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
Will they ever bring back the El Camino? I thought it to be extremely popular - maybe I am wrong. Didn't they sell far more of those than the Ranchero? Couldn't Holden work as a platform for an El Camino. And there is no Japan equal to this. It is a heritage car, and something a bit practical too.
I still don't seem to get the G6 launched as the First Ever G6, if they plan on killing it off to go RWD car based on a Holden, or is the smaller RWD a new platform made here in USA? The same one to be used for the BLS. Please give is a name, or lettering other than BLS. Heck, how about calling it the Spry ? OK, I tried.
Still think an SUV or Truck could be called the Lassen.
enjoy the ride - savor the day,
Loren
I think the El Camino was reasonably popular, but just got phased out once GM dropped their body-on-frame RWD intermediate platform, making 1987 its last year. I thought they were good looking, but I guess from a practicality standpoint, even something like an S-10 would have had more payload capacity. Especially once they started putting 4.3 V-6es in them.
I'd imagine that a unitized El Camino-type vehicle would be hard to do, but Holden does offer one in the Australian market, called the Ute The crew-cab version looks like it has a separate bed, so I wonder if they slipped a frame under it? Or just a partial frame, like Jeep did for the Commanche pickup back in the 80's?
The Crewman and the 1-ton Ute are unibodies with a framelike tail extension to hang the bed and live axle on.
The Rendevous is a great looking vehicle loved by many. My FIL found one of the last ones on the lots and is very happy to get it. While he also likes the Enclave it is too big for them and much more expensive.
Nothing wrong with the Rainier. Just like my Envoy. Great SUV for me. Performs for me in every way except MPG and that is why in 6 months I will be driving an Enclave.
Sure, but I'll do it tonight when I have the time to go through the entire lineup.
You claimed that Automobile said that the Aura was "more engaging to drive" than the Accord and Camry, and this is not true, as shown by the quote.
1487: 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.
One version is as good as a comparable Accord or Camry. The seem to tiptoe around comparing the XE to the four-cylinder models. Why? Maybe because it's not as good as the four-cylinder versions...
1487: How can you turn that into anything but a compliment from Automobile? You are splitting hairs because you dont like what they said.
I am "splitting hairs" because you inaccurately reported what the reviewers in Automobile said.
I guess "splitting hairs" is now synonomous with "setting the record straight"?
1487: 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.
I don't need common sense when I have solid test results from Car & Driver and Consumer Reports. Real-world test results trump common sense (i.e., an opinion) every time.
1487: 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.
So? They didn't test the sporty version of the Accord, either. It was the LX with the extra value package, which is not the sportiest version of the Accord (that would be the V-6 with the six-speed manual).
1487: 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.
That says nothing about the Accord. Accord wasn't all new this year, so it wasn't eligible for the North American Car of the Year Award.
1487: 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.
And in their ranking of all vehicles in the segment, the reviewers still put the Accord four-cylinder ahead of any Aura.
1487: CR is hopeless as we've discussed here already.
Well, because you don't like the results of their tests.
1487: 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.
Consumer Reports rates the cars on more than performance. Fit and finish, ergonomics and refinement (interior noise levels) are some of the other criteria the magazine uses. A car can outperform another car on the test track and still lag said competitor in these areas.
so you are saying the fact that ONE domestic product is ranked best in class automatically proves CR is perfectly objective? Name any GM or Big 3 vehicle other than the Avalance that is ranked 1st or 2nd in class by CR. the whole basis of your argument makes no sense. You are saying the Avalanche's score proves CR is fair but dont explain how it whipped the nearly identical Silverado in scoring. Here's part of the problem- CR doesnt explain how it scores vehicles. I fail to see how GM bashers dont have a problem with a publication that cant even explain where its scores come from. That is just unacceptable and opens the door to be called biased.
Imagine if your kids went to a school where teachers could give out grades without telling you how they are determined and then said "I have to be fair because I dont accept money from students in my class. case closed".
12,700 for a new one is a good deal. :shades:
Anyone with basic knowledge of the STS knows its not a luxobrage as you put it so eloquently. Such a notion is a joke and shows that you cant be taken seriously here. The STS is RWD and has more standard power for 2008 than 5 series or E class or M35. It also has a sports package with 18" wheels, performance tires, brembo brakes etc. Yeah, sounds like a real old folks car.
"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."
None of these cars can seat three adults comforably in the back, dont be ridiculous. The Aura is like 1-2 inches narrower than the imports, hardly a large dimension in my book. If you want to seat three across in the back you better get a Taurus/Sable or something. Your argument that the Aura isnt comparable to camry and accord due to its width is beyond weak and doesnt hold water. the cars are all competitors and the Aura is a solid competitor by any objective measure.
um, not really. If you dont care about fuel economy the XE is a great choice vs the base model Camry and Accord. No need to tiptoe around anything. My oroginal point was simply that Autoweek and Motorweek liked the aura better than the competition and you have gone to great lengths to show why the Aura isnt better even though those sources think it is better.
"I guess "splitting hairs" is now synonomous with "setting the record straight"? "
I did not remember the quote verbatim, you are correct. That said, Automobile liked the Aura a lot and seemed to endorse it based on that quote. You disagree? Are you arguing against my memory or saying Automobile didnt like the car?
"So? They didn't test the sporty version of the Accord, either. It was the LX with the extra value package, which is not the sportiest version of the Accord (that would be the V-6 with the six-speed manual). "
Oh boy- I thought you knew there is no special sports model of the Accord. I guess you did not. In C&D's view every honda is sporty so they dont really need a sports edition of their cars. The V6 wasnt tested because it was a 4 cylinder comparison test. Only the Aura lacked one because it wasnt available and they uses the base XE. BTW, the V6 accords have larger wheels but not sports suspensions.
"Well, because you don't like the results of their tests. "
no actually I have provided reasons why I dont respect them. I dont see you offering any worthwhile rebuttals so I'll assume you have none. If CR is objective they sure do a good job of appearing biased. The only reason import fanboys support CR's flawed methodology is because the results are in their favor. YOu wouldnt support CR if it ranked domestics better. If that were the case you would have no problem understanding where I'm coming from.
"And in their ranking of all vehicles in the segment, the reviewers still put the Accord four-cylinder ahead of any Aura. "
of course they did, it's CR. Are you surprised? the 1980 Accord would outscore the Aura in CR. Just like I wouldnt use Fox News to get an objective view of political candidates I dont expect CR to give any domestic makes a fair shake in reviews.
"Consumer Reports rates the cars on more than performance. Fit and finish, ergonomics and refinement (interior noise levels) are some of the other criteria the magazine uses. A car can outperform another car on the test track and still lag said competitor in these areas. "
let me try to be explicit here, if you look at the midsize car review you will see that the aura scored nearly the same as the Altima across the board. I know its hard to understand if you have never seen the issue in question so it might help if you could get a copy. On the resuls page at the back you will see the Aura matched up in nearly every category and even beat the Altima in one or two. The altima whipped it in final scoring though. Sound meter ratings are included as far I can remember, the Aura does fine there in the test. Keep trying, I assure you there are no legit excuses. See the current pikcup comparo for more examples of CR's phantom scoring. Its all BS, trust me.
The Nova based Seville, leaf springs and all ! But they looked cool ! Once the DeVille got into the 5.0 engine era, I would think it to be too underpowered.
Loren
the '80 Cadillacs used a 368 CID version of the 425 which was only rated at 150 hp. GM did a subtle re-skin of their big cars for 1980 that shed 100-200 pounds, depending on the model, and the 368 was still pretty torquey. I think I saw an old road test of a Seville with that engine that did 0-60 in about 10.6 seconds, so I'd expect a DeVille to be comparable.
Now once they started using the tiny aluminum 4.1, it was all over. I have an old 1985 Consumer Guide that tested a Brougham with that engine, and it did 0-60 in 14.8 seconds. It was also geared pretty short, at 3.42:1, in an attempt to move all that mass, so fuel economy was pretty dismal.
Once they went to the Olds 307 (5.0), I think they set the axle back to a 2.73:1 ratio. As a result, fuel economy improved considerably, as the thing didn't have to rev so fast on the highway. I'd guess 0-60 was around 13 seconds by this time. A RWD LeSabre or Delta 88 would do it in around 12 seconds from tests I've seen, but the Brougham was probably about 500 pounds heavier.
I think it was 1991 that they switched to the Chevy 305, as the Olds 307 was discontinued after 1990. It had more hp, 170 versus 140, but I think torque was a bit lower. I dunno how fast it was, but I think the optional 185 hp TBI 350 was finally able to get 0-60 back down under 10 seconds, which is probably something a full-sized Caddy hadn't achieved since maybe 1970?
As for Accord suspension, they all use the double wishbone setup and are all sports suspensions. The setup for firmness could be too firm for those use to a Camry/Oldsmobile/Buick like ride. It is not for everybody. As for the Aura interior it is a bit smaller and feels smaller too. For me it was further on down the list of items than it would be for someone carrying more people. Does seem like the right knee hits the center console more however. Anyway, the crux is that some things are better, and some worse on the GM compared to the rest, so it all boils down to is it right for you, and nothing more.
As for Consumer Reports testing, it is sometimes spot on and other times kinda silly. I would just move on to the final pages where they show the user survey, if the reading of the driving tests annoy you. We are talking testing toasters one day, then cars the next. While they are both tools, people have more passion for a car -- well some do. There approach is to view a car as a toaster, so it is gonna be scoring for size, gas mileage and such. Buying by the test numbers can be misleading too. A Mini Cooper may just kill a Porsche or heck maybe a Corvette say in a slalom, but it doesn't mean all those cars are not capable of great driving on the track or on the streets. Over the history of these tests some really humble cars have blown away expensive ones in slalom tests. Short wheel base, and light weight, I think is the formula, but I am no expert on the matter. What they should rate is tire wear while trying to do this stuff. Some cars eat tires rather quickly when pushed.
Braking for lunch break,
Loren
Well, if you talked to my brother who had the one with the transmission failure at 20K and enough other tings go wrong that were it not in warranty the repairs would have cost more than the vehicle he'd bend your ear for a while. It was the vehicle that sent him over to the Japanese after 35 years with American vehicles.
I admit that's anecdotal but it's the only Trailblazer I had any up close experience with. That whole class of vehicles does nothing for me so I am not the one to evaluate.
The one thing I will say for the CR bashers is that they are correct when they question how CR chooses their vehicles. They will pick a loaded up version of one vehicle and compare it to a stripper of another and then say the first one felt "more upscale." Gee. I do think that generally they rate a car as an appliance pretty well.
Who out there said an Aura was at least as much fun to drive as a Camry? Talk about a backhanded compliment! I think my lawnmower is as much fun to drive as a Camry!
Lots of people do care about fuel economy, which may explain the poor sales of the Aura. That is why many of them buy the four-cylinder Accord and Camry instead of the V-6 versions in the first place.
1487: No need to tiptoe around anything. My oroginal point was simply that Autoweek and Motorweek liked the aura better than the competition and you have gone to great lengths to show why the Aura isnt better even though those sources think it is better.
And my point is that other sources, which are just as credible, do not rank the Aura ahead of the Accord.
1487: I did not remember the quote verbatim, you are correct.
You changed the meaning of the quote. That is different from merely not remembering it verbatim.
1487: That said, Automobile liked the Aura a lot and seemed to endorse it based on that quote. You disagree? Are you arguing against my memory or saying Automobile didnt like the car?
I never said that Automobile didn't like the Aura (for the record, the reviewers seem to like the new Vue, too).
I said that the magazine never held that it was superior to the Accord or Camry, which was what you were alleging when you misquoted the review.
1487: Oh boy- I thought you knew there is no special sports model of the Accord. I guess you did not.
When the 2003 Accord debuted, every tester treated the V-6, six-speed-manual coupe as the sportiest model and a special model. Now Honda has extended that drivetrain to the sedan, and treats it as a special model.
1487: BTW, the V6 accords have larger wheels but not sports suspensions.
The V-6, six-speed-manual models have different suspension tuning, too.
1487: no actually I have provided reasons why I dont respect them. I dont see you offering any worthwhile rebuttals so I'll assume you have none. If CR is objective they sure do a good job of appearing biased. The only reason import fanboys support CR's flawed methodology is because the results are in their favor.
And, when it all boils down, the only reason you don't is because they don't rank domestic cars first in comparison tests.
1487: YOu wouldnt support CR if it ranked domestics better. If that were the case you would have no problem understanding where I'm coming from.
Another attempt at mind reading on your part, and just as unsuccessful as previous attempts.
1487: of course they did, it's CR. Are you surprised? the 1980 Accord would outscore the Aura in CR. Just like I wouldnt use Fox News to get an objective view of political candidates I dont expect CR to give any domestic makes a fair shake in reviews.
Except that they like the Fusion/Milan, put the Avalanche ahead of the Tundra, have praised the capabilities of the new GM crossovers (they tested an Outlook and rated in very highly) and have praised the reliability of the new Tahoe/Suburban and Lucerne.
Maybe when the domestics make a good car, Consumer Reports notices. Perhaps the problem is that the domestics don't make enough good cars.
1487: let me try to be explicit here, if you look at the midsize car review you will see that the aura scored nearly the same as the Altima across the board. I know its hard to understand if you have never seen the issue in question so it might help if you could get a copy.
Scores that are "nearly equal" are not "completely identical," so it's entirely plausible that Car A could end up with a higher score than Car B, even though they scored "nearly equal" on various parts of the test.
The beauty is that your book doesn't matter to the GM offensive because you're going to keep buying their cars no matter what.
My import fanboy book is much more important because I walked into the Saturn dealer as a potential conquest but decided that it's no sale because of the width of the Aura. My 03 Altima is certainly capable of carrying three adults, not like a limo, but I can make it a distance without constant whining and grunts. GMs mid-size cars have always had pinched back seats and they still do. In this all important segment, that's fatal.
You don't matter to GM's offenive... I do.
IIRC, the 305 went in the Fleetwood in '86 or '87. By '89 or '90 they had the 350 in it. Now the last gen RWD ('92-'96) all had 350's, and the '94-'96's all had the LT-1.
BTW, Loren, you'd love it- it has a hand brake
I think your point is valid in that people looking for a mid-sized sedan may put fuel economy up further on their list now.
In a few yrs., if gas prices stabilize and we become accustomed to paying $3/gal :sick: or (dare I say it) prices drop
I could see that with the Rainier. Again, not my cup of tea but if my brother's Trailblazer had been reliable a decent interior and good sound system would have made it quite nice to ride in.
The only thing biased about this story is GM, not the writer Dan Neil. To a lot of people GM cars like the G6 do show tremendous incompetence and lack of ability in designing, building, assembling, and executing decent to good quality vehicles. Dan Neil has no incentive to be biased unless someone paid him to write the article.
GM is biased for pulling the ads in the LA Times for multiple reasons:
1) sets bad precedant that if you give us an unfavorable review you won't get anymore ad money
2) GM is in business to sell cars (whether they are worthy or not)
3) GM has incentive to sell the crap they make (because they don't want to take the full loss)
4) GM would rather sell crap than junk a poorly designed model as they should be, and never put on the sales floor. They should go from assembly line to the car crusher; direct!
If I had run the LA Time (in retaliation for GM pulling ads) I would have called for all writers, employees, and associates to write in their GM horror stories and given it the front page.
It's like betting on a sure thing.
Back to GM?
1) sets bad precedant that if you give us an unfavorable review you won't get anymore ad money
You see, there IS some incentive in this case: While a bad review on a car is no reason to pull ad money (sour grapes) the Times Co. (NY,LA, and Boston Globe are all one, I believe) has a habit of allowing it's writers (Thomas Friedman of the NY Times, I believe) to say whatever it wants about GM, insinuating it sponsors terrorism via the SUV's it sells, and when Bob Lutz asks to respond in kind with an editorial of similar length, they hide behind their little walls and say no way!! Write a letter like the any ordinary citizen, and limit it to 250 words. (Oh BTW we can edit anything out we don't like).
Now, that gives GM 2 options: Pay for the space ($100,000 a page) for an advertising rebuttal, or pull it's ads and say screw you, no more money from us.
Like I said, say a car is junk, point out why, that's fine. A spade is a spade. But write an opinion full of half truths and innuendo, and allow no response, and that's just wrong.
After dealing with my wife's recent totalling of her Civic, I NEVER WANT TO BE REAR-ENDED, unless I'm driving a Honda, because the depreciation hit won't hurt.
You seem to absolutely always be 100% WRONG in all of your statements.
First, It was MY Dodge (not my brothers) that the tranny crapped out at 60K. This was a problem with thousands and thousands of Dodge's, yet Dodge wasn't "nice enough" like Honda to fix it. Almost EVERY Dodge from 1994/95 was known to have head gasket problems, yet Dodge never stepped up to be "nice enough" to pay for that either.
I guess Honda was just "nice enough" to fix a problem they were embarrassed by. Maybe they wouldn't have been as nice if my tranny was the only one ever to have failed; I don't know, seems like to me, the more that fail, the more likely the company will be to deny it (see Dodge).
Or say something like "parts just break down" (again see your closest Dodge dealer service manager to hear this comment).
If you want to hear, if and when you have a problem with a Honda "We're sorry, Honda is going to pay for a brand new transmission assembly delivered overnight freight, and cover your rental car costs in the meantime," go to your local Honda dealer. By the way, this was done at 42,000 or so miles, and they said I was covered from that mileage just as if I had zero miles on the date of install (in other words the warranty reset as if I had a new car at 42,000 miles!). It was like brand new again.
This same problem of a tranny failing right after warranty expiration happened to my brothers girlfriend's Land Rover recently. They were "too mean like Dodge." And wouldn't pay for it despite desperate pleas, letters, and complaints from her. I told her about my Honda story.
I'm glad to report she just leased a brand new Accord; heard the news on Sunday night.
Her car blew an oil line a couple of weeks ago which resulted in a seized engine and major expense for yours truly. I hate to throw out red meat in here but it IS a Camry (99 with about 100K on it). Combination of bad luck and young driver not aware of things like checking oil (despite dad's repeated warnings) and paying attention to idiot lights.
Not exactly; it's called mathematical projection.
Meaning... even counting all your flawless vehicles from America, and my Dodge, you still have one failed tranny that never got paid for by the manufacturer.
I think between my parents, brother, cousins, and myself, there are MORE import cars than you've owned to compare, with one failed tranny, which did get paid for by the manufacturer.
Grade to Imports 90% = A -
Grade to Domestics 30% = F
The key is.... I believe I have driven at least 3 times as many miles in imports before I will have as many tranny failures that cost me money as I did in the domestic.
Is a new Cadillac and Pontiac RWD compact, or slightly larger than compact cars in the works? Should those cars be V6 only, or offer an i4 engine?
Honda and Toyota don't EXPRESS 100K powertrain warranties, but they certainly IMPLY them.
Both in that you won't need the warranty for 100K, and if you do, they'll cover it anyway.
Given Dodge's history, I wouldn't be surprised if they told you to go to hell even before 100K hits, and make you sue them to recover warranty expense.
It's easy to follow CR, they tell you which used cars to get and which to avoid. If you've owned a car since it was brand new, and its on the list of "to avoid" and it was a lemon... seems like CR is trustworthy and always right to me.
Also works the other way, if you own a car and its flawless, and its on the list of used cars to "look for." The trust factor grows with CR.
Since CR has been around a long time, their level of trust with the public at large is IMMENSE (for lack of a better word).
Buick Enclave
Cadillac CTS
Chevrolet Corvette
Dross:
Buick Lacrosse
Buick Rainier
Buick Rendezvous
Buick Terraza
Cadillac DTS
Cadillac Escalade
Cadillac XLR
Chevrolet Aveo
Chevrolet Cobalt
Chevrolet Colorado
Chevrolet Equinox
Chevrolet Malibu
Chevrolet Monte Carlo
Chevrolet Trailblazer
Chevrolet Uplander
GMC Canyon
GMC Envoy
Pontiac G5
Pontiac G6
Pontiac Grand Prix
Pontiac Torrent
Saab 9-5
Saab 9-7
Saturn Ion
Saturn Relay
Neither:
Buick Lucerne
Cadillac SRX
Cadillac STS
Chevrolet Avalanche
Chevrolet Express
Chevrolet HHR
Chevrolet Impala
Chevrolet Silverado
Chevrolet Suburban
Chevrolet Tahoe
GMC Acadia
GMC Savana
GMC Sierra
GMC Yukon
Hummer H2
Hummer H3
Pontiac Solstice
Pontiac Vibe
Saab 9-3
Saturn Aura
Saturn Outlook
Saturn Sky
Saturn Vue
Luxury vs. near luxury can be explained well by looking at an Audi A3 (luxury) and VW GTI (near luxury; as far as interiors go). In the A3 you get top quality interior materials, features, seats (with extra package), fit and finish and trim, build quality. In the GTI you get that but to a significantly lesser degree.
People choose the A3 over the GTI and it's not just for the emblem or name, it's for the quality of the materials (and the GTI is no slouch). Also, it used to be you got free maintenance with audi (a luxury thing), and you still get free loaner rentals for service and warranty visits (another luxury feature, common to luxury companies).
At least one Honda salesman told me the Coupes have a "sportier" suspension setup than the sedans do.
Should the Cobalt and Aveo stay within the Chevy ranks, or be passed on to the Saturn line? Seems to me, Saturn/Opel could very well be Saturn Korean cars too, selling the Aveos from tiny, to compact. The compact Cobalt, if kept in the Chevy line up should then be something which looks richer, or simply stay amongst the Aveo line up and go for price while being sold at Saturn. Or is Saturn only to have more upscale now? This is where I start to lose the GM logic in branding. Is Saturn more upscale than is Chevy and if so why isn't the Aura sold only as an XR, or as the Opel brand. Yea, as an Opel. Isn't the Astra coming over by ship as an Opel? Or is Saturn now just another Chevy dealership, with perhaps some nicer looking stores, and friendlier staffing? It all began with some unique little plastic cars, with cut-out cars in display at the dealership to point to all those differences of a Saturn. Gone is the plastic. They now seem to be getting what all the other division have, plus this new Astra. While this appears to help Saturn, I am just wondering, what is Saturn today? In 1973, I bought my Opel from a Buick dealership.
Someone said Saturn is the alternative to a foreign car dealership. Well, so are all the other divisions. Unless they import all the cars, it seems like most of the rest in the line up is re-branded. Actually, is it not then Saab and Pontiac which will be the import fighter cars?
confused :confuse:
Loren
That being said:
A broken transmission and head gaskets can cause you to spend over $2,500 more than for say, a Honda or Toyota that never falters. So 2 problems might not seem like a lot, but when your hit with $2,500 in repair costs, come back and tell me that a small difference in reliability (leading to only 2 more problems) is not significant.
$2,500 can buy a whole lot of gas! At least for now
The difference in MPG is 4 for the combined figure between Aura and Accord i4 auto.
Loren
The Silverado, which in the very same article we are discussing was ranked first for heavy duty towing. Also, the Focus was ranked 2nd in both small cars and budget cars with manual transmissions, the Corvette was ranked 2nd in Ultra-performance cars, and the Outlook was ranked 2nd in large SUVs.
I've already said that the mid-gate could be a big factor in the Avalanche's high ratings. To be blunt, I don't think you would be spending so much time saying CR is biased if the relative rankings of cars from GM and Toyota were reversed.