with all due respect grbeck you have no idea what you are talking about. Just because GM has best in class SUVS doesnt mean they are oblivious to the fact that gas isnt getting cheaper. I mean seriously, do you have any idea about GM's future products? If GM was only focuses on large SUvs as you say there would be no Vue hybrid (two actually), Astra, Aura GL, Malibu Hybrid, Tahoe/Yukon hybrid and Corsa in the future. I am sure that 5 years ago when gas was cheap GM was hoping the SUV craze would last forever but they know that isnt going to happen now. Toyota and Honda simply bring over small cars from other markets when gas prices get high. The Fit, Yaris, etc. were NOT developed for America but they are sold here because people are now showing interest in fuel economy. Toyota's US CEO said in a recent interview that they had no idea hybrids would take off like they have and it was perfect timing because of the gas price hikes that started a few years back. This idea that Toyota and Honda were always ready for $3 a gallon gas and are more concerned about the environment that GM is flat out wrong.
Did you notice how Edmunds tried to act like all three companies developed the two-mode system? It wasnt stated that this is GM's system and the other two companies are just modifying it and helping out with development costs. GM was working on this before BMW and DC got on board but I suppose the media would rather give all three companies equal credit.
Minivans are on the way to obscurity but perhaps a sliding door will show up. Not much other difference except styling,
Obscurity!! That is true for GM, but what about market as a whole. GM never had a competitive mini-van. If I recall, their early efforts were the dustbuster stupid looking vehicles. The Chevy Uplander got a very bad review in CR in a recent issue. Apparently, GM did not/does not know how to make a class leading minivan. Read somewhere that they are getting out of minivan market. If that happens, they will have given it up to Chrysler, Honda, Toyota and others. Their marketing types see more sales in Camaros apparently than in minivans.
Minivan package is a very efficient layout and sure beats any GM SUV in most criteria except in ability to haul trailers with boats or horses. If one does not have a boat or horse, minivan is intelligent choice for transporting people and bigger size stuff.
1487: with all due respect grbeck you have no idea what you are talking about. Just because GM has best in class SUVS doesnt mean they are oblivious to the fact that gas isnt getting cheaper.
GM makes little or no money on cars - it relies on trucks and SUVs for the profits it does generate (aside from GMAC, which is now in trouble because of the bursting housing bubble, and GM no longer completely controls it anyway). If those profits go away, because of decreased demand for large vehicles, GM is in big trouble.
1487: I mean seriously, do you have any idea about GM's future products?
Yes...those exciting new GM products that are just around the corner. The ones that will change everything. They were just around the corner in 1987, 1992, 1999, 2003, and now, once again, in 2007.
We DO know what's around the corner (although the plans seem to change on a weekly basis). And we know how those promised products of the past turned out...which is why some of us are skeptical.
1487: If GM was only focuses on large SUvs as you say there would be no Vue hybrid (two actually), Astra, Aura GL, Malibu Hybrid, Tahoe/Yukon hybrid and Corsa in the future.
Once again, all in the future, except for the current Vue hybrid, which, quite frankly, stinks. Read the reviews.
1487: Toyota and Honda simply bring over small cars from other markets when gas prices get high. The Fit, Yaris, etc. were NOT developed for America but they are sold here because people are now showing interest in fuel economy.
That's the problem. When Honda brings over a small car, we get the Fit. When GM does, we get...the Aveo. Which, once again, is a distinctly inferior product.
1487: This idea that Toyota and Honda were always ready for $3 a gallon gas and are more concerned about the environment that GM is flat out wrong.
You're missing the point. It's not about how well the management teams of Honda, Toyota and GM read their respective crystal balls. The point is that Honda and Toyota still make money selling Civics, Accords, Corollas and Camrys. GM makes little or no money selling Impalas, Cobalts and G6s. GM's passenger cars are largely second rate (with few exceptions). A shift in demand will hurt GM more than Honda and Toyota, because it will watch sales of its main source of profits evaporate.
Take a ride through some of the middle-class and upper-middle-class neighborhoods sometime. You'll see a Suburban or Tahoe parked beside a Civic or an Accord. If gas prices go up, the Suburban or Tahoe may go (or will be used a lot less). And, I doubt that an Impala will replace that Suburban or Tahoe.
Chevrolet plans to seek conquest buyers for the 2008 Malibu by asking dealers to do the unthinkable: Put a Toyota Camry in the showroom for comparison.
Cheryl Catton, Chevrolet's director of car marketing, "encouraged us to get a Camry and put it in the showroom so people can see the difference in styling, the interior, pricing and features," said one dealer. Catton suggested dealers rent a car.
Production of the restyled, re-engineered Malibu starts in October, and advertising begins in January, according to the dealers. A Chevrolet spokesman declined to comment on plans to promote the Malibu.
This was just a concept car. I am sure that there will be non hatch versions. Timing? Depends how long they have been working on it. Perhaps 3 years? 2011?
Take a ride through some of the middle-class and upper-middle-class neighborhoods sometime. You'll see a Suburban or Tahoe parked beside a Civic or an Accord. If gas prices go up, the Suburban or Tahoe may go (or will be used a lot less).
True. We had a Suburban for 14+ years and it served well during that time, but it was "never" a daily driver. It was parked next to various Hondas, Acura, Nissan in the garage.
GM lost me in 2000 when time for a new Suburban. Could not justify the high price for overall package Suburban I wanted and instead bought an Ody. Hung onto the Suburban for awhile and had it along with Ody for 3 years. Minivan was cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and clearly the better package for transporting people and could fit more stuff inside. Minivan also got much better gas mileage than new Suburban would have.
Obscurity!! That is true for GM, but what about market as a wholef
OK obscurity is a strong word but minivans are losing market share. Crossovers are taking away the volume. This is not just GM's opinion. Even toyota has stated minivans are losing volume and going away.
I dunno, my Mom likes her Aveo. When gasoline prices started going psycho post-Katrina, I was thinking of an Aveo since they are relatively cheap and, per Mom's experience, quite reliable. An Aveo, Fit, Yaris, etc. isn't the kind of car I prefer to drive so I want to spend as little as possible and get as decent a car I can at that price point. I could probably get a very well equipped Aveo for the price of a basic Yaris or Fit.
If you are going for total price, net-net, and gas mileage, the least expensive should be the Civic or Corolla. If you are going just price and warranty, why not Hyundai little boxes. My neighbor bought a Versa. Strange looking little thing, but like the other strange little bugs from Japan, they have sort of fun cartoon character about them. Yaris has a baby Camry look. I guess the Daweo Aveo is a baby Chevy look.
Minivan sales fell below a million units in 2006, so that market is definitely losing volume. I'll settle for a crossover - just stick sliding doors on it for me. :P
I'll settle for a crossover - just stick sliding doors on it for me.
Exactly. GM should put sliders on, allnew styling and sell only that one. Keep it very different than the others. Restyling will be needed to make the rear quarters work with the sliding doors anyway.
They took on a world of hurt, no doubt. Mercedes stock should soar. The seller is most times the wise one. In this case, they were the buyer / seller and well let's just say they are glad to have it all behind them. Now Mercedes needs to convince customers that the cars are trouble free, and be sure that the less expensive models are not sub-par for a Mercedes. Too much talk here on the boards of lower standards. I am no Mercedes expert, but the price seems too low on the base models to be true Mercedes. What is your take?
GM should gain a bit among the confusion of Chrysler now. Do you think, if possible, though highly unlikely, Jeep goes up for sale as a spin-off, GM should buy it? The gem among the rest of the rocks in the Chrysler line?
Sell Jeep???? It looks like this company being formed is going to make a go of being a profitable vehicle maker. Still 10% owned by Daimler.
Chrysler should kill all the US/Canadian built plants that built unprofitable vehicles. Keep the minivan, Jeep, trucks and larger RWD cars. Push thru new small cars from china/overseas. Push thru a new set of RWD mid size cars. Close the dealerships that sell less than XXX number of vehcicles / year. Downsize the company into a small lean company.
Theres a new sheriff in town and they can tell the dealers/UAW to pound sand. Either that or they start selling plants for what the land is worth and do a bankruptcy sale so they can get out of the other pension/health care obligations. So for $5 billion they can sell everything, still have the financial company they can combine with GMAC that they own.
This can only help GM since right now Chrysler is selling vehicles at cut rate prices and GM is having a problem competing on price. They are also flooding the rental market (as is Ford) and keeping the prices down there.
The lambdas have almost as much room inside as a minivan and they have similar mileage and more hp. They are essentially GMs replacements for their minivans.
"Yes...those exciting new GM products that are just around the corner. The ones that will change everything. They were just around the corner in 1987, 1992, 1999, 2003, and now, once again, in 2007. "
Never said anything about these vehicle being GM's salvation. In case you forgot, we were talking about fuel economy and you were stating that GM is putting all its eggs in the gas guzzler SUV basket and they would pay a price for this. I was saying that if you look at GM's future product plans its apparent to anyone who choses to see that GM is preparing many models that will get good mileage. You are out of touch with current events and as with most GM critics you base your commentary on what GM did 10+ years ago. See, if this was 1997 perhaps you would have credibility but its 2007 so you dont. Even GM's critics in the media have acknowledged that GM isnt doing things the old way when it comes to design and interior execution. The next frontier for GM is hybrids and electric vehicles and if you look at what they have actually committed to making you will see they are doing far more on those fronts than anyone save Toyota. You are an expert on GM's past, but I want you to explain to me how GM is less prepared for high gas prices than Ford, Nissan, Chrysler, MB, VW, etc. Sure Toyota and Honda are launching small cars, but the rest of the industry- especially the Germans, are busy launching huge SUVs and powerful V8, V10 and V12 cars.
"That's the problem. When Honda brings over a small car, we get the Fit. When GM does, we get...the Aveo. Which, once again, is a distinctly inferior product. "
Toyota and Honda can bring over whatever cars they want because they dont have to deal with unions in the US. GM is limited in terms of how many imports it can make and GM also has the misfortune of making most of its best small cars in Europe where labor costs are high and the Euro is worth more than the dollar. GM is only bringing over 40k Astras a year and there is a reason the number is so small. I doubt GM will make much money on the Astra.
"You're missing the point. It's not about how well the management teams of Honda, Toyota and GM read their respective crystal balls. The point is that Honda and Toyota still make money selling Civics, Accords, Corollas and Camrys. GM makes little or no money selling Impalas, Cobalts and G6s. GM's passenger cars are largely second rate (with few exceptions). A shift in demand will hurt GM more than Honda and Toyota, because it will watch sales of its main source of profits evaporate. "
Why do you think GM doesnt make money on cars? They dont make money because their cost structure makes it hard to make money on something that sells for $20k or less. It has nothing to do with the cars being "second rate". BTW, Second rate compared to what? You are dealing with outdated notions of GM vehicles and that is a major part of your problem. You have tons of commentary on GM's products but prove continuously you know little about those products. GM's worst cars are its oldest cars- Malibu, Lacrosse and Cobalt. Even those cars are at least as good as what you can get from Ford, Chrysler or Hyundai. The Aura, Impala, Lucerne, 2008 CTS and 2008 Malibu are in no way 2nd rate.
GM (and Toyota and Ford and Nissan) make more money on trucks than cars because trucks/SUVS cost so much. This isnt new information to anyone. If GM had the same overhead costs as Toyota and Honda it too would make money on midsize cars. GM has made some moves to reduce its labor costs recently but the biggest changes will have to come when they negotiate the UAW contract. And dont even say GM loses money on cars due to lack of efficiency because studies show GM plants are near the top in hours per vehicle.
"Once again, all in the future, except for the current Vue hybrid, which, quite frankly, stinks. Read the reviews. "
The Aveo, Cobalt/G5, Ion, Aura GL, Malibu 4, Malibu V6, Outlook/Acadia, and G6 4 cylinder get good mileage TODAY. I didnt say GM had no models with decent mileage now, I just said they have a lot more in the future. Read the reviews and check their EPA ratings.
"And, I doubt that an Impala will replace that Suburban or Tahoe. "
SInce (unlike you) I cannot predict the future I cannot dispute that notion. I'll just take your word for it.
I find it interesting that the people who dont want to hear about unreleased GM products will be quick to say "just wait until the 2008 Accord comes out!" when people note that the Accord is inferior to several midsize offerings on the market now.
I see the Sequoia is listed at 15 and 18 mpg. I doubt it really does that well>
I see the FJ Cruiser at 17 and 19. I see the 4-runner at 16 and 19 mpg. I see the dLand Cruiser at 13 and 17mpg. I see the Turdra at 14 and 18 mpg, city and highway respectively.
Now tell me again that Toyo is a fuel efficient company and GM isn't because of their trucks?
Understand but they sell trucks widely and advertise them just like their cars. People think they're more fuel efficient just because, well, because they're Toyota.
quote--"I find it interesting that the people who don't want to hear about unreleased GM products will be quick to say "just wait until the 2008 Accord comes out!" when people note that the Accord is inferior to several mid-size offerings on the market now."
Name those cars, as I am a bit curious as to what you would call superior to the Accord. In the GM line, the Aura XR perhaps has a couple of selling points, and taken as a whole is on par with the Accord V6. Can't think off hand of any cars currently besting Accord. Perhaps the Camry? Like the Aura, it has a couple of points to its favor, but taken in total, nothing scoring that much different than the current Accord. On the other hand Aveo and Cobalt seem like weaker efforts in their class / price range. Some work left to do there. And gas mileage is so-so. Either make a real effort or drop the smaller cars, concentrating on the mid-sized to larger ones.
Outlook, BTW, is one powerful PIM -- oh, it is a car, not the Microsoft PIM. Well both seem to work well And if the gas mileage is achievable, as listed, not bad for a SUV, or is it a CUV. Are they built on frames, or are they overgrown mini-vans really? I have seen the Acadia, and it looks pretty good, in an SUV way. Just looked up the dimensions of the Chrysler Town & Country mini-van, and realized that it ain't so mini at all. Seems that the new class of Acadia like vehicles is indeed, just the same as the mini-van. In this case, yep there is no need for the mini-van when you can have the macho mini-van. Seems to be one of the best ideas GM has going at present time.
Gas is above $3.50 now on the left coast, so I do hope that it taken into consideration on new ventures, like the Camaro. The V6 model sounds great -- smaller, as in a new RWD car which is mid-sized, around the G6 class would be so cool. They could then build a smaller Camaro, which means lighter, faster, with better gas mileage. The smaller RWD could also be a Cadillac -- please give her a name, and not lettering.
Name those cars, as I am a bit curious as to what you would call superior to the Accord. Seriously, we get that you bought the Accord because that was what YOU liked best, but everyone does not share that sentiment. I get it; if anyone says anything negative about my altima i cringe, but there's no need to reply as though you are stating some fact. Judging cars is SUBJECTIVE. When we got the Altima, we passed over the Accord, not because it is an inferior car, but it was more underpowered than what we were looking for and IMHO, I dont like the styling. Additionally, I'd rather have the Aura, or Impala SS rather than an Accord. That doesn't make it any less of a car.
Aveo and Cobalt seem like weaker efforts Why do they seem like weaker efforts, because they're Chevrolets? :confuse: It's not as if the Cobalt is stalling in the market; IIRC it hit the ten most popular for '06. Did the Sentra, mazda3,...?
What you would rather have has nothing to do with what is winning every road test, or is still at the very least coming in second. So once again, name that car. What I drive or like doesn't make it a best car. But a statement like there are better cars to be found makes one wonder as to which ones he is referring to. Which ones make the better grades? An Aura XR is in some ways very much like an Accord V6, and the XR is fun to drive, handling and engine/transmission combo is good. How are those DoD engines working out? Saw a sweet Camaro SS on the freeway the other day. I'd like one of those if I had a six car garage and extra cash. :shades: Impala SS? How about the nest generation RWD Impala - those may be interesting.
Aveo to me is first of all, not a Chevy, but a Dawoe, and not really a car which stands out in any aspect. Not in any one aspect at all -- it is just there. The Cobalt is pretty good torque / HP for the money, if bought in the low end. After all the time they had to work on the project though, it was not that much more exciting than the Cavalier. As for someone liking it more than a Mazda3, I haven't a clue as to why. Loren
Understand but they sell trucks widely and advertise them just like their cars. People think they're more fuel efficient just because, well, because they're Toyota
Nope. People don't buy Toyota trucks because they think they are more fuel efficient. They buy them because they want trucks with Toyota quality. People are not stupid, and the same fuel rating u find on GM's trucks is also on Toyota trucks. What's rather stupid is when people buy a fuel-unrated Hummer H2 and then get disappointed by the fuel consumption. All Toyota vehicles are rated. At the end, those Toyota trucks you mentioned are not doing all that well. It is the RAV4's, Highlanders and Siennas that are selling at 5-digit numbers.
That's just it. For winning a comparo does not make the car better for everyone. IMO, one shouldn't blanketly state the Accord is superior to everything out there, because if your car search emphasizes value, styling (subjective), or even something like a DOHC V6, the Accord is not for you. The rags falling head over heals over anything imported is not anything new, and I don't place any great weight on what their [argueably] baised eyes see.
And I apologize, I forgot how exciting and captivating that new Corolla is
So then, using your logic, Aura Car of the Year, is meaningless? Describe value?
Corolla, BTW, are excellent cars for reliability, durability, and fuel economy. They are not fashion statements, though I may add the Cobalt is as old looking as a Cavalier. And personally, I still prefer the '98 model year for looks. The rear of the Buick Lucerne is almost the exact copy of the '98 Corolla, only a bigger butt of course. The Lucy is not too bad a style at certain angles. Like most cars of today, she has rather large eyes. Overall, perhaps it should replace the DTS when the DTS goes RWD -- just drop the DTS name. Lucerne seems to have value over the DTS. Both bought used, equal the best value in a couple years time.
The interesting looking cars are yet to come. When does the CTS '08 and New Malibu hit the showroom? The Aura is OK, but the interior of that New Malibu is looking more interesting, as is possible pricing advantages. Pontiac awaits RWD line. Enclave looks like a nicely shaped SUV. How things change, one day Buicks are cars, the next they are SUVs. What's next a Porsche SUV? -- D'oh!!! And the Acadia is looking good. I would dread driving a large barge, but they do job as a people mover. Saw a CX-7 Mazda on the road today - sporty looking, for a SUV. Loren
P.S. No need to apologize. We all forget things, from time to time
On this day, when Daimler is paying $650million to get rid off Chrysler on top of the lost $37 billion initial investment, it's amusing to look back at what was exchanged around these boards less than a year ago:
If I was looking for a midsize car right now I would get an Aura, Altima or Camry SE over the Accord. That clear enough for you?
I dont think its necessary for you to jump in every time anyone mentions "Honda" or "accord". It has been made quite clear MANY times that you own the Accord and think its flawless and also find it far superior to any sedans made by GM.
"On the other hand Aveo and Cobalt seem like weaker efforts in their class / price range. Some work left to do there. And gas mileage is so-so. Either make a real effort or drop the smaller cars, concentrating on the mid-sized to larger ones. "
If you had bothered to read what lead to my listing of GM's efficient cars you will see that we were talking about GM being focused on trucks only. I was merely listing models by GM that get far better mileage than their large SUVs. I never said the Aveo or Cobalt got best in class mileage, but I did list them because they are far more frugal than any large or midsize SUV. Your argument seems to be that they dont count because they dont have the best mileage in class. That does not negate the fact that they are fuel efficient when compared to V6 or V8 SUVs.
You continue to talk about the Accord winning all these comparisons as proof it is best in class. The Accord has won ONE comparison against its current competitors and that was in C&D. It lost two comparisons right here on Edmunds, one to the Sonata and one to the Camry. Most magazines have NOT yet compared the Accord to the Camry SE, Altima or Aura at the same time and even in the C&D test the Camry model was an LE and not the sportier SE which is stupid since C&D emphasizes sportiness. I just want to know where you have found all these comparisons you keep mentioning.
"How are those DoD engines working out?"
The Aura doesn't have DOD. BTW, its known as Active Fuel Management nowadays.
The highlander has a four banger standard which the Acadia and other crossovers lack. I think its more fair to compare V6 mileage. So much for advantage Toyota, I would call large V6 crossover mileage a DRAW between the two companies while noting the Acadia is heavier and much larger. In fact I would tend to say advantage: GM.
BTW, the current Vue gets 20/28 which is comparable to the RAV4s 21/27 last time I checked. I would call that a DRAW.
BTW, what Traiblazer model gets 14mpg other than the SS? If that is the model you are referring to I think it's 395hp explains it's less-than-4Runner mileage. Does the 4Runner have a model with 395hp? I fail to see why you are saying Toyota has the advantage, the Trailblazer and 4Runner are almost dead even. You also fail to mention the trailblazers I-6 has 291hp which is more than the 4Runner's V6.
By my count we have two GM wins, two draws and one Toyota win. Its funny how everything changes when you pay attention to detials.
The actual MPG that you get may vary. I traded my SLS for an SRX (the CTS wagon). Mine is rated 15 city 22 highway. The first tankfull got about 18 MPG. I think the saleman filled it with 85 octane regular after telling me that is what I should use for best fuel economy. My owners manual says to use 91 octane :surprise: .
Am now on the second tankfull of fuel, a top tier premium. I think that it is doing a bit better but to soon to say. For a small CTS wagon, it does use more fuel than the big old Seville did.
The lambdas have almost as much room inside as a minivan and they have similar mileage and more hp. They are essentially GMs replacements for their minivans.
Depends on the definition of the words "almost" and "similar". Will want to see some cubic foot figures and box carrying capacities in a comparo perhaps from CR. Can a lambda carry a 4x8 sheet of plywood or drywall similar to a Chrysler/Dodge, Toyota, Ody, etc.? Through the years, have seen some people struggling with or unable to get in large boxes in their suvs at Best Buy, Home Depot, etc., where a minivan would have swallowed the box with no trouble.
Think that engines available in major brands of minivans have more than enough HP.
I guess that lambdas will be fine for those folks that are "afraid" to be seen driving a minivan.
to answer your question, Car & Driver tested the GMC Acadia and says that an 85 by 48 inch plywood sheet will fit. Max cargo space is 117 cubic feet. One can get a 144 inch length of pipe in.
Isn't it kind of weird that it will be available by late October, but they aren't going to advertise it until January?
Putting a Camry in the showroom is a unique and somewhat risky sales technique, IMO. I am trying to remember if I have ever seen a competitor's car in any dealer showroom I have visited...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
to answer your question, Car & Driver tested the GMC Acadia and says that an 85 by 48 inch plywood sheet will fit. Max cargo space is 117 cubic feet.
OK. Can't fit plywoods, drywalls. Think that minivans volume is in 150 cubic feet range. Other important dimensions are the side opening and rear opening in terms of how large a box can fit in. GM at least had pretty good full size station wagons years ago that would fit 4x8 sheets and could get big boxes through rear. Would think though that new Acadia will have a taller diminsion at rear than any of the full size GM station wagons of the past.
What am I missing here - I've had 12' long sheets of rock hanging out the back of my minivan. Unless you want to be able to lock everything up, it's the 48" width that would be critical to me.
btw, the trick with hauling 12' sheetrock in an 85" long cargo area is to support the sheets with a 12' 2x12. :shades:
I have dug through my old Car & Driver's for a minivan comparison. A 2004 comparison shows that a Caravan will hold a 95 x 48.5 inch plywood sheet (not quite 8 feet), the odyssey and quest will take a 4 x 8 foot sheet. The Freestar and sienna would not take a 4 foot width. The max cargo space ranged from 134 to 168 cubic feet.
Comments
Yeah, bigger than the large car segment.
I'm more interested in the engine, twin turbo.
Blow those ricers away.....
Obscurity!! That is true for GM, but what about market as a whole. GM never had a competitive mini-van. If I recall, their early efforts were the dustbuster stupid looking vehicles. The Chevy Uplander got a very bad review in CR in a recent issue. Apparently, GM did not/does not know how to make a class leading minivan. Read somewhere that they are getting out of minivan market. If that happens, they will have given it up to Chrysler, Honda, Toyota and others. Their marketing types see more sales in Camaros apparently than in minivans.
Minivan package is a very efficient layout and sure beats any GM SUV in most criteria except in ability to haul trailers with boats or horses. If one does not have a boat or horse, minivan is intelligent choice for transporting people and bigger size stuff.
GM makes little or no money on cars - it relies on trucks and SUVs for the profits it does generate (aside from GMAC, which is now in trouble because of the bursting housing bubble, and GM no longer completely controls it anyway). If those profits go away, because of decreased demand for large vehicles, GM is in big trouble.
1487: I mean seriously, do you have any idea about GM's future products?
Yes...those exciting new GM products that are just around the corner. The ones that will change everything. They were just around the corner in 1987, 1992, 1999, 2003, and now, once again, in 2007.
We DO know what's around the corner (although the plans seem to change on a weekly basis). And we know how those promised products of the past turned out...which is why some of us are skeptical.
1487: If GM was only focuses on large SUvs as you say there would be no Vue hybrid (two actually), Astra, Aura GL, Malibu Hybrid, Tahoe/Yukon hybrid and Corsa in the future.
Once again, all in the future, except for the current Vue hybrid, which, quite frankly, stinks. Read the reviews.
1487: Toyota and Honda simply bring over small cars from other markets when gas prices get high. The Fit, Yaris, etc. were NOT developed for America but they are sold here because people are now showing interest in fuel economy.
That's the problem. When Honda brings over a small car, we get the Fit. When GM does, we get...the Aveo. Which, once again, is a distinctly inferior product.
1487: This idea that Toyota and Honda were always ready for $3 a gallon gas and are more concerned about the environment that GM is flat out wrong.
You're missing the point. It's not about how well the management teams of Honda, Toyota and GM read their respective crystal balls. The point is that Honda and Toyota still make money selling Civics, Accords, Corollas and Camrys. GM makes little or no money selling Impalas, Cobalts and G6s. GM's passenger cars are largely second rate (with few exceptions). A shift in demand will hurt GM more than Honda and Toyota, because it will watch sales of its main source of profits evaporate.
Take a ride through some of the middle-class and upper-middle-class neighborhoods sometime. You'll see a Suburban or Tahoe parked beside a Civic or an Accord. If gas prices go up, the Suburban or Tahoe may go (or will be used a lot less). And, I doubt that an Impala will replace that Suburban or Tahoe.
Cheryl Catton, Chevrolet's director of car marketing, "encouraged us to get a Camry and put it in the showroom so people can see the difference in styling, the interior, pricing and features," said one dealer. Catton suggested dealers rent a car.
Production of the restyled, re-engineered Malibu starts in October, and advertising begins in January, according to the dealers. A Chevrolet spokesman declined to comment on plans to promote the Malibu.
True. We had a Suburban for 14+ years and it served well during that time, but it was "never" a daily driver. It was parked next to various Hondas, Acura, Nissan in the garage.
GM lost me in 2000 when time for a new Suburban. Could not justify the high price for overall package Suburban I wanted and instead bought an Ody. Hung onto the Suburban for awhile and had it along with Ody for 3 years. Minivan was cheaper to buy, cheaper to run and clearly the better package for transporting people and could fit more stuff inside. Minivan also got much better gas mileage than new Suburban would have.
OK obscurity is a strong word but minivans are losing market share. Crossovers are taking away the volume. This is not just GM's opinion. Even toyota has stated minivans are losing volume and going away.
Is the minivan becoming a victim of sexism?
Exactly. GM should put sliders on, allnew styling and sell only that one. Keep it very different than the others. Restyling will be needed to make the rear quarters work with the sliding doors anyway.
GM should gain a bit among the confusion of Chrysler now. Do you think, if possible, though highly unlikely, Jeep goes up for sale as a spin-off, GM should buy it? The gem among the rest of the rocks in the Chrysler line?
Loren
Chrysler should kill all the US/Canadian built plants that built unprofitable vehicles. Keep the minivan, Jeep, trucks and larger RWD cars. Push thru new small cars from china/overseas. Push thru a new set of RWD mid size cars. Close the dealerships that sell less than XXX number of vehcicles / year. Downsize the company into a small lean company.
Theres a new sheriff in town and they can tell the dealers/UAW to pound sand. Either that or they start selling plants for what the land is worth and do a bankruptcy sale so they can get out of the other pension/health care obligations. So for $5 billion they can sell everything, still have the financial company they can combine with GMAC that they own.
This can only help GM since right now Chrysler is selling vehicles at cut rate prices and GM is having a problem competing on price. They are also flooding the rental market (as is Ford) and keeping the prices down there.
Never said anything about these vehicle being GM's salvation. In case you forgot, we were talking about fuel economy and you were stating that GM is putting all its eggs in the gas guzzler SUV basket and they would pay a price for this. I was saying that if you look at GM's future product plans its apparent to anyone who choses to see that GM is preparing many models that will get good mileage. You are out of touch with current events and as with most GM critics you base your commentary on what GM did 10+ years ago. See, if this was 1997 perhaps you would have credibility but its 2007 so you dont. Even GM's critics in the media have acknowledged that GM isnt doing things the old way when it comes to design and interior execution. The next frontier for GM is hybrids and electric vehicles and if you look at what they have actually committed to making you will see they are doing far more on those fronts than anyone save Toyota. You are an expert on GM's past, but I want you to explain to me how GM is less prepared for high gas prices than Ford, Nissan, Chrysler, MB, VW, etc. Sure Toyota and Honda are launching small cars, but the rest of the industry- especially the Germans, are busy launching huge SUVs and powerful V8, V10 and V12 cars.
"That's the problem. When Honda brings over a small car, we get the Fit. When GM does, we get...the Aveo. Which, once again, is a distinctly inferior product. "
Toyota and Honda can bring over whatever cars they want because they dont have to deal with unions in the US. GM is limited in terms of how many imports it can make and GM also has the misfortune of making most of its best small cars in Europe where labor costs are high and the Euro is worth more than the dollar. GM is only bringing over 40k Astras a year and there is a reason the number is so small. I doubt GM will make much money on the Astra.
"You're missing the point. It's not about how well the management teams of Honda, Toyota and GM read their respective crystal balls. The point is that Honda and Toyota still make money selling Civics, Accords, Corollas and Camrys. GM makes little or no money selling Impalas, Cobalts and G6s. GM's passenger cars are largely second rate (with few exceptions). A shift in demand will hurt GM more than Honda and Toyota, because it will watch sales of its main source of profits evaporate. "
Why do you think GM doesnt make money on cars? They dont make money because their cost structure makes it hard to make money on something that sells for $20k or less. It has nothing to do with the cars being "second rate". BTW, Second rate compared to what? You are dealing with outdated notions of GM vehicles and that is a major part of your problem. You have tons of commentary on GM's products but prove continuously you know little about those products. GM's worst cars are its oldest cars- Malibu, Lacrosse and Cobalt. Even those cars are at least as good as what you can get from Ford, Chrysler or Hyundai. The Aura, Impala, Lucerne, 2008 CTS and 2008 Malibu are in no way 2nd rate.
GM (and Toyota and Ford and Nissan) make more money on trucks than cars because trucks/SUVS cost so much. This isnt new information to anyone. If GM had the same overhead costs as Toyota and Honda it too would make money on midsize cars. GM has made some moves to reduce its labor costs recently but the biggest changes will have to come when they negotiate the UAW contract. And dont even say GM loses money on cars due to lack of efficiency because studies show GM plants are near the top in hours per vehicle.
"Once again, all in the future, except for the current Vue hybrid, which, quite frankly, stinks. Read the reviews. "
The Aveo, Cobalt/G5, Ion, Aura GL, Malibu 4, Malibu V6, Outlook/Acadia, and G6 4 cylinder get good mileage TODAY. I didnt say GM had no models with decent mileage now, I just said they have a lot more in the future. Read the reviews and check their EPA ratings.
"And, I doubt that an Impala will replace that Suburban or Tahoe. "
SInce (unlike you) I cannot predict the future I cannot dispute that notion. I'll just take your word for it.
I find it interesting that the people who dont want to hear about unreleased GM products will be quick to say "just wait until the 2008 Accord comes out!" when people note that the Accord is inferior to several midsize offerings on the market now.
GM (and most of the other automakers) stock is up big today on the news (~3.5% for GM).
I see the FJ Cruiser at 17 and 19.
I see the 4-runner at 16 and 19 mpg.
I see the dLand Cruiser at 13 and 17mpg.
I see the Turdra at 14 and 18 mpg, city and highway respectively.
Now tell me again that Toyo is a fuel efficient company and GM isn't because of their trucks?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
you said it yourself. they are a fuel efficient car company, not truck!! :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Name those cars, as I am a bit curious as to what you would call superior to the Accord. In the GM line, the Aura XR perhaps has a couple of selling points, and taken as a whole is on par with the Accord V6. Can't think off hand of any cars currently besting Accord. Perhaps the Camry? Like the Aura, it has a couple of points to its favor, but taken in total, nothing scoring that much different than the current Accord. On the other hand Aveo and Cobalt seem like weaker efforts in their class / price range. Some work left to do there. And gas mileage is so-so. Either make a real effort or drop the smaller cars, concentrating on the mid-sized to larger ones.
Outlook, BTW, is one powerful PIM -- oh, it is a car, not the Microsoft PIM. Well both seem to work well
Gas is above $3.50 now on the left coast, so I do hope that it taken into consideration on new ventures, like the Camaro. The V6 model sounds great -- smaller, as in a new RWD car which is mid-sized, around the G6 class would be so cool. They could then build a smaller Camaro, which means lighter, faster, with better gas mileage. The smaller RWD could also be a Cadillac -- please give her a name, and not lettering.
Loren
Seriously, we get that you bought the Accord because that was what YOU liked best, but everyone does not share that sentiment. I get it; if anyone says anything negative about my altima i cringe, but there's no need to reply as though you are stating some fact. Judging cars is SUBJECTIVE. When we got the Altima, we passed over the Accord, not because it is an inferior car, but it was more underpowered than what we were looking for and IMHO, I dont like the styling. Additionally, I'd rather have the Aura, or Impala SS rather than an Accord. That doesn't make it any less of a car.
Aveo and Cobalt seem like weaker efforts
Why do they seem like weaker efforts, because they're Chevrolets? :confuse: It's not as if the Cobalt is stalling in the market; IIRC it hit the ten most popular for '06. Did the Sentra, mazda3,...?
Aveo to me is first of all, not a Chevy, but a Dawoe, and not really a car which stands out in any aspect. Not in any one aspect at all -- it is just there. The Cobalt is pretty good torque / HP for the money, if bought in the low end. After all the time they had to work on the project though, it was not that much more exciting than the Cavalier. As for someone liking it more than a Mazda3, I haven't a clue as to why.
Loren
Nope. People don't buy Toyota trucks because they think they are more fuel efficient. They buy them because they want trucks with Toyota quality. People are not stupid, and the same fuel rating u find on GM's trucks is also on Toyota trucks. What's rather stupid is when people buy a fuel-unrated Hummer H2 and then get disappointed by the fuel consumption. All Toyota vehicles are rated. At the end, those Toyota trucks you mentioned are not doing all that well. It is the RAV4's, Highlanders and Siennas that are selling at 5-digit numbers.
And I apologize, I forgot how exciting and captivating that new Corolla is
Corolla, BTW, are excellent cars for reliability, durability, and fuel economy. They are not fashion statements, though I may add the Cobalt is as old looking as a Cavalier.
And personally, I still prefer the '98 model year for looks. The rear of the Buick Lucerne is almost the exact copy of the '98 Corolla, only a bigger butt of course. The Lucy is not too bad a style at certain angles. Like most cars of today, she has rather large eyes. Overall, perhaps it should replace the DTS when the DTS goes RWD -- just drop the DTS name. Lucerne seems to have value over the DTS. Both bought used, equal the best value in a couple years time.
The interesting looking cars are yet to come. When does the CTS '08 and New Malibu hit the showroom? The Aura is OK, but the interior of that New Malibu is looking more interesting, as is possible pricing advantages. Pontiac awaits RWD line. Enclave looks like a nicely shaped SUV. How things change, one day Buicks are cars, the next they are SUVs. What's next a Porsche SUV? -- D'oh!!! And the Acadia is looking good. I would dread driving a large barge, but they do job as a people mover. Saw a CX-7 Mazda on the road today - sporty looking, for a SUV.
Loren
P.S. No need to apologize. We all forget things, from time to time
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.efdc045/2893
I dont think its necessary for you to jump in every time anyone mentions "Honda" or "accord". It has been made quite clear MANY times that you own the Accord and think its flawless and also find it far superior to any sedans made by GM.
"On the other hand Aveo and Cobalt seem like weaker efforts in their class / price range. Some work left to do there. And gas mileage is so-so. Either make a real effort or drop the smaller cars, concentrating on the mid-sized to larger ones. "
If you had bothered to read what lead to my listing of GM's efficient cars you will see that we were talking about GM being focused on trucks only. I was merely listing models by GM that get far better mileage than their large SUVs. I never said the Aveo or Cobalt got best in class mileage, but I did list them because they are far more frugal than any large or midsize SUV. Your argument seems to be that they dont count because they dont have the best mileage in class. That does not negate the fact that they are fuel efficient when compared to V6 or V8 SUVs.
"How are those DoD engines working out?"
The Aura doesn't have DOD. BTW, its known as Active Fuel Management nowadays.
The Aura doesn't have DOD. BTW, its known as Active Fuel Management nowadays.
And it is working great. Or do you have data otherwize?
Equinox: City Mileage: 19 mpg Hwy Mileage: 25-26 mpg
Advantage: Toyota
Highlander: City Mileage: 18-22 mpg Hwy Mileage: 24-28 mpg
Highlander Hybrid: City Mileage: 31-32 mpg Hwy Mileage: 27 mpg
Acadia: City Mileage: 17-18 mpg Hwy Mileage: 24-26 mpg
Outlook: City Mileage: 17-18 mpg Hwy Mileage: 25-26 mpg
Advantage: Toyota
4Runner: City Mileage: 16-18 mpg Hwy Mileage: 19-22 mpg
Trail Blazer: City Mileage: 14-16 mpg Hwy Mileage: 17-22 mpg
Advantage: Toyota
FJ Cruiser: City Mileage: 17-19 mpg Hwy Mileage: 21-22 mpg
H3: City Mileage: 15 mpg Hwy Mileage: 19 mpg
Advantage: Toyota
Land Cruiser: City Mileage: 13 mpg Hwy Mileage: 17 mpg
Sequoia: City Mileage: 15 mpg Hwy Mileage: 18 mpg
Tahoe: City Mileage: 15-16 mpg Hwy Mileage: 20-22 mpg
Yucon: City Mileage: 13-16 mpg Hwy Mileage: 19-22 mpg
Advantage: GM
Come again?
Do they really sell any 4 cylinders in the Highlander? Seems like it would be very underpowered.
If you do not include the 4 cylinder it would be a tie and the Acadia is bigger overall.
FWD-19/25 vs. 18/26
RWD-18/24 vs. 17/25.
I also always considered the RAV4 a bit smaller than the Nox but I could be wrong there.
And again the same with an FJ vs. H3 and 4runner vs. the larger Trailblazer.
Toyota does offer a bunch of smaller engines in each category so they do give the customer a choice. Wonder how many pick the smaller engine?
That's socala4/pch101 again.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
BTW, the current Vue gets 20/28 which is comparable to the RAV4s 21/27 last time I checked. I would call that a DRAW.
BTW, what Traiblazer model gets 14mpg other than the SS? If that is the model you are referring to I think it's 395hp explains it's less-than-4Runner mileage. Does the 4Runner have a model with 395hp? I fail to see why you are saying Toyota has the advantage, the Trailblazer and 4Runner are almost dead even. You also fail to mention the trailblazers I-6 has 291hp which is more than the 4Runner's V6.
By my count we have two GM wins, two draws and one Toyota win. Its funny how everything changes when you pay attention to detials.
Am now on the second tankfull of fuel, a top tier premium. I think that it is doing a bit better but to soon to say. For a small CTS wagon, it does use more fuel than the big old Seville did.
Depends on the definition of the words "almost" and "similar". Will want to see some cubic foot figures and box carrying capacities in a comparo perhaps from CR. Can a lambda carry a 4x8 sheet of plywood or drywall similar to a Chrysler/Dodge, Toyota, Ody, etc.? Through the years, have seen some people struggling with or unable to get in large boxes in their suvs at Best Buy, Home Depot, etc., where a minivan would have swallowed the box with no trouble.
Think that engines available in major brands of minivans have more than enough HP.
I guess that lambdas will be fine for those folks that are "afraid" to be seen driving a minivan.
Putting a Camry in the showroom is a unique and somewhat risky sales technique, IMO. I am trying to remember if I have ever seen a competitor's car in any dealer showroom I have visited...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Someone mentioned putting the 2008 Accord in the showroom also.
OK. Can't fit plywoods, drywalls. Think that minivans volume is in 150 cubic feet range. Other important dimensions are the side opening and rear opening in terms of how large a box can fit in. GM at least had pretty good full size station wagons years ago that would fit 4x8 sheets and could get big boxes through rear. Would think though that new Acadia will have a taller diminsion at rear than any of the full size GM station wagons of the past.
What am I missing here - I've had 12' long sheets of rock hanging out the back of my minivan. Unless you want to be able to lock everything up, it's the 48" width that would be critical to me.
btw, the trick with hauling 12' sheetrock in an 85" long cargo area is to support the sheets with a 12' 2x12. :shades: