to the front bumper. Compare side views of the DTS and STS for example.
"Ever" is a powerful word. I respectfully disagree. I think GM's best styling (for the corporation as a whole) occurred during Bill Mitchell's early years - about 1963-69. Think of the first Riviera, the first Toronado, the Corvette Sting Ray, and the '68 2-door intermediates.
Now I do think that, by and large, they've improved over what was around earlier in this decade, or much of the last. And build quality, fit and finish, etc, has greatly improved with the latest crop of new cars.
The Aztek or HHR might or might not be my cup of tea, but I'll give them credit for making something that gets my attention at the very least.
Reducing capacity could and should get them back into a position where they get to someday say positive things like, "We can't build enough of them to keep up with demand".
Trying to maintain capacity that went with 'the good old days' of domestic dominance would seem to be a sure fire course towards disaster to me
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've considered the Pontiac G6 in my current car shopping, and while its styling is perfectly fine by me (not outstanding, but definitely not ugly) and on paper, it seems to offer a lot of car for the price, everybody else in the family just has doubts about its long term reliability. "Buying junk at any price is no bargain".
GM needs to do what Hyundai did to commit to improving their quality to match that of Toyota and Honda. Hyundai is now finally getting good press and they back their cars with the longest warranties in the business, something like a 10 year, 100k mi powertrain warranty. The fact that GM only has 3 year, 36k mi powertrain warranty is not reassuring.
Bob
The main areas where GM gets hammered is fit and finish, interiors, too much plastics, annoying ergonomics, etc. They have been improving in recent years, though. Compare an '04 Malibu or Grand Prix to the '03 equivalent, or the '05 LaCrosse to a Regal or Century, or an '06 Impala to an '05, and they're a pretty big jump in quality. Body panels line up much better, gaps are tighter, and even if the interiors are still too plasticky, they're at least making the parts line up better, and having parts that butt up against each other, instead of just overlapping, which gave them a cheaper feel.
Build cars like that and the buyers will come, and demand will put the Big 3 back in the drivers seat, but will they do it, can they get over this obsession to build as cheap as possible with the most basic design........I dont know if they can let go of that mindset and it will be their doom unless they turn it around and build what people want .........
Bob
There seems to be a sort of "ooh, those old cars were sooooo big....they were 'beautiful'"
not really
Then again, a few tail fins wouldn't be bad
* * *
Styling won't get GM anywhere until the public has sufficient information about reliability. I'm not sure if GM understands that the public does not have that information. Thus, the public continues to think that Toyota and Honda are the only reliable cars out there. If GM does not counteract that, then they are unlikely to sell cars to people who are buying Hondas and Toyotas. Of course, GM may not care about those folks, and that is GM's call.
The problem with all American cars...
it's a cliche...but style over substance...
i'm sure we ALL auto mags every month. Whenever it's a 6 car comparo, a Toyota always seems to finish second to last, with comment like "uninspired driving, or bland Toyota design"....
Then, the flavor of the month wins the comparo. ( see Ford 500 or chrysler 300)
my question to the magazines is if YOU had to make the payments...and hope the car last more than 60 months of paying it off with your money.....my choice would NEVER be GM / DC / or Ford... That simple.
i'd love to see them do a 5 year / 100k comparo....
THEN see what a Toyota can do... when the others have fallen apart.
yes, i own a 1999 4runner... 109k, runs like a champ.
what do you call a ford / GM / DC with 100k on it?
Junk
what do you call a toyota with 100k on it?
just getting broken in...
if you don't believe it, see how many domestic cars are for sale with over 100k on the clock?
not many...
There is just too much evidence to support the fact that GM is an equal or better than toyota and honda in quality, especially in these last three or so years.
Now what there is lack of evidence for is which toyota department you work for :P
Junk
That mantra is out-of-date. Pick a new one.
1998 Buick LeSabre Limited: 130 K miles. Runs great!
Traded 1993 LeSabre Customer: 150 K Miles. Ran great! Wife made me trade it.
Earlier 1989 Buick Century: 150 K. Miles.
What's this mess about junk?
Old mantra. Try a new game to push your favorite vehicle. This topic is GM styling.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Those buff rags like C&D and MT also tend to prefer performance and handling over ride, comfort, isolation from the road, etc. And long-term reliability never comes into play.
I think the biggest problem with used Ford/GM/DC products is resale value. It's not hard to get high miles out of one. I have an '00 Intrepid with around 112,500 miles on it, and it still runs fine, on its original, un-fried tranny and its original, sludge-free 2.7. But with that many miles on it, it's practically worthless. Back in September 2003, when it had around 86,000 miles on it, I thought about trading it on a newer, but used '02 Intrepid R/T with around 35,000 miles. At first they only offered me $3500 for it, but then upped it to my payoff, which was around $4700-4800 at the time.
IMO, getting a car to high miles depends more on how you drive it and maintain it than who built it in the first place. For instance, my Mom & stepdad took an '84 Tempo to 160,000 miles, on the original driveline. They also took an '86 Monte to 179,000 miles, gave it to me, and I got t-boned with 192,000 miles on it. They now have a '99 Altima with around 190,000 miles on it. It went through its first tranny at 35,000, but has been fine ever since. They have a long commute to work, carpool together, and it's mostly highway. And my stepdad is a bit anal about preventive maintenance.
But back to GM's style. In some ways, I do think it's improving. I'm starting to like the new Lucerne the more I see it. I think Chevy made a big improvement to the Malibu, Monte, and Impala with the 2006 facelift. The Cobalt's a decent looking car. The Solstice isn't my thing, but it's kinda cute. More butch looking than the Miata, at least! :P
It'll be interesting to see how the '06 Impala does. It looks like GM addressed most of the issues about the car. Build quality/fit-and-finish is now respectable. The interior doesn't make me cringe anymore. And while the pushrod versus OHC debate will probably rage on forever, GM has greatly improved the engine choices with the '06 Impala.
I think I'd still take a 300 or Charger over an Impala, and I do like the Fusion, although I haven't tried one out yet. But the Impala certainly seems to be a decent, capable car. I would at least consider one, which is more than I'd say for the '00-05!
What do I call a domestic with 156K on it? My 1989 Cadillac Brougham that is still in excellent condition!
What do I call a domestic with 235K on it? My brother's, (formerly my) 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue that is still going strong!
I'm not saying that "Mazda MAZDASPEED Mazda6" is a great name, but at least it has a lot of z's in it. Z's are cool. Towns and avenues just aren't.
To put it another way... I know you can say silly things about any manufacturer's car names, but "old-sounding" names will turn off many more buyers than any other kind.
Honda Prelude (bought use with 75K) losing transmission at 86K - a marvelous engineering?
No Problems with 02 Acura (leased) thou...
Everyone has its share of problems.
Back to GM:
The other problem with GM - they take us for idiots
Take Equinox - "The American Revolution". Car assembled in Canada with engine build in China and transmission from Japan.
Chevy Aveo - GM kept 5/60K powertrain warranty on Korean car, but any "The American Revolution" Chevy
comes with 3/36. I guess that is how GM values its own design and quality.
Then there's Mercedes' mess: C E and S sedans are okay, but then SLK, SL, CLK, CL, etc.
If this car had Toyota as its owner company or Honda as its owner company, it would be welcomed with open arms by the hot-rodding loving car mags. They would have a soft word for the ample-powered 3800 as the lower engine and love the V8.
I've already seen a few Lucernes on the road. It looks like an Acura in white paint on the one I saw last weekend from Ontario. Black is dramatic. I'd like to see a Crimson Pearl Red.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My grandma's '85 LeSabre was technically a "LeSabre Limited Collector's Edition" :P Nevermind the fact that they made more "Limiteds" than the cheaper Custom. And IIRC, every single Limited was also a Collector's Edition. :confuse:
BTW, I know I've asked this before, but would it be more prestigious to live on 5th Avenue or Park Avenue? :P
Gimme an Olds Cutlass Supreme
I really don't have a problem with words that don't mean anything like "Catera" or "Integra," for example. What I don't like are the stupid alphanumeric names that are super-confusing. BMW's alphanumeric names, OTOH, are straightforward.
Speaking of long names, wasn't the original GTO really the Pontiac Tempest LeMans GTO?