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
that statement makes no sense at all. GM puts ads in C&D to get readers' attention, not to show support for the editorial content of the magazine. They would be criticized for pulling ads just because they dont agree with the reviews all the time.
"Car and Driver gives its opinions, likes and dislikes, about all brands of vehicles, not just GM. "
Are you serious? Thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad to explained why C&D exists because I surely didn't know their job was to rate vehicles.
"Would GM give "any" advertising dollars to Car and Drive if they thought that the magazine was a "hater" and did not play fair? "
yes, they do it all the time. Have you ever read Automobile Mag? They arent fans of much GM does but you still see GM ads in there.
"Furthermore, since the domestic transmissions seem to breakdown about 3 times as often as the import trannies."
and offer no imperical data to back it up, other than "Duh, my brothers Dodge's tranny crapped out at 60k mi. so they must all be junk", yet when you point out the Honda tranny problems (BTW ANDRES, this is why they replaced your tranny for free even though it was out of warranty, NOT because they're nice guys) or the Toyota sludge problems, they get all defensive and huffy. Let's face it; they screwed up, seemed to have fixed the problems, and moved on. Why can't we??? Because they like to bring up every little burp and fart about GM from the past. I thought we were talking about GM, and their turnaround. The [non-permissible content removed] Big 3 have given the American big 3 a serious wake up call, and they are responding, led by GM.
GM is starting to get some serious KUDOS from every major car mag on their new products. The only thing holding them back right now is perception, and stubborn attitudes like his.
no they wont if they are the type who would buy Saturn and not Chevy. In addition the Malibu is unlikely to have incentives at launch but Saturn will still have incentives on 2007 models its trying to clear out. I would expect a huge price difference between the two cars when you factor in incentives. If you dont believe me look at the pricing of the G6, it's actually more expensive than the Aura since Saturn has no haggle pricing. The G6's base prices look pretty good, but the Aura has much more standard equipment so by the time you look at two equally optioned cars the Aura is cheaper.
The sad truth of the matter is that it doesnt matter what GM does to many people, including those who post here. We can talk all day about GM needing better plastics, more hybrids, more 6 speeds, etc. but the bottom line is that hardcore import fanboy who has been GM bashing for most of his adult life is NOT going to buy GM (or Ford or Chrysler) no matter what. That is their prerogative but I dont like it when people pretend that they would buy GM if GM just did one or two things better. I dont hide the fact that I have no desire to own any Toyotas and no more than one Honda. I dont care what they do or how reliable they are. Its not even about them being "imports" since many of their cars are made here. About the only thing Toyota could do to make me consider their products is make better looking products, improve their handling and drop their prices. Since those things arent going to happen I can say I dont want a Toyota. That doesnt mean I would suggest Toyotas are crap and people that buy them are inferior. All we need the people here to do as admit they have no love for GM products and move on to another forum.
Loren
What is difference is the styling and content. Styling is relative but I like the China Lacrosse interior better than the US one. Much nicer. But it also has a lot more content, which means a whole bunch more cost.
This is where GM is probably going to have to change it's mind on what a Buick is. Right now it is developed to be slightly above Chev/Pont/Saturn but well below Cadillac. A base LaCrosse is $23k. The China one would probably start well above $30k here if it was built here. In the past Buick was scared that it's volume would drop if they were priced out of the sweet point of around $27k. Much higher than that and the volume goes way down. Well now that the Buick volume is so bad they might as well raise the content and the price and see if people will buy. The Enclave is the first to do that and it sure is working. The next LaCrosse is also supposed to be styled controversially and contented higher than the current LaCrosse.
yes,
yes.
Agree with what you have to say, however the '71 was already wide enough for a Pony or sports car. Plenty wide. Not we are talking truck or Crown Vic wide.
And true, if I was in Wyoming, a 85" wide car would be OK.
And I agree, they are all doing this high beltline, doors to the chin, chop top look, with smallish windows thing. Too that end, I say used cars are starting to look better. My new car has a higher beltline than an older car, but not excessive like more models coming out these days. Just ridiculous. And may I add, not attractive.
Loren
If they priced the V8 Lucerne at or below $30K, then I may make sense. A LaCrosse at $25 to $27K for the top line, is a maybe - not bad. That is unless they want the old game of $4K to $5k off the sticker pricing.
Loren
We've read chapter and verse on how you went about choosing the Accord over the Aura, and that's great!!! While you have talked about previous problems w/GM products you've had, I don't see the unfactual generalizations in your posts I see from people like Andres like this:
Furthermore, since the domestic transmissions seem to breakdown about 3 times as often as the import trannies
Only an opinion, w/ a figure (3/1) pulled out his [non-permissible content removed].
In speaking about GM's offensive, would you not agree that the Aura is a much better car than the Achieva(??) you previously owned?
I think rehashing debacles like Toyota's sludge and ball joints, Honda's trannies, or GM's diesels and 200r4 trannies is counterproductive to the forum's gist.
IIRC, a base CXL w/ a V-8 is $29,995.
I think what happened was a cheapening of the brand in order to lure would be Chevy and Pontiac customers which was self defeating.
They have some nice product out there and it does seem to distinguish itself from the rest of GM. A little more standard content along with cost might make a difference.
150k mi at 13 mpg is 11,538 gallons. At $2.69 current local for regular thats $31038. At $3.69 a gallon, thats $42576 or an extra $11,500. What will the avg price be over the next 7-12 years? $3.69 is probably a low guess. The possible variation in the cost of gas is huge in comparison to the variation between the cost of reliability from the best to the middle of the pack. We are trying to kill off a car company for being middle of the pack. What are we doing to BP or Exxon?
What was there at Saturn, the day I went to buy a car, were one or two lightly optioned XE models, and mostly heavier optioned XR models, with not a single base in either model class. This is not right. And all the cars get pin stripes and many had etched numbers in the glass, which are all added to a side sticker. True, the side sticker will vanish when you press them on not needing the stuff, but I find it as an attempt to squeeze more money out of less aggressive buyers, and perhaps something not appealing, as in you may not want or long for having the pin stripes on a car. In contrast the Honda dealer had the SE, which is like the XR with no add-ons, be it factory or at the dealership. Come deal time, Saturn simply could not negotiate on price. The only discounts at the time were the $1,000 off as advertised, and another $500 off (non-advertised, but found on Edmund's, Calif. deal) which I am still wondering how that worked. The net was the $1,500 off. Fine, now we talked trade-in. Well that took away the discount, so I had to try elsewhere. The best trade-in, and price came surprisingly from Honda. Many years ago I ended up with a Corolla, as they gave $1,000 compared to $500 off on Civics, so I was amazed to find dealerships willing to budge on price. Getting I wanted for the trade-in I knew would be pretty tough, but after say an hour of back and forth, they agreed on a price which was pretty darn good.
Now as far as will the Aura or New Malibu be better over time than any other make, it is a wait and see. What happened way back when doesn't have a thing to do with this current offering, as the transmission is new and the 3.6 V6, while not new, is newer. Same goes for assembly of Aura and a million and one parts. Can't begin to know until a lot of cars are on the road. Of course there is initial quality, which is always nice to have a decent score position amongst the rest, but the true grit is being on the roads of America, in the hands of brutes and crazies, and to still be running. While other brands get mentioned, when comparing feel, road abilities, price and content, where reliability and performance down the road matters is truly down the road. It would be fool hearty to say any brand is going to be better than your car over the next three to seven years, unless you are a mystic and can read into the future. That said, we all go by what happened in our past as to having a feeling as to what is most likely to occur, though the reality is a total unknown. The past does influence resale values, which are pretty easy to predict.
At my age I have seen the era of GM supremacy, and decline. While I owned a '65 Mustang, I always loved those Camaros. The family has owned many GM cars. My overall experience has been more positive with those RWD cars made by GM than FWD. Well, one poor excuse of a car in RWD, but that was a model thrown together during the oil embargo years. I was young, and did not realize how different the tried and true GM was compared to new stuff in '76. I am thinking that GM is now doing somewhat what Toyota has done in that they have platforms which have been working well in Europe or say Australia they can bring to market as a known quality. And the pre-release testing with computers is sure to help. I would be surprised to see any total flops coming out these days. And then there should be the realization that everyone is looking for the slightest flaw. In the 70's they were still riding high on the good years, and those foreign cars looked pretty unsafe, small, and could not hold up to salted roads. So they figured throwing together some cheapo cars, like the Chevy Monza / Starfire so they had something for gas mileage would be OK, even if the bean counters said build it cheaply. In this day, I would imagine it would be suicide to do so. I must say it is a bit sad though to see things like BP gasoline ads on the gas cap of a Mustang, and old hood props and such. The Fusion is an example of almost getting there effort. The New Malibu, which I see as sort of a third, or is that fourth generation of the platform of cars, should be a best effort to date. Hopefully a 100% goodness car, at a right price. Now the way I remember GM is at least in part as the body builder, as in Body by Fisher really good looking cars. So it is the Impala and others to come which will most likely really capture my eye, and remind me of the glory days of GM. Hope they have the look = :shades:
Sorry for the too long post,
Loren
Loren
Nah. The thing about your post is it is an open minded post from an experienced car buyer. I'll make no bones about it:
If the big 3 go down the tubes and all I'm left with for choices is "foreign" brands, I'l take my 20-30 grand and invest it in my '65 Wildcat and drive it into the ground, then spend another 30 grand to rebuild it and drive it some more.
That being said, I'm not going to sit here and go on the Toyota Camry problems forum and bash them as no good. I have no evidence to back up such a claim. But I, along w/ some other posters here aren't going to stand here and let these "import loving fools" bash us for our buying decisions, as well as our desire to see GM do good.
While we do respect the folks over at Consumer Reports, we do not envy them. Whether the subject is vacuums, lawnmowers or half-ton pickups, nearly every test they perform is scrutinized down to the tiniest of details. We suppose it goes with the reputation of being the most reliable source of production information for consumers, but it's gotta be hell on the nerves.
In its most recent issue, CR is publishing a report on half-ton pickups that might have some crying foul and revisiting claims the publication is biased in favor of imports. Included in the test are the 2007 Toyota Tundra 5.7L V8, 2007 Chevy Silverado 1500 5.3L V8, 2007 Ford F-150 5.4L V8 and 2007 Dodge Ram 1500 5.7L V8. The report puts an emphasis on towing, and (spoiler alert) the Toyota Tundra received the best score of the four pickups. The Tundra also received the "Recommended" label from CR (as did the Dodge Ram 1500), and was awarded a predicted reliability rating of "Very Good" thanks to the past performance of all Toyota's in CR's reader survey results.
We can already hear the grumbling. The domestic half-tons are offered in such a dizzying array of configurations, why didn't CR choose to buy a Silverado with the larger 6.0L V8 and a 4.10 rear-axle ratio (a no-cost option that would have matched the Tundra's ratio)? Jake Fisher, a senior automotive engineer for Consumer Reports, told Mike Levine at Pickuptruck.com, "For our readers, fuel economy is more important than gaining an extra second or two faster time 0 to 60, and we tested the trucks we felt were configured as our subscribers would use them."
Fuel economy and the 5.7 I force DO NOT go hand in hand.
"Car and Driver gives its opinions, likes and dislikes, about all brands of vehicles, not just GM. "
1478:
Are you serious? Thanks for clearing that up. I'm glad to explained why C&D exists because I surely didn't know their job was to rate vehicles.
Giving opinions, likes and dislikes is not
necessarily "rating" vehicles, although C&D does do many comparos with various tests and subjectively rates various attributes of a set of vehicles.
It is not uncommon for business entities to cut off their advertising dollars with newspapers, magazines, tv and radio if they don't agree with a them on fundamental matters. A magazine or newspaper through its published words that showed "hate" or continually was not fair and objective with the advertiser would be good reason for the advertiser to terminate its association with the magazine or newspaper.
Advertisers abandoned Don Imus tv program when he made "hateful" remarks that were on live tv.
A shoe company removed its endorsement of a shoe line for a famous football player recently for his alleged tie to dog fighting.
There is no evidence that Car and Driver hates GM.
I must agree with that statement. About 17 yrs ago, Brock Yates did an article about wanting GM to succeed. I have always look at their reviews w/ a raised eyebrow, but in recent months they have been getting better remarks from the editors.
GM has in the past pulled ad money from C&D. I believe in 1969, they lambasted the Opel station wagon, and GM pulled the ads for awhile because they thought the article went overboard in it's criticism.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I was buying GM for half my adult life until they drove me away. To offer a car that is as good for the same price is not going to get people to come back. Why would it? They either need to offer a better car for the same price(they don't) or offer a car that is as good for a better price (they don't).
"All we need the people here to do as admit they have no love for GM products and move on to another forum."
This is America and this is an open forum. If you can't take opposing opinions, it's not for you to tell others to go elsewhere.
>This is America and this is an open forum. If you can't take opposing opinions, it's not for you to tell others to go elsewhere.
It's nothing to do with America, whatever that allusion means. The negative opinions are repeated over and over. Try going to Honda discussions and reminding them daily of the problems with their Accords or Pilots or Odysseys and see how they react to historical and current references...
Rather than telling others they can't suggest you've spoken your piece and it's been heard; please don't repeated ad nauseum, check whether your contributions are related to the topic: "GM Is on the Offensive. Will It Work?" Is a post helping further that topic?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Thats very true and GM has done many things to piss people off. And that needs to be discussed here on this specific forum called "GM is on the offensive. Will it work?" because it is very germane to the topic.
But I think that we have discussed it enough that it probably took over 75% of the discussion. We all agree that it will take a lot to turn a lot of buyers back to GM. But can we not discuss what GM is doing also, on the offensive to do that?
Many subjects have been brought up here that show GM is on the offensive and it seems, at least to me, that perhaps, it is working. Profits are up, and until the last two months, retail sales are hanging on even with the shutting of many plants, cutting employees, quality (both quantitative and qualitative) is way up, lots of old undesirable SUV's, and mostly cutting to almost Toyota levels incentives.
Yet we seem to just let those new pearls go by and talk about how GM cars are junk or imports are wonderful or GM cars are great or imports are junk.
The only way GM is going to succeed is to win over the people that have gone to the imports. I had serious issues with my 98 Olds 88 and vowed never to buy GM again. However after owning two Yotas I seriously looked at the Lucerne when it came out. The Avalon won out for my third Toyota mostly because of the engine. So what will happen when my '06 goes back in '09? I will be in the showroom checking out the new Impala and whatever else Buick has new. I feel GM is getting better, but they really need a "slam dunk" to win back the import buyers like myself. Actually they need 3, a midsize, a large and a crossover (which they may actually have with the Acadia triplets)
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
of its German subsidiary Adam Opel has been completed. The company has cut
12,000 jobs since 2005, but has said that no more job cuts will be made;
the Opel plants are guaranteed until 2010. In the first half of the year,
Opel's sales volume in Germany fell 14.3 percent. GM is seeking new sales
markets for Opel from October, the company's Astra model is to be exported
under its US sister brand Saturn, and sales volume is to be boosted in
Eastern Europe this year. Negotiations are underway for a potential sale of
the components plant in Kaiserslautern. Opel plans to launch an electric
car on the market by the end of 2010, in response to environmental issues.
In the second quarter, GM's European business, of which Opel is the core
brand, attained profit of $236 million (172 million euros). This has been
attributed to cost reductions, better prices and increasing sales volume.
The restructuring program has enabled GM to save around $500 million per
year in Europe.
If you are going to claim a conspiracy at CR for why the Tundra scored better than the Silverado, how do you explain that the Avalanche out scored them both?
This isn't a pro-GM forum. This forum is called "GM Is on the Offensive. Will it Work?" Like it or not, "no" is a valid answer to the question. Having said that, GM is making substantial progress. When my wife buys a new compact SUV in a couple of months, the new Vue is going to be one that we test drive. The old one wouldn't have been.
Advertisers abandoned Don Imus tv program when he made "hateful" remarks that were on live tv.
A shoe company removed its endorsement of a shoe line for a famous football player recently for his alleged tie to dog fighting.
There is no evidence that Car and Driver hates GM. "
Lots of talk, no proof. GM vehicles rarely get good reviews from C&D, automobile and to a lesser extent, EDmunds. GM advertises in ALL three CONSTANTLY. They do so because they feel people interested in new cars read those publications. It does not mean they endorse the opinions of those publications. C&D is obviosuly biased and they dont try to hide it. Just read the letters they get from readers. In a recent comparo they ranked a 328i over a CHEAPER and BETTER performing G35 and got letters about the results. One writer said he was a BMW fan but there is no way he could say the 328 was a better car. It wasnt, but it was a BMW and thus is finished 1st.
As far as I know the only time in recent memory that GM has removed ads was when Dan Neil (very biased reviewer) trashed the G6 and spent most of the review saying GM management was incompetent and should be fired for producing such a crappy car. Many people (probably people like you) criticized them for removing ads from the LA Times and said Gm was being petty or overly sensitive. I mean, who cares that a car reviewer uses his column to air personal biases against an automaker instead of talking about the car right? of course if he had written a similar review about a Toyota or Honda people probably would've called for his head on a platter and called him ultra patriotic rascist nut or something.
BTW, I think its worth noting that not everyone who bought the domestic models I read about looked only at domestics when shopping. The myth that is propogated by so many import fanboys is that people who buy american only shop american and thus are unaware of the great vehicles being made by Asians. This is a flat out lie and if you spend an hour reading the comsumer comments you will see for yourself. One guy who commented on the Avenger said he used to own a 328i.
it would be nice if you offered some backing for your claims.
Aura XR is cheaper than comparable Camry or Accord or Altima.
Enclave and MKX are cheaper than MDX and RX350 by thousands
STS is far cheaper than comparable 5 series or E class
Silverado is cheaper than Tundra
SRX is cheaper than X5, ML, GX etc.
300C/Charger are cheaper than comparable V8 import sedans.
There are tons of examples of competent domestic models that are cheaper than their primary foreign competitors. Where do you get off suggestting they dont offer equal vehicles for less money? In most cases the domestic models are the better value.
I dont have a problem with people buying import after a bad experience, but I do have a problem with people giving import companies the benefit of the doubt after numerous recalls and quality issues. People always seem to have an excuse for import failures but wont give GM a second chance even if they were last burned 20 years ago.
BTW, my cousin just got a used camry after her mid 90s Avalon blew its tranny. I'm sure that was the only avalon with such a problem though since according to CR the avalon and every other Toyota has the highest possible reliability rating.
are you serious? That is for CR to explain, not imdazo. The avalance and Silverado are basically the same truck under the skin. Can you explain how the Avalance (which is not a true work truck) outscored the Tundra while the Silverado did not? It makes no sense. CR compare two trucks that were hardly evenly matched and then makes excuses. Furthermore, CR apparently ignored the Silverados superior handling feel, interior materials and fit and finish when ranking the Tundra #1. The ultimate insult is that they predicted excellent reliability for the Tundra even though it is all new and has nothing in common with old truck.
They are a joke.
True, but those few pearls are buried in a sea of dross still and it's not worth the trouble for most people to go digging for them when they can just look at the Toyota or Hyundai roster and point randomly at one. GM will get a better break once they've flushed more of the dead weight out of the lineup.
I haven't read CR in awhile, so I don't know all the specifics of their latest truck comparisons. However, one difference I can think of with the Avalanche, compared to the Silverado, is that the Avalanche has an integrated bed/body, which might make it a more solid feeling truck than a Silverado (or any other pickup for that matter) where the bed is separate from the cab, making the whole structure more flexible.
Are the Silverado and Avalanche built at the same assembly plant. If not, that can sometimes make a difference. For example, back in the day, the Lumina/Impala and Century/Regal were usually more reliable than the Grand Prix and Intrigue, because the Chevies and Buicks were built at a more modern, capable assembly plant.
And sometimes even buyer demographics can make a difference. Even if the vehicle is the same under the skin, one may cater to a group of people who, on everage, take better care of their cars than the other. For example, back in the late 70's/early 80's, big Buicks and Oldsmobiles tended to score higher on reliability than Chevies and Pontiacs. Now part of that may have been the different engines they used, as Olds and Buick V-8's were usually more durable than Chevy engines. Pontiac engines were pretty durable until the 301 came out. But I think buyer demographics also had a lot to do with it.
Tundra and Silverado do well in CR tests (Straightline)
You distinctly posted that Acura does not like front-wheel-drive near-luxury cars, and therefore doesn't like Acuras. Do we have to dig up the post?
1487: furthermore, in last years new car issue for Automobile they said the Aura was better looking and more engaging to drive than CAmry or Accord. Look it up for yourself. I assure you I am not misinformed.
I did just that, and guess what? You're misinformed. Here is the exact quote, from page 86, of the October 2006 issue (new car issue) of Automobile:
"The $24,595 Aura is at least as fine to drive as a comparable Toyota Camry or Honda Accord, and it is better looking than either." (emphasis added)
That quote says that ONE VERSION of the Aura MATCHES a comparable version of the Camry and Accord in the driving experience it offers. It does not say that the Aura is superior, or that every Aura is superior to every Camry or Accord.
It does say that it is better looking than either one, but I have never denied that the Aura is a good-looking car.
If you want to look at my back issues of Automobile - which go back to the 1980s - let me know. It might be a good idea to stop quoting reviews from memory.
1487: Accord V6 and Aura XR have never been directly compared.
Consumer Reports compared the two cars (can't remember if the Accord was the V-6 version), and preferred the Accord. And Car & Driver ranked the four-cylinder Accord ahead of the six-cylinder Aura.
In view of these results, what makes you think that the six-cylinder Accord won't beat it, too?
1487: Also Autoweek compared Aura to camry (which is newer and better than Accord)...
No. The new Camry is not necessarily better than the Accord. Did you miss the Car & Driver comparison test that ranked the four-cylinder Accord ahead of the Camry and the Aura?
1487: is that supposed to hurt my feelings?
No, just stating the facts.
1487: Yes, GM has never turned a concept into reality- except for SRX, XLR, Solstice, SSR, H3, etc. You are so right!
Considering that three of those vehicles have landed with a great big thud, and one (SSR) was the Edsel of the 21st century, that doesn't exactly prove your point.
1487: Gm's actual vehicles pale in comparison to the exciting models offered by Toyota and Hyundai.
We were comparing GM to Toyota and Honda, not Hyundai. Who claimed Hyundais were exciting? Not me.
The sales projections were contained in an Automotive News article. Given that this is a reputable trade publication with many industry contacts, I think we can accept a sales projection contained within one of its articles as reliable information.
I just read the comparo and its terrible. Here is the funny thing, CR really doesnt like the Tundra that much. They said the ride quality was poor, lacked full time 4WD, turning circle was huge, steering was vague, plastics were hard and handling limits were very modest. In essence they said it came in first because of the engine. All of the demerits earned by the 2nd place Silverado were earned by the Tundra as well- turning circle, average braking, etc. The difference is that they said the Silverado had a compliant ride and decent steering/handling for a truck. They also said the LTZ interior was very nice although both interiors were much better than before. They listed braking as "con" for the Silverado but the Tundra earned the same braking distance and this wasnt listed as a "con" for the Toyota. They did note the Tundra's braking was mediocre even though it was best in class- although I'm not sure how the Silverados equal distance wasnt called the same.
Again, I see no real reason for the Silverado getting a score of 66 in the test.
Now this quote, "One guy who commented on the Avenger said he used to own a 328i" is pretty funny, as it reminds me of how fortunes in life can change. A sad comedy, no doubt. The quote could have read, " I was once a big man on Wall Street, but alas, now I am a person adrift on the streets." Go look at and drive a Sebring or Avenger, and check out that interior. Now Chrysler larger stuff, not this made over Mitsu. are somewhat better to pretty darn good. The smaller cars are now but a sideline to them, unless they make the roadster by Dodge.
Smile :shades:
Loren
Of the bad GM designs I can think of, I'm not sure how many are in production or will soon be out of production. The only ones I can think of that may be bad are:
Buick Rendezvous (out of production to be replaced by Enclave?)
Buick Rainier (out of production?)
Buick Terrazza (out of production?)
Pontiac Grand Prix - (simply old and about to be replaced by the G8.)
Colorado and Canyon pickups (which is the GMC and which is the Chevy?)
Saturn Ion
Chevrolet Monte Carlo (out of production?)
yes. Acuras are not their favorite, but they like them. RWD cars are always going to be the preference at C&D. This is no secret.
"That quote says that ONE VERSION of the Aura MATCHES a comparable version of the Camry and Accord in the driving experience it offers. It does not say that the Aura is superior, or that every Aura is superior to every Camry or Accord.
It does say that it is better looking than either one, but I have never denied that the Aura is a good-looking car. "
seems to be they said the Aura is at the minimum as fun to drive as accord or camry but it looks better doing so. You get the idea. Not sure how that disproves the point I was trying to make. Obviously there is no four cylinder Aura so you would have to compare V6 cars. Sounds to me like they are saying the XR is a solid choice in the segment and every bit as capable as the sales leader but with better looks. How can you turn that into anything but a compliment from Automobile? You are splitting hairs because you dont like what they said.
"No. The new Camry is not necessarily better than the Accord. Did you miss the Car & Driver comparison test that ranked the four-cylinder Accord ahead of the Camry and the Aura? "
Here we go, use common sense here. The CAmry is newer and by most measures superior to the Accord. Edmunds coompared the cars and the camry won. It looks better, goes faster and has more features. C&D values sportiness over anything else and they decided to put a Camry LE in the test vs the Accord and then complained it wasnt sporty enough. furthermore V6 version of the car are not as evenly matched as the four cylinder cars so the camry V6 would fare better vs the Accord V6. As I said the Aura XR has not been compared to Accord V6 or Camry V6 in a real magazine or on edmunds.
BTW, motorweek named Aura best family car. Please give me your excuse for that. Also Aura wont NACY over camry, please provide excuse for that as well since you have all the answers. Did you miss those honors? Apparently so.
Also, CR did NOT compare Aura to Accord V6. CR provides numerical ratings and the Aura scored lower than the Accord and Camry and Altima V6 cars. The Accord was not in the most recent V6 sedan test though. CR is hopeless as we've discussed here already. The altima and aura had roughly equal performance and evaluations in the CR test and yet the Nissan outscored the Aura by 10 points or so. No explanation was provided for the scores.
Aura is not comparable to those cars because it's less capable of carrying 5 passengers comfortably because it'a less wide. I know because I checked it out in person. Those couple of inches make a difference. Nice fatal flaw GM.
"Enclave and MKX are cheaper than MDX and RX350 by thousands"
Enclave is not comparable to MDX and RX 350 because Buick is a near luxury nameplate and Acura and Lexus are luxury, including the red carpet treatment at the dealer.
"STS is far cheaper than comparable 5 series or E class"
STS is not comparable to the 5 series because the 5 is a 4 door sports car and the STS is a luxobarge indecipherable from a CTS at 20 feet and destined for FLA turnpikes.
While you may dismiss the opinions of "import fanboys", the GM offensive is not designed to sell you another car. It's designed to win customers back. I was raised on GM and I'll never love a car more than I loved my 70 Chevelle. I want to see them be great again. The efforts are better but still not enough to win back customers.
When did GM start making the 300C and Charger?
I do not count the GP and MC as dogs, but the MC is out of production anyway. The GP has a lot of utility and power. Its not best in class, but its not an embarrassment to GM by any means
I'm in agreement on the Trailblazer. I think my biggest complaint about them is that they had to go to that bus-sized thing to get third-row seating, while the Explorer was able to get a third row in the standard, short body.
I doubt if I'd ever buy a Trailblazer unless it was a deal too good to pass up, but I don't think they're THAT bad. They're just, well, kinda "there".
Yeah, I was shocked to find out that the Aura only has something like 54 inches of shoulder room in the back seat! I sat in one, and it didn't seem that narrow to me. We didn't try getting three people across, though! I think the Accord/Camry/Altima are what? Something like 57"? I think the Fusion's about there, too.
It seemed like it would be a comfortable 4-seater, but with shoulder room that tight, 3-across seating is going to be rough.
I'm trying to understand the thought processes involved. It seems like the CR bashers have the editors at CR sitting around saying "We will manipulate the tests so that the Tundra outscores the Silverado, but we will also let the Avalanche take first place so that people still think we are fair. BWAHAHAHA!!!!!"
When CR rates imports over GM products it is a sign of the conspiracy. When CR rates GM products over imports it is also a sign of the conspiracy because there are still other GM products in the same category that is rated lower than the import. Is the only CR can show it is fair by rating all GM products higher than all imports?
Btw, I suspect that the reason why CR likes the Avalanche more than either the Tundra or the Silverado is that they really like the flexibility of the midgate.