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
Yet GM's quality is better than Toyota's in a lot of ways and GM stands behind it with a longer warranty. Toyota is introducing lower fuel economy trucks while GM increase fuel economy with hybrid powerplants (full size trucks). Toyota gets a pass on a huge engine sludge issue. Well maybe it is on the front page of other newspapers but surely not here.
OMG! GM fans can't let go of this perceived press bias issue, even though Ford and Chrysler fans don't seem to care one whit!
Wow, I barely mention the press in my comment and I get a diatribe back on how it isn't the press bias. Sensitive arn't we?
My point was that overall our country seems to feel that Toyota can do no wrong, etc. Maybe I am wrong but I sure feel that way. I get a quote out of a paper that shows they are not quite so honest in their dealings, are building/advertising non green fuel sucking trucks and mention actual quality data and the response back is that the press is not biased and that I should get over it? I did not mention bias!
This is where GM has a long way to go in convincing the public that it has vehicles that are worth buying.
And even now I don't hear mention of the sludging which is probably still happening to people being mentioned. Court case decision came, got mentioned, now we're off to other things. If that were to have been GM's sludging, the slow daily drumbeat would still be heard.
Also the wording of the comments will be different. The subtle cues in meaning and importance will be different for the two companies. It's like the reviews in certain car-reviewing magazines. One car has a problem with an item and it's mentioned in the beginning of a paragraph that goees on to state several positive things; another company, the placement is at the end of a neutral paragraph leaving the tone negative.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Those numbers, 91,95,98 and 100 are RON.
Thanks for pointing out that I forgot to put RON after them.
Most makes have cars under $20k. Only a handful start at over $30k.
My guess on what GM will do and what will sell in decent volumes at GM:
LaCrosse Eps 2 nicley equipped 3.6L: $27K-$34K loaded
Lucerne RWD: $29K-40K loaded
Velite RWD 4 seat convertible: $35K-$42K
Enclave: $32K-$42k
Now decent volume to me is a total of 350K units. To get more volume you need to decrease your starting prices and there goes the upscale premium image. Lexus, with a bunch more models and a higher price point sold just over 300,000 units last year.
Not sure they will actually build a 4 seat convetible but will build something above the Lucerne.
No. Say it's not true. An all-American company like Toyota wouldn't have done things like hiding recalls to mislead their customers or blame the customer's oil change intervals which followed owners manual guidelines as the cause of the sludging??? Grin...
I like the idea of positioning Buick's car products upscale. They probably kept laCross and Lucerne lower end as they did because of keeping leSabre buyers in the fold. But does upscale mean they ahve to be priced upscale?
I liked the advertisements they used to use with the solid strength and security of the leSabre being marketed: they showed a business person driving home in her laSabre with touring suspension and antilock brakes. I would think there's a demographic of younger people who would buy leCross and Lucerne in reaction to that image still. Perhaps they'd trade in their Accord and Camry for the change when they get cues from the media that those aren't as troublefree as purported.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But the V8 sold way more than the 6, so it was dropped.
The only reason the styling was crap,ie the GTO front end, was because the US GM lords wanted it that way.
Same now for the butchered front end of the G8, when will they learn?
On a footnote,
Wheels magazine here in Aus did a compareo on The VE Commodore V8 Calais vs BMW 5 series.
The Commodore out handled, out grunted, out valued for money the Beemer.
As we say here in Aus, it shat all over it.
Kinda, you need to add the content to have an upscale vehicle to get the upscale price. Now a lot of it can be brand equity, like the Lexus ES. Just a Camry with a nicer package yet they get more for it than if they put the same equipment on a Camry.
But no matter what, price is inverse of volume. Even if you have the most fantastic product if the price is too high it will not sell in high volumes.
Actually LaCrosse is priced high/upscale. You can get a similar sized Grand Prix/Impala for a bunch less money. Just not in the same league as Cadillac/Lexus.
Maybe I am wrong, wasn't the rest of the GTO the same as your Manaro? Also, are the G8 taillamps revised for USA?
And no way is any maker going to easily give up their styling cues easily. Do yo think BMW will ever just have one model w/o the kidneys?
With two settings, Normal and Track.
Hopefully for you guys, this maybe an option on the hot version of the G8.
From what I have seen of the G8 so far, it seems to be a bit of a mixture between the Commodore SS and the HSV cars.
Check out HSV's website. HSV.com.au
Rocky
Rocky
Enclave will be around in 2011 and it is FWD.
As for the Monaro's style, we call it slick here.
03 model Munros are still getting 40k here, so still popular.
We don't like chunky looking cars here, though I admit the front guards on the current Commodore are outrageous.
The car has a wider track and longer wheel base than the Monaro, hence the massive guards.
When you see the car on the road, it has massive presence.
Pictures don't give the full story on how fantastic this car looks.
Saturn, is getting so upscale Buick needs to slightly move up market and match Lexus IMHO. Let Saturn fill in where buick was. I'm not saying buick needs $60 or $70K cars but I think $35-50K range is a good place for them. I feel that their are a lot of buyers in the $40K range. This could grab Lexus, Lincoln, and some Acura buyers. I believe Buick, can build a RWD Lucerne that can go toe to toe with the Acura RL and offer the power the RL is missing while at the same time offering the customer RWD. They of course can use the new intellegent AWD system and invest some R&D into a better AWD for Saab, and sprinkle it down for Buick as a option. Buick, doesn't need to be a high volume brand but needs to be profitable. Saturn, Chevy, Pontiac, can be the high volume brands. Buick, Cadillac, Saab, GMC, need to go after those buyers that like European and Japanese imports with premium alternatives.
Saab-> Volvo/Audi/Acura TL
Buick->Lexus/Lincoln/Acura RL/VW
Cadillac->BMW/Mercedes/Chrysler SRT/Lexus performance cars
GMC->Toyota Tundra Limited's/Honda Ridgeline/Nissan Titan
Rocky
Well at least you and I found some common ground. 62' wants to step outside the circle. :P Well I guess we can't agree all the time.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
HSV are planing on getting that 7 litre motor in the near future.
Also a blown version of the 6 is on the way as well.
The supercharged 6 will be offered by Holden, not HSV.
If you want to see an HSV getting flogged around a track I think carsales.com.au in the video section has some footage.
Rocky
Here is a question for "Toyota is a green company" supporters: when Toyota needs a new plant why dont they redevelop existing plants that have been abandoned instead of building 1000 acre facilities in the middle of cow pastures in Alabama or Texas? Wouldnt redevelopment be more enviromentally friendly? Oh wait, their desire to avoid union strongholds is stronger than their commitment to saving the ozone layer and preserving pristine farmland in the south. The bottom line is Toyota is out to make money (and cut costs) at all costs just like every other corporate entity. Theer are no "good" companies and "evil" companies, just companies.
Very awesome post 1487. :shades:
Wouldnt redevelopment be more enviromentally friendly? Oh wait, their desire to avoid union strongholds is stronger than their commitment to saving the ozone layer and preserving pristine farmland in the south. The bottom line is Toyota is out to make money (and cut costs) at all costs just like every other corporate entity. Theer are no "good" companies and "evil" companies, just companies.
You hit the nail square with that one !
Dad's Delphi Cooprsville plant closed it's doors last month and the plant is quite modern as it didn't go into business until 1985. Dad, said the rumor is Toyota's going to buy it and save Coopersville from becoming a ghost town. Dad, said he's so sick of hearing those rumors. If a plant closes, "oh Toyota's going to buy it"
-Nothing but lies and wishful thinking for Michiganders.
Rocky
The only positive was at the time of the NAIAS and the Aura and another GM vehicle getting attention. In some cases the praise was about half the emotion it would have gotten if the winner were the ES350 or Camry base for same. The tone from media readers (talking heads) was about half positive. But they did say the words.
Other, more auto-oriented discussions were more level on the tone. But the reality in this area is the GM-haters still reign.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I still recall a relatively poor country near Cincy who let Ford place a transmission plant there and the state politicians "forgave" the $500,000 tap in charge for the water company; guess who had to pick up that cost--the rest of us living in that water district!!! Thank you Governor Rhodes.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
could expand to other vehicles.
Hmhh when I was in college "Friends with Benefits" had an ENTIRELY different meaning then that.
Which engines are those? The most powerful DOHC engine in GM's stable (in North America, anyway) is the 320ish-horsepower Northstar.
Rocky
There is probably some truth to that. However, if it is true, unfortunately, it was created not by Toyota but instead the domestic automakers. I know many people, myself included, that got burned over the years by crappy domestic cars that experienced expensive problems that never should have happened. And it was not just one model, one make or one period of time. The fully domestic cars I owned included a 1975 Chevy, 1988 Ford, 1991 Ford and a 2002 Pontiac. All were complete disasters. I have friends, family and co-workers that had similar experiences. I've even had people approach me in parking lots to ask about my Hondas, and they all have a story to tell about getting burned on a domestic. They all ask: "I hear them Hondas and Toyotas are such great cars, can you tell me your experiences with yours?" What am I supposed to say? And how is my perception expected to be when all of my domestics have been terrible, and all of my Hondas great? And I have seen some of my friends buy domestics over the years that had great options or features that I would have liked on my Honda, but they were not available.
Just during the superbowl a friend of mine mentioned how his Impala shut down three cylinders on the highway to get better mileage. Available on the Civic? - Nope! OnStar - Nope! 100,000 mile warranty with roadside assistance - Nope!
But guess what? Will mine blow a head gasket or manifold gasket? Will the transmission shred itself to pieces on my nickel? Will I have negative equity if I decide to trade it in one year? Will I spend time sitting at the dealership getting this weeks problem fixed under warranty? Will your domestic subcompact still have a nearly $5,000 trade in value after 7 1/2 years and 113,000 miles? Will the head need rebuilt at under 24,000 miles?
See why the perception exists?
What a variable length intake manifold will do is to increase low end torque (with a longer manifold), and then with a valve to reduce the length, the torque at higher RPMs is increased (or falls off slower). I think that the 3.9 pushrod engine does have a variable length manifold.
So the Honda transmission problems where they extended their coverage to only 100000 mi is all solved? Someone was just posting on another group here about Odyssey used values because of transmissions. So your "$5,000 trade in value after 7 1/2 years and 113,000 miles" doesn't seem to be across the board.
I love these broad extrapolations about every Honda is working wonderfully. My friend got rid of her piece of 95 Civic junk which wouldn't start at least two times I recall in damp weather. It had the headline sagging. Honda didn't seem interested in fixing her problems. The rear panels were rusting above the rear tires. Didn't see Honda running up to replace and repaint the rear panels.
You can quip all day about past problems but perhaps we need to ask people about problems people they know have had with HoToys and other foreign brands. But this is a GM discussion and I don't want to fill it with posts about problems (gleaned from Edmunds) of foreign brands. Check into Camry discussions about the on-going saga of transmission/motor hesitation on downshift from the ES, Avalon, and now Camry models. People have been and are being told by dealers it's their fault: they need to adjust to how the car drives. Does that sound familiar from the sludging motor design era a few years back continuing to today. Last week I saw a Camry smoking to beat the band. It looked like an old Datsun used to look. Did I mention the rattles problem. Accords have had continuing discussions too.
If you request I can supply links to the Camry groups for you to read. here. Camry Problems and repairs nee 2007 Camry Woes
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
:shades:
Rocky
Then about a month ago, one of the regulars (62vette maybe? I forget) says something to the effect of "where's the counterpoint here? How come so many people have quit posting?", so I jumped back in. But the high level of emotion, even anger occasionally, that exists in here is the answer to 62vette's question.
I do hope that the folks running GM don't have such a chip on their shoulders as some of the posters do here. It doesn't make for clear-headed thinking and a vision of how to change the corporate future of the company. I think that about 12 months ago, maybe a little more, the top GM execs really did finally get it, and have made broad sweeping changes at the company in the time since that are very easy to see and should have a huge effect on improving the company's fortunes. Certainly the changes at GM will put the company head and shoulders above Ford, which continues to fumble in the dark, and will probably squander all the money it makes from the sale of Aston Martin, with little to no long-term change for the good.
Stay the course of your current downsizing plan and fleet-sales reductions, GM! That and the very competitive new product you already have on the lots or in the pipeline for this year's release will stand you in very good stead in the next 5-10 years.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And I agree that Honda had problems with the transmissions and Toyota had the problem with the engine sludge, but they both owned up to it eventually. The last stat I heard about the Honda transmission was like a 5% failure rate, and most were happening way before 100,000 miles, hence the warranty.
Have you ever read up on GM piston slap, their automatic transmissions, or the manifold gasket issues? Guess what - denial. And I also agree about the 2007 Camry problems. My intention with my post was to point out why the perception is they way it is towards certain makes. That is relevant to a GM discussion. (Maybe the 2007 Camry together with GM improvements will change this?)
And I would like to add that it appears GM is actually trying to change that. They have addressed two issues why I refuse to buy their products: Quality and resale value. They introduced the 100,000 mile warranty to address the quality image. The 100,000 mile warranty extended to certified used cars should help resale value.
If I had it my way, the regular Ultra would be a direct-injection, square (90 x 90mm) 4.6L at 375hp. The Ultra-V would be destroked to 4 liters even (90 x 78mm), with a flat-plane crank and balance shafts, variable-valve-lift heads, and parallel twin turbos (like the old VG30DETT) for, oh, 700 hp.
Too bad GM doesn't have the money or the will to develop something like that.