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
What is the cost of E85 now? Is the price adjusted down enough to make up for the lack of MPG? I assume they will keep that in mind, as the consumer, may or may not be able to calculate the difference.
Loren
I kind of miss the late 80's early 90's when every car maker worth it's salt had a hard top sports car. Supra, RX-7, 300Z, Camero, Trans Am, 5.0 Mustang. I guess the jumbo SUV has become the midlife crisis car of choice.
I checked out the solstice recently, one of a handful of cars that GM has hit out of the park styling wise. The automotive press doesn't seem to dig it as much. Having to get out and walk around to both sides of the car to open/close the top, more show than go. Every time I see one though, I like it better.
ut I think it has style and ride. I followed a beautiful red one down I75. It really had a pleasing looking way of riding and yet absorbing some of the bumps. I saw an S2000 and they are much smaller than I recall from seeing an occasional example earlier. it was bright yellow. So small so no wonder they can be quick.
I still like the Sky's styling better than Solstice.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The solstice struck me as being a "chick car" or a "midlife crisis" car. Not aimed at the gearhead/driving enthusiest. Nothing wrong with that, just MHO. Guess they have the corvette for the others.
Right now GM's strongest cars as far as bringing in new customers are the Solstice and Cobalt. Hopefully their longterm reliabilty will be good enough to keep those young (Cobalt) and fun-loving (Solstice) buyers coming back for their Mini-vans and Luxo-barges down the line.
Just a thought, but perhaps GM shouldn't even try to compete with the Japanese. Perhaps GM should continue making cars for Americans that match what a good percentage of Americans want (and Japan is loath to deliver) big honkin' V-8's, oversized seats for our oversized rears, bigger than needed dimensions in every way, and cushy cloud like ride. People that buy Toyota's like their feel and won't switch, same for Honda devotees. In short stop trying to "out-Japanese" the Japanese and "out-German" the Germans and start trying to "out-American" them.
Ride - soft, steering too light, no road feel.
Interior - poorly assembled, low grade materials all around, chairs uncomfortable for any driving over 1 hour. "
Are you indicating an Impala with 211hp is more underpowered than a four cylinder Accord or CAmry? Please.
AS for ride, the base impala doesnt have a sport suspension and it's designed to ride like a normal family car just like it's competitors.
Poorly assembled? That is a joke. The Impala's plant is top notch and the car has great build quality, Don't make up things to justify your dislike of the car. I have not seen or read about any current Impala's with poor build quality. Even Edmunds didnt say the Impala had poor builld quality and they criticize GM vehicles any chance they can. You are not being honest here.
"Just not my cup of tea."
Exactly, just leave it at that.
(which includes all brands so don't say get rid of all but Chevy and Caddy)
are the brands on the right track? What tracks should those be? I'm specifically interested in differences in marketing SAAB vs Caddy vs Buick vs Pontiac which are all upscale brands to some degree or another. What makes should they target?
That's an overly hasty assertion. Both factual and perceived performance can depend on a number of factors: transmission gearing, number of gears, engine stroke, number of valves, throttle body size, tire diameter, cabin insulation, shift tuning in automatic trannies, suspension tuning, stability and traction control, etc.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
The automaker expects to reach its 2009 goal of 500,000 units six to eight months earlier than expected, said Chris Lacey, GM executive director for central and eastern Europe. GM sold 250,000 cars in the region in 2006.
In the sprawling area Lacey controls, new-car sales are booming and GM is gaining market share. Lacey attributes the surge to the growing range of low- and medium-priced cars GM offers in the region and the carmaker’s expanding local manufacturing footprint.
“The growth is there,” Lacey said in an interview at the Geneva auto show.
From European automakers’ viewpoint, “Europe” is 18 western European countries that buy 93 percent of the EU’s new cars, plus 12 new EU members that account for the other 7 percent of sales.
But from Lacey’s office in Budapest, Hungary, his entire 30-country territory has high growth potential. Roughly, GM defines central and eastern Europe as the former Soviet bloc.
“It has four times the land mass of the EU and its population of 450 million is greater,” Lacey said.
With sales growing faster than GM expected, the automaker is likely to move into new territories this year.
Insiders said Kazakhstan, for example, could be one area of potential growth. The country had 60,000 new-car sales last year, but is expected to grow to 250,000 units within three years, analysts said.
Lacey said GM had expected central and eastern Europe to have new car sales of 4 million by 2010.
“But it was 4.6 million last year and will be 4.85 million to 4.9 million this year,” he said. “By 2012, it will be 6 million.”
Was that 8.7 second time for C&D's 0-60 or their 5-60 "street start" time? The buff rags like C&D, MT, etc, tend to use launch techniques to get the cars to go from 0-60 as quickly as possible...stuff like power-braking, manually shifting the tranny to hold the gears longer, etc. I think this kind of stuff usually benefits a smaller engine more than a bigger one, because a bigger engine that gets a lot of torque at a low rpm will be more likely to just sit there and spin out, whereas a smaller, higher-revving engine will be more in its sweet spot.
I think I read a GM press release somewhere that said the Impala with the 3.5 should do 0-60 in about 8.5 seconds, whereas the 3.9 should do around 7.8, and the V-8 around 5.9 seconds.
I'd imagine that a 3.5 Impala should be faster than a 4-cyl Camry in acceleration from a dead stop. However, since the Camry's engine likes to rev higher, and it has more gears to go through (well, okay, ONE more gear to go through), it's going to sound like it's faster, even if it's not.
I guess it's possible though, that the Camry would perform better at higher speeds, if the Impala's 3.5 starts to get winded. I know the 3.5 is much better than the old 3.4 (and especially the 3.1) in that regard, but the Camry might still breathe better. Plus, having an extra gear, that might keep it closer to the engine's sweet spot, instead of the Impala getting to a point where it won't downshift, because then it would be over-revving the engine.
At least, that's my guess. I haven't driven either car.
The 3.5L Impala LT weighs 3637 lbs and makes 214 ft-lb at 4000 rpm. The LT has a 2.92 1st gear and 2.86 final gear, so it puts up to 1787 ft-lbs to the wheel in 1st gear.
The 2.4L Camry LE (automatic) weighs 3307 pounds and makes 161 ft-lb at 4000 rpm. The LE has a 3.943 1st gear and 3.39 final gear, so it puts up 2152 ft-lbs to the wheel in 1st gear.
Looks like the Camry wins this one, even before the weight advantage comes into play.
Debating which of these "grocery getters" is faster is kind of like debating whether Rosie O'donnel or Oprah would be faster in a foot race.
Wow. How early does it have to shift? 10mph? Then it will be in 2nd. What's that ration. and what are the shift speeds on the impala.
I'd have to drive the cars to see if that makes a different to the local hot rodder to be first off the line but low on torque from then on!.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And the 3.6 engine will do the 0-60 in about the same as my Accords time of 6.6 seconds. Yes, I have seen the one test run claiming 5.9 seconds on the 3.6 V6, which who knows how they came up with that one. Anyway, it doesn't matter, the 0-60 on the 3.5 V6 is not too much better than say the i4 Accord. For the Impala the off the line torque is a good thing. They chose an inexpensive to build OHV engine, it works for a cheaper car just fine, and keeps the Impala down in price for the more basic models. I have seen sub 19K prices advertised, so that is pretty low. It is all in what ya like.
Loren
According to the specs bumpy provided, apparently I am right...
Maybe it's due to the sports suspension, the Camry felt firmer and steering is sharper than Impala as well. Although too many hard plastic was utilized in the Camry's cabin per my flavor the overall fit and finish is better than Impala's. Not a big fan on Impala's fake wood trim, it's one of those that looks really fake.
However, it is just kind of hard for us whom grew up driving OHC cars to get used to the OHV. Vice versa, it is also difficult for the "old timers" grew up driving OHV V8s to get used to the high/fast-revving OHC I4 and V6s.
Wow. How early does it have to shift? 10mph? Then it will be in 2nd. What's that ration. and what are the shift speeds on the impala.
If I'm doing the math right, then the Camry should hold first gear to about 34 mph, factoring in the revs per mile of the OEM tires (793, according to Tirerack.com), and assuming it upshifts at 6000 rpm, where it hits peak hp.
In contrast, the Impala should be able to hold first on up to about 53 mph. Its OEM tires come in at 782 revs per mile, and it hits peak hp at 5800 rpm.
Of course, this doesn't account for friction, slippage, etc.
Just for kicks, I put in the specs for my 1979 New Yorker. It's the only one of my cars where I can remember the axle ratio and first gear ratio from memory. Probably because they're both 2.45:1. Anyway, the 235/70/R15 tires that are on it come in at 741 revs per mile, and it hits its peak hp around 4400 rpm. Presuming it shifts when it hits peak hp, I figure that would come in at around 59 mph.
And, that's actually pretty close. If I floor it and keep it floored, it, it'll hold first to around 55 mph. However, that math starts to fall apart when figuring for the higher gears. Figuring for a 1.45:1 second gear, if it held that gear to the peak hp at 4400 rpm, that would put the 2-3 upshift at around 100 mph. I've never actually tried it, but I don't think that's going to happen! I think it's designed to only hold second to about 75 mph.
Thanks.
The 53 in first grear reminds me of test driving a 67 Camaro 350 and I floored it from a stop. We were screaming and it his 80 or 85 and I backed off quick. It had gotten there much faster than I was used to and it was 2nd gear. I ws used to my 3 speed 289 Mustang driven gently. That's why for me the Camry 4 would be ot of first gear at about 10 miles per hour in normal driving.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Since you find a need to keep Buick, I would maket that car alongside of Cadillac keeping the Lucerne as the larger FWD car, and replace the LaCrosse with an upscale version of the Malibu as a Buick.
Pontiac could be sold next to Chevy as RWD cars based on Aussie designs. All slightly higher priced than the Chevy line of cars, with all of those cars built for superior handling. As for Chevy, it looks on course, and possibly there within three years time.
That is the pairing, assuming you keep all the line, which I think makes sense, though as always, it is IMHO. And yes, the problem is Buick dealers are mated with Ponitac is most cases.... I think??? I now see SAAB at some Caddy dealerships. SAAB owners are those rugged individualists. While owning a Cadillac CTS may be breaking a bit with tradition, with the love it or hate it style and arts & science theming, most Cadillac owners are more conservative in respect to not only looks, but engine and drive trains. While the SAAB engine makes sense in Europe, as they tax the engine displacement, here in USA, a turbo four is not always seen as a luxury car engine choice. I realize it is no doubt a superior turbo, and all, but I am talking here the reality of what sells USA. The CTS with the 300HP V6 will be the easier sell. SAAB may be more at home at Saturn. And Saturn could handle making domestic and selling domestic while still being an Import division. The Aussie cars, with RWD and more HP and such, I see as more of the modern day Pontiac. The first try went terribly wrong with the GTO. I would say a little more extra styling, and perhaps calling it another name would have been better. Then once popular on its own merits, add the GTO name plate along with hood scoops and top engine.
Loren
Loren
Are you saying that its hard for people who are used to driving OHC engines to get used to driving "inferior" OHV engines? Give me a break. In a modern car most drivers would be hard pressed to tell the difference. The primary difference between a modern OHC engine and OHV engine is the redline. That's it. Even that gap isnt what it used to be now that OHV truck engines redline at 6000rpm and GM newest OHV V6s redlines at 6000-6400rpm. As for noise and vibration, that isnt an issue. Look at the Aura's noise levels in the C&D comparison compared to the DOHC four cylinders in the test. It was right in the middle noise-wise.
C&D clocked the Aura's 0-60 in 6.2 secs so I don't know why you would think 5.9secs is way off. The bottom line is the Aura is faster than the Accord V6 auto and barely slower than the Accord V6 with 6M. If a Camry can do 0-60 in 6.1secs (per R&T) I see no reason the Aura couldnt do it in 5.9secs.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I believe you added the word "inferior", not me. Please do no put words in my mouth, it's getting tiresome with your usual trick, 1487.
In a modern car most drivers would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
I can tell the difference once I step on the gas and for me that's enough.
The primary difference between a modern OHC engine and OHV engine is the redline.
The OHC revs a lot faster than OHV and operates more smoothly in the high RPM region.
Here's my original post, just shows how good you are at in skewing with people's words:
I guess there is no point to compare OHV and OHC since each one has its own advantage and disadvantage.
However, it is just kind of hard for us whom grew up driving OHC cars to get used to the OHV. Vice versa, it is also difficult for the "old timers" grew up driving OHV V8s to get used to the high/fast-revving OHC I4 and V6s.
Where did you see this? I have read nothing on a FWD Lamda based SRX. The CTW (I made that up) will look just like the Sedan and the same size. Very low volume for US and mainly for Europe. The replacement 2010 SRX must already be well on its way and will continue to be based on the Cadillac Sigma platform (RWD) and be the size of the STS and larger than the CTW and be more SUV like.
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Premium- - %20V/2007_46L_LD8_DTS.pdf
The same engine can be tuned for higher end performance:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Premium- - %20V/2007_46L_L37_Cadillac_DTS.pdf
Pushrod engines can also have different tunes:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Gen%20I- - V/Gen%20IV%20Car/2007_60L_LS2_corvette.pdf
and
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/2007/HPT%20Library/Gen%20I- - V/Gen%20IV%20Car/2007_LS7.pdf
The smoothness at high engine speeds depends more on the engine design than anything. GM ohc's have not been noted for high speed smoothness, because GM does not put the money needed into balancing the engines for high speed refinement.
thursday with Imus at about 8:20 am
CNBC 10:40 am Thursday
http://www.gminsidenews.com/index.php?page=Future_Product_Guide
says in the 2009 model year Cadillac "may" discontinue the SRX and replace with a lambda. NOTE that I did say all this is a rumor, not a fact. GMinsideNews is not entirely accurate on future product.
My comments on the lambda being bigger, bulkier and overweight are based on the acadia and outlook size/weight which GM has published (nearly 5000 lbs :confuse: :sick: ).
If you want speed closer to the i4, yet prefer the V6 powerplant, the Aura XE does the trick.
If they sell the Opel hatchback with the turbo, it will be the fastest Saturn, I do believe. For those wanting to race the Saturn of the future, they'll have it soon. Lighter weight and heavy on the power -- woo-hoo! Front spinning wheels a smokin' ! :shades:
Loren
I see some of the moves they are to make over the next three years sort of match some of our ideas for types of cars for each line-up. Since it is obvious that the Buick and Pontiac lines are to continue, and need to continue to satisfy the dealerships, going more sport and more RWD for Pontiac seems to be spot on good direction. If Buick got the olden days glory, and by that I mean way back when, it may be a good near luxury, near Cadillac brand once again. Locally, we use to have a dealership which had the Olds. and Cadillac lines. When I bought an Olds. 98 the Deville, at the time, was pretty darn close though I had the 3.8V6 engine (at the time I thought to be the wise choice) and the Cadillacs had a rather new aluminum small V8. Interiors both looked more upscale. And of course Buick had the same car as the Olds. 98 Regency. But upscale was not selling too well in those years, as the downsized Cadillacs were not seen as large and glamorous enough. Today, as the Cadillac like the STS are really pricey and more upscale than say the Buick, it appears to me that in order to get an "almost as good as a Caddy - one of near true luxury " one has to think way back in history to Buicks of the first couple of decades say of Buick. The Lucerne may be enough, but the LaCrosse was just not enough to in there as near to Cadillac. I would like to see the Buick as close to Cadillac as say Bentley to Rolls. Raise up all the brands a level, and forget about the Aveo, unless sold at the Saturn Imports devision as an econo car. Seems to me econo cars are already a dime a dozen, and well represnted by Hyundai, Suzuki, Kia, and the Chery to come. And yeah, a few dozen more around the World. I guess Saturn could handle the Aveo to SAAB, and all Opels in-between. Just a thought.
Loren
Domestic manufacturers employ almost 90 percent of American autoworkers
XLR was a good move but too expensive. $65K would have been a good starting point. Heck Corvette starts at $45k.
Would be great to see a CTS convertible/Coupe/Wagon(for Europe).
Actually most of the domestic vehicles and parts are made here while much of the non domestics are either imported or the parts are imported.
With some 6 million jobs depending on upcoming negotiations with the Unions, let's hope that everyone can agree on a workable plan forward and a contract which shapes a lasting future for the US auto industry, which in turn is the workers future. It appears the cars are improving as years go by, both in styles and reliability. So if designs are catching up, workers are happy, and GM gets smarter about mapping the future, it all may work. The National Health Care Plan, which is only but a dream now, could play its part as life saver for GM. Who knows, and lot of things have to fall in place, but it could happen.
Loren
U.S. / Canadian Parts 65%
Major source of foreign parts content is Japan 20%
Made in Ohio
Engine made in USA
Transmission made in USA
Seems to be an American made car. Kinda interesting how US and Canada are lumped as one. Is that a NAFTA sorta logic
Loren