Why would you need a turbo on a car designed for taking corners on country roads? If you can't drive fast with HP on hand, 75 to 100HP ain't gonna help when driving the back roads. If you are talking track car, I would assume you will find many more people interested in a Miata as a track car. Where are they putting the roll bars on those Solstice, BTW? Can it be done without major surgery? And the street versions, with no roll safety device = take your chances my friend. Once they add to and redesign the Solstice, I think it has real potetial. Nice looking, if nothing else.
Interesting side note: Five-speed manual gearbox is the same as the: Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon.
Is the Solstice outselling the Miata? Good question. The local dealer had two in stock -- both overpriced. Suppose to be something special about both of them. One was like $27K and the other $30K though they wanted a side sticker of $6K on top of that. But then again, they wanted that for the GTO too. That 30K had a turbo charger -- whoopee! Not like you can't go out a turbo charge about any car. If it has turbo lag, it could make for interesting handling coming off the apex, no doubt. Never had a turbo. Can you keep them spooled up while in a turn so that the power doesn't surge coming out at an opportune moment? The power aspect is interesting to a degree, but it is not about raw power with sporting cars like these. They will never be a Corvette or Mustang with a V8. Different cars, all fun in their own ways. Loren
" Honda/Toyota management culture and philosophy has been engineering excellence and constant improvement over the decades, while GM was more intent on bean counting and marketing over the same time frame. GM should have gotten religion a long time ago, perhaps back in early 80's when Honda and Toyota were starting to have better product than GM. "
Spoken like a true Toyota fan. Sounds good but GM (and others) did start adopting Japanese methods (which are really American) for quality control and manufacturing in the 80s. This is why the productivity gap has closed today.
I just want to know how you can explain that none of Toyota's recent quality issues have shown up in CR's rankings. I looked at the recent car issue and the camry came through with flying colors, no transmission or other issues to report.
go to truedelta.com to read some of the issues with the way CR collects data. its quite flawed.
"Look at chart of reliablility of 5 year old cars in April Consumer Report to see where GM is vs Honda/Toyota. "
I dont doubt it when you consider CR dogs almost every GM model they test and even the GM models that get decent reliability are often not endorsed due to road test scores. Look at JD power 3 year results and compare. A lot of the results do not match up and domestic brands do much better in the JD power random survey than the CR survey which is sent to the same people every year.
So I guess the 3.6, 6spd auto isn't making it to the other two then it seems. Then yeah, you're right. the Saturn is a more viable option to the others.
Well then, as you read, there must not have been too many issues, as in head count, of people having a transmission problem with a Toyota. If the numbers, as you say are incorrect, one can only assume all the data to be incorrect, and thus you must go by your instinct. Oh no, that would rely on previous experiences with your past automobiles. Let's no go there.
If GM was making changes in the 80's it wasn't much. I would say perhaps this decade things are looking up almost across the line. And in the 90's a few cars were acceptable for reliability, with some also being desirable to drive. I was told at the dealership time and time again, we are closing the gap on reliability, or we are getting there, or now have like product as the Japanese, only to find out it was but empty words of assurance. Actually, after a century of building cars, shouldn't it now be that GM is far superior to those other makes. The old practice makes perfect. Who wants almost as good, or now we may have something as good. Sound like the confidence level isn't quite there yet. How about works like most desirable, value packed, stylish, excelling in handling and/or ride, longest lasting new car feel, and well the relentless pursuit of perfection? Not some, well now we copy what Toyota does with our manufacturing process. As far as who builds more cars, that is only yet another statistic. Toyota vs. GM, yet another group of statistics, not doing a lot for the buyer, other than keeping the two on their toes for satisfying the customer. To that end, it is good. Personally, it is car which should speak volumes about the company. This is Honda's philosophy. Of course this is an over simplification, as so many a factor there is to judging a corporation, but it is important. Let the product speak up! Saturn was not looking down and out, while never being profitable due to dealerships not trying. They even had loyal customers. What was needed was the product. More product arriving soon, as Saturn people are smiling. :shades: Now let's hope the Saturn product proves to exceed expectations on reliability, as the past was not so stellar. Loren
I agree that G.M. has higher incentives, but I think in some cases it may be for pride. Over the memorial day weekend they were offering 1000 cash on the silverado, and 0 percent financing on the Impala. Both of these Vehicles don't need incentives to sell. I think in this case they wanted to push the Silverado sales past the f-150 and the Impala past the Accord.
I agree 100% with the fact that Consumer reports always diggs on G.M. Cars. I have had several G.m cars in the past and the ratings were worse than average. My 2000 Grand Am was supposed to be much worse than average, drove it for 4 years and 97,000 mile before I had any mechanical problems. Also My 2005 Denali is supposed to be worse than average. After 2 years and 45,000 miles hasn't been to the dealership except for oil changes. (in between I had a 2005 CTS for 8 months no problems but didn't have it long enough
Compare the looks of the Miata and the looks of the Solstace. The Solstace looks a lot more aggresive and is 10 times better looking than the Miata. Also I know it has only been around 1 year but it has the highest resale value in its class
It's just terrible the way those foreign cars have no problems. CR has it right. All the US brand cars should just quit production now. Everyone should drive Camrys and Accords, whatever those names mean.
Everyone knows GM cars just don't last. Never have; never will.
Would a 1993 Toyota 4runner do? My son is still driving it till the fenders all fall off. Them there Toyoters do Ok in So Calififorny. Not much good under snow conditions.:) He knew he should get a Chevy but you know how kids are swayed by TV ads and CR.
Sorry, I have no good photos of an '86 vintage Accord which I could find for ya. Hard to top that image of the Cadillac Cimarron Cavalier, Bimmer Slayer. Just no way to top that one! Loren
Snow is an evil thing no doubt. The truck is 14 years old now - time to update, upgrade. They'll take that in for trade on a new Tacoma. May want to sand the fenders and paint it first. Loren
20%? Maybe in the U.S.A....in Canada we keep our cars a lot longer. I for one am now on my third in a 23 year span. The long term reliability (particularly beyond the warranty period) means a lot to me. Initial quality means little.
That is what someone did before they sold it to my son in 2004. They used bondo and repainted it. I am sure it had rusted through years before he bought it. In Alaska where they use a lot of salt you see rusted out vehicles a lot.
Alaska roads I would think would be dangerous in a lower profile vehicle. I think with moose crossing roads a full sized, Chevy/GMC or other truck in a 4x4 with metal bars up front sounds about right. Yeap, Alaska is/was not a place for the Toyota truck, IMHO. Well unless it was just driven around town. I take some places are not connected to the highway? Too cold a place for this kid. Loren
You see every vehicle up there that you see in the Lower 48. And a few one offs.
People do garage their Corvettes and Camaros for the winter.
Dodging moose is mostly an issue on the highways, and I didn't have to commute on those roads (the little '82 Tercel I drove for ~17 years in Anchorage could have scooted under most of them!). The annual moose road kill toll is around 700-800.
Tell that to my prairie farmer Father-in-law and all his farmer friends and relatives. Their best friend is their pick-up truck. GMC, Dodge, Ford. These are their work horses, well maintained, reliable, durable. They absolutely need to be. Consumer Reports? JD who? I can barely wait to drive out there in my new Nissan Frontier. That'll be a topic of conversation. Nissan??? Just another perspective.
Who did you work for in Anchorage? Moose kills were common. Many times to both the moose and those in the vehicle. 37 years in Alaska and never a close call with a moose. I drove slow on ice and gave Moose & Caribou a wide berth.
A GM truck is my choice for staying safe around big game. I did hit a deer in Sun Valley with my 1993 Chevy 3/4 ton 4x4. Couldn't drive it so I traded it in on a new Suburban in Hailey.
I don't think they would make much difference with a moose. They will disable all but the heaviest of trucks. I could not believe the damage a deer could do to a 3/4 ton truck. We were not hurt at all. Killed the big buck.
I will say one thing about GM trucks. They used to be pretty tough. I think they have lightened them the last few years to get a bit better mileage. I would rather have the heavy metal and buy a little more gas.
Unless you have a 4" or bigger lift and big tires on your rig, the moose you hit broadside is likely to come through the windshield and dump right into your lap. There's a famous (pre-internet) photo of a moose almost completely inside a full size van somewhere out there with little sheet metal damage visible below the windscreen.
I haven't looked for stats, but most people seem to clip the front leg of the moose, smashing up the car and killing the moose in the process.
If you hit a deer or a pig with bull bars installed, you may save yourself some body work, but the loss of the crumple zone may cost you more in medical expenses. Paisan liked them a lot in Manhattan for help with parking. :shades:
would be interesting to see how good of fuel economy a Astra, would get ?
GM likes putting its 2.2/2.4 liter ECOTEC into every small car application that it can. And, since the current vehicle emphasis is on POWER, I'd be moderately surprised if the car breaks 24 mpg in mixed driving.
Can't find the shot (as usual - I look for it every year or so). Here's a bad one of a moose in a small car; maybe some bull bars would help with a pickup. Glad I'm not having to dodge them (or deer) on the road!
One went through a little Subaru on Eagle River road when I lived up the valley. Killed two teenagers. Broad daylight coming down the hill too fast. That was a mess. Don't you get a lot of deer where you are in Idaho?
We get a few mule deer (they come to the pond next door and accasionally nibble our roses and apple trees), but they aren't very common. They stay up in the foothills. You never see mile after mile of gut piles on the shoulder like you do every 500 feet driving around, say, Pennsylvania.
Is the Solstice outselling the Miata? Good question. The local dealer had two in stock -- both overpriced. Suppose to be something special about both of them. 2006 Solstice..19,710 Sky.........8671 Miata.......0 MX-5......16,897
FYI – The IQS study is just one of many measures, both external and internal, that GM uses to gauge its quality performance. Over the past year, GM has been shifting its focus to Consumer Reports since research has shown that a Consumer Reports “Recommended” designation has much more influence over a consumer’s purchase decision than a J.D. Power award. We’ve also been looking more closely at our warranty performance as a measure of our quality achievements. Our internal data has shown that warranty repairs have been reduced by 40 percent over the past five years.
10 years ago GM pulled out all the stops to improve quality measured, in part, by the JD Power statistical data. This data was fully available from JD in a usable statistical form. Verbatims on problems were followed up on and fixed. Status is, per JD Power, most manufacturers are crowded around a tight mean with many fewer problems.
CR was always studied but GM was not able to get their hands around how the data was useful since it was not available to investigate. Wonder how they are going to use it now?
GM Vehicles Receive Interior of The Year Awards The votes are in and three GM vehicles were among the big winners in the 2007 Ward’s “Interior of The Year” awards program. The Saturn Aura was named the best in the Popular–Priced Cars category, the Chevy Silverado was tops in Popular–Priced Trucks; and the Cadillac SRX took the Premium–Priced CUV category. Other GM vehicles that were selected as part of the “industry at–large” voting process were the Cadillac Escalade and Saturn Outlook.
Aura, Corvette Segment Leaders In Strategic Vision’s Total Quality Index The new Saturn Aura and the Chevrolet Corvette led their segments in Strategic Vision’s Total Quality Index (TQI), released Monday. The Aura was recognized in the highly competitive Medium Car segment, beating out the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord and Nissan Altima, while perennial winner Corvette was recognized in the Convertible under $30,000 segment. By contrast, Toyota had just one segment winner, the Lexus RX 350 in the near–luxury SUV category, although their TQI scores improved overall. GM tied with Toyota for fourth place among manufacturers. Last year, GM came in fifth, underscoring GM’s continued gains in quality. Volkswagen, Nissan and Honda took spots one, two and three. Strategic Vision’s TQI, a leading measure of new vehicle owner satisfaction, asks buyers to rate all aspects of the ownership experience, from buying and owning to driving. “With the gap narrowing in objective quality – the number of mechanical defects per vehicle – subjective quality cues, such as the look and feel of the interior, are becoming more important,” said Alexander Edwards, president of Strategic Vision.
Unfortunately, we all know that most people dont count any quality ratings that dont come from CR. Any other survey or award is usually dismissed as meaningless by import fans. GM actually has quite a few recommended ratings in CR, but the problem is GM models get terrible road test scores so even if CR says they are OK quality wise no one is going to buy a GM model after looking at their low rankings in each segment. If the Aura turns out to be average in reliability it will be recommended next year, but it was ranked like #10 overall in the midsize segment which is a joke.
CR is the ONLY magazine with numerical road test scores that doesnt tell you how they determined the scores. Coincidentally, most domestic models get poor road test scores.
WILMINGTON, Del. – If the walls of the historic and beautiful Hotel du Pont could talk, oh the stories they might tell - except for last week when General Motors held its 99th annual shareholders meeting there. The hotel walls instead might give a big yawn.
Don't get me wrong. The shareholders who attended the 2½-hour meeting did take CEO Rick Wagoner to task. Among other things, they quizzed him about GM's financial losses in North America, declining market share and executive compensation. And there was the usual assortment of colorful personalities who tested Wagoner.
But in truth, this GM shareholder meeting was a snoozefest, and GM executives took comfort in that. Gone was the circuslike atmosphere and media frenzy of 2005 and 2006, when GM was losing billions and Wagoner's job was on the line.
Apparently, GM's turnaround has delivered enough results to appease most of the company's stockholders - at least for now.
Consider the shareholder initiatives. All 10 were voted down, and most lost by fairly wide margins.
One proposal would have required GM to recoup executive bonuses if the company were forced to restate earnings. That proposal received just 11.7 percent of shareholder votes this year, down from 41.9 percent in 2006.
Last year's meeting was a different story. At the time, Wagoner was fending off rumors that GM was going to go bankrupt or that he was going to be fired.
And some of the rumors seemed plausible. After all, Jerry York was on hand. At the time, York was the GM board member who represented Las Vegas billionaire Kirk Kerkorian. And York had done his best to shake up GM.
The night before last year's meeting, GM's board members dined with company executives. Afterward, some headed to the hotel bar for a nightcap. York bellied up to the bar with some high-ranking GM executives.
The mood was courteous but cautious - like a Wild West saloon after a gunslinger joins the sheriff for drinks. Everyone becomes polite, and no one makes any sudden moves. I was at the bar that night. I was quickly surrounded by GM PR functionaries whose body language shouted, "Get lost!"
This year, tumbleweeds might as well have rolled through the elegant hotel hallways on the eve of the annual meeting. Most of the "suits" probably were holed up in their suites.
And York wasn't around to stir things up. After his failed effort to coax the company into an alliance with Renault-Nissan, York resigned from the GM board in October.
In the meantime, GM has begun garnering savings from its plan to cut nearly 35,000 jobs and $9 billion in costs.
At the meeting, as Wagoner outlined GM's progress, other executives looked bored. Some even appeared to be checking their BlackBerrys for e-mail.
The lack of buzz became obvious during Wagoner's press conference after the meeting. Such events normally are marked by a flurry of hands, as reporters try to get Wagoner's attention.
This year, there was a lull between questions, as reporters lethargically rephrased questions they had raised during previous press briefings. But from GM's perspective, no news is good news.
It's official: Toyota is the largest automaker in the world, edging out General Motors by a few microvans.
In 2006, Toyota sold 8,808,000 vehicles, and GM sold 8,679,860, ending GM's reign as No. 1.
The rankings of global automakers were compiled by the Automotive News Data Center.
A little-known Chinese microvan played a role in Toyota's victory. GM had included the boxy, seven-seat van and other Wuling vehicles in its global total sales.
But a Chinese company, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp., owns 51 percent of the van's joint-venture manufacturer, SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co.
In its ranking, the data center credits sales of a subsidiary to the parent company that owns a majority share.
Thus, sales of Wuling - 420,140 units - are credited to Shanghai Automotive. And Toyota tops GM by 128,140 vehicles.
J.D. Power and Associates, the market research firm, came out last week with its annual survey of new vehicle quality, and Porsche came out on top with just 91 problems per 100 cars, as reported by owners within 90 days of purchase.
The worst brand? Land Rover, with 170 problems per 100 vehicles sold.
But hold on. What does all this really mean? Possibly less than it appears.
The J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, as noted in the past, has functioned for 20 years as a sort of Oscar or Grammy award program for new vehicle quality.
The study compiles consumer responses to detailed questionnaires about "problems" encountered with new vehicles within 90 days of purchase. The study's methodology has evolved over the years to take into account such things as the distinction between a "dead by the roadside" failure and a customer's dissatisfaction with certain design choices (such as the German reluctance to take cupholders seriously.)
Power also does a good business acting as a consultant to companies that want to improve their scores, selling highly detailed data about things gone wrong that company managers can use to attack problems in the design studio or the factory.
When J.D. Power started publishing this survey, it cast a harsh and very necessary spotlight on the significant gap in new vehicle quality between Detroit's automakers and the best of the Japanese (Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co.) After an initial period of denial, Detroit went to work to close the gap, as did, later on, Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia.
Now, most of the major automakers have made so much progress, that the Power Initial Quality Survey has less to offer the consumer.
Let's stipulate that most journalists should not be allowed to analyze statistics in public. But this example isn't that hard. Lincoln scored 100 problems per 100 cars. That means, on average, buyers of new 2007 model Lincolns reported one problem per car to J.D. Power.
Mercedes owners reported 111 problems per 100 cars. Put another way, the Mercedes owners identified, on average, 0.1 more problems with each individual vehicle than did the Lincoln owners.
Except, there is no such thing as 0.1 of a problem. Problems are like pregnancy. It's all or nothing. So really, what the Mercedes score suggests is that out of every 10 cars, nine had one problem and one had two. (Yes, I'm rounding.)
In our "zero defect" consumer culture, one or two defects in a new product is not supposed to be acceptable. But I wonder what the shamans of Silicon Valley would do if their computers and digital music players had to match the current quality standards of the auto business?
Mr. Ivers counters that there are other ways to look at the results. One problem can be enough to surpass "the customer threshold of pain" and result in damage to a brand, he says. "It's absolutely not just decimal dots," he says. "It tends to have a very huge effect on warranty costs." Mechanical issues remain about half of all problems, he adds.
But car makers have cut the average number of problems in half twice in the 20 years since Power began publishing its survey results. Compared to the 1980s, consumers don't need to be too concerned that a brand new car will fall apart during its first three months on the road.
There's some evidence that, for the most part, consumers aren't so worried about that. Set aside Porsche – because after all, who's going to buy a 911 and then nitpick over the design of the cupholder? Among the other top brands some are doing very well – Toyota at 112 problems per 100 – and others are close to becoming irrelevant (Mercury at 113 problems per 100.) In other words, it's random.
Is the long battle to improve new vehicle quality basically over? The industry average for problems per 100 in the Power Initial Quality Study has hovered between 118 and 124 for the past four years. Mr. Ivers says that's "a reasonable question and hang on to it for a year or so."
In the meantime, the bigger issue for consumers has become long-term durability. And guess what? Power has a survey for that, due out later in the summer.
The 2008 EPA rating for the new Vue with the 3.6 is only 16/22. Even with the old rating of maybe 18/24, I wouldn't have called that good. And with AWD and the V-6 the darn thing weighs almost 4200 pounds. :-(
There seem to be many good things about it too, from the little blurb I read in C&D, but with the RAV4 V-6 almost a whole second quicker to 60 and ALSO having 20% better fuel economy for about the same money, the Vue's work will be cut out for it, I think.
I want to see what the ratings for the 4-cylinder are. I would think with all the weight they still wouldn't be that great, but at least price will be lower, and the interior looks nicer than the RAV's by a goodly amount, nicer than the CRV's too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Long term durability? My Dell has lasted 4 years - best computer score for any computer I have owned so far. The zero defects award - yea!
For reliability near term and far, I would personally worry most about the Range Rover or VW, if I owned one, that is. Not to say individual efforts by Saab, Volvo and other brands have not yielded some dicey products, but then again, no one would seems to believe Consumer Reports. Well CR data could be off in some cases, just as other data sources can be off in that the data doesn't tell the whole story. Sometimes however it is all we have. And then there is the old, " statistics don't lie, but you can lie with statistics." Who knows! IMHO, Consumer Reports Survey Data, is as good as I can find. And yes, lately I wonder about some reversals for one year to another of those red dots to black or visa-versa. I always compare to other data on Consumers Guide and MSN Auto. I wondered about the Cadillac as shown on CR going from good to poor for engines some years back. Seems they did have some issues with the Northstar engine seals. As others have pointed out, the problem with most of these statistics is that they do not show the cost of repairs, or if they are something which would render the car inoperable. MSN Auto seems to be good info. in that respect. Loren
Also, claims 08 MPG should be 23/31. I heard one guy said he looked up Opel from overseas, (he did not send the link or name of it. Sorry)....and 0-60 with automatic was around 10.5 seconds.
Hope it's not that slow. If it takes more than 9.5 seconds to 60, and does not get 45-50 MPG... I might pass. I do too much hwy driving to get too slow of a car these days( and I drove a 90 Nissan Sentra of times around 11 seconds to 60, and a Chevy Spectrum around 12 seconds to 60, in 87). Back then, cars were smaller, saw a lot of 85-95 MPH speedometers on cars back then,simialr 0-60 times, etc.. Today? Too many Huge Vehicles out there to hope to dodge them with a slow car.
Take care, not offense. Maybe if they bring out a larger engine....
About the only hope for a larger engine is a Redline badge for the Astra 2.0L turbo. The 1.8L is plenty of engine for people who aren't trying to race the world. This thing is basically the same size and power as the Nissan Versa, and no one is getting run over in those.
Comments
Interesting side note: Five-speed manual gearbox is the same as the: Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon.
Is the Solstice outselling the Miata? Good question. The local dealer had two in stock -- both overpriced. Suppose to be something special about both of them. One was like $27K and the other $30K though they wanted a side sticker of $6K on top of that.
Loren
Spoken like a true Toyota fan. Sounds good but GM (and others) did start adopting Japanese methods (which are really American) for quality control and manufacturing in the 80s. This is why the productivity gap has closed today.
I just want to know how you can explain that none of Toyota's recent quality issues have shown up in CR's rankings. I looked at the recent car issue and the camry came through with flying colors, no transmission or other issues to report.
go to truedelta.com to read some of the issues with the way CR collects data. its quite flawed.
"Look at chart of reliablility of 5 year old cars in April Consumer Report to see where GM is vs Honda/Toyota. "
I dont doubt it when you consider CR dogs almost every GM model they test and even the GM models that get decent reliability are often not endorsed due to road test scores. Look at JD power 3 year results and compare. A lot of the results do not match up and domestic brands do much better in the JD power random survey than the CR survey which is sent to the same people every year.
If GM was making changes in the 80's it wasn't much. I would say perhaps this decade things are looking up almost across the line. And in the 90's a few cars were acceptable for reliability, with some also being desirable to drive. I was told at the dealership time and time again, we are closing the gap on reliability, or we are getting there, or now have like product as the Japanese, only to find out it was but empty words of assurance. Actually, after a century of building cars, shouldn't it now be that GM is far superior to those other makes. The old practice makes perfect. Who wants almost as good, or now we may have something as good. Sound like the confidence level isn't quite there yet. How about works like most desirable, value packed, stylish, excelling in handling and/or ride, longest lasting new car feel, and well the relentless pursuit of perfection? Not some, well now we copy what Toyota does with our manufacturing process. As far as who builds more cars, that is only yet another statistic. Toyota vs. GM, yet another group of statistics, not doing a lot for the buyer, other than keeping the two on their toes for satisfying the customer. To that end, it is good. Personally, it is car which should speak volumes about the company. This is Honda's philosophy. Of course this is an over simplification, as so many a factor there is to judging a corporation, but it is important. Let the product speak up! Saturn was not looking down and out, while never being profitable due to dealerships not trying. They even had loyal customers. What was needed was the product. More product arriving soon, as Saturn people are smiling. :shades: Now let's hope the Saturn product proves to exceed expectations on reliability, as the past was not so stellar.
Loren
Yeah, they're commmonly known as "sporty" and "sportier"
You cant really compare 3 to G5 since they have different body styles.
Horse hockey. :P They're both compact cars.
The advantage of Astra's 1.8L 140 HP engine, is that you can make a GXP version with the 2.2L.
JD Power seems to get it wrong, often! Unreliable data for unreliable American cars!
Everyone knows GM cars just don't last. Never have; never will.
22 years old and still going.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Loren
Loren
Have you got a picture of an 86 Accord that's not all rusted out? Post it modestly...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Loren
Loren
The long term reliability (particularly beyond the warranty period) means a lot to me. Initial quality means little.
Loren
People do garage their Corvettes and Camaros for the winter.
Dodging moose is mostly an issue on the highways, and I didn't have to commute on those roads (the little '82 Tercel I drove for ~17 years in Anchorage could have scooted under most of them!). The annual moose road kill toll is around 700-800.
Consumer Reports? JD who?
I can barely wait to drive out there in my new Nissan Frontier. That'll be a topic of conversation. Nissan???
Just another perspective.
A GM truck is my choice for staying safe around big game. I did hit a deer in Sun Valley with my 1993 Chevy 3/4 ton 4x4. Couldn't drive it so I traded it in on a new Suburban in Hailey.
I will say one thing about GM trucks. They used to be pretty tough. I think they have lightened them the last few years to get a bit better mileage. I would rather have the heavy metal and buy a little more gas.
I haven't looked for stats, but most people seem to clip the front leg of the moose, smashing up the car and killing the moose in the process.
If you hit a deer or a pig with bull bars installed, you may save yourself some body work, but the loss of the crumple zone may cost you more in medical expenses. Paisan liked them a lot in Manhattan for help with parking. :shades:
GM likes putting its 2.2/2.4 liter ECOTEC into every small car application that it can. And, since the current vehicle emphasis is on POWER, I'd be moderately surprised if the car breaks 24 mpg in mixed driving.
Loren
And the moose hit a Chevy, so it's topical.
2006
Solstice..19,710
Sky.........8671
Miata.......0
MX-5......16,897
OK, what data do you have other than a data point of one? You are one of the 20%ers. Someone has to be, 20% are.
Agree that long term is now more important than initial since the data shows they are all on top of each other with few problems.
10 years ago GM pulled out all the stops to improve quality measured, in part, by the JD Power statistical data. This data was fully available from JD in a usable statistical form. Verbatims on problems were followed up on and fixed. Status is, per JD Power, most manufacturers are crowded around a tight mean with many fewer problems.
CR was always studied but GM was not able to get their hands around how the data was useful since it was not available to investigate. Wonder how they are going to use it now?
The votes are in and three GM vehicles were among the big winners in the 2007 Ward’s “Interior of The Year” awards program. The Saturn Aura was named the best in the Popular–Priced Cars category, the Chevy Silverado was tops in Popular–Priced Trucks; and the Cadillac SRX took the Premium–Priced CUV category. Other GM vehicles that were selected as part of the “industry at–large” voting process were the Cadillac Escalade and Saturn Outlook.
The new Saturn Aura and the Chevrolet Corvette led their segments in Strategic Vision’s Total Quality Index (TQI), released Monday. The Aura was recognized in the highly competitive Medium Car segment, beating out the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord and Nissan Altima, while perennial winner Corvette was recognized in the Convertible under $30,000 segment. By contrast, Toyota had just one segment winner, the Lexus RX 350 in the near–luxury SUV category, although their TQI scores improved overall. GM tied with Toyota for fourth place among manufacturers. Last year, GM came in fifth, underscoring GM’s continued gains in quality. Volkswagen, Nissan and Honda took spots one, two and three.
Strategic Vision’s TQI, a leading measure of new vehicle owner satisfaction, asks buyers to rate all aspects of the ownership experience, from buying and owning to driving.
“With the gap narrowing in objective quality – the number of mechanical defects per vehicle – subjective quality cues, such as the look and feel of the interior, are becoming more important,” said Alexander Edwards, president of Strategic Vision.
CR is the ONLY magazine with numerical road test scores that doesnt tell you how they determined the scores. Coincidentally, most domestic models get poor road test scores.
We have had these for ages.
http://www.holden.com.au/www-holden/
June 11, 2007
WILMINGTON, Del. – If the walls of the historic and beautiful Hotel du Pont could talk, oh the stories they might tell - except for last week when General Motors held its 99th annual shareholders meeting there. The hotel walls instead might give a big yawn.
Don't get me wrong. The shareholders who attended the 2½-hour meeting did take CEO Rick Wagoner to task. Among other things, they quizzed him about GM's financial losses in North America, declining market share and executive compensation. And there was the usual assortment of colorful personalities who tested Wagoner.
But in truth, this GM shareholder meeting was a snoozefest, and GM executives took comfort in that. Gone was the circuslike atmosphere and media frenzy of 2005 and 2006, when GM was losing billions and Wagoner's job was on the line.
Apparently, GM's turnaround has delivered enough results to appease most of the company's stockholders - at least for now.
Consider the shareholder initiatives. All 10 were voted down, and most lost by fairly wide margins.
One proposal would have required GM to recoup executive bonuses if the company were forced to restate earnings. That proposal received just 11.7 percent of shareholder votes this year, down from 41.9 percent in 2006.
Last year's meeting was a different story. At the time, Wagoner was fending off rumors that GM was going to go bankrupt or that he was going to be fired.
And some of the rumors seemed plausible. After all, Jerry York was on hand. At the time, York was the GM board member who represented Las Vegas billionaire Kirk Kerkorian. And York had done his best to shake up GM.
The night before last year's meeting, GM's board members dined with company executives. Afterward, some headed to the hotel bar for a nightcap. York bellied up to the bar with some high-ranking GM executives.
The mood was courteous but cautious - like a Wild West saloon after a gunslinger joins the sheriff for drinks. Everyone becomes polite, and no one makes any sudden moves. I was at the bar that night. I was quickly surrounded by GM PR functionaries whose body language shouted, "Get lost!"
This year, tumbleweeds might as well have rolled through the elegant hotel hallways on the eve of the annual meeting. Most of the "suits" probably were holed up in their suites.
And York wasn't around to stir things up. After his failed effort to coax the company into an alliance with Renault-Nissan, York resigned from the GM board in October.
In the meantime, GM has begun garnering savings from its plan to cut nearly 35,000 jobs and $9 billion in costs.
At the meeting, as Wagoner outlined GM's progress, other executives looked bored. Some even appeared to be checking their BlackBerrys for e-mail.
The lack of buzz became obvious during Wagoner's press conference after the meeting. Such events normally are marked by a flurry of hands, as reporters try to get Wagoner's attention.
This year, there was a lull between questions, as reporters lethargically rephrased questions they had raised during previous press briefings. But from GM's perspective, no news is good news.
In 2006, Toyota sold 8,808,000 vehicles, and GM sold 8,679,860, ending GM's reign as No. 1.
The rankings of global automakers were compiled by the Automotive News Data Center.
A little-known Chinese microvan played a role in Toyota's victory. GM had included the boxy, seven-seat van and other Wuling vehicles in its global total sales.
But a Chinese company, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp., owns 51 percent of the van's joint-venture manufacturer, SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile Co.
In its ranking, the data center credits sales of a subsidiary to the parent company that owns a majority share.
Thus, sales of Wuling - 420,140 units - are credited to Shanghai Automotive. And Toyota tops GM by 128,140 vehicles.
The worst brand? Land Rover, with 170 problems per 100 vehicles sold.
But hold on. What does all this really mean? Possibly less than it appears.
The J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, as noted in the past, has functioned for 20 years as a sort of Oscar or Grammy award program for new vehicle quality.
The study compiles consumer responses to detailed questionnaires about "problems" encountered with new vehicles within 90 days of purchase. The study's methodology has evolved over the years to take into account such things as the distinction between a "dead by the roadside" failure and a customer's dissatisfaction with certain design choices (such as the German reluctance to take cupholders seriously.)
Power also does a good business acting as a consultant to companies that want to improve their scores, selling highly detailed data about things gone wrong that company managers can use to attack problems in the design studio or the factory.
When J.D. Power started publishing this survey, it cast a harsh and very necessary spotlight on the significant gap in new vehicle quality between Detroit's automakers and the best of the Japanese (Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co.) After an initial period of denial, Detroit went to work to close the gap, as did, later on, Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia.
Now, most of the major automakers have made so much progress, that the Power Initial Quality Survey has less to offer the consumer.
Let's stipulate that most journalists should not be allowed to analyze statistics in public. But this example isn't that hard. Lincoln scored 100 problems per 100 cars. That means, on average, buyers of new 2007 model Lincolns reported one problem per car to J.D. Power.
Mercedes owners reported 111 problems per 100 cars. Put another way, the Mercedes owners identified, on average, 0.1 more problems with each individual vehicle than did the Lincoln owners.
Except, there is no such thing as 0.1 of a problem. Problems are like pregnancy. It's all or nothing. So really, what the Mercedes score suggests is that out of every 10 cars, nine had one problem and one had two. (Yes, I'm rounding.)
In our "zero defect" consumer culture, one or two defects in a new product is not supposed to be acceptable. But I wonder what the shamans of Silicon Valley would do if their computers and digital music players had to match the current quality standards of the auto business?
Mr. Ivers counters that there are other ways to look at the results. One problem can be enough to surpass "the customer threshold of pain" and result in damage to a brand, he says. "It's absolutely not just decimal dots," he says. "It tends to have a very huge effect on warranty costs." Mechanical issues remain about half of all problems, he adds.
But car makers have cut the average number of problems in half twice in the 20 years since Power began publishing its survey results. Compared to the 1980s, consumers don't need to be too concerned that a brand new car will fall apart during its first three months on the road.
There's some evidence that, for the most part, consumers aren't so worried about that. Set aside Porsche – because after all, who's going to buy a 911 and then nitpick over the design of the cupholder? Among the other top brands some are doing very well – Toyota at 112 problems per 100 – and others are close to becoming irrelevant (Mercury at 113 problems per 100.) In other words, it's random.
Is the long battle to improve new vehicle quality basically over? The industry average for problems per 100 in the Power Initial Quality Study has hovered between 118 and 124 for the past four years. Mr. Ivers says that's "a reasonable question and hang on to it for a year or so."
In the meantime, the bigger issue for consumers has become long-term durability. And guess what? Power has a survey for that, due out later in the summer.
Thank you.
There seem to be many good things about it too, from the little blurb I read in C&D, but with the RAV4 V-6 almost a whole second quicker to 60 and ALSO having 20% better fuel economy for about the same money, the Vue's work will be cut out for it, I think.
I want to see what the ratings for the 4-cylinder are. I would think with all the weight they still wouldn't be that great, but at least price will be lower, and the interior looks nicer than the RAV's by a goodly amount, nicer than the CRV's too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Loren
Loren
For reliability near term and far, I would personally worry most about the Range Rover or VW, if I owned one, that is. Not to say individual efforts by Saab, Volvo and other brands have not yielded some dicey products, but then again, no one would seems to believe Consumer Reports. Well CR data could be off in some cases, just as other data sources can be off in that the data doesn't tell the whole story. Sometimes however it is all we have. And then there is the old, " statistics don't lie, but you can lie with statistics." Who knows! IMHO, Consumer Reports Survey Data, is as good as I can find. And yes, lately I wonder about some reversals for one year to another of those red dots to black or visa-versa. I always compare to other data on Consumers Guide and MSN Auto. I wondered about the Cadillac as shown on CR going from good to poor for engines some years back. Seems they did have some issues with the Northstar engine seals. As others have pointed out, the problem with most of these statistics is that they do not show the cost of repairs, or if they are something which would render the car inoperable. MSN Auto seems to be good info. in that respect.
Loren
Also, claims 08 MPG should be 23/31.
I heard one guy said he looked up Opel from overseas, (he did not send the link or name of it. Sorry)....and 0-60 with automatic was around 10.5 seconds.
Hope it's not that slow. If it takes more than 9.5 seconds to 60, and does not get 45-50 MPG... I might pass.
I do too much hwy driving to get too slow of a car these days( and I drove a 90 Nissan Sentra of times around 11 seconds to 60, and a Chevy Spectrum around 12 seconds to 60, in 87).
Back then, cars were smaller, saw a lot of 85-95 MPH speedometers on cars back then,simialr 0-60 times, etc.. Today? Too many Huge Vehicles out there to hope to dodge them with a slow car.
Take care, not offense.
Maybe if they bring out a larger engine....