Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options

General Motors discussions

12829313334558

Comments

  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    So you think Mr. Healey salivating over a Toyota Avalon restores his credibility for suggesting that part of GM’s failure in the marketplace is due to “prejudice and institutional bias” among consumers? Not to get off topic, but you have succeeded in convincing me that Mr. Healey’s tastes and mine are light years apart:

    “Who'll buy? Typical: Married, college-educated Avalon or Buick owner in his or her 50s or 60s who doesn't have kids at home.”

    My wife and I are damn near 50, both college educated, two kids at home. Weather permitting, our kids go in the back of our 911S Cab. Our “family sedan” is a TL 6-speed. The thought of us buying a Love Boat style Avalon as empty nesters is just plain ugly. Just how "old" do you have to be to think that the Avalon is a ride to aspire to after the kids leave? Dead?? Oh, but wait, Mr. Healey says the Avalon is..:

    “Sportier. As a symbol of that, Avalon has what Toyota says is the first dual-exhaust system on any U.S. Toyota sedan. Faux duals, though; a single pipe runs back most of the way and splits into two pipes near the rear of the car. Looks great, though, and shows that Toyota understands the importance of details.”

    That's great. :mad: Mr. Healey’s idea of “sportier” is fake dual exhaust tailpipes. He applauds Toyota for “understanding the importance of details” for employing such frivolous crap as FAKE dual exhausts. And I guess I'm "prejudiced" for appreciating the TL's real sport suspension, Brembo brakes and crisp short throw 6-speed. What a loser. :mad:

    The point of my previous post wasn’t to discredit Mr. Healey’s tastes (or obvious lack thereof), but rather to challenge his suggestion that part of GM’s failure in the marketplace was tied to a “prejudice and institutional bias” by consumers against GM. Perhaps he should check the definition of prejudice:

    “An adverse judgment formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.”

    GM doesn't have a problem with consumers who are prejudiced. It has a serious problem with “post-judiced" consumers. GM has put out inferior products for decades; many consumers have gained firsthand knowledge of this fact, and are acting accordingly. Especially the "college educated" ones.

    P.S. If GM takes cues from what Mr. Healey applauds as “attention to detail” they will be heading further down the wrong path.
  • mylar202asmylar202as Member Posts: 12
    Just above average isn't enough anymore to make up ground. Honda and Toyota already have a profitable company and solid reputation. GM needs to be better, not just close if they want to make up the ground they crapped away. Around Industry average means they are still behind the big guy (Toyota and Lexus) and will stay there if you think it's OK to "just be close." Those numbers don't factor in that the average buyer will lose his butt in resale value for most GM products. Or should consumers just forget about resale value?
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    I buy a car and keep it years and run the miles up. Trade-in value is low on the interest level. That's a subjective item anyhow.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • mylar202asmylar202as Member Posts: 12
    Most people don't keep their cars forever. Limited thinking like that is why GM is in the condition its in. Great sales line for GM "We are the right car for you...as long as you never need to sell us because we are only worth the amount of gas in the tank." How is a cars resale value subjective anyway? KBB might argue with you. More excuses for GM. They simply are inferior purchases. Thats why they use incentives and Honda and Toyota don't. Their cars sell themselves.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    I buy a car and keep it years and run the miles up. Trade-in value is low on the interest level. That's a subjective item anyhow.
    end quote

    The best deal for those driving the heck out of cars, as in many miles per year, is to buy used. A used American make knocks a good 30 to 50% off the price in a matter of a couple to three years. If the car has no resale, but is a reliable as they profess to be, then a three year old car has another good three to seven years in it, even for higher mileage drivers. Take the difference of that half off DTS Caddy, and put it into stocks, or even a C.D. at a bank, and in a matter of a few years, even if the car has a few problems, you will have saved more than half, and be well on the way to help pay for the next car.

    Now the cheaper cars, such as the Cobalt, if bought at say $12K may be quite the buy in that used in the two to three year range doesn't really have all that much room lower. In the $20k to $50K range, used seems like a good option. That said, having a new car is a great feeling, and there are other benefits, so to each his or her own. I was just considering that you mentioned driving the wheels off the car, as far as mileage. I use to put lots of miles on, and wish I had bought used only during those years.

    GM parts are not going to cost as much as those European, or some of the Japan models, on the average, so that is one plus for buying the domestic cars, especially used.
    Loren
  • hondamatichondamatic Member Posts: 26
    As you can see, US automakers have only ONE model for me to look at.

    And the Vibe GT/Toyota Matrix is severely lacking in the torque and handling department. (at least, to me)

    So, there really isn't anything for me coming out of Detroit.


    Now I haven't test driven any of the following, so I don't know about their torque and handling, but what about:

    - Chevy HHR. Technically, it's a wagon, but provides cargo versatility just like a hatch. Besides, you listed the Mazda 3, which is also technically a wagon.

    - Chevy Malibu Maxx. This one is actually a midsize, but can likely be had within your price range. Unless you have to contend with really small parking spaces too.

    - Ford Focus ZX3 or ZX5 hatchbacks. They're related to the Mazda 3 and Consumer Reports described them as "fun to drive".

    - Chrysler PT Cruiser. I listed the knockoff above, here's the original.

    Although I have yet to buy a Detroit made car myself, I wouldn't automatically eliminate them from consideration the next time I go car shopping either.
  • chicagodrive1chicagodrive1 Member Posts: 64
    ...in the Avis rental lot.

    Actually it's a good idea to get these into rental fleets - an opportunity to change people's opinions. I'd prefer to rent on of these instead of an old fogey La Sabre.

    And yes, Buick got the key hole right on this one - clean design inside and out, hope this is the direction for the other brands as well.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...has a new Impala and already has 10,000+ miles on it and he's only had it since September. He loves the car. Maybe GM is working its way down through the makes. First Cadillac, then Buick. Nice, but I think working up through the makes would be good too. The Chevrolet Impala is a nice start.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    at the DC auto show and liked it. Didn't absolutely fall in love with it or anything, but I liked it. One thing I thought was interesting was that it still had a low, spread-out seating position, more in line with something like my '79 NYer or '76 LeMans than the way cars seem to be trending these days, with their more trucklike seating positions. I actually prefer this position, provided I can stretch out enough, but I think a lot of people these days just like that higher seat.

    Back seat seemed pretty comfy, too. IIRC I could just barely graze my head on the headliner, so it was better than the Impala. The interior seemed decent overall. There's still too much hard plastic, but if its any consolation, it seems like everybody else is going that way too. I'd say an Avalon still has a nicer interior, but it's not leaps and bounds better. If this were a school test and the Avalon got an A, I'd probably give the Lucerne maybe a B. So it's not like the Avalon made the Lucerne look like crap. IMO, GM is at least getting the grains, textures, and colors better, so sometimes you actually have to reach out and touch a surface to realize it's hard and not soft, instead of the old days when the hard plastics just screamed out at you.

    And going by the exterior styling, I'd actually prefer the Lucerne! At some angles it actually looks muscular, whereas the Avalon is just kinda lumpy. The Avalon's way ahead in engines though, with its gutsy 3.5 that still returns great fuel economy. I'd imagine you'd have to go with a V-8 in the Lucerne to match the Avalon's performance but then you'd take a big fuel economy hit.
  • timothyawtimothyaw Member Posts: 148
    Out of the 15 plus years of owning foreign vehicles I have NEVER had a remote fuel opener break or not work. It's just simply a cable run to where the fuel door is. It's just the domestics cheaping out on the smallest things. Hard to believe.
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    Since I was looking for a small hatchback with high power/torque...

    I've looked at the HHR, but it's underpowered for my tastes.

    The Maxx is too big for my area. I really do have to contend with small parking spaces.

    The Focus... back in 2004, they had the high-performance model in a hatchback... and I'd have seriously considered it. Unfortunately, they only make the high-performance Focus as a sedan now.

    And lastly, the PT Cruiser... I keep forgetting about the PT Cruiser for some reason.

    I've test driven their 180-hp turbo version. I found that even with the extra power, you really have to floor the accelerator to get any power.

    Although, the soon to be released Dodge Caliber is looking mighty good (the R/T version). I'll have to check it out when it's released.

    Though, the new VW GTI is looking mighty nice.

    :shades:
  • sls002sls002 Member Posts: 2,788
    I'm not sure how big a hit you would actually take going with the V8 instead of the 3800. The EPA tests say about 2 MPGs, but the unadjusted numbers say 4. The 3800 gets about 7 MPGs better on the highway test than the V8 (unadjusted numbers). My feeling is that the V6 would have to be driven easy to get much better than the V8. So, if you push the V6 because it doesn't quite have the power you would like, it will probably burn about as much as the V8 if you take it easy with the V8 because it has enough power.

    I have not noticed much difference in fuel consumption in what my 2002 Seville LS uses compared with the 86 Electra T-type, the 1991 Reatta, the 1990 Riviera, or the 1995 supercharged Riviera, or the 1998 Aurora.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...I can't decide whether I'd like to go all the way and get a loaded Cadillac DTS or save some money and get a loaded Buick Lucerne CXS. I like the Lucerne, but absolutely LOVE the DTS. I only wish the STS' interior was as nice as the DTS. I like the DTS because it feels more like my current Seville STS which I really like.

    If fuel economy is a concern, the 3800 is an excellent engine at any age. Heck, my 1988 Park Ave might look like a "grandpa car" but it sure seems powerful and fast. Must be gobs of torque. It delivers phenomenal fuel economy as does the 3800 in my girlfriend's LaCrosse.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    IIRC the Lucernes at the DC auto show only stickered for around $33-34K, nicely equipped with a V-8.

    The 3800 is pretty torquey, and it gets a lot of torque real early on, but it might be a bit overmatched in something like the Lucerne. I think an '88 Park Ave might weigh around 3200 lb, while I'd guess the Lucerne V-6 is more like 3700-3800. I think I've heard 0-60 in around 9.5 seconds. That's about what I've heard quoted for my Intrepid, so I could live with it. But I guess I'd just expect more out of something like this, which is supposed to be upscale.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Get a used DTS. It will most likely be an ex-old-lady car with maybe 15,000 miles on it.

    The "fuel economy" of the 3800 is mostly a product of an oversized, low-tune engine and really tall gearing. Put in a 4.10 final gear and tune the V6 to hit its peak hp at 6000 rpm and watch that fuel economy vanish.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >oversized, low-tune engine and really tall gearing.

    Why would anyone want to change its great low torque and good horsepower output at a sensible rpm?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    while the imports have really improved alot with their V-6 engines, it really wasn't that long ago that a GM 3800 would outperform AND get better fuel economy than your typical Honda/Toyota 3.0 V-6. Now Nissan may have been a different story. I think right about the time that GM got the 3800 to 200-205 hp (without supercharging) was around the time that Nissan started to bump up their V-6es.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Andre, no kidding. Just wait until the new Camry arrives. Nearly 270hp and 250 ft-lbs of torque from a 3.5L with a 6speed auto that will be rated at 22/31 mpg which is better than a 211hp 3.5L Impala. GM needs to get the 6speed transaxle up and running ASAP.

    Even with all of GMs improved vehicles, I don't see them making any headway. Toyota is coming on full tilt with the new Camry, RAV4, FJ, etc. While the FJ probably won't hurt GM, the new Rav4 looks like it will be attractive.

    AS for the 3800, I still don't get what's so attractive about this engine. A 3.8 powered LeSabre can't out accelerate a Ford 500 (8.8 vs 8.7 for the 500) and actually has slightly slower 45-65 times (6.4 vs 5.7 for the 500) and doesn't get any better real world fuel economy, when compared to an AWD Ford 500 that weighs 300lbs more according to CU. Both got 25mpg overall on CUs 150 mile trip.

    BTW, I've spent some time behind the wheel of my wife's 06 500. While it is definitely slow under 30, it is surprisingly responsive at speeds over 40. The CVT trans is awesome. It definitely makes the most of what the underwhelming 3.0 Duratec has offer. It only turns about 1800rpm at 75mph and will instantly allow the engine to turn what ever rpm is needed for power. I can honestly say it has about the same amount of acceleration at 70 as it does at 40, but it is pokey off the line. I don't know if CVTs will become more common or not, but I'll take it over 4speed trans all day long.

    Acceleration is certainly relative. While the mags have dogged the 500 for it's acceleration, it feels like a rocket compared to my Suburban. Particularly when under way.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    I did stop by my local chevy dealer today to check out a new Tahoe. The interior was very impressive. Everything looked nice and well crafted. I didn't get to touch anything since it was locked and I didn't want to get hounded by sales people. All in all looks nice. Still don't think they're worth $50k, that's a lot of dough.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    I did stop by my local chevy dealer today to check out a new Tahoe. The interior was very impressive. Everything looked nice and well crafted. I didn't get to touch anything since it was locked and I didn't want to get hounded by sales people. All in all looks nice. Still don't think they're worth $50k, that's a lot of dough.

    Exterior styling of new Tahoe is nice, but 50K MSRP is ridiculous. Tahoe is supposed to be a utility vehicle and it can't match volume or carrying capacity of mini-vans. If you are not going to tow boat, or horse trailer, mini-van such as Honda, Dodge at least 20K cheaper for same level of equipment. But, some folks worried about their image in driving a mini-van.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    I should add that $50k was for the LTZ model. Regardless, an LT still MSRPs in the high 40's which is still a lot of money. I'm waiting for the new Suburban to replace mine. For the little money difference, the Suburban has a lot more room over the Tahoe and I like the extra wheelbase for towing stability.

    I will also wait to see the 07 Expedition. It will have quite a bit of extra towing capacity over the Tahoe, so I'll at least give Ford a look. The 5.4s torque and 6speed in the Expy has my attention, since it will weigh about the same as a Tahoe and be a bit larger.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Why would anyone want to change its great low torque and good horsepower output at a sensible rpm?

    Lower nose weight and better distribution, for two. Using an old, oversized design also sends the public a message of engineering indolence and antiquation, which is the exact opposite of what GM needs for its long-term survival.

    A 285hp direct-injection DOHC 3.6 in the base Lucerne would tell the public that GM could keep pace with the Toyotas and Hyundais of the world, and a FWD version of the 260hp 2.0 turbo direction-injection Ecotec would make the G6 lighter, more agile, and vastly more desirable than it is now.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    50K...geez that's knockin on the Escalade's door, isn't it. And for a Chevy!

    I wonder what the incentives will be come fall of 07...
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Exterior styling of new Tahoe is nice, but 50K MSRP is ridiculous

    yes, but they sold 100,000's of them year after year at that high price. People did pay that amount. Will have to wait ans see what happens now.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    yes, but they sold 100,000's of them year after year at that high price. People did pay that amount. Will have to wait and see what happens now.

    Around here they ran huge rebates for all of 2005 on Tahoe's and Suburbans. My local Chevy dealer has had $10k off stickers on these SUVs for a long time. Yesterday's paper had 05 Suburbans listed at up to $15k off. Almost tempting.

    If they would have went for sticker w/o incentives, maybe GM wouldn't have lost $8.2 billion for 2005.
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    imidazol97: Why would anyone want to change its great low torque and good horsepower output at a sensible rpm?

    No doubt GM loyalists are happy with the 3800 V-6, but an increasing number of buyers want something else, judging by GM's falling sales and market share. If GM continues to build products that appeal primarily to current customers, the corporation will continue its slow slide to oblivion.

    The Wall Street Journal recently ran an eye-opening article on GM. It turns out that during the fourth quarter of 2005, an astounding 39 percent of GM's passenger car (not trucks or SUVs) sales were to fleet customers.

    Not all fleet sales are bad - the Impala's use by local police forces is good exposure, and judicious use of rental car sales can get new vehicles before the public. But 39 percent of all sales is way too high.

    Interestingly, the Buick display at the Washington, D.C., auto show highlighted GM's problems. The Buick LaCrosse and Lucerne were on the floor, and both cars looked good. Workmanship was much improved, and the interior materials used were a step up from past offerings. But the LaCrosse CXS stickered for $32,000+...which is just too much. At $27-28,000, the car is a decent alternative to the Accord and Camry. But at $32,000, it is just not competitive.

    The Lucernes on the floor ranged from $26,000 for base model to $33,000 for a V-8 version....which overlaps with the LaCrosse prices ($23-32,000). Most of the LaCrosses on the floor were within those figures. So Buick is selling two cars that compete with each other as much as with the offerings of other manufacturers.

    The other problem was highlighted by the new Enclave. It was on display, and looks great. But the woman said that it will be available...in 18 months. Sorry, but Buick and GM need this vehicle NOW.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    IIRC the 3800 comment was in response to someone with the tired comment that it's OHV or something.

    There was nothing about fleet sales, pricing of newer models, or women talking about Enclaves.

    When more car companies enter markets, each of the stakeholders has the potential to lose share, especially if some are strong in those markets as Honda and Toyota are. And your point...?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    IIRC the 3800 comment was in response to someone with the tired comment that it's OHV or something.

    There was nothing about fleet sales, pricing of newer models, or women talking about Enclaves.

    When more car companies enter markets, each of the stakeholders has the potential to lose share, especially if some are strong in those markets as Honda and Toyota are. And...? The original comment was in regard to the 3800 needing to be OHC to be driveable. Let's stay on task.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • torque_rtorque_r Member Posts: 500
    And the new Camry isn't out yet.

    GM cuts jobs, production at Orion factory

    Sales for touted Pontiac G6 slip amid intense competition; output will be reduced in April.
    Not everything Oprah touches turns to gold.

    Lukewarm sales of the new Pontiac G6 sedan, featured by the talk show host in a massive giveaway last year, have prompted General Motors Corp. to cut production of the car beginning in April.

    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/AUTO01/601310373/1148-
  • ab348ab348 Member Posts: 20,280
    Out of the 15 plus years of owning foreign vehicles I have NEVER had a remote fuel opener break or not work. It's just simply a cable run to where the fuel door is. It's just the domestics cheaping out on the smallest things. Hard to believe.

    I owned a Toyota MR2 from new for 5 years and the remote release broke in year one. You should stop generalizing.

    2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    Saw a Mercedes at the light today with the gas cover at a 20 degree angle to the surface of the fender. Apparently his is broken.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    imidazol97: IIRC the 3800 comment was in response to someone with the tired comment that it's OHV or something.

    And my post was in response to the refrain of "I sure like mine, I don't see what is the matter!"

    I'm glad that you are happy with your vehicle. That is great.

    The problem is that every year, a greater number of new car buyers are choosing other options, hence GM's declining sales, huge losses and the threat of bankruptcy.

    Whether GM owners like the 3.8 V-6 grows more irrelevant every year. An increasing number of buyers apparently don't, judging the trends in sales figures, market share and profitability for various manufacturers.

    GM can't survive by building products that appeal to a dwindling band of owners. It must reach out and attract people who are buying other brands. It is not succeeding in that endeavor.

    imidazol97: There was nothing about fleet sales, pricing of newer models, or women talking about Enclaves.

    That wasn't directed at you. I just wanted to move the discussion to other topics relevant to GM's current situation, based on what I observed at a major auto show. Perhaps I should have split the post.

    Quite frankly, the "GM vehicles are lousy" versus the "I love my GM vehicle, it's the world's greatest" back-and-forth is not only tiresome, but not really relevant to what is happening with GM today.

    imidazol97: When more car companies enter markets, each of the stakeholders has the potential to lose share, especially if some are strong in those markets as Honda and Toyota are. And...?

    That would be nice, if it were what is happening to GM. But it isn't. Let's take Buick and Pontiac as examples. In 1985, Buick sold 800,000 vehicles - and those were CARS, not SUVs and minivans, and not many went to rental fleets. Pontiac sold just under 800,000 cars.

    Fast forward to 2005. Buick barely moved 300,000 cars, minivans and SUVs. Pontiac could barely sell 400,000 cars, trucks and SUVs. And that is with a huge percentage going to fleet customers, and GM offering big incentives just to move the metal.

    Oldsmobile, meanwhile, sold 1.1 million cars in 1985. Oldsmobile is now gone, replaced by Saturn, which barely managed to move 300,000 cars, SUVs and minivans. GMC is up, and Chevy trucks have helped make up for the decline in Chevy cars.

    So two divisions have literally fallen off a cliff over the last 20 years, and one has disappeared, replaced by a division selling at a much lower rate.

    As a whole, GM has not only lost market share over the past 20 years, but also experienced declines in actual sales over the past few years, despite record spending on incentives. That is a serious problem.

    imidazol97: Let's stay on task.

    I'd rather move the discussion beyond the "GM cars are lousy" (they really aren't) versus the "I love mine" (no good if other buyers don't like what GM is offering) banter. It is not very illuminating.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    about GM just losing market share, because that was inevitable as there are more players now. But to see just how far they've fallen off in sales is truly frightening.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >I sure like mine

    And that is my privilege to say so. You have several times now always responded that you think otherwise when I've said something positive. I read the first time. No need to continually batter.

    I responded about the motor not being a pile of junk. I didn't say GM didn't have lowered sales whether for product, unions, management, competition, more car companies. But all that was all piled on and helped negate my response, which was a simple response about a simple motor which has served well.

    On the topic of motors I heard a TL take off from an intersection and it sounded like a small motor running at sewing machine speeds on a PBS show. I listen to the neighbor's 3 Acuras and they have a motorboat sound (3.5RL) and a lawn mower (Integra). I listen to another neighbor's Lexus and it has a sound that's a cross between a 4 cyl iron duke and an older 305 motor. It may just need a new muffler, it's 3 years old or so. But the differences in the sounds of engines is interesting; some sound much more able to supply torque than others.

    I note today GM has a different marketing director again. How much can he do to change people's opinions? How much can he change product line. How much can he change unions which had not been working? How much can he change having older workers who represent a higher healthcare cost. How much can he change having many more workers who are retired and many more who will be retiring soon compared to other companies? Maybe GM should just fire everyone and employ those whom they wish to employ to eliminate all the problematic workers.

    Perhaps I should have split this post.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    I note today GM has a different marketing director again.

    I think you mean Public Relations Director unless you saw something I did not. Tom has been around about 7 years and was brought in from Chrysler. Replaced Harris who retired and is coming back temporarily untill a new director is found.

    Really has nothing to do with product lines, etc.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    It seems as if GMs version of marketing is public relations.

    This is pretty much the only explination we need. Will 2006 styling save GM? No. Nothing will. They are too stodgy and playing by their own "groupthink" rules to possibly change in time.

    Somehow I feel no loss. No, really - I shoudl but it's just so "meh" - who cares anymore? Something better will replace them anyways. Perhaps Saturn will finally be let go to do its own thing.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...I'm sure you will care what happens to the economy if they collapse and tens of thousands of people are thrown out of work. Something better MIGHT replace it, but when? Do you want to spend the rest of your life waiting for it while all of America resembles Western Pennsylvania after Big Steel collapsed? Even if you are not personally affected, do you want to witness your neighbors living in abject poverty? Do you want to live under a state of siege when all the have-nots wait for the opportunity to steal what you have just so they can survive? Do you want to live in fear of being robbed or killed by a desperate, unemployed person when walking to the store? Do you constantly want to be accosted by hundreds of beggars looking for a handout? Do you want to see the streets littered with thousands of homeless and destitute? Do you want to see shantytowns spring up alongside your upscale suburban development?
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    For some people this will help them with their hatred of GM from somewhere in the past. Same for Ford probably in som cases. Same for Chrysler-oh they're already gone.

    It's interesting about the disconnect between the economy and the large companies.

    >No, really - I shoudl but it's just so "meh" - who cares anymore?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Member Posts: 4,277
    How about all those aliens that are going to swoop down and steal all your women and children and take them back to their mothership from the planet wackytibacky?

    Buy a Chevy and this won't happen...
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    How about all those aliens that are going to swoop down and steal all your women and children and take them back to their mothership from the planet wackytibacky?

    Buy a Chevy and this won't happen...


    LOL, I'm tired of the doom and gloom. GM is not a victim, but some of their customers have been (me included). There is a reason people don't want GM products other than everyone is brainwashed and wants to see GM go away.

    That said, GM is not going away anytime soon, so there is no need to stock pile food and weapons yet. GM has a product line up that is the best it's had in a long time. This year looks to be critical on which direction GM is heading.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=newsletter08

    for those saying GM doesn't do anything with hybrids while HoToy do xyz----

    I recall in the 70s GM having an electric car. I recall seeing one along the roadside about 25 miles from Dayton where GM plants may have been using it in testing. Guess it ran out of charge.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    I recall in the 70s GM having an electric car. I recall seeing one along the roadside about 25 miles from Dayton where GM plants may have been using it in testing.

    There were a pair of electric Corvair conversions done in the mid-60s, and the infamous EV-1 debacle of the 1990s. People pick on GM because very little of their efforts make it to the dealership, while you can't swing a dead cat at Toyota without hitting a hybrid something or other.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    50K...geez that's knockin on the Escalade's door, isn't it. And for a Chevy!

    I wonder what the incentives will be come fall of 07...


    The buy one, get one free sale ;)

    Loren
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    Lemko,

    Quite the Socialist, aren't you? Your post was a wonderful piece of Soviet Union style propaganda.

    And, in addition to state subsidies for GM, perhaps we should also take up arms and blow up Caterpillar, ADM, and a few others? After all, if it wasn't for those companies' success, all of those GM workers would still have been working manual labor farm jobs and we never would have gotten into this damn pickle. :mad:
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    I believe this electric was after the "gas crisis" of the Carter era in the 70s. We future of the world was going to be in using electric cars. (Like back in 1910 with electric and steam cars?)

    I'd forgotten the leased EV-1s as a trial. All these trials by GM (and others) lead to data which could be used in designing the cars that have shown up now. The trials were not fruitless.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Anybody recall the Chrysler Turbine cars of 1963? Chrysler experimented with the turbine engine into the 1980s.
  • kodenamekodename Member Posts: 141
    GM needs to fire the coach , not hire a different cheerleader.But who (except GM management) don't already know this?
    Getting back to Styling, I saw a new 06 Impala at an angle that showed off the full front and side of the car. I was struck by how out of perportion it seemed. It's over all length appears to make the width of the car look too narrow. Not unlike the look of those stretched K Cars of the 80's the New Yorker and Dodge Dynasty. A check of the dementions in the latest Consumer reports shows this is not just an allusion.
    Also saw my first G6 on the road yesterday. Gee, it looks too much like the Buick from the sides! The rear view showed only two chrome emblems on one side of the trunk lid "G6" on the other side "V6" SO ,if I want one I should ask for a G6-V6? Stupid Name! Reminds me of another less than masterful GM-Pontiac re-name the Pontiac 6000LE. Many thought the car was called "GOOOLE" and by the time the public caught on to Pontiac's new numerical model system , the name was gone. How long will the "G" series be around? Sooner or later it will be decided within GM that this was once again a STUPID idea, and if they still have a PONTIAC division they'll go back to names , not numbers. Car Models as numbers or a combination of letters and numbers has been overdone, it don't bring any presitige in and of itself, and switching back and forth only confuses people.How much more would you pay for a Chevette, if it's renamed the Pontiac T1000? Is this what GM wants?Bill C.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    the turbine car got scrapped partly because it never really got very good fuel economy. Something like 11-12 mpg. It also wasn't that fast, 0-60 in around 11.5 seconds. The plus side was that it would run on just about any crap-grade of fuel you shoved down its throat. It was also heavy, around 4,000 lb, yet was compact inside. 4 passenger seating capacity. It just didn't make a lot of sense in the 70's.

    Now the 70's were a different story. Suddenly, a 2-ton car that could seat 4 passengers, do 0-60 in 11.5 seconds, AND get 11-12 mpg seemed like a pretty good idea!
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Anybody recall the Chrysler Turbine cars of 1963? Chrysler experimented with the turbine engine into the 1980s.

    I think I remember reading something about that.

    Turbine power would be cool. Just think what you could do to a tailgater with the afterburner....
  • kodenamekodename Member Posts: 141
    Chrysler Turbine: Great styling, but even in the days of 30 cent a gallon gas it made little sense. Jet engines were all the rage, but in short distance travel they were impractical, and also they were not very good at stop and go driving. The heat was another problem. In the winter , you've have heat for the cabin almost instantly, but cooling the beast in the summer was a tech. nightmare in stop and go driving. Even running on cooking oil was not enough to make it practical. I don't think it's making any comeback? Bill C.
This discussion has been closed.