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
Yeah well Gm is going to have to get used to the fact once you start selling cars on merit rather than fire sale discounts your market share is going to go down I mean GM is not happy(i.e. Paul Ballew) about their sales numbers the last 2 months but the top brass at GM is going to have to learn that their sales are going to be down for awhile.
"They had far more marketshare in the early 90s and they almost when bankrupt."
Really they almost went bamkrupt in the early 90's? I mean the car market in the US sucked for every make(even the Japanese car makes in the early 90's.)
Yeah, I think it was around 1991 or so that GM was getting perilously close to bankruptcy. It wasn't widely publicized like when Chrysler gets on the brink every once in awhile, but they were pretty close. Ford was coming on strong at that time and could seemingly do no wrong, riding on the success of the Taurus/Sable and the F-trucks. Chrysler was actually doing pretty badly around that time as well, because Iaccocca had been riding the K-cars and their derivatives for way too long without coming up with something truly new. I dunno how close they were to going under, though. It wasn't until 1993, when the Intrepid/Concorde came out, that Chrysler started to turn around, and once the new Ram hit the market, suddenly Chrysler was a winner again.
As for GM, they really weren't turning out the big hits in the later part of the 80's that they had in the earlier part, and that finally came to bite them in the butt. GM was so big in 1985 that they had 7 of the top 10 selling car models (excluding trucks), but after 1985 sales started to trail off.
I don't think it was an out and out recession, but I believe the economy was kind of stagnant in the early 90's. I was still in college, so I didn't really notice it, first-hand. I do remember there was a bit of a housing slump in the early part of that decade.
Yep, the famous "phone call away from bankruptcy." The recession kicked them square in the goneys: GM sold only 4.3 million cars in 1991.
I think the 1988 Pontiac Grand Prix was a pretty big mega-hit for GM and the Boneville was an ok seller I think too at the time. The Pontiac line did sell well in the late 80's/early 90's I think. The Grand Am in the mid to late 80's was an ok seller but that debut 1985 model year and got refreshed for 1988 or 1989(we talked about this before but I can;t remember which year the Grand Am got resfreshed 88 or 89, I think you said 89.) Pontiac;s at that time had really nice styling for that time period anyway. I don't think Buick or Olds did anything special in the late 80's. Remember I was 8-10 years old in the late 80's(1987-1989) but I don;t think the 1988 Buick Regal made a huge splash.
"GM was so big in 1985 that they had 7 of the top 10 selling car models (excluding trucks), GM was so big in 1985 that they had 7 of the top 10 selling car models (excluding trucks), but after 1985 sales started to trail off."
I don;t think the top 10 selling vehicles for 1985 included any SUV's did it?
"but after 1985 sales started to trail off."
Well no GM did still sell over 6 million cars in 1986 still I believe. The last time GM sold 5 million cars in a year was 1994 just to throw out a fun fact out there but Gm did sell 4.9 million vehicle in the US in 1999 or 2000.
"Ford was coming on strong at that time and could seemingly do no wrong, riding on the success of the Taurus/Sable and the F-trucks."
Yeah Ford could do no wrong in the early-mid 90's but than things to started to go wrong in a very questionable redesign of the 1996 Tarus and a slightly questionable redesign in the very last generation Escort but still Ford US sales were going up in the mid to late 90's and even into 2000 but I think 3 things hurt Ford: The 2000 refresh of the Tarus didn;t make a huge splash, the recalls on the Focus, and especically the Firestone tire debacle hurt Ford very bad especially because it happened on their big seller at the time: The Explorer SUV back in 2002 or 2003. The styling on the 500 sedan and the undewrpowered engine in the 500 also were damage to the Ford name too.
"Chrysler was actually doing pretty badly around that time as well, because Iaccocca had been riding the K-cars and their derivatives for way too long without coming up with something truly new. I dunno how close they were to going under, though."
I was actually upset when Chrysler started to change their line-up in the early 90's I think and I even remember even saying something to my Dad about it because I guess I was just upset at the time because I think at the time I did like Chrysler;s line-up before 1993. I was like why is Chrysler changing their line-up because it because I remember thinking like they were going for a upscale audience with their line-up than they were in the 80's and I didn't like that. I used to dig the Dodge Daytona in the late 80's as a little kid. However I did take a liking to Chrysler in the late 90's/early 00's again.
No, back then, that top ten list was just cars, and didn't include anything that was considered a truck. And that includes mininvans and SUVs. I remember the top ten cars were, in no particular order: Cavalier, Celebrity, Caprice, Delta 88, Cutlass Ciera, Cutlass Supreme, Century, Tempo, Escort, and Sentra. However, if you did factor trucks into the mix, it's a safe bet that the Ford F-series and Chevy C/K would be in the #1 and #2 positions, respectively. And I'm sure that either the Dodge Caravan or Plymouth Voyager would have been in that running. They were a smash hit at that time.
1985 was kind of considered the last hurrah, in many ways, of GM's dominance. The next year, Ford's Taurus broke into the Top ten cars (still not including trucks) GM had two nameplates drop out; I think they were the Cutlass Supreme and Delta 88, but can't remember for sure. Could have been the Caprice. But they added one, the Grand Am, which got popular once the 4-door was added for 1986, so they still had 6 of the top ten.
As for the Grand Prix and Bonneville, they did enjoy a resurgence of sorts when they were redesigned. I think the 1987 Bonneville moved about 120,000 units. It sort of replaced two cars at once: the Parisienne and the midsized RWD Bonneville. In 1986, I think the Parisienne moved about 85,000 units, while the Bonneville might've moved about 40,000 units, so that was kind of a wash. Interestingly, the old full-sized Catalina/Bonneville from 1977-79, which averaged about 200,000 units annually, was considered a bit of a failure, and nothing that Pontiac passed off as a full-sized car since then ever broke that level.
As for the Grand Prix, the RWD model fared very poorly in the 80's. It had a bit of a comeback in 1981 with a slightly aero restyle, but it was nowhere near the league of the Regal, Cutlass Supreme, or Monte. It might've broken 120-150K units in 1981, but dropped off fast, and by swan-song 1987, was under 20,000 units. The '88 Grand Prix saw a huge jump over that, and probably put it back up to 1980-81 levels. Still, I don't think the GP, even once the sedan was added for 1990, ever achieved anywhere near the sales that it did in its 1976-79 heyday.
Another strange one was a couple years ago. I took my '87 Astro to Indy on a school night and brought the Kids to Dick's Sporting Goods. Pulling out of store at 9:45 PM the Astro had a strange high idle. then CEL came on as I was on interstate on ramp. then engine lost power and could barely manage 45 mph. there was an off ramp at the end of the on ramp so I exited the interstate. It died on the off ramp and I threw it in neutral. I coasted onto the intersecting street, then around the first right turn then in 50 more feet made another right into an office parking lot and pulled into a parking spot with a light right in front of the spot. As I came to a stop, the light on the building illuminating my van went off. I tried to start it but no firing at all. I tried to look underhood from light from farther down building but saw nothing unusual. Then got inside and tried starting it again. Then I noticed the odometer read 66600 miles. (second time around). My kids asked what I was going to do. I waited a few minutes and tried the starter and it started. As soon as it started the light on the building came back on. I decided to try driving home which was 35 miles on the interstate and then some. I made it home but I stayed at like 60 mph all the way in the right lane. I parked in my driveway. The next day it wouldn't start (one of 4 deads at my house) and I checked the code for the CEL. It was a coolant temp sensor gone bad and a new one did the trick and got the old van back up over 20 mpg again also. The odo having 666 in it, the van dying, and the light going out on the building was a strange coincidence. I thought about that 666 on the odo for the next 65 miles it took to finally get it to read 66700.
Loren
Isn't that truck about a decade or two behind the times?
Loren
Wow, those catalytic converters still do have a catastrophic price.
Loren
Most likely GM got out because of both. They saw longer than 5 years ago that the minivan market was both losing huge volumes AND that the competition was going to get tougher. So they decided to put the money into a new large crossover and allow the other 3 (Toyota, Honda, Chrysler) to duke it out. They even did a crappy midcycle "enhancement" (read little investment) on their current minivans at the time. As of today it looks like they made the right choice. Crossover sales are booming and minivan sales are down almost 25% this year.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070813/AUTO01/708130320/-1/A- RCHIVE
The remaining minivan makers have had to resort to drastic selling techniques to lure consumers away from shiny new crossovers and their cousins, including "tall wagons" like the Subaru Outback and "microvans" like the Mazda 5. Incentive spending on minivans averaged a whopping $3,900 in June, significantly outpacing the industry average of $2,483, according to consumer auto Web site Edmunds.com.
Even famously frugal Japanese companies like Toyota Motor Co. and Honda Corp., which sell the popular Sienna and Odyssey minivans, respectively, have greenlighted lucrative discounts this summer, prompting dealers to soap the windshields of new vehicles on the lot with rebate offers worth thousands of dollars.
Last year Americans bought 990,596 minivans, the first year since 1992 that annual sales fell below one million units, according to Edmunds.com. So far this year, sales are down 22 percent, potentially putting the industry on track to sell just 760,000 for the year. For the first half, minivans represented just 5.3 percent of total new-vehicle sales, down from 8.5 percent in 1995, according to the Power Information Network, a unit of J.D. Power & Associates.
That seems outrageous. I replaced the Cat on our 1990 Mazda 626 and it was under $150 installed. Check out a Prius Catalytic Converter replacement. From $1100 to $2000 according to a couple unlucky owners.
I buy passenger cars and read a couple of magazines. I'll be the first to say that I can't offer an opinion on every car (especially trucks), but I have read that the STS has a squishy suspension and numb steering. No, I haven't driven it. I don't know anyone that has one and I practically never see them on the road, and when I do, it's piloted by someone that is 60+. I don't find it impossible to believe that Caddy still has a way to go before catching BMW.
Not being an expert, there is one thing that I know, I go up and down the line, I don't see a single GM passenger car besides the Vette that beats all comers based on the car itself:
Mazda 3 over Cobalt - better driving experience, interior and utility of a 5 door
Altima 2.5 over Malibu and G6 - bigger car with lower curb weight, far nicer looking
Miata over Solstice - 500 pounds is a tremendous difference
Taurus/Impala may be close
Altima 3.5 over Aura - Bigger interior, better looking and faster car and probaly still a better deal
Lucerne/Avalon is probably close. My uncle has a Lucerne and it's decent but the Avalon seems to be finished better and have better paint. I often see these two parked next to each other in the parking lot of my train station and I've done a side by side. Both cars are actually black with saddle interiors. They're both nice, but overall the Av looks more high end. The Av is a good car for upper management while the Lucerne is middle management. It's like Toyota doesn't care if the Av swipes some sales from Lexus while Buick aimed to avoid doing the same thing to Caddy.
3 Series over CTS - Classic understated styling and the sweetest straight 6 available. BMWs are the best driving cars I've ever driven.
Gee, isn't it coincidence that sales started to fall off about 1985 when they introduced those awful downsized FWD C-bodies! Roger Smith is one of the 20th Century's worst monsters.
You're in a room with three people: Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, and Roger Smith. You have a revolver with only two bullets. Who do you shoot? If it were me, I'd shoot Roger Smith twice.
I don't know if you heard of the old joke about Volvos being designed with only a T-square and triangle, with two coins traced for the wheels. Seems the guy who designed the 1996 Taurus only had an elipse template and two quarters.
Anyway, it is funny how people think they need big and tough 4x4 vehicles to go shopping at Macy's. I recall the days when an off-road vehicles was a Jeep or International, with a four cylinder or those powerful, almost amazingly overpowered V6 vehicles, like a Bronco.
You got dirt, scratches and few dents along the way. They rode like a truck. Can you imagine bringing home a deer in your new Range Rover or Escalade? I could see it now, " honey, we got a deer, the Rover has a few dents and a tear in the leather seats, but we had fun out hunting! "
Loren
Loren
****
Note - the CTS is marketed as a lower priced 5 series competitor. They have a 3 series car, the BTS, but they don't(wisely I say) try to sell it here. Actually, if you want to see a BTS with different sheet metal, drive the redesigned Saab 9-5.
From what I have read about the BLS in the British press, it is not so hot.
I think the CTS is a good smaller, or it was smaller, Cadillac for good handling, RWD, fine car overall to live with, car with a unique look. Not sure it fully competes with the BMW3. If looking for the Ultimate Driving Machine, most motorists exit to BMW, and do not continue down the road to other small cars in the BMW3 class. Seems to consistantly be a top pick of class. Does everyone need, or even want a Bimmer -- heck no, there is room for lots of other cars in the price range. There is the CTS, and a gazillion more. Well, depending on the price range you are willing to extend.
Loren
Actually, it is not such a bad deal for around $10K, if they still sell them that low a price. Not as odd looking as the GM little trucks. Wonder how the reliability of the two compare?
Loren
:confuse:
Three liters is plenty for a 3,000 pound pickup truck.
um, I was just using that figure as an example, it wasnt meant to be an exact figure. My point was that all of these automakers with full lineups means more splitting up of the market, just like in Europe.
I don't have a problem with the fact your dont know everything. I do have a problem with you commenting on vehicles you havent read about or driven. If you know nothing about the STS how could you call it a soft luxury cruiser? Its a simple question. As I said before, simply read the recent review in C&D of the 2008 model. All your questions will be answered. The car is RWD, has a sports package and was refined on the Ring. Its not a soft car by any means and I doubt you have read anything to the contrary. Cadillac has a ways to go to catch BMW in brand image, but not actual cars. Just read the reviews of the '08 car.
"Not being an expert, there is one thing that I know, I go up and down the line, I don't see a single GM passenger car besides the Vette that beats all comers based on the car itself"
Fine and dandy. I could say the same thing about the majority of the vehicles in Nissan's lineup, Hyundai's, Toyota's, etc. Most automakers are lucky to have 2 or 3 benchmarks in their lineups. Honestly, if you look at Toyota's lineup (since you hold them in such high regard) I would like to know how many world beaters to do you see? At BEST I might be able to come with two.
Your comparisons of GM models to other models are bogus and completely based on biased subjective opinions, not facts. Its quite apparent that you dont like the way GM styles, prices or packages cars so I dont see any value in you going down a list spelling out why every GM model is uncompetitive. Styling is subjective indeed, but the fact that you believe the Avalon is better looking than the Lucerne pretty much proves that you will ALWAYS give the nod to the foreign brand no matter what. Even most GM bashers wont go as far as to suggest the Avalon is an attractive car and better looking than the Buick.
I have read about the STS and I've seen more than one review mentioning the negative traits that you see here. The C & D article is pretty good. They like the new V6. Nobody is saying that it matches the 535 yet.
Where did I say that the Avalon was better looking that the Lucerne? So that nobody makes anything up, I said that they were close but "but the Avalon seems to be finished better and have better paint."
"Its quite apparent that you dont like the way GM styles, prices or packages cars"
See, that's the point. The GM offensive is designed to bring me back into the fold, not to sell another car to a cheerleader. My opinions count alot more than yours and my opinion is that have improved but still have a way to goes. Every car has one fatal flaw or another that makes it an also ran.
"(since you hold them in such high regard)"
Again, simmer down and stop making things up. I've never owned a Toyota and no one in my family has. Therefore, I haven't said a thing about them. I was impressed by the interior space in my friend's Corolla, but that's about all I have to say.
"Cadillac has a ways to go to catch BMW in brand image, but not actual cars."
Let's not go overboard. Even Lutz isn't saying that yet.
:shades:
L
L
Yeah.. it likes kind of like a cartooney, exaggerated version of the current car. If the guys that do the Batman cartoon wanted to use a CTS, it would come out looking like the new gen.
L
Only finished better and has a better paint? While I agree the Avalon is no better-looking than the Lucerne, Avalon is obviously the better vehicle. The Avalon, a C&D comparison winner, puts the Lucrene engines to shame. Check this out:
2008 Avalon: 268hp V-6, 6-speed, 19/28 mpg
2008 Lucerne: 197 V-6, 4-speed, 16/25 mpg
275 V-8, 4-speed, 15/23 mpg
The Avalon is faster than both Lucernes and consumes less fuel, thanks to a high-tech engine and 6-speed transmission. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Don't bother.
I like how you are changing your argument after the fact. Your original statement suggested that the STS was a floaty barge of a car just like the Cadillacs of old which was a totally inaccurate statement. Now you have changed your statement to saying the STS isnt a 535i. That is a different argument altogether. That said, the STS isnt too far off the 535 in performance and its cheaper to boot.
""but the Avalon seems to be finished better and have better paint."
The Lucerne has a few shortcomings (mostly powertrain) but fit and finish is not one of them. You cant be serious. All modern Buicks have tight panel gaps inside and out. Furthermore the faux metal trim slathered all over the inside of the Avalon looks cheap and is so obviously plastic.
"The GM offensive is designed to bring me back into the fold, not to sell another car to a cheerleader. "
Part of your problem is that you are totally unaware of how current GM products are being received. You have convinced yourself that because YOU dont like anything GM makes they are doing nothing right. That is quite arrogant in my view, especially in light of the fact that many in the press who are not known to be GM fans have conceded their recent products are on target. You can continue to contend that GM makes nothing that appeals to anyone who isnt a GM fan, but the proof says otherwise. Again, if you follow the automotive press you will see this for yourself.
"Let's not go overboard. Even Lutz isn't saying that yet. "
My name isnt Lutz last time I checked. If you look at the actual performance of the CTS, SRX, STS and the V series cars vs their BMW counterparts you will see Caddy is right there. I would imagine the CTS-V could represent the first time Cadillac may actually go beyond what BMW offers in a particular class. BTW, the SRX has beat the X5 in C&D comparos at least twice that I can recall. The STS or CTS have never beat a BMW in C&D but the STS-V did beat a CLS55. Also in R&T the CTS did beat the 530 and several other cars back in 2004.
At this point the Taurus/sable are the best choices in the full size class.
Once you get the wheel hop under control, I'm sure the CTS-V goes quite nicely. If I wanted to deal with wheel hop, I'd put a 454 into a Nova. If not, I'd buy on M3. Maybe if you put the yellow slapper bars on the V, that would mitigate it. I know.... I know. The M3 has massive wheel hop, right?
"The Lucerne has a few shortcomings (mostly powertrain) but fit and finish is not one of them. You cant be serious. All modern Buicks have tight panel gaps inside and out."
I was more talking about the materials used in and out and basing it on a side by side comparison of the two cars. The Avalon has richer details like the appearance of the guages and switchgear. My uncle's Lucerne is decent but alot of the details like the guages, shifter, and flat finish on the dashboard are same old GM parts bin.
I like you you completely avoid addressing how you make things up. Couldn't find a single post where I'm praising Toyota, huh?
I like BMWs. They're not from Japan.
Not really a big problem. I was used to the GMC Sierra with the 5.3L V8. I have adapted and will be fine. The Ranger is a better choice as a beater truck. Maybe the Ranger would have more power if I used E85.
new model comes out next year. The current one is discontinued. Dont count on wheelhop on 2009 model.
"The Avalon has richer details like the appearance of the guages and switchgear. My uncle's Lucerne is decent but alot of the details like the guages, shifter, and flat finish on the dashboard are same old GM parts bin. "
wrong again. Lucerne doesnt share dash or gauges with any other GM products. Only the steering wheel and shift lever and even those are only shared with one car. The Lucerne also has the GM head unit which is fine with me. Its funny that you deplore usage of common parts when until a few years ago Toyota would use the same steering wheel, window switches, cruise control switches, PRNDL indicator, etc. in most of its car from the Corolla to the LS400.
I would take the Lucerne's interior over the faux metal explosion in the Avalon and its stupid flip down door that covers the radio controls. The powertrain is the only reason I could see to get the Avalon.
PS- I see plenty of domestic vehicles when I go to NY.
Again, calm down and stop putting words into people's mouths. I never said that I deplore usage of common parts.
I do understand how in a rush to disagree with me, my words could have been misinterpreted. When you look at the interior of a Lucerne, those bits and pieces look typical GM. They don't appear to have been made exclusively for a flagship car. My issue is with the execution, not with reuse.
Still can't find that post where I'm praising Toyota?