Well I have a lot of favorites in the range of '68 & '69 model years, be it GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Some good looking cars in the 60' to say '73. Heck, Olds Cutlass of '72, is pretty good looking. It was my Father's Oldsmobile, as they say. My first Olds. was a '76 Starfire. Crappy car in some ways, but I had fun, nevertheless. Ah, and the great speeds on the freeway of 55MPH, or law breaking 65MPH in the Starfire - whoo-hoo! Took a lot of time to get to Las Vegas from the coast. Being foolish, and buying a car without air conditioning, made for one hot car. No, not fast hot, just hot to be inside. We all do dumb things, I believe the ad states. The clutch on that car was so hard to depress, the cable mounts on the firewall pulled on through the wall. They welded a plate one there and redid the cable. Kinda a sporty look to the car. Decent ride and the V6, rough rider as it was, never stopped running. Door handle which pulled off, and rust around the windows and such was not an asset to this car. Sold it around five years later for $299 wholesale and haul her away price.
The coolest little car from GM I owned was my first new car. It was the Opel Manta Rallye. Very good handling, tight body, really good looks, but the engine went bad, so in three years it was gone and I bought that Starfire. The '73 Opel, black hood, and black side stripes on light yellow, would look cool today! When will we see RWD smaller coupes again? The Astra, though FWD, may be something which catches on with the customers in States. Now it is a hatchback, so it is wait and see time. For less expensive cars, the hatch may sell. Re-introduce the Opel Manta Rallye, with an i4 or a small V6, and a five on the floor, or six speed automatic with paddle shift, and I would consider one today. Would not have to change the looks at all. Well the chrome bumpers are out. :shades: Loren
I guess everybody remembers the mini-Vette Opel GT. I remember the local Buick dealer had a sign with "Opel" and the "O" with a lightning bolt through it.
I didn't really like the 1964-67 Chevelles. They always seemed a bit too boxy and were often driven by the rough thuggish element when I went to high school - the type of guys who reeked of cigarettes, wore motorcycle boots and Harley T-shirts, and carried chains, tire irons, and knives.
Those were, dare I say, cute versions of Vettes. Still see a GT now and then. The better handling of the Opels in 1973 was the Manta Rallye. The GT suffered the lighter tail end woes when pushed too hard. Sure looked cool though. They also sold lots of sedans called the Kadett, but those looked more Japan like styled to me. You know, those which looked like the B210 or little eggs or something. At the time Opel was number one brand in Europe, they were selling lots of little cars.
Should be interesting to see how the New Saturn Opel sales are. Will they best the New Pontiac Aussie? Loren
I do not think so. But buying under $20 when the sky was falling sure was a good time to buy!
But if the current Pelosi regs are voted in it probably will be.
On that note one compromise that could be made is that cars and trucks both have an average MPG of 35 but cars and trucks are kept separate in the CAFE equation.
Will still keep the MPG up but will not put the full line domestics out of business. Their cars could be made fully competitive with the mostly car only producers (they would not have to over achieve on car mpg to make up for the trucks and therefore have an uncompetitive price points to get there). The trucks would get the MPG by putting a lot of content/cost into them. Since all truck producers are on even ground there is a competitive market for everyone.
Best guess is that 27.45 is buy & 34.39 is sell, based on next years est' earnings. And $41.33 in my best guesstimates is the high for next year. But alas, the whole situation is too unpredictable, so I would not be a buyer at any price. If I was more of a risk taker, I may be in on the action, but to me IMHO, GM looks to have topped. The whole stock market is overpriced. Should be quite the pop some day, as the balloon deflates.Anyway, the calculations I use have GM this year at $28.04 per share. A lot of people gambled and a lot of people won on this one. So be it. The domestic car stocks at this point are a good roll of dice. Gonna be winners, but sooner or later the house wins. Those lucky and taking the gamblers share, may come out ahead.
For those believing in a complete turn-around for GM and consistent earnings, it may be an investment, as in a true investment for the long term. Taking that scenario into consideration, I still believe the price as topping around $41 for next year, which is pretty darn good. Too many a variables for me, so I for one, am not in. Call me chicken, but I'd rather be a live chicken, than a dead duck!
And yes, on the serious side, GM has done some good work in PR and in turning things around. The stock was indeed a good buy when at the bottom. GM now has more product to sell. Score one for GM for a comeback and the risk takers which bought at the bottom. Beware those risk takers turn on a dime though. Loren
The selling of Allison Transmissions helped boost the share up to $38 and some change. I believe GM got some decent $$$ for it. Stated to help bolster the upcoming talks.
Do you believe this was a good move as this is the second resource that GM has sold (or sold controlling interest in) that helped make them cash?
Ford has few cars which can pull people on to the lots. Cars like the FiveHundred may be technically a good car, don't generate any sort of sales, so far. The Fusion and Milan look better and thus a bit more sales. Ford though is basically a truck company. Good luck, as it ain't gonna be an easy ride over the coming years. OK, there is the line, never say never. Loren
As a rule, the selling party is usually the wiser of the two. That is, unless the company which acquires is better at running the purchased, or due to structure can operate it at a greater profit. Selling party stock normally goes up, if a good profit is made. Did GM profit from this move? Or is it a neutral? :shades: Loren
It's like remaking (one of the greatest films ever IMO) "Bullet" and putting Steve Mcqueen in a Ford Edge and having the bad guy in a Chrysler minivan...
That green Mustang that McQueen drove was just right, it fit the character and Steve's racing passion just right. The 68 Camaro was nice, but it did not have the image or cachet of the fastback Mustang to be in the movie. The casting of the Mustang was perfect, right down to the small dings/dents visible when it was parked and to the style of wheels/tires used.
If Bullit were remade in 2008, guess that the current Mustang would get the nod over the upcoming Camaro. The new Camaro looks too big and bloated and again does not have the "look" needed. The bad guys could drive a current black Dodge Charger or a black Chrysler 300. That would work. Could not imagine the bad guys driving anything from GM.
Can't think of any Hollywood actor that could come close to matching McQueen for his style and coolness. They would have trouble casting someone.
Agree, selling party (you'd hope) would be wiser of the two and hopefully the buyers have some brains and common sense as well, though not always. (I went through this in the past, let's just say we (bought company) got sucked dry since we were the cash cow then got "Chryslered")
Well, on the surface and from an up-front financial standpoint, making $5.6B on the sale is a nice cash infusion and makes things tick up and upbeat - just look at the Fiat fiasco, seemed to have done wonders for them. What GM does with the infusion is the question. Right now I'd think it was neutral at best.
You can even have the VW Beetle that shows up multiple times during the chase, but what would you do about the Firebird that is seen 3 ~ 4 times (can't remember the exact number, been I while since I watched the movie).
What would you have replace that?
Then again, by it being a 2008 remake, you'd have to fill the roads with SUVs driven by guys/gals on cell phones drinking their cafe mocha lattes, with Bullitt and the bad guys stuck in traffic...or God forbid Bullitt and the bad guys driving hopped-up imports drifting through the streets...
G5 is newest Pontiac, I think. I Drove one today. They offer this car with a lot more equipment than the Cobalt but is only avail. as a coupe in '07. It costs $1000 more than Cobalt but has $2k rebate which for the next week makes it equal cost to the Cobalt but better equipped. The engine is 10% bigger than the Mazda3's 4dr and 20% bigger than the Civic's $18,700 EX coupe. The Torque is scaled accordingly up for the G5 also. For automatics, hwy mileage is 32 for G5, 34 for Mazda3 and 38 for Civic. G5 and Civic both have exact same interior volume. G5 has .5 inch less front leg room but 2 inches more rear leg room than the Civic Coupe. Standard in G5 base: filtered a/c, power mirrors, power windows, power locks, remote keyless, Cd, MP3 jack, trunk mounted battery, manual 4 way adjustable seat, split fold down rear seat, tach, and tilt steering wheel. G5 has the better powertrain warranty and for about 35-40 miles each way for a commute, you'd use up all 100k of it in 5 years, while the competitor’s would run out after 3 years. Its hard to find what they have done wrong with this car.
Did you ask what could be wrong? Well gas mileage, no telescopic steering column, electric power steering by GM feel/performance, 4 sp. automatic, no std. anti-lock brakes, rear suspension is semi-independent, tires (not sure how good the basic ones are), high curb weight, lack of side air bags, cheaper interior, and the True Cost to Own (price). Styling is somewhat dated.
I question it, only because it is THE transmission to have in a medium/heavy duty truck. All mfr's use them, and were buying them from GM. Not anymore though.
Thanks bro this a forum about cars and not about bashing, but m1miata feels that he has to bash every ones post. He has the nerve to rip on some ones opionon and even worse he thinks that the classic cars like the old chevelle are bloated. Yo m1 have fun in your hyundai
1) I agree, the forum is about cars, or more precisely GM cars. 2) I do not support bashing, or misleading information. 3) I love the look of the classic Chevelle and have never said it was bloated. 4) Don't own a Hyundai, but they are not bad cars. They are now about 85 to 90% as good as the best of the competition within category and price range. And if you bought and used one for seven to ten years, it would not be the worse value on the market. 5) Glad to hear now you don't believe in a "rip" on any of my opinions.
Now, back to the enclave in cyberspace we go, Loren
If you are going to decide that m1miata is always bashing then you need to be pointing out the ones on the other side that bash any unwelcome news against GM as well. m1 is no worse on his side of the fence than imidazol97, 1487 and 62 are on the other. All these folks clearly have their prejudices but most also will acknowledge good things on the other side. With m1miata you see it most frequently in his posts about the Aura XR; on the other side you'll frequently see 1487 acknowledge that Toyota put out fine cars and just wants people to give GM the chance to show that they do to.
Time to stop shooting the messenger and worry about the message.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
according to a 2006 playboy article on detroit and bob lutz, white collar expenses exceed the much criticized UAW benefits...it was a good article...no jokes about reading playboy haha
Isn't m1ata part of GM's target market? I think that the whole country is so his opinion counts especially when open ended questions like what's not to like about a G5 are asked.
Don't cherry pick a few stats to make an argument and then get upset when you're called on it.
>m1 is no worse on his side of the fence than imidazol97, 1487 and 62 are on the other
I represent that statement. You'll also find I give acknowledgement to Toyota being another car company who puts out good cars with some problems just like all the others. They built reputations among a group of Buick-like car fans who felt they were getting a better deal. Whether they were or not is a question. I'd accept one if I won it in a contest, so that should make everybody here happy. (I accepted a Ford that I won and I had said I'd never drive another one after a particular model.)
My problem is the people who blindly criticize GMs as though all GMs had more problems than average, ala 70s, 80s, early 90s, or whatever era you like to peg it in. I have had great experiences with GMs. Especially I found the dealership to be good. I read lots of posts unhappy with Toyota's dealers now as well as the company policies. Will we be hearing Toyota bashed like GM had been in the next 2-3 years? Doubt it. Good PR. More profits to pay for good PR.
Yes, Toyota will be critiqued, and bashed, depending on individuals demeanor, in the future. Why I say this with some certainty, is that it is the way of humans. Not everyone, but many did like a young man named Jeff Gordon as he rose to the top of NASCAR. What happened at the top? Well now there are the boo-birds. You see this with companies too. A small starter, as a Yahoo, Google or Microsoft reaches into the clouds for profit and power, and there will be those knocking them. Not trying to use Jeff or these companies as benchmarks what is slammed with or without some reason, but rather to point out that once Toyota reaches maximum fame, there will be trouble.
Sometimes it is the person, or company themselves which pull the trigger too soon and get shot in the foot. For GM, it is stabilization time and in survival, product and customer care which are important and to let Toyota handle their own issues, as growing pains occur. The numbers game of control of an auto industry is pretty much over. Many cuts to the pie now. Profit and paying down debt, while somehow convincing labor it is their best interest to do with less, is not an easy task. For Toyota juggling more cars+trucks, with more fancy equipment, while keeping the numbers up for reliability is an issue. For both GM and Toyota, keeping an eye of parts quality is always an issue. Considering tough times for some parts suppliers, one has to wonder about quality vs. the squeeze for prices.
One final note, after a possibly too long post. What would you say to a merger of Hyundai into the GM fold? Or will GM/Daewoo be more than enough? I am of the understanding that sales are good worldwide for the little cars, once Daewoo. Not so sure about US sales of say the Aveo. I think they are up, after the new Aveo model. Hyundai's seem to get good reviews. The network of dealerships could really expand if they were sold through Chevy. And GM/Daewoo seems to be selling well elsewhere, third world markets. I personally see GM as doing better in the New Malibu and on up class, but if they wanted to expand the mid-sized to smaller class overnight then Hyundai? Just a thought. Not anything I am recommending at this time, unless small and fuel efficient becomes the only game and GM is really targeting Toyota. Personally, I would back-off Toyota matching one to one and make more special cars with a heritage, like Camaro's and Impala's with the best styling and class as affordable, while making some profit. Loren
Who's to say that the criticism is being offered 'blindly'? Which of Loren's criticisms of the G5 are unfounded?
GM had me as a customer and lost me. I have plenty of first hand experience with GM products as I'm the only import buyer in my family. Their recent GM products aren't leaving them stranded on the side of the road, but every one of them have enough small issues that they're not close to winning me back.
OK so disagree on that. The other cars have like 10# smaller engines and get 6% better mileage and that is supposed to shine badly on GM? no telescopic steering column. We are talking about a %14775 list price car. Funny how I dtove all those years without one and it never was missrd. electric power steering by GM feel/performance. Care to elaborate on that open ender? 4 sp. automatic. What is the issue? At 14775, the competition doesn.t even have an automatic. no std. anti-lock brakes. To add them, you would need ro spend 20% of the current rebate. rear suspension is semi-independent. And? tires (not sure how good the basic ones are). Again, easily upgraded with another 10% of the rebate. high curb weight. Not enough noise coming through or not enough tiny car feel, or too many std features? lack of side air bags. To add them, you would need ro spend 20% of the current rebate. cheaper interior. Haven't seen the Scion to compare for myself. and the True Cost to Own (price). Do you actually spend those amounts on your cars? And the data is based on the '06 G5?. Styling is somewhat dated. So is the competitors.
A loaded G5 with sunroof, Pioneer 7 spkr stereo, XM radio, ABS, auto, traction control, cargo net, 16" wheels with 55 series tires, cruise on the steering wheel, special paint, gets nearly 2/3 of the options listed paid for by the current rebate. If the car is to be a midwest (flat, straight roads, 7 miles between stop lights)commuter, would anyone trade the above list of stuff in for the ever so slightly better handling?
What... is everyone here from the midwest? Nobody from the midwest ever needs to make a defensive manuver with confidence? Telling everyone that you know better what they need than they do will not get you anywhere.
OK, first of all, if you like the car, it is the right one for you. No one can deny that, as it is your money. When doing car comparisons, say the G5 vs. Civic, if you want to compromise on those differences, so be it. At that point the whole lot of cars made today are right. Guess that is why they sell so many different makes of cars. Something seems right to one person, or not important. On the electric assist steering, there is a reason GM went with the old fashion steering for the Aura, and the G6 GTP, it is called feedback or letting the driver know he is not playing a video game instead of on the road. Now some, like Mazda3 seemed to have accomplished road feel with electric assist. I personally do not want it, though if the car handles well, with good feel to steering, it is not in itself a game breaker. As for curb weight, it says something about the engineering when the weight is lower, unless we are talking vintage tanks like Volvo or Mercedes. Today's cars which are engineered for gas mileage performance and overall performance should be as low in weight as possible. What a car manufacturer places in a car for safety features says a lot about how well they want to protect the occupants and how well the overall image of a car will set with the public. A fully independent suspension is preferable.
The Cobalt/G5 in the lower priced models are a value for those looking for low cost torque and HP. And with discounts the lowest end may be a low cost way to enter into buying a new car. The warranty is pretty good. Only Hyundai will be longer -- I believe you mentioned lots of miles in a hurry, so the five years is no issue. If you like the car and want something more heavy, which some see as feeling more secure on the highway say, then by all means it is something which you and others may like. It would be a dull world without variety. As a quite note, the '98 Corolla I owned had a habit of being knocked around in the wind, but it was not so much a weight issue, as my Dad's Camry seems to be pushed by the wind some times. The Accord doesn't have this issue and seems well planted. What may be an issue with the Corolla is higher speeds, in which case it is the lightness of the car without good down force. I will agree, at speed, you need a couple of rocks in your pocket. Loren
I really like the Cobalt coupe. I wish they would've use the same rear styling on the sedan as they did the coupe. The Cobalt coupe's taillights remind me of those on my Dad's 1961 Chevrolet Biscayne - a car I really loved.
even worse he thinks that the classic cars like the old chevelle are bloated
That was me. Chevelle peaked stylistically in 1965 (Impala peaked in '64), then they started getting overwrought and gaudy and descended into the horror show of the 1970s. Perhaps not coincidentally, the build quality also started crashing about that same time.
There's a thought. Perhaps the collapse in car sales for the domestics is a failure to adjust to changing demographics?
People usually fly if they have to travel more than a few hundred miles, and those who travel by road either drive or tow an RV. Places with long, flat, straight roads have declined in population, while places with high traffic density and curvy roads have increased in population.
I think my favorite first-gen Chevelle was the 1966. IMO the '64-65 were a bit too boxy, and the '67 seemed a bit heavy-handed, but the '66 seemed "just right" to me.
I think most people look at 1968-72, and 1970 especially, as the peak of Chevelle styling. I actually like the '73-77 style, but it was really hard for them to come up with a worthy successor to the previous style, and the lack of hardtop/convertible styles and true high-performance engines didn't help matters much. It was like trying to follow up "Star Wars" with "Galactica 1980"! In retrospect though, GM's '73-77 intermediate offerings were probably the best of the bunch at the time. They also had the tidiest dimensions. My '76 LeMans coupe is only 208" long, which was barely midsized back then. Comparable cars like the Dodge Coronet, the "small" Plymouth Fury, Ford Torino, etc, were easily a half-foot longer, porkier, and, if it's possible, even LESS space-efficient!
I've heard numerous recounts that 1965 was a banner year, salewise, but they were rushing the cars down the assembly lines so fast that quality control took a big dip. I even remember reading a Consumer Reports from 1965 where they were commenting on the unusually high number of defects on their sample cars and then juxtaposing that fact with a lot of the sales slogans of the time such as "Ford is going all out to win you over this year".
What would you say to a merger of Hyundai into the GM fold? Or will GM/Daewoo be more than enough?
Hyundai's setting themselves up to be one of the big dogs, so I don't see them folding into anyone else. Daewoo is plenty for GM anyway. Ford is probably wishing they hadn't abandoned their stake in Kia a decade ago.
I think the entire run of '68-72 Chevelles was really good looking, which is probably a miracle, because usually with facelifts the designers run out of ideas eventually, and the few final facelifts often end up looking contrived and desperate.
I think my favorite is actually the '68-69. I just like that forward thrust of the front-end. But they're all good looking!
I always wondered what prompted the return to single headlights on many cars in the 70's? A lot of neoclassic styling elements started creeping into cars in the 70's, and since old cars from the 30's and such had single headlights, maybe that was part of it? Also, while it's hard to really see it from a modern standpoint, those stylists were becoming influenced more and more by European designs, which often had single headlights, so maybe that was part of it as well?
I still prefer the '70 over that '64. The '64 just looks like a dull little box to me. Honestly, GM's other intermediates looked better that year, because they had about 9-10 inches of extra length to help flesh out the body and make it look longer, sleeker, and less boxy.
I don't think that '64 Chevelle is UGLY, exactly. Just dull. I think its wheelcovers are goofy looking, though. And the way the quarter panel bulges out a bit about halfway up just doesn't look right.
The '70 has a beefier, meatier look to it, but IMO that doesn't make it look fat. Just more substantial.
Comments
Loren
The first Chevelle was the best Chevelle.
Kinda a sporty look to the car. Decent ride and the V6, rough rider as it was, never stopped running. Door handle which pulled off, and rust around the windows and such was not an asset to this car. Sold it around five years later for $299 wholesale and haul her away price.
The coolest little car from GM I owned was my first new car. It was the Opel Manta Rallye. Very good handling, tight body, really good looks, but the engine went bad, so in three years it was gone and I bought that Starfire. The '73 Opel, black hood, and black side stripes on light yellow, would look cool today! When will we see RWD smaller coupes again? The Astra, though FWD, may be something which catches on with the customers in States. Now it is a hatchback, so it is wait and see time. For less expensive cars, the hatch may sell. Re-introduce the Opel Manta Rallye, with an i4 or a small V6, and a five on the floor, or six speed automatic with paddle shift, and I would consider one today. Would not have to change the looks at all. Well the chrome bumpers are out. :shades:
Loren
I didn't really like the 1964-67 Chevelles. They always seemed a bit too boxy and were often driven by the rough thuggish element when I went to high school - the type of guys who reeked of cigarettes, wore motorcycle boots and Harley T-shirts, and carried chains, tire irons, and knives.
this with the truck/SUV market falling away.
August of 2000, Enron's stock price hit its highest value of $90
:surprise:
Loren
Should be interesting to see how the New Saturn Opel sales are. Will they best the New Pontiac Aussie?
Loren
Time to sell again.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I do not think so. But buying under $20 when the sky was falling sure was a good time to buy!
But if the current Pelosi regs are voted in it probably will be.
On that note one compromise that could be made is that cars and trucks both have an average MPG of 35 but cars and trucks are kept separate in the CAFE equation.
Will still keep the MPG up but will not put the full line domestics out of business. Their cars could be made fully competitive with the mostly car only producers (they would not have to over achieve on car mpg to make up for the trucks and therefore have an uncompetitive price points to get there). The trucks would get the MPG by putting a lot of content/cost into them. Since all truck producers are on even ground there is a competitive market for everyone.
Anyway I am out of here for 1 1/2 weeks.
For those believing in a complete turn-around for GM and consistent earnings, it may be an investment, as in a true investment for the long term. Taking that scenario into consideration, I still believe the price as topping around $41 for next year, which is pretty darn good. Too many a variables for me, so I for one, am not in. Call me chicken, but I'd rather be a live chicken, than a dead duck!
And yes, on the serious side, GM has done some good work in PR and in turning things around. The stock was indeed a good buy when at the bottom. GM now has more product to sell. Score one for GM for a comeback and the risk takers which bought at the bottom. Beware those risk takers turn on a dime though.
Loren
The Stock Market and Investing
Do you believe this was a good move as this is the second resource that GM has sold (or sold controlling interest in) that helped make them cash?
Loren
:shades: Loren
That green Mustang that McQueen drove was just right, it fit the character and Steve's racing passion just right. The 68 Camaro was nice, but it did not have the image or cachet of the fastback Mustang to be in the movie. The casting of the Mustang was perfect, right down to the small dings/dents visible when it was parked and to the style of wheels/tires used.
If Bullit were remade in 2008, guess that the current Mustang would get the nod over the upcoming Camaro. The new Camaro looks too big and bloated and again does not have the "look" needed. The bad guys could drive a current black Dodge Charger or a black Chrysler 300. That would work. Could not imagine the bad guys driving anything from GM.
Can't think of any Hollywood actor that could come close to matching McQueen for his style and coolness. They would have trouble casting someone.
Agree, selling party (you'd hope) would be wiser of the two and hopefully the buyers have some brains and common sense as well, though not always. (I went through this in the past, let's just say we (bought company) got sucked dry since we were the cash cow then got "Chryslered")
Well, on the surface and from an up-front financial standpoint, making $5.6B on the sale is a nice cash infusion and makes things tick up and upbeat - just look at the Fiat fiasco, seemed to have done wonders for them. What GM does with the infusion is the question. Right now I'd think it was neutral at best.
You can even have the VW Beetle that shows up multiple times during the chase, but what would you do about the Firebird that is seen 3 ~ 4 times (can't remember the exact number, been I while since I watched the movie).
What would you have replace that?
Then again, by it being a 2008 remake, you'd have to fill the roads with SUVs driven by guys/gals on cell phones drinking their cafe mocha lattes, with Bullitt and the bad guys stuck in traffic...or God forbid Bullitt and the bad guys driving hopped-up imports drifting through the streets...
Using it as a down payment on Delphi's UAW danegeld seems to be the prevailing idea at the moment.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2) I do not support bashing, or misleading information.
3) I love the look of the classic Chevelle and have never said it was bloated.
4) Don't own a Hyundai, but they are not bad cars. They are now about 85 to 90% as good as the best of the competition within category and price range. And if you bought and used one for seven to ten years, it would not be the worse value on the market.
5) Glad to hear now you don't believe in a "rip" on any of my opinions.
Now, back to the enclave in cyberspace we go, Loren
(Saturn
Geez,are they ugly or what :confuse:
Time to stop shooting the messenger and worry about the message.
Don't cherry pick a few stats to make an argument and then get upset when you're called on it.
I represent that statement. You'll also find I give acknowledgement to Toyota being another car company who puts out good cars with some problems just like all the others. They built reputations among a group of Buick-like car fans who felt they were getting a better deal. Whether they were or not is a question. I'd accept one if I won it in a contest, so that should make everybody here happy. (I accepted a Ford that I won and I had said I'd never drive another one after a particular model.)
My problem is the people who blindly criticize GMs as though all GMs had more problems than average, ala 70s, 80s, early 90s, or whatever era you like to peg it in. I have had great experiences with GMs. Especially I found the dealership to be good. I read lots of posts unhappy with Toyota's dealers now as well as the company policies. Will we be hearing Toyota bashed like GM had been in the next 2-3 years? Doubt it. Good PR. More profits to pay for good PR.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Sometimes it is the person, or company themselves which pull the trigger too soon and get shot in the foot. For GM, it is stabilization time and in survival, product and customer care which are important and to let Toyota handle their own issues, as growing pains occur. The numbers game of control of an auto industry is pretty much over. Many cuts to the pie now. Profit and paying down debt, while somehow convincing labor it is their best interest to do with less, is not an easy task. For Toyota juggling more cars+trucks, with more fancy equipment, while keeping the numbers up for reliability is an issue. For both GM and Toyota, keeping an eye of parts quality is always an issue. Considering tough times for some parts suppliers, one has to wonder about quality vs. the squeeze for prices.
One final note, after a possibly too long post. What would you say to a merger of Hyundai into the GM fold? Or will GM/Daewoo be more than enough? I am of the understanding that sales are good worldwide for the little cars, once Daewoo. Not so sure about US sales of say the Aveo. I think they are up, after the new Aveo model. Hyundai's seem to get good reviews. The network of dealerships could really expand if they were sold through Chevy. And GM/Daewoo seems to be selling well elsewhere, third world markets. I personally see GM as doing better in the New Malibu and on up class, but if they wanted to expand the mid-sized to smaller class overnight then Hyundai? Just a thought.
Not anything I am recommending at this time, unless small and fuel efficient becomes the only game and GM is really targeting Toyota. Personally, I would back-off Toyota matching one to one and make more special cars with a heritage, like Camaro's and Impala's with the best styling and class as affordable, while making some profit.
Loren
GM had me as a customer and lost me. I have plenty of first hand experience with GM products as I'm the only import buyer in my family. Their recent GM products aren't leaving them stranded on the side of the road, but every one of them have enough small issues that they're not close to winning me back.
OK so disagree on that. The other cars have like 10# smaller engines and get 6% better mileage and that is supposed to shine badly on GM?
no telescopic steering column. We are talking about a %14775 list price car. Funny how I dtove all those years without one and it never was missrd.
electric power steering by GM feel/performance. Care to elaborate on that open ender?
4 sp. automatic. What is the issue? At 14775, the competition doesn.t even have an automatic.
no std. anti-lock brakes. To add them, you would need ro spend 20% of the current rebate.
rear suspension is semi-independent. And?
tires (not sure how good the basic ones are). Again, easily upgraded with another 10% of the rebate.
high curb weight. Not enough noise coming through or not enough tiny car feel, or too many std features?
lack of side air bags. To add them, you would need ro spend 20% of the current rebate.
cheaper interior. Haven't seen the Scion to compare for myself.
and the True Cost to Own (price). Do you actually spend those amounts on your cars? And the data is based on the '06 G5?.
Styling is somewhat dated. So is the competitors.
If the car is to be a midwest (flat, straight roads, 7 miles between stop lights)commuter, would anyone trade the above list of stuff in for the ever so slightly better handling?
The Cobalt/G5 in the lower priced models are a value for those looking for low cost torque and HP. And with discounts the lowest end may be a low cost way to enter into buying a new car. The warranty is pretty good. Only Hyundai will be longer -- I believe you mentioned lots of miles in a hurry, so the five years is no issue. If you like the car and want something more heavy, which some see as feeling more secure on the highway say, then by all means it is something which you and others may like. It would be a dull world without variety. As a quite note, the '98 Corolla I owned had a habit of being knocked around in the wind, but it was not so much a weight issue, as my Dad's Camry seems to be pushed by the wind some times. The Accord doesn't have this issue and seems well planted. What may be an issue with the Corolla is higher speeds, in which case it is the lightness of the car without good down force. I will agree, at speed, you need a couple of rocks in your pocket.
Loren
That was me. Chevelle peaked stylistically in 1965 (Impala peaked in '64), then they started getting overwrought and gaudy and descended into the horror show of the 1970s. Perhaps not coincidentally, the build quality also started crashing about that same time.
People usually fly if they have to travel more than a few hundred miles, and those who travel by road either drive or tow an RV. Places with long, flat, straight roads have declined in population, while places with high traffic density and curvy roads have increased in population.
I think most people look at 1968-72, and 1970 especially, as the peak of Chevelle styling. I actually like the '73-77 style, but it was really hard for them to come up with a worthy successor to the previous style, and the lack of hardtop/convertible styles and true high-performance engines didn't help matters much. It was like trying to follow up "Star Wars" with "Galactica 1980"! In retrospect though, GM's '73-77 intermediate offerings were probably the best of the bunch at the time. They also had the tidiest dimensions. My '76 LeMans coupe is only 208" long, which was barely midsized back then. Comparable cars like the Dodge Coronet, the "small" Plymouth Fury, Ford Torino, etc, were easily a half-foot longer, porkier, and, if it's possible, even LESS space-efficient!
I've heard numerous recounts that 1965 was a banner year, salewise, but they were rushing the cars down the assembly lines so fast that quality control took a big dip. I even remember reading a Consumer Reports from 1965 where they were commenting on the unusually high number of defects on their sample cars and then juxtaposing that fact with a lot of the sales slogans of the time such as "Ford is going all out to win you over this year".
Hyundai's setting themselves up to be one of the big dogs, so I don't see them folding into anyone else. Daewoo is plenty for GM anyway. Ford is probably wishing they hadn't abandoned their stake in Kia a decade ago.
I think my favorite is actually the '68-69. I just like that forward thrust of the front-end. But they're all good looking!
I always wondered what prompted the return to single headlights on many cars in the 70's? A lot of neoclassic styling elements started creeping into cars in the 70's, and since old cars from the 30's and such had single headlights, maybe that was part of it? Also, while it's hard to really see it from a modern standpoint, those stylists were becoming influenced more and more by European designs, which often had single headlights, so maybe that was part of it as well?
The only thing uglier than a 1970 Chevelle is a 4-door 1970 Chevelle.
I don't think that '64 Chevelle is UGLY, exactly. Just dull. I think its wheelcovers are goofy looking, though. And the way the quarter panel bulges out a bit about halfway up just doesn't look right.
The '70 has a beefier, meatier look to it, but IMO that doesn't make it look fat. Just more substantial.