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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
You're right. Where could I get the idea that there is more to a car than numbers?
2. The styling of the lambdas has been universally praised, even by import loving media types. Your statement is totally contradtictory to the prevailing opinion on these vehicles.
You're right again. Who am I to not be thrilled with the appearance of a car when the magaizines like it. You seem pretty pleased to quote magazines when you agree with them but trash them when you don't
3. Almost everyone in the media who has seen the Malibu in person has stated the car is one the best designs in the segment.
You're right again. The car is stunning. How could I think that it looked decent but not breathtaking?
4. The SRX has not sold well but has been almost universally praisd, especially since it got a new interior. For the record the SRX's sales are in the same ballpark as the FX and several of its other competitors. I guess none of them resonated with the buying public.
I could counter that the SRX is praised for traits that most SUV drivers aren't looking for and point out that Inifinti has a smaller network than Caddy and that when new, the FX exceeded sales targets, but that would all be crazy. You're right again.
5. Accord and most other cars in that class cannot seat 5 in comfort. If this is an important feature to you I would suggest a larger car.
You're right again. I'll either ignore the Altima in my driveway that fits five no problem or change my mind about needed room for 5. I never wanted a larger car, but I'll get one now.
6. Most reviews of the kappa cars praised their handling. The GXp/redline kappas are definitely more powerful and more exciting to drive than the miata. The storage issue is a fact, the rest of your statement is pure unproven conjecture.
Silly me. I guess that it only felt heavy when I drove one at a dealer event. 2900 pounds is actually light for a 4 cyl 2 seat roadster. Who could feel the 500 pound difference? And why would I need trunk space? If I'm going away for the weekend, am I going to bring a bag??? I don't think so. You're right again.
7. The GM pickups are superior to the F150 in every way imaginable. Your lame excuse about friends loviing F150s and thus you dont consider other trucks is a joke. Styling is subjective but on the objective fronts the GMT900s are superior and there is nothing you can say to refute that.
You're right again!! I'll disregard my positive first hand experience with F-150s and my preference for their styling and interiors. Why would you pay attention to first hand experience anyway???
8. You dont have to be an SUV buyer to see the Vue has a lot of features, three engines and a top notch interior. I'm not exotic car buyer but for some reason I can tell that Ferrari makes a nice car. Imagine that.
You are right. It was wrong of me to not offer an opinion about a car that I don't know much about in a segment that I'm not interested in.
9. CTS is Overstyled? That is pretty funny. Sounds like a good way to excuse the car's good looks.
You're right. I've never heard anyone say that the Caddy was too edgy or that the BMW has a mellower, more classic design. That was crazy talk. Everyone prefer art and science.
I can say that the press seems to disagree with you 100% as do most people here who have seen the pictures. You are in the minority on that issue, as with most issues.
You're right. The only thing that I'm in the majority on is what people are buying. But thanks for stating your opinions as facts and straightening me out.
Good post. It's now obvious to me where all of GM's market share gains are coming from.
What part of the engine in the Vue was from Honda? The block only? The other parts? (fuel injection? electrical/ignition? exhaust?). Perhaps some part *attached* to that Honda engine didn't work.
If it hadn't thrown a rod or busted a valve then I wouldn't automatically assume it was the Honda engine. Usually it is the peripherals that cause cars to break down/not start.
Picking a family sedan used to be relatively straightforward.
Four cylinders or six. Leather upholstery or cloth.
Those days are over as automakers scramble to gain a new competitive edge by offering a growing array of variants in a segment once defined by dull.
General Motors Corp. is the latest to the game with the upcoming launch of its redesigned mainstay Malibu sedan.
When the 2008 Malibu hits showrooms in November, it will be available with a four- or six-cylinder engine, a four- or six-speed transmission, and as a gasoline-electric hybrid.
In addition to cloth, suede and leather inside, consumers will be able to choose a dual-color cockpit available in a number of hues.
"You're not going to get people to just switch brands for no reason," GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said Thursday. "It's a highly competitive market. You need to create a value equation that is so compelling people have to come over to your vehicle.
"When developing a vehicle like this, it doesn't do any good to match the competition; you have to go beyond the competition."i>
"When developing a vehicle like this, it doesn't do any good to match the competition; you have to go beyond the competition."i>
1487 is going to make a post trashing Bob Lutz for reiterating what I said a month ago.
according to some of your buddies here the Aura is the only car in this class that cant seat 3 across in the back with comfort and thus its not a contender. BTW, why doesnt someone actually tell us how much less space the Aura has in the back instead of just making up figures. I am willing to bet its not 3", probably not even 2" less than comparable cars.
Okay, pulling the stats up on Edmund's, here goes...
Rear shoulder room:
Aura: 54"
Accord: 56.1"
Altima: 55.5"
Camry: 56.9"
Sonata: 56.9"
And just to throw some other stats out there...
Lucerne: 57.0" (no wonder we were kinda tight with 3-across!)
Corolla: 53.5" (my uncle has one, but we never tried to get 3-across)
Dodge Intrepid: 58.1" (I've had 3 across back there and people remark about how roomy it is...I've never been one of those 3-across though!)
Now personally, I was surprised when I found out the Aura only had 54" of shoulder room in back! When I sat in one at the auto show, it seemed roomier. However, I think I know why. Here's a pic of the Aura's back seat:
Notice that the door panels and armrests are recessed. That's going to make the car feel more open and airy. And if you measured the inside of the car at that point, an elbow room measurement, perhaps, I'd imagine you might get 57-58". But that's not where they take the shoulder room measurement. That measurement is most likely taken across the upper part of the back seat, and aligning with the door panel roughly where the lock button is. Basically, where the door panel stops being recessed.
Recessing the armrests/doorpanels is a common trick to make a car feel roomier. It won't give you any more shoulder room, because of where they take the measurement. However, having a recessed armrest will give you a bit more room for your elbows, so you don't have to hold your arm down straight at your side, or have the armrest poke into your side if you're horizontally endowed.
I dunno who first came out with recessed armrests, as I've seen them on old cars like those "bathtub" Hudsons. But in more recent times, GM introduced them in the back seat area of their downsized 1978 intermediates. While shoulder room shrunk up from around 58" to 56" in the coupes and around 59" to 57" in the sedans, elbow room actually went up, and was more generous than on GM's downsized big cars! Of course, that elbow room came at a price. It was recessed into the area where the back window would normally roll down, so GM had the bright idea to make the rear windows in the 4-door models stationary. They did that on coupes starting in 1973, but I don't think anybody really complained, but when they did it on the sedans, people sure did!
"according to some of your buddies here the Aura is the only car in this class that cant seat 3 across in the back with comfort and thus its not a contender."
I didn't say that it was the only car like that but rather that I looked at it and crossed it off my list because of the back seat size. Many people in the mid-size class want room for 5. If they were good with 4, they would buy compact. A couple of inches is a big difference. You on the other hand said no mid-sizers can handle 5 yet I own one.
"said GM needs to develop vehicles that crush the competition in every way to ever merit consideration "
No, I never said that either. I said that two win back customers whom they've turned off, they need to offer a compelling value, not just offer a car that is as good. They either need to offer as good a car for less or a better car for the same money.
If Chevy turnerd you off in the past and you're happy elsewhere, why would you go back for a car that is as good for the same money as your currently have.
Simmer down and stop putting words into people's mouths.
I needed that laugh, great post!!
My parents and I took a ride to the airport two weeks ago in a Towncar/Crown Vic. My mother and myself and my son all fit in the back with several inches to space between us.
If three across in a Crown Vic isn't "comfortable", I think there's another reason besides the car itself.(exactly HOW much real estate do you take up?)
Never thought about lack of headrests in center rear seat. Think that there are NHTSA and federal regulations about headrests for driver, passengers safety in a rear-ender. How can a center seating position (installed seat belts on car) be justified. Seems like trial lawyers could have a case against a car mfr if center rear passenger has severe neck injuries, and driver other passengers don't, in a rear ender.
Right. Solution for mfrs is to not have headrest nor belts in center of rear seat. Of course, car will have to have posted warning signs on backs of front seat stating that rear seat is only for 2 persons. And, just like on couches and pillows, it will be illegal to remove these signs/tags.
Well, the main problem with my buddy's Crown Vic was the contouring of the seats. Shoulder room was probably around 61-61.5", so just looking at the number, it should have been just fine. However, the seats were really contoured for two people. Put a third person in and it moved the two outer people out of the contouring, and forced them to lean inward a bit. Plus, the center spot on the seat was thinly padded (a common problem with RWD cars) and the armrest cut into comfort considerably. These cars also don't have much footroom for back seat passengers under the front seat, have a huge driveshaft hump, and legroom isn't exactly generous. To top it off, the front seatbacks are clad in plastic, so if you're tall and your knees bump into the seatback, it's pretty uncomfortable.
The TownCar rides a wheelbase about 3" longer, and most of that translates into extra backseat legroom (or at least it did on the older styles), so that would help immensely. Also, I'd imagine the TownCar has a thicker, better-padded rear seat than the Crown Vic. And hopefully, some padding on the seatbacks!
My buddy with the '04 Crown Vic had a '95 Grand Marquis before that. Same basic car, and it had the same issue with the huge driveshaft hump and no footroom under the seats. However, its seatbacks were softly padded, and the seats didn't have much contouring. That contouring might help when you only have two passengers on board, so the '04 might have better seats for two passengers than the '95 Grand Marquis did. But with three people in the car, your butt and back just doesn't line up with that contouring, so it does more bad than good!
It should also be noted that when the current Crown Vic was born, 1979, it was the smallest of the Big Three full-sized cars. Its wheelbase was a stubby 114.3", compared to 116" for GM cars like the Caprice/Impala/Catalina/LeSabre/Et Al, and a lanky 118.5 for the Dodge St. Regis/Chrysler Newport. That stubby wheelbase meant that things such as the wheelwells, transmission hump, etc, would encroach more into the interior of the Ford than the competing cars. Chrysler quit making these mastodon-class cars after 1981, and gradually started dropping big cars from 1981 (Catalina/Bonneville) and finishing up in 1996 (Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood), leaving just the Ford products.
As for me, I'm 6'3", about 195 pounds. 35" inseam, so legroom tends to be more of an issue with me than headroom. In the instance where we tried to get 3 across in my buddy's Crown Vic, it was me, another guy about my size, and another guy who's about 5'10", but really skinny, about 120 pounds. He was in the center, and with the way the seats were contoured and the way the sides of the car curved in ("tumblehome?") it tended to push us outboard passengers inward.
I've noticed in my Intrepid, that the way I sit, the headrest is about 5 inches from the back of my head. I wonder if that would even help much in the event of an accident? Guess it's better than no headrest at all, though! Or those old 70's style ones that didn't come up that high.
"You seem pretty pleased to quote magazines when you agree with them but trash them when you don't "
Wrong I was just saying the media and the public seem to agree on these vehicles. YOu are the only one I've encounted who thinks they are ugly, shocking to say the least.
"I could counter that the SRX is praised for traits that most SUV drivers aren't looking for and point out that Inifinti has a smaller network than Caddy and that when new, the FX exceeded sales targets, but that would all be crazy. You're right again. "
FX was only one example. Check sales of MKX, Toureg, Q7, ML, etc. Only the MDX and RX rack up huge numbers. I am right again, as you stated. The SRX is a performance SUV, not a towing SUV. The features it offers are what people looking for a luxury sport crossover like to see. The styling and pricing have not been where they should have been, but the vehicle is capable. You dont like it because its a Cadillac, its that simple.
"Silly me. I guess that it only felt heavy when I drove one at a dealer event. 2900 pounds is actually light for a 4 cyl 2 seat roadster. Who could feel the 500 pound difference? And why would I need trunk space? "
agreed about the trunk space. YOu are wrong about the handling, read what the press said about how they handle and get back to me. The Miata's only advantage is weight and trunk space but the lighter wieght doesnt really yield a sizable performance advantage. 2900lbs is light for a car in 2007, period.
"Why would you pay attention to first hand experience anyway??? "
when its biased experience like yours, I coulndt agree more. you are the FIRST and ONLY person I have ever heard make the silly suggestion that the 4 year old F150 is better than the brand new GM trucks. Hey, whatever it takes to support the notion that GM makes crap. Carry on!
"It was wrong of me to not offer an opinion about a car that I don't know much about in a segment that I'm not interested in. "
agreed. Any person who likes cars can make a determination about a vehicle based on styling, features, performance, etc. You dont have to be in the market for a vehicle to give it props. Not in the market for an S550 but its a nice car nonetheless. I'm not going to say "I cant tell if the car is nice because I'm not looking for a $86k car". thats just absurd.
"You're right. The only thing that I'm in the majority on is what people are buying."
Let me see, there are THREE major american manufactuers and SEVEN major foreign manufactures. The Big 3 have about 50% of the market while the other 7 split 50%. You are right, the general public has abandonded american vehicles. Kind of hard not have the majority of sales when its 7 against 3 last time I checked.
"Good post. It's now obvious to me where all of GM's market share gains are coming from. "
I love that! YOur summary is that you must be right because GM's share is down. Actually GM's share and your ability to make cogent arguments are totally unrelated believe it or not. You are a bandwagon jumper who is here to kick a company while it's down. Its kind of like coming in for the final 30 seconds of a blowout game and then claiming all the credit at the end. I assure you, nothing you have said could help GM or any company out of a funk. I do see why you are here posting instead of running a major car company even though you may not understand it.
nice backtracking on what you said. You clearly stated that the class leaders (the Asian sedans) seated 5 adults in comfort and the Aura did not and thats why its not selling. I know few people that regularly seat 5 in a midsize car and as an adult I would never want to take a long trip as one of 3 in the back of ANY midsizer. The accord or camry or whatever you are driving cannot seat 3 NORMAL adults in comfort in the back, it just cant. The Altima is only 1.5 inches wider than the Aura and you want us to believe you will be in limo like comfort in that car while packed like a sardine in the Aura. Dont buy it at all.
Like I said, if the Epsilon car are too narrow GM makes the Lacrosse and Impala.
"They either need to offer as good a car for less or a better car for the same money. "
They are already doing that today. GM cars are almost always somewhat cheaper than the Japanese competition.
No they dont, compare the current Malibu/G6 with 4 cylinders and autos to the Camry and Accord with same combination. The combined mileage for all four cars is about the same and the GM models only have 4 speed autos and more power in the case of the G6.
In your rush to demonize GM you have overlooked the facts once again, but dont let the facts get in the way. You never do.
It wasnt necessarily a "great" post, but I sure did laugh at what was said. "Entertaining" is a better word perhaps.
Again, calm down, count to 10 (or 20) and stop putting words into people's mouths.
Give me a post number where I said the Lambda was ugly.
"The features it offers are what people looking for a luxury sport crossover like to see. The styling and pricing have not been where they should have been"
They lease it for $299 a month. How low do they have to go to move luxury crossover SUVs.
Simmer down now. I already said that you were right about everything and I've changed my opinions.
50% market share is pretty good when you used to have 95%. With savvy like that, you should be running a car company.
agreed. Any person who likes cars can make a determination about a vehicle based on styling, features, performance, etc. You dont have to be in the market for a vehicle to give it props. Not in the market for an S550 but its a nice car nonetheless. I'm not going to say "I cant tell if the car is nice because I'm not looking for a $86k car". thats just absurd.
I don't claim to know every feature of every car like you do especially since I buy passenger cars, not trucks. You probably have a refridgerator at home, so what do you think of the Kenmore 1190? For lawnmowers, what do you think of the Toro 240 rearbagger? I said that it looked OK but that I don't know much about it. I haven't looked at it in person read about it and don't know anyone that has one.
CALM DOWN!!
Yes, I love this argument. People that say the Big 3 are doing fine at 50% are like people that would say the injury to your best power hitter doesn't matter when uninjured he was hitting 50 homers a year, but while he's playing injured he's only been getting 25-30 Home Runs per year.
That's why even "normal" cars like the Avalon have available rear cameras these days.
Yeah, but on the flip side of that, as more foreign competition has entered the United States, and reaching into broader categories, it was only inevitable that domestic market share would go down somewhat, even if they stayed on top of their game.
For instance, back in, say, 1977, the only area where GM and the Japanese even overlapped was in small cars like the Chevette, Vega/Astre, and Monza clones. And I guess you could argue compact pickup trucks, but in that case (Chevy LUV), the Japanese built them for GM! By and large, the Japanese back then didn't really build cars that would compete with domestic compacts. Sure, the Japanese did have a class of compacts like the Corona, 510, 810, and Cressida, but these were tiny cars compared to a domestic compact like a Nova, Omega, Aspen/Volare, or even a Granada. They might've equated to something like Ford Maverick in size, although some of them, especially the 810 and Cressida, could be equipped quite luxuriously.
But back then, the bread and butter for GM was midsized cars like the Malibu/Cutlass, personal luxury coupes like the Monte Carlo/Grand Prix, and a whole range of full-sized cars ranging from the Impala on up to DeVilles and Fleetwoods.
But today, Toyota pretty much matches GM model for model. While back in the day you might match up a Corolla to a Chevette or a Cressida to, roughly, a Nova, these days Toyota pretty much has a competitor to everything GM offers, except the Corvette.
Now Honda isn't as broad-ranging as Toyota, but even here, cars like the Civic and Accord are firmly entrenched in hot selling car segments. Back in 1977, the Accord was a subcompact and the Civic was not even that, while today the Civic's a compact and the Accord's a midsize. Honda doesn't have anything that would really qualify as full-sized, but that once broad market has pretty much dried up anyway.
Don't try to check me 1487, my post stands as I wrote it. Though your posts are entertaining somewhat, most times they're not.
Thank you.
You do realize there is Hyundai making pretty good, as in what I call 85% great cars, right now. The warranty is ten years on those and the price is low-low, once discounted. Some else has entered the GM game plan.
Loren
First of all the Big 3 never had 95% share. Secondly, in a global marketplace where there are 10 major automakers competing you are not going to have 3 companies with 95% share in a major market like the US which is open to all comers. This is just commmon sense. When the Big had overwhelming dominance there no credible foreign competition in this market. More options means marketshare losses for the early leaders, its really simple. If Toyota, Honda and Nissan had the same lineup sizes they had in 1970 or even 1980 the Big 3 would still have 70% or more of the market. Since those companies and others have become full line car and truck manufacturers they have taken share away in segments where there used to be no foreign competition.
This has happened in many industries, those who are first are not always on top decades after an industry starts. Walmart is bigger the Kmart, Sears and other retailers that have been around far longer.
"Simmer down now. I already said that you were right about everything and I've changed my opinions. "
excellent, we are making progress here. There's nothing wrong with being wrong as long as you can admit your mistakes.
sorry, I should've run them by you first. My first mission here is make sure you are entertained of course.
Except for the fact that GM is making far better vehicles than they did 5 or 10 years ago your comments make perfect sense.
No one is leapfrogging the best in class competitors. Not Toyota, not Honda, not Nissan. Its just not happening today. Almost all cars in any given class have similar size, performance capabilities, safety features, etc. If Toyota cant give us a 545i competitor for $25k than you shoudlnt be expecting GM to do so. GM has to try and stand out with styling, warranty and lower pricing. Other factors are largely similar between brands.
marketshare loss was inevitable. If the Big Japanese 3 go out of business tomorrow the Big 3's share would go up overnight.
The purpose of this business is to make money and thats what GM is trying to do now. GM had more marketshare 2-3 years ago but they were losing money. They had far more marketshare in the early 90s and they almost when bankrupt. Now they have 24% share and are making money. Its pretty simple. In addition GM is growing in other markets around the world. The market is more than the US and in areas where Gm's reputation isnt damaged they do just fine, even in Europe.
Oddly, Toyota does make a 1-ton Tacoma, and they've been making 1-ton small trucks for ages now. You can't get it as a pickup in the US, though. It's offered as a chassis/cab model that gets fitted for smaller U-haul vans, mini-motorhomes, etc.
:shades: Loren
So yeah, Japanese cars can break, too. To its credit, it also has like 143,000 miles on it, so I wouldn't exactly call it a piece of crap for these failures.
Just for kicks, I asked my mechanic how much the water pump would cost to replace on my 2000 Intrepid 2.7. Roughly $800! OUCH!! :sick:
Uhh! I wouldn;t buy a Ranger because it is old and dated I mean it might as well(the Ranger) be dead I mean when is the last time it got redesigned 1998?
Umm the Domestics had a 70% market share in 1997 but that was around the same time or after 1997 the Japanese makes came out with SUVs or car like SUV's like the Toyota RAV 4, Lexus RX, Honda CR-V, Nissan Murano, and the Honda Pilot for example.
Heck, it might be longer than that. It was restyled around 1998 or so I think, but I believe the basic design dates back to 1993, when it finally got rounded-off. Sure, they're outdated, but if you just want a cheap little truck to run into the ground and then throw away, and you aren't worried about the latest and greatest in sophistication, the Ranger might not be a bad choice.
I think a crude, outdated truck still might have a place in the modern market. Moreso than a crude, outdated car, at least. My next door neighbor has a Ranger, around a 2000 I believe. It has the 3.0 V-6, which I think is the old Taurus Vulcan. I dunno how many miles are on it, but it has to be up to around 150,000 I'd guess. I did see AAA come over and tow the thing away one day, but I think that was for a fairly minor repair. He told me what it was, but I forget now.