By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Why can't the domestics make drivetrains that wear and tear prematurely at 300K miles like the Japanese? They'd last 450K w/o premature wear and tear. Why do they insist on designing only to last 100K miles?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I dunno about that; sometimes a nice set of rims can make a world of difference on a car. I'm thinking along the lines of the old GM Rally wheels that had a different style for Chevy, Pontiac, Olds, and Buick. I had an '82 Cutlass with Rally wheels, and they made the car look really sharp. With just the regular hubcaps, it made the car look like you were too cheap to spring for a nicer model, and with the wire hubcaps, it made it look like you were on your way to the hairdresser, because the blue rinse awaits! :P But those Rally wheels really made a lot of difference.
Funny thing too, but they were only 14", with 205/70/R14 tires on them, but they seemed big enough for that car, proportionally. That car was long and low to the ground compared to today's cars, though. If you put anything bigger than maybe a 15" rim on it, it would've thrown off the proportions horribly and made it look like a giant HotWheels toy.
I think the Lucerne is a pretty nice looking car, but the standard sized wheels do seem a bit small. Odd, because they're 225/60/R16's, which I think would be plenty beefy. That's the same size my Intrepid has, and I don't think its wheels look tiny for the car. And an Intrepid is about the size of a Lucerne. I wonder if the Lucerne has narrower wheels, though? The Intrepid has 7" wide rims, and a wider rim can make a wheel/tire look more substantial, even without changing the diameter of the wheel or size of the tire.
I think the Lucerne is one case where the bigger wheels definitely make it look better. Just as long as they don't go to the extreme of that "Gunsmoke"/"Little House on the Prairie" wagon wheel look!
So around here, I use to hear the ranchers like Ford trucks and Chevy cars. Of course that was many moons ago. If I recall correctly, the tail gates on Chevy trucks though worked years longer than did the Fords.
Ford trucks were less expensive. I think Chevy and Cadillac, as well as other Body by Fisher cars were popular around here in the old days for ranchers and farmers. Cadillac was the car to own.
Will Ford survive if too many people buy Chevy trucks? Is this still the true dominance of American industry = trucks, and farm equipment?
Will Toyota be successful in the large truck business / work trucks?
Loren
Loren
Will Toyota be sucked into the RWD on cars below $25K or stay the course? Seems like a RWD trend again. Something tells me Honda will be one of the last to convert back to RWD, but that is just a feeling. Maybe they will go AWD.
While RWD is fine here in Central Coast of Calif. having a mix of some in FWD, especially the smaller cars, and some RWD does make sense to keep everyone covered for cars which work for their region. In the smaller cars, I think space utilization comes into play. That said, a nice small Celica with RWD would be nice, and it is not a family car. The Camry is now large enough, there would be room to make it RWD -- what ya think? The BMW3 is RWD and not very large, but then again, they are aimed at more sporty use, even in a sedan.
Is half FWD and AWD and the other half RWD cars the way to go for GM now???
Loren
Try a LaCrosse with 17's or Impala or just about any GM sedan with 17's. The only vehicles close to a VW with that much tire impacts would be a G6 with 18's.
You bring up a good point. I'd assume GM, and the remaining other domestic survivor would split those numbers but naturally GM, would most likely gain the most by a large margin as they have such a wide range of brands.
Rocky
The DUBS look sweeeet on most nice cars. I know they are expensive and some put "rims" on junkers where the Tires/Rims cost more than the whole car and that looks dumb. I think factory rims that where the car was designed to accomidate 20+ rims is okay and cool. I guess my generation likes a lil' style and flash. :shades:
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
You don't want to find your self sleeping under newspapers with some Toyota worker that got laid off with nothing when he turned 55 years old.
I'm not sure why people keep calling it bling. Every 18" rim is not 'blinged out'. And just because someone has 'blinged out' wheels, aren't you being a bit presumptuous to say that they aren't saving enough in their 401k?
Bottom line is people like the larger wheels; otherwise wheel size would not increase with each progressively expensive trim level. To say its a waste of money is purely subjective because anything not necessary for transport from A and B is a waste (ie--radio, air conditioning...). If GM wants to hold off Toyota, see what happens if they stopped offering 18+" wheels...
There's a few cars in my town that give me the dry heaves whenever I see them. For example some guy with a white Chrystler 300 has 22" fake gold rims. Or the guy that turned his Escalade into a monster truck, complete with a huge lift and tractor tires.
I'll take Dubs any day over the cars with tiny wheels, usually with a crapload of spokes, that stick out about 6" from the fenders. Blech.
But back to the real topic. One thing I often wonder when looking at American cars is what's the deal with all the fake scoops, body cladding, and other non-functional plastic crap? Pontiac used to be the worst about it, but even the new mustangs are starting to show up with fake shaker hoods. While quaility and poor mechanical designs of the past hurt GM, I think their styling, or lack of it, is what really hurt them. They've gotten somewhat better, especially in the past couple of years, but I'd much rather have the somewhat bland styling of the accord/camry or Civic/Corolla over the monstrosities that GM rolled out in the 90's.
Loren
True, GM jumped right into the game. Bling a Chevy and ya got an Escalade. Wagon Wheels of chrome did help make the car. Ya know, I wonder how many of those SUVs are taken up in the mountains to go hunting. A few dents and scratches - no problem. Throw in a dead deer - no problem. Yeah, really now. The super Denali / Chevy / Caddy was a stroke of genius. I am sure it paid out big time for GM. Worth as much as a home in Texas -- I would doubt that.
Loren
Loren
I don't think I am. My neighbor has 3 daughters under 25 living at home. They drive a Tahoe, Denali and Silverado with 20 something inch wheels. They have decent jobs. Still they are always hitting dad up for money. No thought of the future. That is my perception of the people I see with bling, bling tires and wheels.
It is very much like GM in their present condition. They thought that they would be making huge profits on their vehicles far into the future. They signed contracts to that end. Now they are getting old and have no money to survive. Sold GMAC, the only thing that was making them a ton of money. Ford is in worse shape and Chrysler has become a despised step child of Daimler.
PS
Just because something looks decent on a car does not make it good or useful. I am always kidding those girls about taking their blinged out vehicles out to jump dunes in the desert. Not a chance.
Some of these look pretty good!
Sold 51% of GMAC. Still get half the profits from now on.
Under 25 and worried about 401? I think very few in this country under 25, even those who do not own "bling" vehicles, worry about 401's. I did start when I was under 25 but it was almost a no brainer since the company matched. Now if they are living at home and getting money from dad then that is the dad's fault, not theirs.
But we sure are getting off the subject. Yes, having larger, TASTEFUL, wheels available on GM vehicles does help them beat Toyota in the styling department and therefore helps GM hold off Toyota. I am not talking dubs on Malibus but 16 base with 17/18 available for those who prefer that look. I guess they could offer Lorens 14's at a discounted price but that would probably look as bad as all the overdone cladding and bring down the image.
My real concern is how safe are these tires that are only about an inch thick on huge rims? Will they blowout when they hit a pothole at normal driving speed? They just do not look safe to me. You gotta love them spinners :shades:
Lets be clear here. GM nor Toyota offer any tires with 1" sidewalls.
As far as factory (or aftermarket) wheels, I prefer the simplest 5 or 6 spoke alloys I can find. Some wheels look like they'd take forever to clean, especially those with lots of spokes or even worse the ones with a hundred of those little allen bolts in them. I refuse to get out a toothbrush to clean my wheels.
I tell you, if GM wanted to make a mint, they should figure out and patent a paint that never needs washing or waxing. Just hit it with a hose and go. I'd pay an extra 2 or 3 grand for such a wonder.
Loren
Can anyone explain what the term, " An American Revolution " is suppose to mean? I guess we did beat out the English car lines. Oh well, Moving Forward.
Recall a time when " see the USA in a Chevrolet " did not mean in your rented car? Perhaps a comeback for GM is more like " rebirth of a legend." Could happen. Anticipation is building for new cars like the Impala. GM looks to be a bit closer to survival than is Ford. Can't predict the future however.
Loren
GM, however, can't afford to be behind the times anymore. If the industry is shifting to larger wheels, GM should too.
Sorry to keep adding fuel to the fire, this converstation seems really off topic...
ps--just a little anecdote, by sister who just turned 16 is getting a car and she told our parents she didn't want a cobalt, focus, or caliber. I just showed her some pics of all the compact entries (incl civic corolla sentra mazda3). It's funny because she knows nothing about cars, doesn't follow the industry, nothing, but that negative perception of GM Ford and Chrysler is going to be hard to overcome when someone who has about 60 more years of carbuying has already snubbed the domestics.
That's why it's so important for GM to focus on a better small car, even if they *can't* do it at a profit. It's a brand loyalty issue.
Parents who have kids just learning to drive or go to college want to get their kids an economical, good, trouble-free car. Unless they are $$$ they pick a Civic, Mazda 3, or a Corolla. That starts another generation along on the Japanese nameplate bandwagon. And when those kids eventually get some money to buy a new car, they have a used car worth more than a Cobalt or G6. It's a rational decision.
So for GM to hold off Toyota (looking long term, something they've not done well in the past), GM should be looking at replacing the Cobalt with
a - a really smooth, efficient, good 4 cylinder engine
b - put it in a high quality small car body/chassis with reliability and refined interior
c - I'd go a step further and in an ode to Rocky, I'd offer the manufacturing to the US/UAW *if* they agree to some flexible rules and ability to maximize production efficiency. If UAW wouldn't be flexible then I'd manufacture it outside the US as Ford is with the Fusion. The UAW selling point is that they have to wake up and get with globalization, efficiency is what will keep jobs in the U.S.
Loren
Just a thought.
Loren
Loren
I think Mazda has some good designs with the RX-8, 3, and 6. The Mazda 5 has a pretty attractive look to it although the front of the Miata just looks kinda stange not ugly but a little strange.
Also Benz has some good designs with the current S-Class and M-Class.
To me BMW has stumbled the current 5 and 7 are just not good looking cars.
So Mazda and Benz are my design leaders right now.
As far as GM design goes they finally are getting it I think because in the 90's GM wasn;t so good at designing cars that people "wanted". To me GM didn;t get it on the styling front in the 90's.
VW has stumbled I mean the current Jetta is just blah even though its nice on the inside and the 06+ Passat ditto as well.
Chrysler-Its not that their designs are bad its just they are fadish. Chrysler in my opinion needs to tone their cars down look wise so they can sell well for a 5-6 year cycle not just sell well out of the box.
Well the Sebring looks bad mainly the front but thats a different story all together.
Yes design does matter because if an automaker gets conservative on their designs their average age buyer gets high(see Toyota or Buick for that particular problem or even late 90's/early 00's Caddy for that problem too.)
The basic problem with GM's full size (or big) FWD sedans was that they probably were not quite up to the ride and handling that one would get from a European sedan of similar size. What I did not like is that the front end too easily scapes the pavement on steeper than normal driveways.
Styling is very subjective. The RX-8 to me is the ugliest car out there with that funky front end. It also is a sales flop. Sales way down last year. In fact most everything is down at Mazda except the new MX5, Mazda5 and the new CX7.
I've driven a few big GM FWDers, and I've always theorized that they made the cars handle and drive that way on purpose. I'm guessing that they engineered in a floaty, big-car ride, so that people moving down from those big, floaty battlecruisers that were so popular once upon a time would not be disappointed.
I'll never forget the first time I drove my grandmother's cousin's '89 Coupe DeVille. My first impression was why trim all that size and bulk off of it if they weren't going to make it handle any better? And I remember driving a 2000 Buick LeSabre, and that thing just felt a lot bigger and bulkier than it was.
Of course, these cars could be upgraded with improved suspensions, tires, etc, but I'd imagine that most buyers didn't go for that.
What I did not like is that the front end too easily scapes the pavement on steeper than normal driveways.
Hmmm, I didn't realize that the GM cars did that, too. My 2000 Intrepid was infamous for scraping in those types of situations. Until the valance panel underneath finally pulled loose, hanging about an inch off the ground. I figured I'd better take it off before something snagged it and pulled it off, possibly causing more damage.
I've heard that if you mess with those valance panels that it can mess up the car's airflow and cause overheating problems, but I think it's been at least 5 years since I ditched mine, and no problems...yet! :surprise:
well the Rx-8 is a sales flop is because either a conbonation of the car having 4 doors? I think people only want a car like the RX-8 that only has 2 doors. Mazda still doesn;t have the mechanical bugs straightened out with the rotary and engine and bas gas mileadge as well.
Well sales of the 3 and 5 are up but everything else is down. The Cx-7 has only been around for 8-9 months now. Mazda has a new 6 coming out sometime this year(hopefully)and a new CX-5 Tribute coming out this year.
The 92 Seville was alright looking your right. BTW, I always thought the 98-04 Caddy STS was a nice looking car. I think the problem and no doubt everybody will agree with this is that their designs were too vanilla in the 90's ditto the Catera which symboilized Caddy's vanilla image in the late 90's.
"I also liked the 91 Park Avenue."
I can;t picture what the 91 Park Avenue looks like on the exterior.
"The 95 Buick Riviera was good too, but the car was too big for a 90's era coupe. It might have worked as a 4-door coupe."
It was a coupe? Your right it was huge looking for a(2dr)coupe. The front of it was ok but the back end of it was too bublicious.
"The 95 Aurora was a nice looking sedan, but the interior was noticably smaller than it should have been for the size of the car."
The 95 Aurora was probably one of the best looking American branded cars of the 90's but I saw the next Aurora that came after the 1st generation of Aurora(the 95 I think) and the 2nd gen Aurora the styling of it looked like a mid-size car. Heck, I didn;t even know the 2nd gen Aurora was even a Aurora because I always thought it was something else(I always knew it was a Olds though)until a week or two ago. When I saw the Aurora nameplate on that car a week or two ago I was like they messed up the looks of that car(for the 2nd generation of Aurora.) The 95 was/is much better looking in my opinion than the 2nd generation model.
Toyota is the only real challenge if they can build a heavy duty truck and sell to fleet buyers. That is not an easy market to break into. It is dominated by Ford & GM. Dodge is not a real fleet player either.
You are giving this youngster some sound advice pal.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky