Absolutely considered the 500 but that vehicle suffers from the same problem as the 3.8 Lucerne. Should be better now with the 3.5. The 300's styling is love it or hate it.. I hate it. It does drive OK though
The V8 in the Lucerne is capable of more power, in the pricier versions of the DTS it makes 292HP. I would guess they use VVT to squeeze out a few more ponies.
The Avalon's back seat is definately bigger the Camry's. I had 4 passengers today (3 of us six footers) and everyone was comfortable.
I am half way through my current lease and I am looking forward to the new Impala and the G8. This is my 3rd Toyota and they have all been fabulous, but the Avalon probably won't be redesigned until 2010 so I'll be looking elsewhere more than likely.
Perhaps things have changed, but by old Olds with the 3.8 V6 would start hunting for a right gear to use on hills, as it would drop to third, rev up enough and seek fourth only to find it all too high. On really steep inclines I started to lose momentum as it would not stay in third. But that was 150HP back when. Can you lock the new four speed in third? As for torque, yes off the line and up to say 50 MPH or so it was fine, but the passing power seem just adequate or less. Seemed like a drop from a fifth to forth on smaller inclines, or small throttle signals for more power would be better and gentler than a third to fourth, which has to be more radical a gearing. In other words, have a cruising and over drive ultra cruising could not be a bad thing, or could it?
I test drove an STS FWD car and it was pretty smooth with the V8. So I agree, it can be a smooth transmission. With a six or even the eight engines, would it not help to space out the gears and go with high and super high? Isn't the Corvette stick shift that way? I know, apples and oranges, but I mean to say wouldn't two higher gears in a five or six speed just make sense? If memory serves me correctly, it costs the same, or nearly the same to have a six speed as compared to five speed transmissions. Loren
"where I think the Toyota 3.5 is more of a revver"
You are right on the money here. The 3.5 doesn't have the low end torque of the 3.8, however it does spool up extremely quick which more than makes up for it. I would guess the 3.8 in 4th at 70 MPH is around 2100 RPM. Not much different than the Av. The newer engines with all their computer controls (VVT etc) really do benefit from more gears. In my Avalon I drive mostly all city or in heavy traffic and average over 21 MPG. I am pretty much a lead foot too. On a long trip 30MPG is possible at 75 - 80. Not bad at all for 268 HP 3500lb+ car.
Perhaps things have changed, but by old Olds with the 3.8 V6 would start hunting for a right gear to use on hills, as it would drop to third, rev up enough and seek fourth only to find it all too high. On really steep inclines I started to lose momentum as it would not stay in third.
I think one problem GM had back then was they tended to put an axle ratio in their cars that was almost too tall for the overdrive gear. I'd imagine your Olds had a 2.73 differential, so with an overdrive gear of around 0.66:1, that would knock the overall effective ratio down to something like a 1.82:1, which I'm sure is nice and loafy for level highway stretches, but it's going to want to downshift under the slightest stress.
I had an '85 LeSabre with a 2.73 rear and overdrive, and that sucker tended to hunt as well, because in overdrive it was just revving too slow to have any power. About the only way you could make it stay in top gear was to bury the speedometer, to the point that it was finally revving fast enough to make use of that high gear ratio. And that wasn't hard to do with an 85 mph speedo! That car only had 140 hp, but had about 255 ft-lb of torque, so that might have helped out some, too.
I think nowadays, the 3.8 tends to use a 2.93:1 or 3.05:1 differential. That might give it a bit more grunt in top gear. Plus, the torque curve is broader than back in the day, so that might help some, too.
I think my Dad's '03 Regal pulls about 1600 rpm @ 60 mph, so if it had to downshift to 3rd, that would probably put it to around 2400 rpm. If they had an intermediate gear in there, say, that let it shift down to around 2000 rpm, that might help somewhat.
I guess the quality of the 5-speed automatic probably plays into as well though, and I'm not sure they're all created equal. I've noticed that my buddy's '06 Xterra, which has a 5-speed auto, seems to hunt around a lot, although it's smooth enough that it's not too noticeable. Sometimes though, when you need it to downshift, it hesitates, almost like turbo lag.
"When you compare the Lucerne to the Avalon abd Azera pricing you neglected to take into consideration the old 4 speed transmission in the Lucerne vs. the six speed in the Avalon and Azera !"
NO, because the '07s had 5 speeds not 6 speeds. And I didn't mention that the Avalon was about $2100 more. Did I mention the Lucerne was a V8? Did I mention the Lucerne had these items not found on the Avalon: More power adjustments on the pass seat incl height, a cargo net, floor mats, traction control, Much More Torque, A year more bumper to bumper warranty, A year more rust warranty, A year and 40,000 miles more powertrain warranty, On-star, roadside assistance, self-leveling suspension, MP3 playback, headlight auto delay, hands free phone, and rain sensing wipers. But, this has to be weighed against the telescopic steering wheel and the 6 disc changer on the Avalon and optional on the Buick. Part of the $2100 saved might have to be used for those 2 items. The list of items not found on the Azera is twice as long, thats why its $1900 less than the Lucerne.
My 3.8 with SC is 70 mph at 1900 revs. 80 mph is 2150. If I get behind a truck, it will drop back down to 1900 revs and hold at 80 mph. I have no idea how. It never has trouble finding the right gear and lock-up in 3rd is about a 600 rev drop and lock-up in 4th is a drop from 2100 to about 1350 revs at 47 mph. It will come out of lock-up to rev up and accel hard but doesn't always need to downshift unless I need to jump up 20-30 mph to pass. At 65mph, an accel to 75 to pass on a two lane is about 150 more revs, still in high gear. I still feel a nice kick without hardly any tach motion due to the torque and the SC varying the compression ratio.
With a code set for the fuel evap system (leak)for the last 2 years, I only average 27.5 mpg for my 490 miles per week. It was about 28.5 mpg before the code got set. The engine runs in an altered state than optimum when a code is set. Before the code, I got 31 mpg on a trip but probably couldn't get 29 now. I would expect the new 3.8's, without SC and detuned down to 200 HP to get more than the 27.5 I get on a 80/20 mix. I doubt the 200 HP ones would feel much weaker until I was at 90% throttle.
Yes, Ford has also had great success with their new smaller/cheaper crossover the Edge. Perhaps the Lamda sales are tanking (June data) but one month does not tell a trend.
GM did make a huge mistake by not giving the Lamda to Chevrolet. Chevrolet should of had one for sure. GMC should not have gotten one. No way low volume brands GMC/Saturn/Buick would ever sell enough volume to meet Toyotas mass volume.
Of course it does not help that Highlander had a $2000 incentive while Acadia had 0 and Outloook had $1000. (June)
Time will see if they can keep two plants busy. But once the 2nd plant is up and running they will kill the old Trailblazer/Envoy line and then you will probably see a big jump in sales. Right now the old boys are selling 12,000/4000 per month.
FWIW I would say the V8 in the Lucerne and the 2GR V6 in the Avalon are pretty similar in terms of performance. I prefer and give the advantage to the Avalon only because it acheives very similar output while getting better MPG. I know the V8 makes more torque but I don't care about having to rev the motor a bit more because it is so smooth. Times are changing and big torquey V8's are becoming a thing of the past in sedans. Yes, there are going to be some niche cars that exist, but the Nissan Vq, Toyota 2 GR and GM's 3.6 are the engines of the future. All of these V6s make V8 power while being economical, what's not to like?
Industry analysts expect General Motors Corp. to show a modest second-quarter profit across the corporation and in North America when the automaker reports its results Tuesday.
Analysts expect the Detroit automaker to benefit from a high proportion of its sales coming from trucks and well-equipped vehicles in North America and strong year-over-year sales growth and profits in emerging markets in Asia, Europe and Latin America.
Thomson One Analytics reports that, on average, analysts expect GM to report earnings of $639 million, or about $1.13 per share, for the quarter.
Still, several analysts say those results may not be enough to instill confidence in the automotive behemoth's ability to sustain profitability in the future, particularly in its vitally important home market, the United States.
every vehicle sold in the US will most likely have the GM type mild hybrid system. Just a small step toward 35mpg CAFE.
General Motors is poised to meet growing consumer demand for cleaner engines with better fuel economy.
Under Tom Stephens, group vice president of global Powertrain, GM has been working on several hybrid powertrains; a number of clean-running, fuel-saving diesel engines; fuel cells; six-speed transmissions, and other advanced technologies.
By this time next year, GM says, it will have eight hybrid models on the road using three systems. GM also aims to put a plug-in hybrid on the road in 2010. Here's what GM has announced so far.
The 2008 Saturn Vue and Aura and Chevrolet Malibu will be available with a mild hybrid belt-alternator system that yields a fuel economy gain of 15 to 20 percent. The system likely will add $2,000 to the sticker price.
A mild hybrid turns off the gasoline engine when the vehicle is not moving, as happens at a stoplight. The engine quickly restarts when the driver releases the brake pedal. The electric motor provides a slight boost under heavy acceleration but does not drive the vehicle at low speeds.
This fall, GM will offer the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon with what many experts consider one of the industry's most advanced hybrid systems. A 25 percent boost in fuel economy is expected, along with an industry first for a hybrid: The vehicle will be able to tow heavy loads. The 2009 Cadillac Escalade will offer the same feature.
H4: Sources say GM has given the green light to market a small SUV for the 2009 model year that will be similar in size to the Jeep Wrangler. Select members of the media have seen it and say it has striking styling that should jump-start the Hummer brand. The smaller, lower-priced SUV is needed to help Hummer become successful outside North America.
H3: Hummer adds V-8 power and a new model for the 2008 model year, the H3 Alpha. It is equipped with a 300-hp, 5.3-liter V-8.
GM executives have hinted that several derivatives are planned for the H2 and H3. They see Hummer having tremendous marketing value and opportunities for expansion. A crew cab or small pickup H3 variant is in the works for the 2009 model year.
H2 SUV, H2 SUT: The H2 receives a new interior for the 2008 model year, giving it a more premium look and feel. It is expected to be restyled and re-engineered for the 2010 model year, developed on the GMT 900 full-sized truck architecture.
In 2009, the automaker likely will replace it with the BRX, a smaller five-passenger crossover. Insiders say the BRX likely will be built on a new platform and have a V-6 engine.
SRX sales have been disappointing. Through June, sales totaled 11,597 units, down 1 percent.
Cadillac will take additional steps to enhance its image as a producer of sporty luxury cars:
The CTS sedan will expand into a family with the addition of a wagon and coupe. These vehicles will compete with BMW's popular 3 series, the benchmark for sporty luxury cars.
The slow-selling STS sedan will be killed, as will the venerable DTS sedan, once known as the Deville. Cadillac will replace them with a high-performance rear-wheel-drive sedan aimed at the segment dominated by the BMW 5 series.
A new small entry-level sedan will expand the brand's range. This might create some corporate controversy; Cadillac General Manager Jim Taylor has argued that he doesn't need a smaller car.
So where will the CTS be? Seems like it is the size of the 5 series?
After finally kicking the habit of moving slow-selling vehicles through deep discounts and sales to rental car fleets, General Motors Corp.'s resolve to avoid the tempting tactics is being tested more than ever.
Rival car companies are slashing prices and gobbling up the rental business – leaving GM with an increasingly smaller share of the U.S. auto market.
The assault is coming from all sides.
Last month, Toyota Motor Co. spent more than $5,000 per vehicle on incentives for the new Tundra pickup, its first true offering in a full-size pickup segment long dominated by the domestics.
Overall, incentive spending among Japanese automakers is up 18 percent this year, led by Honda Motor Co.'s 49 percent hike. Meanwhile, foreign nameplates, from Kia to Hyundai, are selling more cars to daily rental companies as Detroit's automakers try to scale those sales back.
"I am assuming that our competitors will continue to spend heavily on incentives to maintain their volume," GM marketing Chief Mark LaNeve said Friday. "In our case, we will continue our stated strategy of tactical, targeted incentives, combined with attractive (suggested retail prices), content, warranties and fuel econ to provide our customers with the best overall value."
I would bet GM finally meets the Toyota incentives soon to kick sales back up. I ouwld bet they even increase the new truck over $4000 to compete.
> Perhaps things have changed, but by old Olds with the 3.8 V6 would start hunting for a right gear to use on hills, as it would drop to third, rev up enough and seek fourth only to find it all too high. On really steep inclines I started to lose momentum as it would not stay in third. But that was 150HP back when. Can you lock the new four speed in third?
I don't recall what Olds you used to have from your posts, but I know that the 4th gear when locked up in TCC lockup is pretty high and fuel efficient. In my cars the computer keeps it locked up and is reluctant to downshift. It's my understanding if the car is driven aggressively the computer learns to downshift more easily.
The 4-speeds, 4T60E and 4T65Es I have had, all have a "3" and you just pull the shift lever to "3" and keep it in 3rd when in hills. Or you touch the brake pedal enough to put the brake lights on but no braking and this keeps the TCC unlocked, which increases the engine revs substantially. I touch the brake pedal and then push accelerator a little more and the demand for power keeps the TCC from locking up. On the 4T65E the lockup is variable and never total so the TCC can slip up to a substantial rate increasing the engine RPMs without touching the brake pedal.
As Andre1969 mentioned the 4th gear overall ratio is pretty long for fuel economy and the 3800s I've driven and had as loaners seem to do just that. I do note that there is a higher ratio that LeSabre used for Touring suspension cars and I assume Park Avenue did the same for Ultra supercharged versions. Many people didn't know when they bought the performance models they got a larger overall ratio, increasing performance in hills just like we're talking about and decreasing cruise fuel economy slightly.
The engineering advances through the years on the 4T6X transmissions obviated the need for more gears with a torque-compentent motor and saved the extra weight and higher cost repairs. If the 4T65E goes out on either of my leSAbres the replacement cost is pocket change compared to newer transmissions with 6 gears and more in some mid-sized competitive cars.
So where will the CTS be? Seems like it is the size of the 5 series?
Exactly. That's why I see this as mere speculation. Plus, if the BLS (or BTS) comes here, it will compete with the 3.
What I think Cadillac should do is keep the CTS as the 5-series/E/M/GS competitor. Then, to keep it from being compared to much nimbler cars (3-series/C/G/IS) there should be a new BTS on alpha. Then allow the DTS to be the flagship: make it RWD on some premium version of Zeta to be more of a 7-series/S-Class fighter. Finally, since the STS has always been marginally larger than the CTS, make it to the CTS what the CLS-Class is to the E-Class.
Why would a six speed transmission cost all that much more? Is this one of those things which over time, as they become the standard, will lower in cost to build and repair? Do they have a lot of development cost which can be worked on down over time? It is easy to see a bit of an extra cost for anything a third more, but I would think much of the cost will be lowering soon.
Hope the 17" tires go down in price. Hate to think of 20" cost :surprise: I have Michelins, which came with the car, but will likely replace them with Kumho tires, as the cost is half. That said, Michelins are good to go a long - long time, so the originals should hold up, and price in that respect may be close to equal. Loren
Looks like too many dealers, and too many similar cars and SUVs chasing too few customers.
Wonder what the wonder of the Edge is? Is it Ford cheap? I always thought the Mazda Tribute was a nice little run-around SUV for a low price. Lots of boxes out there. Hey, the Scion xB grew up! Not as, darn we say cute or quirky, but is more space efficient.
Guess the love affair with the transporter box continues. The car has yet to take back its place. Ya never know, things change ever so slowly and one days the bulk of rolling steel may once again be sleek and fun to drive cars. I guess some like to drive. Loren
A mild hybrid turns off the gasoline engine when the vehicle is not moving, as happens at a stoplight. The engine quickly restarts when the driver releases the brake pedal. The electric motor provides a slight boost under heavy acceleration but does not drive the vehicle at low speeds.
I would bet GM finally meets the Toyota incentives soon to kick sales back up. I ouwld bet they even increase the new truck over $4000 to compete.
They're at $3600+ now, so they will get to around $4500. Regardless of the incentives, flat sales since all year is a major disappointment, and it says the truck missed the sweet spot of the market.
Just on previous owners trading up, they should be 20% ahead for the year, easy.
I did not say that all large sedans are sucker buys but,if you trade often and care about depreciation expense two of the worst depreciators are the Lucerne and Cadillac. You won't have to worry about this, however, as you own a Toyota Avalon which maintains its resale value much, much, better.
I really can't understand anybody that says that depreciation doesn't matter- be it in new or used vehicles, or whether you keep the vehicle for a long time or not. For new vehicles, the $5K in depreciation is the biggest cost of owning a vehicle, often more than all of the other costs put together. It's all makes up the cost/year of owning the vehicle. And GM's problem of higher rates of depreciation just puts their vehicles into the high priced category.
My experience is that I bought at Volvo in 1998 for $29K, even now they are selling for $4K or so- just over $2.7K depreciation per year. That is reasonable, $5K per year for a new model is not. GM is trying to prop up their residual values by not selling as much to rental companies, but they have to make their vehicles more desireable to get the residuals up. In the East Coast city where I live, it is pretty hard to sell GM cars on the used market, very easy to sell most Asian makes.
The 2008 Saturn Vue and Aura and Chevrolet Malibu will be available with a mild hybrid belt-alternator system that yields a fuel economy gain of 15 to 20 percent. The system likely will add $2,000 to the sticker price.
A mild hybrid turns off the gasoline engine when the vehicle is not moving, as happens at a stoplight. The engine quickly restarts when the driver releases the brake pedal. The electric motor provides a slight boost under heavy acceleration but does not drive the vehicle at low speeds.
The 2008 Vue also will be available with a front-drive version of GM's Two Mode hybrid powertrain. Fuel economy of 40 mpg on the highway is expected; the Two Mode hybrid Vue will debut later in the model year. GM is expected to deploy the Two Mode hybrid a year or so later in mid-sized fwd vehicles with V-6 engines.
This fall, GM will offer the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon with what many experts consider one of the industry's most advanced hybrid systems. A 25 percent boost in fuel economy is expected, along with an industry first for a hybrid: The vehicle will be able to tow heavy loads. The 2009 Cadillac Escalade will offer the same feature.
The hybrid system has a 320-hp, 6.0-liter V-8 and a four-speed automatic transmission that has two electric motors. The motors propel the vehicle from a stop to 20 mph. The engine incorporates cylinder deactivation, and the vehicle body has aluminum panels to reduce weight.
They're at $3600+ now, so they will get to around $4500. Regardless of the incentives, flat sales since all year is a major disappointment, and it says the truck missed the sweet spot of the market.
I know Toyota is making great strides with the Tundra (hence the $5000 incentive) but what is killing the GM large pickups (and all large trucks) is gas mileage and the huge contractor recession. GM has a HUGE portion of the large pick up market and the truck is right for the market. market is just no longer there like it was.
AMEN !!!! Depreciation DOES matter to everyone and the cost of depreciation on a Buick Lucerne and most all cadillacs is abominable and unacceptable. Try trading in one of these that are one, two or three years old and you will get one horrendous reaming. Give GM a chance and they will surely raise all the prices again, at least several times in one model year as they have done in the past. Per the Automotive News, sales are slipping in all these models, days supply is increasing, and production has had to be reduced and cut back considerably. Only a fool would raise prices under these circumstances and GM appears to be doing it royally.
What is killing GM and the sale of their trucks is that they are too high priced because they have refused to meet the rebate levels of their competitors, PURE AND SIMPLE ! There is NO other possible reason for their sales disappointment as they have the best truck by all measurements but NOT enough better for most buyers to pay huge price differences over Dodge, Ford, and Toyota trucks. GM has to realize that buyers are NOT stupid and cannot be taken for granted.
I did not say that all large sedans are sucker buys but,if you trade often and care about depreciation expense two of the worst depreciators are the Lucerne and Cadillac. You won't have to worry about this, however, as you own a Toyota Avalon which maintains its resale value much, much, better.
Again-comments w/o data. How do you base your data on the Lucerne? Per the "automotive Lease Guide-ALG" both the Avalon and the Lucerne have the same residual rating. Both have average residuals. The ALG numbers are used by the banks and the OEM's for calculating leases and loan data.
I'm curious, what are you getting for gas mileage with the Avalon???? I have a '99 Ultra, the precursor to the Lucerne, with the 3.8 and 4 sp auto, and get about 17.5-19 around town, 23-24.5 going back and forth to work, and 31.5-33 on long trips.
Since I don't have the 2006 msrp I used the 2007 price. I'm sure Ford Volvo didn't increase retail much if any (since that would make them fools), but any error would actually make the error in the loss of ONE YEAR depreciation value smaller than if the 2006 MSRP price were available. Links to Edmunds price sources given for your convenience.
"I'm curious, what are you getting for gas mileage with the Avalon???? "
I get at least 21 with my daily commute. My morning ride is 8 miles hwy 5 miles of city. My evening ride is pure gridlock rarely hitting 50 MPH. I have never taken an extended trip but on a 150 mile round trip at 75-85 I got 30. I know the car can do better but under my conditions with my lead foot (great engine over 4000 RPM when you can!)I am happy with those #'s.
Good for you. You better stick with that Ultra because if you ever want to trade it you will get a haircut of a lifetime. Absolutely run it into the ground until it colapses into a pile of rust rubble because NO dealer will ever give you anything for it relative to what you paid for it or relative to what any Asian or European name would be worth. Any Import brand would be worth way more under the same circumstances of age, model, wear, etc. We Buick buyers have had to learn the har4d way.
I'm sorry but that figure is closer to 26% so the picture is even worse. That BS. about justifying the rotten resale of the Buick just had to be written by a GM pr guy, in my opinion. ONly a GM spinner of the facts would say that their horrible resale value is good becouse it will be worth way less so it will be less likely to be stolen.
That BS. about justifying the rotten resale of the Buick just had to be written by a GM pr guy, in my opinion. ONly a GM spinner of the facts would say that their horrible resale value is good becouse it will be worth way less so it will be less likely to be stolen.
So ALG is now a GM spinner????? or part of GM PR???
Using depreciation portion of Edmunds data (thanks to Steve):
1st year Volvo S60 29.49% Lucerne CXL 30.00%
1st + 2nd year Volvo S60 46.92% Lucerne CXL 39.96%
Hmmmmm... Looks like Lucerne has 7% less depreciation... That's backwards from the stereotype. Remember what happens when we assume things, like assuming that GM cars have terrible depreciation.
I used Edmunds purchase prices given on each page to computer the depreciation.
...resale value be darned. Buying a car I don't like just because it has a better "resale value" is still throwing away money in my book. If that hypothetical Avalon is all that, why would you be willing to trade it it so quickly? Heck, why not just keep it 10, 15, 20 years if you love it so much?
I'd have to deliberately set out to destroy my 1988 Buick Park Avenue to kill it. My first two cars were Buicks - 1968 Buick Special Deluxe and a 1979 Buick Park Avenue. My girlfriend bought her 2005 Buick LaCrosse new and has never had it in for any unscheduled maintenance. Heck, I'm looking forward to trying out the new LaCrosse Super.
When better automobiles are built, Buick did, does, and will build them!
What is killing GM and the sale of their trucks is that they are too high priced because they have refused to meet the rebate levels of their competitors, PURE AND SIMPLE ! There is NO other possible reason for their sales disappointment as they have the best truck by all measurements but NOT enough better for most buyers to pay huge price differences over Dodge, Ford, and Toyota trucks. GM has to realize that buyers are NOT stupid and cannot be taken for granted.
This is a steaming load, pure and simple. :mad:
Now the excuse for GM not increasing sales of a newly redesigned truck is that people would rather have a cheaper truck than a better truck?
That they aren't good enough at giving it away?
Let's entertain that thought.
Who started this whole incentive race to begin with? I forget.
As I said to Vette, the other apologist, if a redesign, making this truck superior to all others, AND $3500+ off isn't getting it done, than how good can the truck be? Really?
You're saying it's better, but not $1000 better. Is it $500 better? $750?
Tundra transaction prices are $4000 HIGHER than a Ram or GM! $4k! What's that all about?
This consensus that the Chevy is the best truck apparently hasn't made it past this forum.
This website can't wait to disagree. :surprise:
Sales come out Thursday. GM has been pushing 0% + cash(in my area)! Let's see if we need a new excuse next month.
spite of 62Vette's glowing report, you might want to bang that furnace. Rumors of a platform on fire are greatly exaggerated.
June 2007 Sales:
Ford Edge - 12470 Toyota Highlander (2007) - 11253 GMC Acadia & Saturn Outlook - 10875 (combined) Honda Pilot - 10371
Let me know when to GM has another hit on it's hands (I still like the truck, doh).
DrFill
Actually, GM is adding a third shift to keep up with demand for the Lambda's. You conveniently forgot to mention that they also sold 3,695 Enclave's in June. They are capacity constrained with these vehicles at the moment. Sorry, Drfill but these are a hit and have gotten great reviews. Maybe GM should throw a $5000 rebate on them like Toyota's 'hit', the Tundra.
Sales come out Thursday. GM has been pushing 0% + cash(in my area)! Let's see if we need a new excuse next month.
Your living in a dream world drfill. GM has the best selling pickups in the market AND the lowest incentives. What makes them a sales dissapoinment? They are going to sell over 800,000 of these this year. GM is just now offering rebates that are close the to other makers, but you won't see the affect of that until August. You can't get 20% increases in sales when you are pushing the volume GM does.
Comments
The V8 in the Lucerne is capable of more power, in the pricier versions of the DTS it makes 292HP. I would guess they use VVT to squeeze out a few more ponies.
The Avalon's back seat is definately bigger the Camry's. I had 4 passengers today (3 of us six footers) and everyone was comfortable.
I am half way through my current lease and I am looking forward to the new Impala and the G8. This is my 3rd Toyota and they have all been fabulous, but the Avalon probably won't be redesigned until 2010 so I'll be looking elsewhere more than likely.
You are right the '92 Camry was a great look.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I test drove an STS FWD car and it was pretty smooth with the V8. So I agree, it can be a smooth transmission. With a six or even the eight engines, would it not help to space out the gears and go with high and super high? Isn't the Corvette stick shift that way? I know, apples and oranges, but I mean to say wouldn't two higher gears in a five or six speed just make sense? If memory serves me correctly, it costs the same, or nearly the same to have a six speed as compared to five speed transmissions.
Loren
http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/sales_prod/hist_sales.html
But don't look back at the figures for past years. It will make you cry.
You are right on the money here. The 3.5 doesn't have the low end torque of the 3.8, however it does spool up extremely quick which more than makes up for it. I would guess the 3.8 in 4th at 70 MPH is around 2100 RPM. Not much different than the Av. The newer engines with all their computer controls (VVT etc) really do benefit from more gears. In my Avalon I drive mostly all city or in heavy traffic and average over 21 MPG. I am pretty much a lead foot too. On a long trip 30MPG is possible at 75 - 80. Not bad at all for 268 HP 3500lb+ car.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I think one problem GM had back then was they tended to put an axle ratio in their cars that was almost too tall for the overdrive gear. I'd imagine your Olds had a 2.73 differential, so with an overdrive gear of around 0.66:1, that would knock the overall effective ratio down to something like a 1.82:1, which I'm sure is nice and loafy for level highway stretches, but it's going to want to downshift under the slightest stress.
I had an '85 LeSabre with a 2.73 rear and overdrive, and that sucker tended to hunt as well, because in overdrive it was just revving too slow to have any power. About the only way you could make it stay in top gear was to bury the speedometer, to the point that it was finally revving fast enough to make use of that high gear ratio. And that wasn't hard to do with an 85 mph speedo! That car only had 140 hp, but had about 255 ft-lb of torque, so that might have helped out some, too.
I think nowadays, the 3.8 tends to use a 2.93:1 or 3.05:1 differential. That might give it a bit more grunt in top gear. Plus, the torque curve is broader than back in the day, so that might help some, too.
I think my Dad's '03 Regal pulls about 1600 rpm @ 60 mph, so if it had to downshift to 3rd, that would probably put it to around 2400 rpm. If they had an intermediate gear in there, say, that let it shift down to around 2000 rpm, that might help somewhat.
I guess the quality of the 5-speed automatic probably plays into as well though, and I'm not sure they're all created equal. I've noticed that my buddy's '06 Xterra, which has a 5-speed auto, seems to hunt around a lot, although it's smooth enough that it's not too noticeable. Sometimes though, when you need it to downshift, it hesitates, almost like turbo lag.
NO, because the '07s had 5 speeds not 6 speeds. And I didn't mention that the Avalon was about $2100 more. Did I mention the Lucerne was a V8? Did I mention the Lucerne had these items not found on the Avalon: More power adjustments on the pass seat incl height, a cargo net, floor mats, traction control, Much More Torque, A year more bumper to bumper warranty, A year more rust warranty, A year and 40,000 miles more powertrain warranty, On-star, roadside assistance, self-leveling suspension, MP3 playback, headlight auto delay, hands free phone, and rain sensing wipers. But, this has to be weighed against the telescopic steering wheel and the 6 disc changer on the Avalon and optional on the Buick. Part of the $2100 saved might have to be used for those 2 items. The list of items not found on the Azera is twice as long, thats why its $1900 less than the Lucerne.
Pretty amazing. They are going to a 3rd shift and opening a 2nd plant. Of course this is taking sales from the midsize and full size SUV's.
With a code set for the fuel evap system (leak)for the last 2 years, I only average 27.5 mpg for my 490 miles per week. It was about 28.5 mpg before the code got set. The engine runs in an altered state than optimum when a code is set. Before the code, I got 31 mpg on a trip but probably couldn't get 29 now. I would expect the new 3.8's, without SC and detuned down to 200 HP to get more than the 27.5 I get on a 80/20 mix. I doubt the 200 HP ones would feel much weaker until I was at 90% throttle.
June 2007 Sales:
Ford Edge - 12470
Toyota Highlander (2007) - 11253
GMC Acadia & Saturn Outlook - 10875 (combined)
Honda Pilot - 10371
Let me know when to GM has another hit on it's hands (I still like the truck, doh).
DrFill
Acadia.......9073
Outlook......4000
Enclave......2000
edge........12,701
Highlander..11,991
Yes, Ford has also had great success with their new smaller/cheaper crossover the Edge. Perhaps the Lamda sales are tanking (June data) but one month does not tell a trend.
GM did make a huge mistake by not giving the Lamda to Chevrolet. Chevrolet should of had one for sure. GMC should not have gotten one. No way low volume brands GMC/Saturn/Buick would ever sell enough volume to meet Toyotas mass volume.
Of course it does not help that Highlander had a $2000 incentive while Acadia had 0 and Outloook had $1000. (June)
Time will see if they can keep two plants busy. But once the 2nd plant is up and running they will kill the old Trailblazer/Envoy line and then you will probably see a big jump in sales. Right now the old boys are selling 12,000/4000 per month.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Analysts expect the Detroit automaker to benefit from a high proportion of its sales coming from trucks and well-equipped vehicles in North America and strong year-over-year sales growth and profits in emerging markets in Asia, Europe and Latin America.
Thomson One Analytics reports that, on average, analysts expect GM to report earnings of $639 million, or about $1.13 per share, for the quarter.
Still, several analysts say those results may not be enough to instill confidence in the automotive behemoth's ability to sustain profitability in the future, particularly in its vitally important home market, the United States.
General Motors is poised to meet growing consumer demand for cleaner engines with better fuel economy.
Under Tom Stephens, group vice president of global Powertrain, GM has been working on several hybrid powertrains; a number of clean-running, fuel-saving diesel engines; fuel cells; six-speed transmissions, and other advanced technologies.
By this time next year, GM says, it will have eight hybrid models on the road using three systems. GM also aims to put a plug-in hybrid on the road in 2010. Here's what GM has announced so far.
The 2008 Saturn Vue and Aura and Chevrolet Malibu will be available with a mild hybrid belt-alternator system that yields a fuel economy gain of 15 to 20 percent. The system likely will add $2,000 to the sticker price.
A mild hybrid turns off the gasoline engine when the vehicle is not moving, as happens at a stoplight. The engine quickly restarts when the driver releases the brake pedal. The electric motor provides a slight boost under heavy acceleration but does not drive the vehicle at low speeds.
This fall, GM will offer the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon with what many experts consider one of the industry's most advanced hybrid systems. A 25 percent boost in fuel economy is expected, along with an industry first for a hybrid: The vehicle will be able to tow heavy loads. The 2009 Cadillac Escalade will offer the same feature.
H3: Hummer adds V-8 power and a new model for the 2008 model year, the H3 Alpha. It is equipped with a 300-hp, 5.3-liter V-8.
GM executives have hinted that several derivatives are planned for the H2 and H3. They see Hummer having tremendous marketing value and opportunities for expansion. A crew cab or small pickup H3 variant is in the works for the 2009 model year.
H2 SUV, H2 SUT: The H2 receives a new interior for the 2008 model year, giving it a more premium look and feel. It is expected to be restyled and re-engineered for the 2010 model year, developed on the GMT 900 full-sized truck architecture.
SRX sales have been disappointing. Through June, sales totaled 11,597 units, down 1 percent.
Cadillac will take additional steps to enhance its image as a producer of sporty luxury cars:
The CTS sedan will expand into a family with the addition of a wagon and coupe. These vehicles will compete with BMW's popular 3 series, the benchmark for sporty luxury cars.
The slow-selling STS sedan will be killed, as will the venerable DTS sedan, once known as the Deville. Cadillac will replace them with a high-performance rear-wheel-drive sedan aimed at the segment dominated by the BMW 5 series.
A new small entry-level sedan will expand the brand's range. This might create some corporate controversy; Cadillac General Manager Jim Taylor has argued that he doesn't need a smaller car.
So where will the CTS be? Seems like it is the size of the 5 series?
Rival car companies are slashing prices and gobbling up the rental business – leaving GM with an increasingly smaller share of the U.S. auto market.
The assault is coming from all sides.
Last month, Toyota Motor Co. spent more than $5,000 per vehicle on incentives for the new Tundra pickup, its first true offering in a full-size pickup segment long dominated by the domestics.
Overall, incentive spending among Japanese automakers is up 18 percent this year, led by Honda Motor Co.'s 49 percent hike.
Meanwhile, foreign nameplates, from Kia to Hyundai, are selling more cars to daily rental companies as Detroit's automakers try to scale those sales back.
"I am assuming that our competitors will continue to spend heavily on incentives to maintain their volume," GM marketing Chief Mark LaNeve said Friday. "In our case, we will continue our stated strategy of tactical, targeted incentives, combined with attractive (suggested retail prices), content, warranties and fuel econ to provide our customers with the best overall value."
I would bet GM finally meets the Toyota incentives soon to kick sales back up. I ouwld bet they even increase the new truck over $4000 to compete.
I don't recall what Olds you used to have from your posts, but I know that the 4th gear when locked up in TCC lockup is pretty high and fuel efficient. In my cars the computer keeps it locked up and is reluctant to downshift. It's my understanding if the car is driven aggressively the computer learns to downshift more easily.
The 4-speeds, 4T60E and 4T65Es I have had, all have a "3" and you just pull the shift lever to "3" and keep it in 3rd when in hills. Or you touch the brake pedal enough to put the brake lights on but no braking and this keeps the TCC unlocked, which increases the engine revs substantially. I touch the brake pedal and then push accelerator a little more and the demand for power keeps the TCC from locking up. On the 4T65E the lockup is variable and never total so the TCC can slip up to a substantial rate increasing the engine RPMs without touching the brake pedal.
As Andre1969 mentioned the 4th gear overall ratio is pretty long for fuel economy and the 3800s I've driven and had as loaners seem to do just that. I do note that there is a higher ratio that LeSabre used for Touring suspension cars and I assume Park Avenue did the same for Ultra supercharged versions. Many people didn't know when they bought the performance models they got a larger overall ratio, increasing performance in hills just like we're talking about and decreasing cruise fuel economy slightly.
The engineering advances through the years on the 4T6X transmissions obviated the need for more gears with a torque-compentent motor and saved the extra weight and higher cost repairs. If the 4T65E goes out on either of my leSAbres the replacement cost is pocket change compared to newer transmissions with 6 gears and more in some mid-sized competitive cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Exactly. That's why I see this as mere speculation. Plus, if the BLS (or BTS) comes here, it will compete with the 3.
What I think Cadillac should do is keep the CTS as the 5-series/E/M/GS competitor. Then, to keep it from being compared to much nimbler cars (3-series/C/G/IS) there should be a new BTS on alpha. Then allow the DTS to be the flagship: make it RWD on some premium version of Zeta to be more of a 7-series/S-Class fighter. Finally, since the STS has always been marginally larger than the CTS, make it to the CTS what the CLS-Class is to the E-Class.
Hope the 17" tires go down in price. Hate to think of 20" cost :surprise: I have Michelins, which came with the car, but will likely replace them with Kumho tires, as the cost is half. That said, Michelins are good to go a long - long time, so the originals should hold up, and price in that respect may be close to equal.
Loren
Looks like too many dealers, and too many similar cars and SUVs chasing too few customers.
Wonder what the wonder of the Edge is? Is it Ford cheap? I always thought the Mazda Tribute was a nice little run-around SUV for a low price. Lots of boxes out there. Hey, the Scion xB grew up! Not as, darn we say cute or quirky, but is more space efficient.
Guess the love affair with the transporter box continues. The car has yet to take back its place. Ya never know, things change ever so slowly and one days the bulk of rolling steel may once again be sleek and fun to drive cars. I guess some like to drive.
Loren
Does that thing have a regen capability?
The plug-in is a good idea. That is IF they can find a long enough electrical cord.
Loren
They're at $3600+ now, so they will get to around $4500. Regardless of the incentives, flat sales since all year is a major disappointment, and it says the truck missed the sweet spot of the market.
Just on previous owners trading up, they should be 20% ahead for the year, easy.
DrFill
My experience is that I bought at Volvo in 1998 for $29K, even now they are selling for $4K or so- just over $2.7K depreciation per year. That is reasonable, $5K per year for a new model is not. GM is trying to prop up their residual values by not selling as much to rental companies, but they have to make their vehicles more desireable to get the residuals up. In the East Coast city where I live, it is pretty hard to sell GM cars on the used market, very easy to sell most Asian makes.
The 2008 Saturn Vue and Aura and Chevrolet Malibu will be available with a mild hybrid belt-alternator system that yields a fuel economy gain of 15 to 20 percent. The system likely will add $2,000 to the sticker price.
A mild hybrid turns off the gasoline engine when the vehicle is not moving, as happens at a stoplight. The engine quickly restarts when the driver releases the brake pedal. The electric motor provides a slight boost under heavy acceleration but does not drive the vehicle at low speeds.
The 2008 Vue also will be available with a front-drive version of GM's Two Mode hybrid powertrain. Fuel economy of 40 mpg on the highway is expected; the Two Mode hybrid Vue will debut later in the model year. GM is expected to deploy the Two Mode hybrid a year or so later in mid-sized fwd vehicles with V-6 engines.
This fall, GM will offer the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon with what many experts consider one of the industry's most advanced hybrid systems. A 25 percent boost in fuel economy is expected, along with an industry first for a hybrid: The vehicle will be able to tow heavy loads. The 2009 Cadillac Escalade will offer the same feature.
The hybrid system has a 320-hp, 6.0-liter V-8 and a four-speed automatic transmission that has two electric motors. The motors propel the vehicle from a stop to 20 mph. The engine incorporates cylinder deactivation, and the vehicle body has aluminum panels to reduce weight.
I know Toyota is making great strides with the Tundra (hence the $5000 incentive) but what is killing the GM large pickups (and all large trucks) is gas mileage and the huge contractor recession. GM has a HUGE portion of the large pick up market and the truck is right for the market. market is just no longer there like it was.
GM has to realize that buyers are NOT stupid and cannot be taken for granted.
Again-comments w/o data. How do you base your data on the Lucerne? Per the "automotive Lease Guide-ALG" both the Avalon and the Lucerne have the same residual rating. Both have average residuals. The ALG numbers are used by the banks and the OEM's for calculating leases and loan data.
https://www.alg.com/depratings
2007
S60 2.5T 5A metallic blue
$32,055
Edmunds Link
2006
S60 2.5T 5A
$20,940
Edmunds Link
($32055-20940)/$32055 = 32.67% loss in ONE YEAR
Since I don't have the 2006 msrp I used the 2007 price. I'm sure Ford Volvo didn't increase retail much if any (since that would make them fools), but any error would actually make the error in the loss of ONE YEAR depreciation value smaller than if the 2006 MSRP price were available. Links to Edmunds price sources given for your convenience.
2006
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Ming Blue
$32055
Edmunds Link
2006 Buick Lucerne CXL V8
$21158
Edmunds Link
($31525-21158)/$31525=32.88% depreciation in ONE YEAR.
Yup. Looks like those GM cars really depreciate a lot worse. I do the 2 year calculations when I get back from Lowes and a cruise-in.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I get at least 21 with my daily commute. My morning ride is 8 miles hwy 5 miles of city. My evening ride is pure gridlock rarely hitting 50 MPH. I have never taken an extended trip but on a 150 mile round trip at 75-85 I got 30. I know the car can do better but under my conditions with my lead foot (great engine over 4000 RPM when you can!)I am happy with those #'s.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
So ALG is now a GM spinner????? or part of GM PR???
1st year
Volvo S60 29.49%
Lucerne CXL 30.00%
1st + 2nd year
Volvo S60 46.92%
Lucerne CXL 39.96%
Hmmmmm... Looks like Lucerne has 7% less depreciation... That's backwards from the stereotype. Remember what happens when we assume things, like assuming that GM cars have terrible depreciation.
I used Edmunds purchase prices given on each page to computer the depreciation.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'd have to deliberately set out to destroy my 1988 Buick Park Avenue to kill it. My first two cars were Buicks - 1968 Buick Special Deluxe and a 1979 Buick Park Avenue. My girlfriend bought her 2005 Buick LaCrosse new and has never had it in for any unscheduled maintenance. Heck, I'm looking forward to trying out the new LaCrosse Super.
When better automobiles are built, Buick did, does, and will build them!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM has to realize that buyers are NOT stupid and cannot be taken for granted.
This is a steaming load, pure and simple. :mad:
Now the excuse for GM not increasing sales of a newly redesigned truck is that people would rather have a cheaper truck than a better truck?
That they aren't good enough at giving it away?
Let's entertain that thought.
Who started this whole incentive race to begin with? I forget.
As I said to Vette, the other apologist, if a redesign, making this truck superior to all others, AND $3500+ off isn't getting it done, than how good can the truck be? Really?
You're saying it's better, but not $1000 better. Is it $500 better? $750?
Tundra transaction prices are $4000 HIGHER than a Ram or GM! $4k! What's that all about?
This consensus that the Chevy is the best truck apparently hasn't made it past this forum.
This website can't wait to disagree. :surprise:
Sales come out Thursday. GM has been pushing 0% + cash(in my area)! Let's see if we need a new excuse next month.
DrFill
June 2007 Sales:
Ford Edge - 12470
Toyota Highlander (2007) - 11253
GMC Acadia & Saturn Outlook - 10875 (combined)
Honda Pilot - 10371
Let me know when to GM has another hit on it's hands (I still like the truck, doh).
DrFill
Actually, GM is adding a third shift to keep up with demand for the Lambda's. You conveniently forgot to mention that they also sold 3,695 Enclave's in June. They are capacity constrained with these vehicles at the moment. Sorry, Drfill but these are a hit and have gotten great reviews. Maybe GM should throw a $5000 rebate on them like Toyota's 'hit', the Tundra.
Your living in a dream world drfill. GM has the best selling pickups in the market AND the lowest incentives. What makes them a sales dissapoinment? They are going to sell over 800,000 of these this year. GM is just now offering rebates that are close the to other makers, but you won't see the affect of that until August. You can't get 20% increases in sales when you are pushing the volume GM does.
DrFill