Restyling the interior and exterior without changing the mechanicals IS a reskin...the interior and exterior are the surface or "skin" components of the vehicle. The last change to the Focus was also a reskin but they also changed the powertrains so it counted as a "redesign."
Then there's the "all-new" phrase which everyone uses to describe anything from a reskin to a redesign to a brand new platform. Which is what makes things confusing.
"Someone did, at least most of it. It's called the Mazda3, and Mazda can't make enough of them to meet demand. "
Check the sales vs the cheaper Civic, Cobalt and corolla. The 3 is not a big volume car, at least not for its class. The corolla is the best selling compact and it offer no fancy features, Autobahn honed performance and its cheap.
" Now that GM has the Aveo to slot in below, for bargain-basement shoppers, it's certainly an option to content-up the Cobalt and increase the price. Small car interest has gone way up when gas prices did the same. How well has the CTS sold? Not exactly a large vehicle there. I'm thinking sales of the Astra will show what I'm talking about if they keep most of the features intact. "
The Cobalt SS/SC costs about $22k and offered class leading performance, Recaro seats, big wheels, performance tires, etc. It isnt exactly a stripper compact car. Not every Cobalt is a base model with 145hp and wheel covers. I would argue the Cobalt SS and SS/SC are more premium than any small car offered by Ford, Hyundai or Toyota in the US market.
The Astra is going to be pricey and its going to be a niche player. GM is importing 40k cars in 2008 which isnt squat. The cobalt does that in 3 months.
I assure you the whole country isnt like that. I see Fusions daily more or less. Are you on the left coast? I find that most people here with warped perceptions of what sells and what doesnt live out there and thus feel "no one" buys american cars.
I am starting to see Avengers as well. Bet you havent seen one yet.
Under your definition the 2008 Malibu is just a reskin because its not on a new chassis.
I thought the 2008 Malibu WAS a new chassis? At least, my understanding, is that the Saturn Aura is the latest iteration of the current, outgoing midsized platform (Epsilon or Vectra or whatever they call it, I can't keep up anymore), while the 2008 Malibu is going to be the first interation of the all-new midsize platform? However, the Malibu's engines are carry-over, I believe.
OK, than by your definiton most new cars are reskinned. Fine, my point is regardless of terminology the 2008 Focus is heavily upgraded and is almost all new. How about that? When you said its "just" a reskin that implies that Ford made a few minor cosmetic changes to the car without spending any money. Anytime every exterior panel is changed and the interior is totally revamped there was a serious investment made in that car.
Malibu's engines are NOT being carried over to the new car. The epsilon platform has two wheelbases and the new sedan is taking the long wheelbase used by the G6/Aura/Malibu Maxx. It is NOT the new platform, that wont be out in the US for several years.
New malibu gets 2.4L version of the 2.2L ecotec with VVT added just like the G6. The V6 is the DOHC V6 used in other GM cars on this platform and CTS.
he 3 is not a big volume car, at least not for its class.
That's limited by PRODUCTION, not sales. Mazda literally can't make any more of them; they don't have the production capacity. They sell close to 100% of them, and do so fairly quickly.
The Cobalt SS/SC costs about $22k and offered class leading performance, Recaro seats, big wheels, performance tires, etc. It isnt exactly a stripper compact car. Not every Cobalt is a base model with 145hp and wheel covers. I would argue the Cobalt SS and SS/SC are more premium than any small car offered by Ford, Hyundai or Toyota in the US market.
That's not premium, that's performance. Big difference. Where are the power seats, nav system, automatic climate control, bluetooth, and other such features? How about LED taillights? At least it has a leather option, but how about heating them? SUBCOMPACTS get Bluetooth and auto climate control these days, and many other compacts offer a nav system.
General Motors Corp., once the symbol of big, slow corporate America, virtually matched Toyota Motor Corp., the icon of lean manufacturing, in North American assembly plant productivity last year for the first time since it has been measured, industry research group Harbour Consulting reported Thursday.
Toyota logged 22.05 hours of plant labor per vehicle assembled, while GM reported 22.15 hours, a difference of one-tenth of an hour, or just 6 minutes per vehicle.
"General Motors essentially caught Toyota in vehicle assembly productivity," consultancy President Ron Harbour said.
The results come at a turbulent time for Detroit's signature industry and at an interesting crossroads in the GM-Toyota relationship that hinges on their manufacturing partnership in California, among other projects.
Toyota seized the global sales title from GM in the first three months of the year. But at the same time, GM is working to leapfrog Toyota's fuel-efficient hybrid technology with its Volt series hybrid and fuel-cell concepts.
And now GM is nipping at Toyota's heels in vehicle assembly – long a key to Toyota's success.
Among Detroit automakers, GM had the most productive assembly plants in the Harbour Report, and scored best overall, including in stamping parts and building engines and transmissions.
The results come as GM and other Detroit automakers prepare to begin formal contract negotiations with the UAW.
Automakers' plant-floor efficiency has direct effects on bottom-line profits and allows automakers to charge consumers less or put more content, such as air bags or electronics, into vehicles.
GM said its latest Harbour Report results tell a story of its continuing improvement, with GM closing the productivity gap with Toyota by nearly 85 percent since 1998 and capturing bragging rights as the first automaker to have its plants capture top productivity honors in three of Harbour's four award categories. GM won in vehicle assembly, engine-making and transmission manufacturing. It did not win in stamping.
"GM's leadership in three of the four manufacturing categories demonstrates we are transforming the company for sustainable, long-term success," Gary Cowger, GM group vice president of global manufacturing and labor relations, said in a statement. "This success is a result of our people being involved in the business like never before."
Analysts said the marked improvement in productivity is important, but is just one of many things GM needs to accomplish and continually improve as it fights to return to profitability and restore its reputation as a quality manufacturer and battles Toyota for the dominant spot in the global auto industry. Those things are all important to avoid further North American losses and job cuts at the company.
Harbour said GM's improved productivity is impressive because it came amid production cuts of about 5 percent last year and before the company fully realized the benefits of cutting its hourly workforce by 34,410 through a buyout and early retirement program. "Improving productivity in the face of lower production is a huge accomplishment, but none of the domestic manufacturers can afford to let up," Harbour said. "Toyota is not going to slow down."
Toyota took Harbour Report honors again this year for leading the six largest North American automakers in total manufacturing productivity, using 29.93 hours of labor for every vehicle produced. That was slightly higher than 29.40 hours the year earlier, which Harbour attributed to the automaker's launch of new plants and several new vehicles.
But GM plants took top honors in three Harbour categories, and its vehicle assembly productivity trailed Toyota by just 6 minutes.
"We are virtually deadlocked," said GM spokesman Dan Flores, adding that GM – like Toyota – is focused on continuous improvement.
The Oshawa, Ontario, plant that assembles the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick LaCrosse and Buick Allure led assembly plants for the most efficient productivity, with 15.68 hours per vehicle, followed closely by the adjoining Oshawa plant that produces the Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo.
GM's Spring Hill, Tenn., four-cylinder engine plant turned in the best performance of any engine plant, at 2.27 hours per engine, edging out Toyota's Buffalo, W. Va., plant by just more than 1 minute, with 2.29 hours per engine.
And GM's Toledo transmission plant took top honors, with 2.54 hours per transmission. Toyota and Honda transmissions were absent from the top transmission lists because none of the Japanese automakers had a full transmission plant at the time of the survey, Harbour said, adding that that will change.
"It's all very encouraging for GM, but it is just one aspect of making your company profitable," said auto analyst Erich Merkle of IRN Inc. in Grand Rapids. "There's the jobs bank, health care costs, legacy costs, all those issues are also weighing on General Motors. It's not enough for GM, given the position they're in, to match Toyota. They've got to beat them."
I would argue the Cobalt SS and SS/SC are more premium than any small car offered by Ford, Hyundai or Toyota in the US market.
"Premium" does not solely equal "big engine and wheels". Some people want navigation, Bluetooth, and DVD players in something smaller than a midsize. (I'm not one of them.)
We'll leave aside the fact that GM killed the supercharged Cobalt for 2008 and that Ford dropped the 2.3L for the 2008 Focus.
Yeah, actually quite of the few that are pumped as "all-new" are reskins. Nearly all the upgrades to the latest Focus are cosmetic, doesn't matter how "big" the cosmetic changes are, under the skin it's the same car.
I know it's just a manner of semantics, and probably splitting hairs, but here's how I tend to define things...
Facelift: usually just involves a minor revision to the grille and taillights. Maybe the bumper, and some interior re-jiggling. An example here might be say, a 1978 Impala versus a 1977.
Reskin: same body, but a little more involved than a facelift. Often involves changing the sheetmetal, but all the "hard points" on the car, such as door openings, position of the roof pillar, hood and trunk hinges, are mostly un-touched. An example here might be a 1980 Impala versus a 1979.
Major revision/upgrade/(some better term)/etc: this would be where they use the previous body as a starting point for the new car, but end up changing enough of it that it's a pretty safe bet that you're not going to be able to swap parts between the new version and the old version. An example here might be the 1991 Caprice versus the 1990. Totally different body, but the same frame and running gear underneath. For a unitized car, I'd use the W-body as an example. They came out in 1988 first, as the Cutlass Supreme/Grand Prix/Regal coupes. Sedan versions of these cars were added for 1990, along with the Lumina coupe/sedan. For 1995, the Lumina went through a major revision (that's when the coupe was renamed Monte Carlo). The Regal and Grand Prix went through their major revision in 1997, with the Century being added, and then the Intrigue came along kind of late in the 1988 model year, replacing the Cutlass Supreme. The Lumina/Monte Carlo were heavily revised again in 2000, with the Lumina being renamed Impala. The Grand Prix followed suit for 2004, while the Buick got its heavy revision for 2005, emerging as the LaCrosse. I dunno where I'd place the 2006 Impala, though. One one hand, it has a new, much improved interior and new engines (3.5/3.9/5.3 versus 3.4/3.8/3.8 supercharged), and it's sporting new sheetmetal, a new front and rear fascia, and even the C-pillar area looks revised. But somehow it doesn't seem as drastically changed as the 2000 Impala was compared to the Lumina. In many ways, the 2006 Impala just seems like what the car SHOULD have been in the first place when it debuted, as if Chevy finally just got around to fixing most of what was wrong with the old one.
All-new: new, from the ground-up design. I suspect that very few cars truly are "all new", as usually something gets carried over. For example, a 1977 Impala is considered "all new" compared to the mammoth 1971-76 models, but I remain convinced to this day that GM just took the 1973-77 intermediate platform and used that as its basis. Chrysler did this with their 1979 full-sized cars, simply doing a heavy revision to their 1971-78 intermediate sedans. However, looking at a 1979 New Yorker compared to a 1978 Monaco/Fury sedan, it's not obvious that they're related unless you know where to look. Now when Ford came out with the downsized LTD/Marquis for 1979, I think these WERE all-new. However, the 302 V-8 and the transmission was a carryover from previous cars.
The 3 did not have auto climate control, 5 speed auto or nav when it launched and it still doesnt have power seats. I ought to know since my brother has one. Only the top two models could even be considered "premium" and aside from HIDS it doesnt offer much that isnt on the Lancer and Civic. On most cars, especially in this price class, the top model with all the goodies will not be the volume seller. BTW, the cobalt has heated seats, I suppose you didnt know that. It also offers 17" and 18" wheels, remote start, satelite radio, name brand stereo, steering wheel controls, etc. For 2008 it is getting stability. There are quite a few features on Cobalt that arent on Civic. Few subcompacts or compacts have auto climate control. The 3 and Civic offer it, but thats about it.
As for sales, I've heard all about the limited production. There is no way to verify that but I guess we'll take Mazda's word. Seeing as though they are now advertising cheap leases my guess is demand is slackening due to the car's edge. BTW, I dont care how much demand there is for the car it wouldnt be able to match the class leaders in sales. Sure 13k units a month may create a tight supply-demand situaion for Mazda, but that doesnt mean there is infinite demand for the car and it could move 25k units a month if there was capacity. If the situation was that serious, Mazda would've found a way to get more cars over here. They havent done that because they probably know adding much more supply would mean they would have to start using incentives.
"Yeah, actually quite of the few that are pumped as "all-new" are reskins. Nearly all the upgrades to the latest Focus are cosmetic, doesn't matter how "big" the cosmetic changes are, under the skin it's the same car. "
But aside from people on here, who cares? The public sees the physical changes, they dont care about the underlying platform. To the buying public the 2008 focus will be all new. Do you honestly think someone would look at the 2008 Focus or 2008 Malibu and say "I'm not impressed because the platform is the same as before, they really didnt spend any money on this redesign"?
Like lemko said, in earlier days you were really aware when you saw a Pontiac that this was a step up.
Best decade for styling for Pontiac, or any GM brand for that matter, was the 60's. There was the Grand Prix, GTO, Firebird, Catalina, Bonneville. That's when the Pontiac brand was hot. Riviera and Toronado were very good styles, but rest of Buick and Olds models not as good as Pontiac. Pontiac was for young people and people that wanted to be young. Buick was for old people back then, just as now.
""Premium" does not solely equal "big engine and wheels". Some people want navigation, Bluetooth, and DVD players in something smaller than a midsize. (I'm not one of them.) "
Premium is more than navigation and bluetooth. BTW, I never said the Cobalt was a "premium" compact, I just said it was more premium than many other entries such as Corolla, Focus and possibly Elantra. As for Bluetooth, I dont know of many compacts other than the new Lancer that have this. The 3, civic, Lancer and Caliber (I think) have navigation but I doubt many are buying it. Elantra, Focus, Cobalt and Sentra do not have navigation. Elantra and Sentra are virtually brand new.
I do think "big engines and wheels" count for something in a small car. When a car that costs $21k delivers big boy peformance and handling that is noteworthy, especially when you consider how the average compact car handles. The SS/SC (which is being dropped) is purpose built compact that has capabilities well beyond the majority of compact cars.
If I'm not mistaken the Cobalt has Onstar which is a premium feature as far as I'm concerned.
The Mazda3 is simply a class above a Cobalt, inside and out. Yes, Cobalt can go fast with a turbo. Ever wonder how fast a turbo charged Civic Si would be? Recaro seat on Cobalt, very nice, big wheels are bling-bling, and $22K for an econo car, ridiculous. Loren
When a car that costs $21k delivers big boy peformance and handling that is noteworthy, especially when you consider how the average compact car handles.
Crappy handling is hardly limited to compacts. I will give GM their due for offering a performance engine option in the Cobalt, and two brickbats for dropping that engine and for bundling that engine with heavy, performance-harming wheels.
One of my friends bought a new 1982 Chevrolet Caprice Classic when he was in high school! He got an inheritance and promptly went to the Chevrolet dealer. This baby was a beautiful two-tone blue-green and jade metallic. My best friend had a teal blue metallic 1982 Malibu Classic. I was still puttering around in an old 1968 Buick Special Deluxe wagon.
I remember my friend getting a 1984 Celebrity as a rental to take a trip to Newark, NJ airport. Good God, that car was a piece of junk compared to either the Malibu or Caprice! It was nothing more than a Citation with a different body. Fit and finish was abominable, the doors and seats were wafer thin, and the paint had more orange peel than Sunkist's groves. Not to mention the goofy sloping dashboard with the deeply inset instruments jutting out from a thin rectangular nacelle. It was like peering through a slit to see them. Thank God saner minds saved the Caprice though it was too late for the Malibu.
Fusions are dirt common in Philly. I had one for about a week and I didn't think it was a bad car. Avengers are still kind of scarce. I think I saw a red one last week.
"Except for the Land Cruiser, the Corolla name is the oldest in Toyota's current inventory of American products." The Edmunds Generations link says the name dates back to 1966 in Japan, 1968 in the US.
Gotta disagree. I the 60's Buicks were for those who could afford them. Doctors/professionals. Now maybe these were all old people but those are the ones who bought them.
"The Mazda3 is simply a class above a Cobalt, inside and out."
Inside? That is a joke, you must not have ridden in the car. The 3's plastics are as hard as any competitor in this segment. Mazda's interiors are very similar to Pontiac's in that they are largely dark and monochromatic.
"Recaro seat on Cobalt, very nice, big wheels are bling-bling, and $22K for an econo car, ridiculous. "
That statement is ridiculous. The Si, GTI, MS3 and WRX are all performance compacts just like the SS/SC. Its not about "big wheels and bling-bling" or whatever you said. The car has performance suspension, 205hp, Pirelli tires, a limite slip and upgraded brakes. Some people (probably not accord owners) do want some sort of sportiness in their cars and obviously there is a market for "econo cars" with power and handling. I thought this was well known.
"I will give GM their due for offering a performance engine option in the Cobalt, and two brickbats for dropping that engine and for bundling that engine with heavy, performance-harming wheels."
Its kind of funny how everyone (not just GM) uses "performance harming" wheels on their sportiest cars. You dont see M3s riding on 16" rims do you?
I saw the sales numbers, the lambdas are really catching on big time. I wish Aura sales were better but Impala sales are looking very strong right now. I think the Impala will outsell the Accord in May. Buick's sales were barely down from last year in spite of only having 3 models now.
I dont know you all have seen the latest spy shots of the accord on Inside Line but I can say the Malibu and Aura are looking better and better to me.
From the side, back and front, you could identify the G6 as yet another in the Grand Am line. There was an older Grand Prix GTP, say a decade ago, which had a nice look to it. And of course the Firebird was hot looking, though the ones with the inverted snow scoop on the hood were a bit over the top -- still overall nice looking cars. Pontiac has had some good looking cars over the years. Loren
first of all the size of the wheel doesnt always dictate its weight relative to a smaller wheel. Wheel design and material makes a difference. The 19s on a Ferrari or Vette are likely lighter than some 16" or 17" wheels with less sporty designs. Steel wheels are heavier than aluminum so a cobalt with 15" steel wheels is likely at a disadvantage compared to the a model with 16" or even 17" alloys. Since you know a lot about physics this should make sense to you. The other benefit of larger wheels is that they allow for larger brakes (cant fit performance discs on a corolla or Fit) and they allow for shorter tire sidewalls which is important with high peformance tires. Large wheels are not strictly for show, but they do help a car's looks. I suggest you buy a muscle car or any car from the 80s if you really love vehicles with 14" wheels and 75 series rubber.
Interesting. Anyone have the retail customer sales of the Impala vs. Accord vs. Camry vs. Altima. Does the local dealer in your neck of the woods, have one, two, three, or is it a half dozen Impalas on the lot? One of the best selling cars in America should have a dozen or more on every lot, one would think. I see a lot of Saturn Auras on the lot.
Around the time of the great sale, was that two years ago, cars started to magically appear once again on the lots of GM. Before it was 90% SUV and trucks. Car sales year over year for the last three years should be going up. There was nearly zero attempt to sell cars, at least where I live, for what must have been more than a decade. Dealerships made the money on the SUV and trucks. They would stock perhaps one Monte Carlo, to three, depending of customers of that area, then stock one or two Impalas, and perhaps one or two Cavaliers / Cobalts. Pontiac/Buick dealers which also had the GMC line stocked mainly those vehicles. Grand Prixs and Grand Ams on the lots were usually rental returns. So comparing today, with the CARS on the lots, we should have triple or more sales than say four to five years ago. Is this happening? Loren
We all know the Altima is sold to fleets at a higher clip than Accord and Camry. Nissan racked up about 23k Altima sales vs 35k Impala sales. The Accord has been around 30k a month recently so barring a huge jump I doubt it will beat the Impala. It would be something if the Impala is able to unseat accord as #2 this year. Even fleet sales arent enought o explain the gap between Impala and Altima at this point.
Sonata sales are way down even though the car is only 2 years old and I believe the G6 outsold it last month. Sonata sold 12,147 in May. Interesting considering its fleet penetration. I havent seen Fusion #'s yet but it may have outsold the Sonata as well.
I never looked at the 60's Buicks (or Oldsmobiles) as old people cars. They catered to a more mature clientele than Pontiacs and Chevies, by and large, but I never took that to mean they were geezer cars.
A lot of teens and twenty-somethings that were driving around in Mustangs and GTOs probably associated them as a parent-mobile. But that's a far cry from a grandparent-mobile or great-grandparent-mobile!
Even in the 80's, I thought Buick did a pretty good job of catering to all clienteles. They had some cars that served multiple purposes, like the Regal coupe. You could get a stripper Regal if you didn't have a lot of money. If you liked wire wheels and a vinyl roof, you could order it that way. If you wanted cushy luxury you could get the Limited model. If you wanted to embarrass many much more expensive, exotic sportscars in the 0-60 and quarter-mile, you bought a Grand National.
Buick, to me at least, started getting kind of dowdy with the 1988 Regal coupe. And whenever the Century went through that restyle that gave it flush headlights and a Regal-esque nose (1989?), I think it got kind of aged-looking. I think the 92 LeSabre was kind of fuddy-duddy looking too (sorry, Imidazol97, if you're out there listening. :P ) The '91 Park Ave turned out pretty nice though, I thought. As did the '95 Riv. Ditto the '97 Park Ave. I thought the '97 Regal and Century were nice looking cars at first, but by this time, it WAS mainly older people buying them (or rental fleets). The LeSabre was a major improvement for 2000, but again, by this time, it was a favorite of the AARP crowd.
I remember seeing some stats on the average owner age of various Buick models. This was around 2003 I believe. I think the Rendevzous had the lowest average, of around 44-48. Next was the Regal, at 57 (My Dad was 57 when he bought his Regal, and I teased him that he was just now old enough to buy a Buick!) I think the LeSabre was around 67, while the Century and Park Ave were tied for 70.
Has the average age come down much with the LaCrosse and Lucerne?
no, Aura isnt associated with anything. People dont know what it is. I have seen plenty but that could be we have 3 Saturn dealers within 25 miles of one another. Lack of name recognition is a problem for this car. People that read about cars know about it, but we are a small part of the populace. The G6 started off slow as well so perhaps the best days are ahead for Aura.
Have you ever test driven one? It is not a bad car, but that is the problem. It seems to some things as well as the competition, not much of anything notable as better, while some things are simply not as good. Like the handling, as an example of medium. It feels OK, then you hit the rough road and it can not handle it like the class leading cars. The steering is not bad, but once again is not feeling as good. The seats are not the worlds worse, but not so hot. The power is OK, but the gas mileage is average to worse. It is like the whole car is 80% to 85% at the most as good as the rest. The interior is a bit bland, but looks like it is put together OK. The car did well in the rear end collision tests for neck injury and overall seems safe enough, and offers the stability control. So, if you want an 80% car, you look at the pricing and it seems discounted, only to find out that the total price of say a discounted Aura, Accord, or Altima, is not all that far off, considering the resale value. Other brands have more dealerships, should you need repairs. Anyway, there are other issues. Hyundai has the best warranty in America, but they are just not there yet in other ways. Loren
Yeah, I really think the ads for the Aura are going to have to scream SATURN Aura!! This car deserves better than it is getting right now.
60s Buicks were great - a full line. I think Andre has the aging of the line pretty well.
My thought is that they didn't do anything with the Lacrosse or the Lucerne to bring in more than their core audience which is a shame. They seem very nice cars. The Enclave should help a lot - nicest looking of the batch....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Oh come on now, just go out and ask some people who sold a car named Aura. I bet ya they say Olds.
It is all guess, of course, but I would say the Malibu comes out the winner, followed by the Aura, and the G6 goes into early retirement, at the " First Ever " GM retirement home for less fortunate Pontiacs.
Aura gets a playmate in the Astra. The Ion replacement sparks a bit of interest and more people shop Saturn for cars again, is my predicition. Aura sales steady or go up slightly. New Malibu sales top the rest of those in the family. I think Altima, if a 6 sp. automatic replaced the CVT would rise in sales. The 2008 Accord should sell well, and the Camry will just keep moving forward. Loren
The 3 did not have auto climate control, 5 speed auto or nav when it launched and it still doesnt have power seats.
BZZT! Sorry, you don't win the toaster! The Mazda3 came with optional NAV when it was first introduced. Also had automatic climate control in markets other than the US...I think they saved that for an additional feature in later years to keep the car current, not sure. Granted on the 5 speed auto and power seats.
I own a Mazda3 also...got one of the first ones, as a matter of fact. Also had optional Xenons and TPMS when it was first introduced in 2003 as a 2004 model.
As for limited production, why not count the number of factories worldwide cranking out the model? it's quite possible that they could move 25k units a month...not definite, but possible. They're also very popular on the used car market, provided you can get an owner to part with one.
And they can't get more cars over here because the high demand is WORLDWIDE. To bring more of them here they'd have to leave another market short, and all the other markets around the world are moving them at a brisk clip too. Very popular car, home run for Mazda.
Few subcompacts or compacts have auto climate control. The 3 and Civic offer it, but thats about it.
Mazda3, Honda Civic, Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Aerio, and Subaru Impreza, just off the top of my head, all offer automatic climate control. Not quite a widespread feature yet, true. Then again, the 3 compacts listed there happen to be 3 of the most highly rated and highly desirable compacts around (The Subie primarily here in the snow belt, but still). If all of them can do it, why can't GM?
Its kind of funny how everyone (not just GM) uses "performance harming" wheels on their sportiest cars.
It would be faster if it did. Lower mass, lower radial velocity, lighter tires. Big wheels sell to people enamored of glitz and ignorant of physics.
Perhaps correct for speed but for handling wrong. I will not get into it but the overall diameter between a 16" and a 18" on the same car properly designed is the same and most likely the tire patch width could be the same. So the real difference is sidewall height and that makes all the world in handling. If the suspension is properely set up and the road conditions are normal the shorter sidewall will stick better.
Around the time of the great sale, was that two years ago, cars started to magically appear once again on the lots of GM. Before it was 90% SUV and trucks. Car sales year over year for the last three years should be going up. There was nearly zero attempt to sell cars, at least where I live,
As you said, where you live. One issue with these newgangled internet talkie thingies is that most think what they see is reality. Your reality is not the same for everyone else.
Ya know, I was so cheap when I ordered a Starfire back in 1976, I did not even get air conditioning. It did have automatic climate control however. It was hot in the summer and cold in the winter. :shades: Loren
Saturn has probably the most potential of any GM brand other than Caddy right now. The problem is getting people into dealerships, because shopping purely on MSRP, Saturns are somewhat expensive (and there's no negotiation happening there). They might want to consider dropping their prices a touch for about a year to get more bodies into dealerships. Get people to drive the "New Saturn" and let word spread. There's a few people around with not-so-fond memories of Saturn's older vehicles (My father had one...I'd pretty much have to hold a gun to his head to get him to look at them again).
It usually tends to be a balancing act: there's trade-offs either way. Larger wheels add weight but help handling, so it really depends on what the priority is.
Now, chromed wheels on the other hand....pure freaking bling, don't get me started.
They seem to sell domestic cars in the middle states. We did see some when on vacation trip to as far east as Iowa trip. The thing is the amount of cars sold in California between San Diego and San Fransisco, must make up a huge amount of sales for USA. And right or wrong, what happens here seems to creep across the country. Yea, I know what you are thinking, judging by the nuts we elect to office. Maybe it is a warning to look out! :surprise: Around here they sell a few Impalas, but most on the road are rentals, or company cars of some sort. You can tell the guys in suits driving them and the briefcase full of good stuff they sell laying on the seat next to them. Around here those wearing suits are business salespeople and Mormons coming to visit with you and save your life, I guess it is. Oops, forgetting the Jehovah Witness. Loren
Comments
Then there's the "all-new" phrase which everyone uses to describe anything from a reskin to a redesign to a brand new platform. Which is what makes things confusing.
Fusions are about as rare as the G6, and the NF Sonata is just slightly more common (having been out longer).
Check the sales vs the cheaper Civic, Cobalt and corolla. The 3 is not a big volume car, at least not for its class. The corolla is the best selling compact and it offer no fancy features, Autobahn honed performance and its cheap.
" Now that GM has the Aveo to slot in below, for bargain-basement shoppers, it's certainly an option to content-up the Cobalt and increase the price. Small car interest has gone way up when gas prices did the same. How well has the CTS sold? Not exactly a large vehicle there. I'm thinking sales of the Astra will show what I'm talking about if they keep most of the features intact. "
The Cobalt SS/SC costs about $22k and offered class leading performance, Recaro seats, big wheels, performance tires, etc. It isnt exactly a stripper compact car. Not every Cobalt is a base model with 145hp and wheel covers. I would argue the Cobalt SS and SS/SC are more premium than any small car offered by Ford, Hyundai or Toyota in the US market.
The Astra is going to be pricey and its going to be a niche player. GM is importing 40k cars in 2008 which isnt squat. The cobalt does that in 3 months.
I am starting to see Avengers as well. Bet you havent seen one yet.
I thought the 2008 Malibu WAS a new chassis? At least, my understanding, is that the Saturn Aura is the latest iteration of the current, outgoing midsized platform (Epsilon or Vectra or whatever they call it, I can't keep up anymore), while the 2008 Malibu is going to be the first interation of the all-new midsize platform? However, the Malibu's engines are carry-over, I believe.
New malibu gets 2.4L version of the 2.2L ecotec with VVT added just like the G6. The V6 is the DOHC V6 used in other GM cars on this platform and CTS.
That's limited by PRODUCTION, not sales. Mazda literally can't make any more of them; they don't have the production capacity. They sell close to 100% of them, and do so fairly quickly.
The Cobalt SS/SC costs about $22k and offered class leading performance, Recaro seats, big wheels, performance tires, etc. It isnt exactly a stripper compact car. Not every Cobalt is a base model with 145hp and wheel covers. I would argue the Cobalt SS and SS/SC are more premium than any small car offered by Ford, Hyundai or Toyota in the US market.
That's not premium, that's performance. Big difference. Where are the power seats, nav system, automatic climate control, bluetooth, and other such features? How about LED taillights? At least it has a leather option, but how about heating them? SUBCOMPACTS get Bluetooth and auto climate control these days, and many other compacts offer a nav system.
Toyota logged 22.05 hours of plant labor per vehicle assembled, while GM reported 22.15 hours, a difference of one-tenth of an hour, or just 6 minutes per vehicle.
"General Motors essentially caught Toyota in vehicle assembly productivity," consultancy President Ron Harbour said.
The results come at a turbulent time for Detroit's signature industry and at an interesting crossroads in the GM-Toyota relationship that hinges on their manufacturing partnership in California, among other projects.
Toyota seized the global sales title from GM in the first three months of the year. But at the same time, GM is working to leapfrog Toyota's fuel-efficient hybrid technology with its Volt series hybrid and fuel-cell concepts.
And now GM is nipping at Toyota's heels in vehicle assembly – long a key to Toyota's success.
Among Detroit automakers, GM had the most productive assembly plants in the Harbour Report, and scored best overall, including in stamping parts and building engines and transmissions.
The results come as GM and other Detroit automakers prepare to begin formal contract negotiations with the UAW.
Automakers' plant-floor efficiency has direct effects on bottom-line profits and allows automakers to charge consumers less or put more content, such as air bags or electronics, into vehicles.
GM said its latest Harbour Report results tell a story of its continuing improvement, with GM closing the productivity gap with Toyota by nearly 85 percent since 1998 and capturing bragging rights as the first automaker to have its plants capture top productivity honors in three of Harbour's four award categories. GM won in vehicle assembly, engine-making and transmission manufacturing. It did not win in stamping.
"GM's leadership in three of the four manufacturing categories demonstrates we are transforming the company for sustainable, long-term success," Gary Cowger, GM group vice president of global manufacturing and labor relations, said in a statement. "This success is a result of our people being involved in the business like never before."
Analysts said the marked improvement in productivity is important, but is just one of many things GM needs to accomplish and continually improve as it fights to return to profitability and restore its reputation as a quality manufacturer and battles Toyota for the dominant spot in the global auto industry. Those things are all important to avoid further North American losses and job cuts at the company.
Harbour said GM's improved productivity is impressive because it came amid production cuts of about 5 percent last year and before the company fully realized the benefits of cutting its hourly workforce by 34,410 through a buyout and early retirement program.
"Improving productivity in the face of lower production is a huge accomplishment, but none of the domestic manufacturers can afford to let up," Harbour said. "Toyota is not going to slow down."
Toyota took Harbour Report honors again this year for leading the six largest North American automakers in total manufacturing productivity, using 29.93 hours of labor for every vehicle produced. That was slightly higher than 29.40 hours the year earlier, which Harbour attributed to the automaker's launch of new plants and several new vehicles.
But GM plants took top honors in three Harbour categories, and its vehicle assembly productivity trailed Toyota by just 6 minutes.
"We are virtually deadlocked," said GM spokesman Dan Flores, adding that GM – like Toyota – is focused on continuous improvement.
The Oshawa, Ontario, plant that assembles the Pontiac Grand Prix, Buick LaCrosse and Buick Allure led assembly plants for the most efficient productivity, with 15.68 hours per vehicle, followed closely by the adjoining Oshawa plant that produces the Chevrolet Impala and Monte Carlo.
GM's Spring Hill, Tenn., four-cylinder engine plant turned in the best performance of any engine plant, at 2.27 hours per engine, edging out Toyota's Buffalo, W. Va., plant by just more than 1 minute, with 2.29 hours per engine.
And GM's Toledo transmission plant took top honors, with 2.54 hours per transmission. Toyota and Honda transmissions were absent from the top transmission lists because none of the Japanese automakers had a full transmission plant at the time of the survey, Harbour said, adding that that will change.
"It's all very encouraging for GM, but it is just one aspect of making your company profitable," said auto analyst Erich Merkle of IRN Inc. in Grand Rapids. "There's the jobs bank, health care costs, legacy costs, all those issues are also weighing on General Motors. It's not enough for GM, given the position they're in, to match Toyota. They've got to beat them."
"Premium" does not solely equal "big engine and wheels". Some people want navigation, Bluetooth, and DVD players in something smaller than a midsize. (I'm not one of them.)
We'll leave aside the fact that GM killed the supercharged Cobalt for 2008 and that Ford dropped the 2.3L for the 2008 Focus.
Facelift: usually just involves a minor revision to the grille and taillights. Maybe the bumper, and some interior re-jiggling. An example here might be say, a 1978 Impala versus a 1977.
Reskin: same body, but a little more involved than a facelift. Often involves changing the sheetmetal, but all the "hard points" on the car, such as door openings, position of the roof pillar, hood and trunk hinges, are mostly un-touched. An example here might be a 1980 Impala versus a 1979.
Major revision/upgrade/(some better term)/etc: this would be where they use the previous body as a starting point for the new car, but end up changing enough of it that it's a pretty safe bet that you're not going to be able to swap parts between the new version and the old version. An example here might be the 1991 Caprice versus the 1990. Totally different body, but the same frame and running gear underneath. For a unitized car, I'd use the W-body as an example. They came out in 1988 first, as the Cutlass Supreme/Grand Prix/Regal coupes. Sedan versions of these cars were added for 1990, along with the Lumina coupe/sedan. For 1995, the Lumina went through a major revision (that's when the coupe was renamed Monte Carlo). The Regal and Grand Prix went through their major revision in 1997, with the Century being added, and then the Intrigue came along kind of late in the 1988 model year, replacing the Cutlass Supreme. The Lumina/Monte Carlo were heavily revised again in 2000, with the Lumina being renamed Impala. The Grand Prix followed suit for 2004, while the Buick got its heavy revision for 2005, emerging as the LaCrosse. I dunno where I'd place the 2006 Impala, though. One one hand, it has a new, much improved interior and new engines (3.5/3.9/5.3 versus 3.4/3.8/3.8 supercharged), and it's sporting new sheetmetal, a new front and rear fascia, and even the C-pillar area looks revised. But somehow it doesn't seem as drastically changed as the 2000 Impala was compared to the Lumina. In many ways, the 2006 Impala just seems like what the car SHOULD have been in the first place when it debuted, as if Chevy finally just got around to fixing most of what was wrong with the old one.
All-new: new, from the ground-up design. I suspect that very few cars truly are "all new", as usually something gets carried over. For example, a 1977 Impala is considered "all new" compared to the mammoth 1971-76 models, but I remain convinced to this day that GM just took the 1973-77 intermediate platform and used that as its basis. Chrysler did this with their 1979 full-sized cars, simply doing a heavy revision to their 1971-78 intermediate sedans. However, looking at a 1979 New Yorker compared to a 1978 Monaco/Fury sedan, it's not obvious that they're related unless you know where to look. Now when Ford came out with the downsized LTD/Marquis for 1979, I think these WERE all-new. However, the 302 V-8 and the transmission was a carryover from previous cars.
As for sales, I've heard all about the limited production. There is no way to verify that but I guess we'll take Mazda's word. Seeing as though they are now advertising cheap leases my guess is demand is slackening due to the car's edge. BTW, I dont care how much demand there is for the car it wouldnt be able to match the class leaders in sales. Sure 13k units a month may create a tight supply-demand situaion for Mazda, but that doesnt mean there is infinite demand for the car and it could move 25k units a month if there was capacity. If the situation was that serious, Mazda would've found a way to get more cars over here. They havent done that because they probably know adding much more supply would mean they would have to start using incentives.
But aside from people on here, who cares? The public sees the physical changes, they dont care about the underlying platform. To the buying public the 2008 focus will be all new. Do you honestly think someone would look at the 2008 Focus or 2008 Malibu and say "I'm not impressed because the platform is the same as before, they really didnt spend any money on this redesign"?
Best decade for styling for Pontiac, or any GM brand for that matter, was the 60's. There was the Grand Prix, GTO, Firebird, Catalina, Bonneville. That's when the Pontiac brand was hot. Riviera and Toronado were very good styles, but rest of Buick and Olds models not as good as Pontiac. Pontiac was for young people and people that wanted to be young. Buick was for old people back then, just as now.
Premium is more than navigation and bluetooth. BTW, I never said the Cobalt was a "premium" compact, I just said it was more premium than many other entries such as Corolla, Focus and possibly Elantra. As for Bluetooth, I dont know of many compacts other than the new Lancer that have this. The 3, civic, Lancer and Caliber (I think) have navigation but I doubt many are buying it. Elantra, Focus, Cobalt and Sentra do not have navigation. Elantra and Sentra are virtually brand new.
I do think "big engines and wheels" count for something in a small car. When a car that costs $21k delivers big boy peformance and handling that is noteworthy, especially when you consider how the average compact car handles. The SS/SC (which is being dropped) is purpose built compact that has capabilities well beyond the majority of compact cars.
If I'm not mistaken the Cobalt has Onstar which is a premium feature as far as I'm concerned.
Loren
Crappy handling is hardly limited to compacts. I will give GM their due for offering a performance engine option in the Cobalt, and two brickbats for dropping that engine and for bundling that engine with heavy, performance-harming wheels.
I remember my friend getting a 1984 Celebrity as a rental to take a trip to Newark, NJ airport. Good God, that car was a piece of junk compared to either the Malibu or Caprice! It was nothing more than a Citation with a different body. Fit and finish was abominable, the doors and seats were wafer thin, and the paint had more orange peel than Sunkist's groves. Not to mention the goofy sloping dashboard with the deeply inset instruments jutting out from a thin rectangular nacelle. It was like peering through a slit to see them. Thank God saner minds saved the Caprice though it was too late for the Malibu.
The Suburban dates back to 1936. (link)
Here's a '46:
I think the first EPS II here will be the LaCrosse or Saab.
Gotta disagree. I the 60's Buicks were for those who could afford them. Doctors/professionals. Now maybe these were all old people but those are the ones who bought them.
Inside? That is a joke, you must not have ridden in the car. The 3's plastics are as hard as any competitor in this segment. Mazda's interiors are very similar to Pontiac's in that they are largely dark and monochromatic.
"Recaro seat on Cobalt, very nice, big wheels are bling-bling, and $22K for an econo car, ridiculous. "
That statement is ridiculous. The Si, GTI, MS3 and WRX are all performance compacts just like the SS/SC. Its not about "big wheels and bling-bling" or whatever you said. The car has performance suspension, 205hp, Pirelli tires, a limite slip and upgraded brakes. Some people (probably not accord owners) do want some sort of sportiness in their cars and obviously there is a market for "econo cars" with power and handling. I thought this was well known.
Its kind of funny how everyone (not just GM) uses "performance harming" wheels on their sportiest cars. You dont see M3s riding on 16" rims do you?
I dont know you all have seen the latest spy shots of the accord on Inside Line but I can say the Malibu and Aura are looking better and better to me.
Loren
Loren
they have to start advertising and of course the new Sky/Outlook will bring in more buyers and help.
It would be faster if it did.
Around the time of the great sale, was that two years ago, cars started to magically appear once again on the lots of GM. Before it was 90% SUV and trucks. Car sales year over year for the last three years should be going up. There was nearly zero attempt to sell cars, at least where I live, for what must have been more than a decade. Dealerships made the money on the SUV and trucks. They would stock perhaps one Monte Carlo, to three, depending of customers of that area, then stock one or two Impalas, and perhaps one or two Cavaliers / Cobalts. Pontiac/Buick dealers which also had the GMC line stocked mainly those vehicles. Grand Prixs and Grand Ams on the lots were usually rental returns. So comparing today, with the CARS on the lots, we should have triple or more sales than say four to five years ago. Is this happening?
Loren
Loren
A lot of teens and twenty-somethings that were driving around in Mustangs and GTOs probably associated them as a parent-mobile. But that's a far cry from a grandparent-mobile or great-grandparent-mobile!
Even in the 80's, I thought Buick did a pretty good job of catering to all clienteles. They had some cars that served multiple purposes, like the Regal coupe. You could get a stripper Regal if you didn't have a lot of money. If you liked wire wheels and a vinyl roof, you could order it that way. If you wanted cushy luxury you could get the Limited model. If you wanted to embarrass many much more expensive, exotic sportscars in the 0-60 and quarter-mile, you bought a Grand National.
Buick, to me at least, started getting kind of dowdy with the 1988 Regal coupe. And whenever the Century went through that restyle that gave it flush headlights and a Regal-esque nose (1989?), I think it got kind of aged-looking. I think the 92 LeSabre was kind of fuddy-duddy looking too (sorry, Imidazol97, if you're out there listening. :P ) The '91 Park Ave turned out pretty nice though, I thought. As did the '95 Riv. Ditto the '97 Park Ave. I thought the '97 Regal and Century were nice looking cars at first, but by this time, it WAS mainly older people buying them (or rental fleets). The LeSabre was a major improvement for 2000, but again, by this time, it was a favorite of the AARP crowd.
I remember seeing some stats on the average owner age of various Buick models. This was around 2003 I believe. I think the Rendevzous had the lowest average, of around 44-48. Next was the Regal, at 57 (My Dad was 57 when he bought his Regal, and I teased him that he was just now old enough to buy a Buick!) I think the LeSabre was around 67, while the Century and Park Ave were tied for 70.
Has the average age come down much with the LaCrosse and Lucerne?
It is like the whole car is 80% to 85% at the most as good as the rest. The interior is a bit bland, but looks like it is put together OK. The car did well in the rear end collision tests for neck injury and overall seems safe enough, and offers the stability control. So, if you want an 80% car, you look at the pricing and it seems discounted, only to find out that the total price of say a discounted Aura, Accord, or Altima, is not all that far off, considering the resale value. Other brands have more dealerships, should you need repairs.
Anyway, there are other issues. Hyundai has the best warranty in America, but they are just not there yet in other ways.
Loren
60s Buicks were great - a full line. I think Andre has the aging of the line pretty well.
My thought is that they didn't do anything with the Lacrosse or the Lucerne to bring in more than their core audience which is a shame. They seem very nice cars. The Enclave should help a lot - nicest looking of the batch....
It is all guess, of course, but I would say the Malibu comes out the winner, followed by the Aura, and the G6 goes into early retirement, at the " First Ever " GM retirement home for less fortunate Pontiacs.
Aura gets a playmate in the Astra. The Ion replacement sparks a bit of interest and more people shop Saturn for cars again, is my predicition. Aura sales steady or go up slightly. New Malibu sales top the rest of those in the family. I think Altima, if a 6 sp. automatic replaced the CVT would rise in sales. The 2008 Accord should sell well, and the Camry will just keep moving forward.
Loren
BZZT! Sorry, you don't win the toaster! The Mazda3 came with optional NAV when it was first introduced. Also had automatic climate control in markets other than the US...I think they saved that for an additional feature in later years to keep the car current, not sure. Granted on the 5 speed auto and power seats.
I own a Mazda3 also...got one of the first ones, as a matter of fact.
As for limited production, why not count the number of factories worldwide cranking out the model? it's quite possible that they could move 25k units a month...not definite, but possible. They're also very popular on the used car market, provided you can get an owner to part with one.
And they can't get more cars over here because the high demand is WORLDWIDE. To bring more of them here they'd have to leave another market short, and all the other markets around the world are moving them at a brisk clip too. Very popular car, home run for Mazda.
Few subcompacts or compacts have auto climate control. The 3 and Civic offer it, but thats about it.
Mazda3, Honda Civic, Suzuki SX4, Suzuki Aerio, and Subaru Impreza, just off the top of my head, all offer automatic climate control. Not quite a widespread feature yet, true. Then again, the 3 compacts listed there happen to be 3 of the most highly rated and highly desirable compacts around (The Subie primarily here in the snow belt, but still). If all of them can do it, why can't GM?
It would be faster if it did. Lower mass, lower radial velocity, lighter tires. Big wheels sell to people enamored of glitz and ignorant of physics.
Perhaps correct for speed but for handling wrong. I will not get into it but the overall diameter between a 16" and a 18" on the same car properly designed is the same and most likely the tire patch width could be the same. So the real difference is sidewall height and that makes all the world in handling. If the suspension is properely set up and the road conditions are normal the shorter sidewall will stick better.
As you said, where you live. One issue with these newgangled internet talkie thingies is that most think what they see is reality. Your reality is not the same for everyone else.
:shades:
Loren
Now, chromed wheels on the other hand....pure freaking bling, don't get me started.
Loren
Why would you ever assume this?