Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Of course I get into the thing of what do you compare directly to? A Camcord to a Malibu or an Impala?
I agree that of what is left of the big three GM is the one most likely to persevere and survive. They'll never be as big as they once were but should be able to remain relevant long after I'm gone.
Could you show an example where they are not price competitive? GM does huge analysis's to make sure they are priced competively.
That is an issue. Why not pick an easy one like the Cobalt vs. Corolla or Civic?
I've only dealt with Impalas and Malibus as rentals and greatly prefer the Impala. It's not the size; it's just a better car all around.
That will likely change as the 08 Malibus start showing up.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Now that would work for the little ones but one of the bigger ones is generally with us so would have to rent a van....
It's a tough life...
Corolla is same results as Civic, basically.
civic ex
cobalt">
cobalt LTZ
The Cobalt is new, but not new enough. It was simply not up to the task of competing toe to toe. Why not make a new design which looks different, or adds RWD, or whatever it takes to be something above the rest, or at the least individual. The car has more torque per dollar, but not much else to set it apart. The looks are too typical. Too crowded a market to look like an improved Cavalier. Maybe it is time for Daewoo/GM to make something interesting and little more beefy in size, and let the domestics start at mid-size, or go all the way on a super little car, with all American styling and world standard performance in a compact. Just opinion.
Loren
Last I read the Spring Hill plant has been folded back into the traditional GM family of assembly plants and is being retooled to make the Chevrolet version of the Lambda crossover. The workers are on temporary lay off I believe.
Looks like the Cobalt is less expensive than the Corolla.
Today, GM released preliminary financial results for the second quarter of 2007. The company once again saw improved results in sales, income and cash flow. Here are the highlights:
Record automotive revenue of $45.9 billion
Reported net income of $891, adjusted net income of $1.4 billion
Adjusted automotive operating cash flow of $1.1 billion
Improved liquidity position of $27.2 billion
The improvements are largely attributable to continued successful implementation of GM business strategies. In North America, the focus continues on growing revenue by introducing great new cars and trucks and enhancing the revitalized sales and marketing strategy in the turnaround plan. However, profitability remains close to breakeven demonstrating there’s more to do, such as addressing the health care cost disadvantage.
GM’s heavy commitment to key growth markets is paying off in strong growth and earnings around the world. Here are some global highlights:
GM Europe reported its best quarterly performance since 1996
Chevrolet had records sales, up 34 percent
GM Asia–Pacific set a new second–quarter net income record
Sales up 8 percent overall
China sales up 6 percent
South Korea sales up 20 percent
India sales up 46 percent
GM Latin America, Africa and Middle East posted its best quarterly net income in a decade
Driven by volume growth, favorable pricing
your point is what exactly?
never said that article was biased, I was talking about articles that parrot the crap about Toyota's success being based on hybrids and that only the Big 3 are against these ridiculous fuel economy standards.
I think the reason for that is because a few years back, they really started blurring the distinction between mid- and full-sized cars. Seems like full-sized cars started getting smaller while midsized and even compact cars started getting bigger.
The EPA draws the threshold line for a full-sized car at 120 cubic feet combined interior volume (interior + trunk for sedans/coupes; it's factored differently for wagons). Most midsized cars like the Camry, Accord, Altima, and Malibu fall just shy of that threshold, around 115-119 cubic feet. Most full-sized cars these days are around 120-125 cubic feet. However, old-school styles like the Crown Vic and Caprice were 130+
I would agree that too many editorials - which are designed to express the opinion of the writer - leave out that Toyota's sales growth is largely because of increasing truck and SUV sales.
But editorials, by their very nature (as opinion pieces) are not always the best sources for facts.
Every article I've read, however, has pointed out that Toyota makes lots of money by selling trucks and SUVs, and that Toyota has joined the fight against higher CAFE standards.
Are they though? More than 60% of Toyota's sales this year are cars. Included in that total is the Camry, up some 10-20% on an annual basis vs the last generation. Also included is Corolla, which has actually increased sales over the years since the current model was introduced. Together, just those two models account for something like 1/3 or more of Toyota's total U.S. sales. Then the new Yaris is pulling close to 100K sales per year, more than the 4Runner. Prius is good for another 150K, as many as the Tundra sells in a year currently. Prius sales are also way way up over last year.
Most of Toyota's sales growth in the last several years has been in cars and car-based models like the RAV4. Indeed, Toyota was never that great at selling truck-based models, even though the number of actual models increased. GM had and has the Sequoia and Tundra properly whooped sales-wise, and the only truck that Toyota sells really well is the Tacoma. And more than half of those are 4-cylinder models.
I was reading that GM is going to redo the SRX using the (Zeta?) RWD platform, which seems like a really good idea. Speaking of Toyota, the SRX redo should throw a zinger at the RX350. There is no reason that with the whole market switching from truck-based SUVs to crossovers, the luxury brands shouldn't follow suit. Although I suppose there will always be some market for the particular brand of craziness that is the Escalade...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What is it about the Corolla, anyway, that makes it so popular? Is the typical transaction price a lot cheaper than the Civic, or something? Or maybe the newest Civic's styling is turning a lot of people off? It also seems to me that there would be some overlap with the Yaris, moreso than, say, the Civic and Fit.
I've driven my uncle's '03 several times, and honestly I just don't get the hoopla. It's not a bad little car, with the exception of the horrible driving position and jittery stance on the highway. But maybe it's how the Ford Explorer used to be back in its prime, where it didn't really seem to excel in any one category, but was just good enough overall that it usually led its class in sales?
andre, you won't like it because "it's not a bad little car". But for me and many others, it's a great family car.
that autoweek article is one of the few I have seen that plainly states the new CAFE rules would not be in Toyota's favor.
Yeah, but I'm still surprised that here it is, over 5 years on the market, and the Corolla seems to be selling better than ever. I figured that once the Civic got redesigned for '06, it would have put a bit of a crimp in Corolla sales, but not so. And I guess the new Sentra/Versa aren't really much of a contender for it, either. And the Korean cars just seem to be getting better and better with each rendition, yet it doesn't seem to faze the Corolla one bit.
I can see how people would prefer the Corolla over something like a Cobalt (better economy, nicer interior, higher perceived quality, etc), although the Cobalt's front seat fits me better, but it seems to me the Civic would be a worthy contender.
Maybe Honda's just losing its edge a bit compared to Toyota? It's happening with the Camry, too, which has been blowing the Accord away in sales for awhile now.
Oh yeah, I also want to make it clear that while I'm not in love with my uncle's Corolla, I don't hate it, either. In fact, I'm the one that recommended that he check 'em out when they first debuted. He didn't like the '02 model because it felt cramped to him, but the '03 was like a night-and-day difference.
Granted, editorials often contain the bias of the author, as I noted, but Mr. Csere included sales figures and percentages to back up his contention.
Who said it did?
1487: The media (including TV news) tend to portray the Big 3 as purveyors of nothiing but gas guzzlers and Toyota as a benevolent company who sells mostly hybrids.
Sorry, but no. What they are reporting is that the Big Three make their money on trucks, not cars (which is true) and that trucks constitute a higher percentage of their total sales than trucks do for Toyota and Honda (again true).
1487: Toyota's trucks are rarely ever mentioned and actual sales numbers of the Pruis vs the Tundra and Highlander are never mentioned.
And how many hybrids does GM sell to retail customers compared to Toyota?
The bottom line is that the Prius is out there, on the street, pulling down regular duty for real-world customers, and earning "green buzz" for Toyota and giving Toyota valuable feedback on how this technology works in the real world. On that point, Toyota IS ahead of GM.
Sorry, but vehicles of the future will, in all likelihood, look more like the Prius than the Tahoe (both inside and out), like it or not.
And, no, I don't own a Prius (or a Toyota), and I don't want one.
The Aura Green Line is equipped with the affordable GM Hybrid system, which reduces fuel consumption via sophisticated controls and a unique electric motor/generator mated to a 2.4L Ecotec VVT four-cylinder engine and Hydra-Matic 4T45 four-speed transmission. This innovative hybrid powertrain is rated at 164 horsepower (122 kW)* at 6400 rpm and 159 lb.-ft. (215 Nm)* of peak torque at 5000 rpm. While maintaining the vehicle’s sporty feel, the GM Hybrid system seamlessly reduces fuel consumption by:
Shutting off the engine when the vehicle is stopped, to minimize idling
Enabling early fuel shut-off during vehicle deceleration
Converting vehicle kinetic energy to electrical energy through regenerative braking to charge the advanced nickel metal hydride battery
Performing intelligent battery charging when it is most efficient
http://media.gm.com/us/saturn/en/product_services/r_cars/r_c_aura/index.html
Loren
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118580786322082261.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo
I will now take my hiatus, and I will see you when I see you.
DrFill
say it aint so! how will we continue the forum in your absence?
If the sales are tanking, there is only one place where revenues come from...
As for media coverage, you would have to be blind and/or completely oblivious to the obvious to think that the press doesnt push the concept that Toyota sells hybrids and fours and GM sells SUVs and pickups. If you read the coverage of the industry by business writers you would think GM doesnt even make cars and Toyota doesnt make a Tundra that gets 14mpg. You are arguing that Toyota's sales gains are not due to trucks when DrFIll has spent the last few days bragging about how well the Tundra is doing. If I'm not mistaken the Tundra is doing better than the Prius right now. I'm pretty sure Toyota would rather sell Tundras than Prius' when you consider they dont make money on the Prius.
the big 3 dont make money on cars because of thier employee costs, not because they dont care about cars. Do you really think that GM wants to lose money on cars in the US market? They have to sell trucks to stay alive and finance the development of new cars. Hopefully that will change after this years UAW talks.
Probably has something to do with this thread's title, which refers specifically to GM. Hence, the focus on GM, at least in my posts.
And Honda has a Prius competitor - the Civic Hybrid. Now, we can argue whether it's an effective competitor, but it is a Prius competitor.
1487: As for media coverage, you would have to be blind and/or completely oblivious to the obvious to think that the press doesnt push the concept that Toyota sells hybrids and fours and GM sells SUVs and pickups.
And you'd have to be really uniformed about the auto industry to not know that, when compared to the Big Three, a larger percentage of vehicles sold by Toyota consists of hybrid and four-cylinder autos, while, when compared to Toyota, a larger percentage of GM's sales come from pickups and SUVs. Let's not bash the press for reporting the facts.
1487: If you read the coverage of the industry by business writers you would think GM doesnt even make cars and Toyota doesnt make a Tundra that gets 14mpg.
I read The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Forbes, and Fortune, and they all mention the Tundra, and GM cars.
1487: You are arguing that Toyota's sales gains are not due to trucks when DrFIll has spent the last few days bragging about how well the Tundra is doing.
Please keep the various posters straight on this site straight.
I said that a large percentage of Toyota's growth is being fueled by more sales of trucks and SUVs. So I agree with you...
I am not talking about articles referring to sales MIX, I am talking about articles and editorials that pretend that Toyota only sells efficient vehicles and GM offers no alternatives to its SUVs. I have read many articles like that. My local paper has written numerous editorials that ignore the facts and then proclaim that Toyota is leading the charge towards efficiency with its hybrids. I even got my response letter published and it clearly explained the fallacy of their argument. I dont have a problem with any article that simply reports the facts, but I do have a problem with articles that leave out facts to make the author's point. I have read nothing about the success of the Tundra in any business publication. There has also been little coverage of Toyota's increased incentive spending. YOu need to keep in mind that Toyota is american as apple pie and its now the default american auto company for many in the press and in the public. People like Toyota and they want to see them succeed. People were raised on Toyota and they admire and idolize what they see as the Japanese obsession with quality. almost everyone wants to see Toyota succeed and members of the press are no exception. On top of that, the pundits who have been predicting GM's demise for the last few years do not want to admit GM is not going anywhere. How quickly we forget how the press and many here were confident that bankruptcy was on the horizon last year. Now 3 quarterly profits later no one has admitted they were wrong.
If Toyota is not leading the charge towards efficiency with hybrids who is? :confuse:
you are missing my point. The editorial claimed that only the Big 3 were hindering congress from passing "easily" achievable CAFE goals like 35mpg across the board. They then said Toyota and other import companies were gladly turning to hybrid tech and embracing greater fuel efficiency. No doubt Toyota has more hybrids than anyone, but its a stretch to say Toyota is for 35mpg CAFE. That is actually a complete lie.
"DaimlerChrysler was the first to report with a 9.1% dip, followed by a 19.1% drop from Ford and finally GM's 22.3% plunge in light vehicle sales. Toyota, Honda sales drift lower while Nissan bucks the downtrend."
There are many seeing GM as not going anywhere
As for profits, bookkeeping is a wonderful thing. I will stay about 50/50 for the current time, which is an improvement, I must admit, as the chance of no bankruptcy. Keep an eye on how much the UAW gives. It is all still wait and see. Same for the economy, with less than a 50/50 chance of it being stable to slightly down, or going into a downward spiral.
If GM holds to nearly neutral in North American sales, and continues good upward trends in other markets, they have a shot at a recovery. Perhaps the future is half the size for GM North America, and double the size for GM China, and about equal the size for Europe. Just a thought. Plant closing could slow down in USA, if we have a national health care plan in USA and the UAW is willing give - give a lot.
Then there is product. It is wait and see as to what the new stuff will look like. The New Malibu, well sort of new, hopefully sells well. Hard to see it as new since the G6 has been out so long and then the Aura, but the third times a charm. The G8, New Impala, Camaro, and to a degree the New CTS are the new stuff which will be a bit harder to predict for being accepted and sell in large numbers. All seem to be something which will sell and do well capturing attention of buyers and the motoring press. A little excitment to light the fire.
Loren
Loren, I don't think anybody claims GM cars to be perfect. It's just we get sick of hearing how "perfect" the imports are, when they too have issues. My experience w/ a car from that era (my mom's/aunt's '88 Park Ave) has been nothing short of stellar. It has 150k miles on it, and has only now started costing some money (an alternator and p/s rack). Not bad for a 19 yr old car that has been in the family for 17 yrs and 134k mi.
I have no idea how a sludge problem on a Toyota Camry, or a problem year for an Odyssey or Accord transmission has anything at all to do with making GM a better car.
It doesn't. But it shows that they aren't as stellar as they are made out to be. I know I wouldn't hear it from you, and I wouldn't say it about your dad's, but many of the import lovers here would say we got lucky w/ ours. If they did, wouldn't it be fair to point these our and say they got lucky w/ theirs????
Where do you get your assinine facts (see what I mean, Loren)????????
AAAAAAHHH!!!! Loren, I used to "drive" my grandpa's '61 Lesabre on his lap. GOD, how I miss that car and him
As said time and time again here, there are some other factors. How fun is a car, how good looking is the car, and how easy was it to sell for a fair price when moving on to the next car. As for those holding on to their old cars, I guess if you are still feeling the connection and it is entertaining enough to drive, then why not. I would say my old Olds 98 from days-gone-bye, I would consider as good comfort, due to those pillow seats, decent gas mileage at about 10% over EPA gas mileage, with handling sort of like my Dad's Camry. If it was in mint condition, as in working better than new, I would say it is the equal to a 2000 Camry. Actually Camry took the old position of the Delta88 (98Regency) and in a way the older Cutlass. If you want something though which is entertaining, as in better steering feedback and handling, as in double wishbone suspension, you won't find the fun with that old car, or the Camry.
Guess one could argue that their LaCrosse is better than a Camry. Heck, who knows, perhaps it is a GM version of a Camry. Fair or not, due to resale value, and perception of better gas mileage and such, that darn Camry once again is gonna make it rough for Buick to sell the LaCrosse. Is it unfair for Buick? Well you do not start selling any car on a level playing field. It is uphill for GM. Is it not, at least in part, GM's fault though that the playing field is now tilted against them?
Loren
I have found in my years of experience, that the imports are generally better these days, than the domestic counterparts, and run about twice as long. BUT, when there is a broad systemic issue with one of the imports, the maker is loathe to admit it, and when finally forced to, doesn't always step up and take care of it. Not saying the Domestics always do either -
Loren
There are known issues with GM, just like all makes, and you don't hear of mass recalls to fix those problems unless there is a lawsuit or the government step in about a safety issue. It is all in the math. Cost too darn much to fix all the flaws over time. Some of these are parts put into millions of cars over the years. When multiplied by even $100 = ouch!
Loren
See! Another happy 1988 Buick Park Avenue driver! I am not alone!
Page A3 of today's WSJ states that GM made about $65 per car sold in North America. They said that Honda and Toyota made about $1540 per car. An unbiased objective observer might ask: Why is GM even in the car business in North America? Could they do something better?
Would there be any advantage to them to become a legal "non-profit" orangization. Is that possible? Would there be any tax benefits or other positives in dealing with unions and work force? A new revised non-profit GM's purpose would be to provide benefits, vacations, health care, daycare,job banks, etc for people (workers, retirees and families) while providing a useful byproduct (cars) to civilization.