General Motors discussions

robbieg

I tend to agree. If a car has all of the basics, that is enough for me, and nowadays all cars have the basics. From there it comes down to feel. Does the car feel like it was well made when you drive it? Does it look cheap when you sit in it?

That being said, I have read about people complaining about new cars not being ipod compatible. So this is maybe the one feature that is going to evolve into standard/required equipment.

chuckhoy

Can we all agree that most boringly shaped 4-door sedans look similiar? Your roads brought to you by Nytol.

I am talking about all 4 cars that you are comparing. Most GM, Toyota, Honda, etc... cars look fairly bland and uninspiring. The last mass marketed 4-door sedan that truely stood out from the crowd was the Intrepid. It, shockingly, looked different than most things on the road. Still does, except there are scads of them around. Also, the latest generation of Altima looks different than most.

chuckhoy

I am willing to work as a go-between for 1487 and Loren. I can work long hours for a negotiable wage.

In actuality you two are a lot alike and have very similar views. It is amusing to see you heatedly argue slightly different aspects of the same point.

andre1969

I have to say exactly wrong. Overhang is a bad place to put weight on a car. Ruins the handling.

Most FWD cars put the majority of the engine's bulk ahead of the front axle anyway. So a few extra inches of plastic and styrofoam is negligible compared to that.

And in back, there really isn't much aft of the rear axle these days. The gas tank on just about every car, except for the Ford Panthers, is actually ahead of the rear axle, tucked under the back seat.

Really, it depends on how much MASS is out ahead of the front and rear axles, and not just how much length. I had a 1986 Monte Carlo that was about 8 inches longer than a 1980 Malibu I once had. Same platform, but the rear and mainly the front jutted out more. So the bumpers stuck out a bit more, and the Monte had a much thicker plastic header panel out in front than the Malibu did. The Monte's rear sloped off more than the Malibu's, which was upright. But the gas tank and spare tire, which were probably two of the biggest weight contributors in back, were in the exact same location. And the engines in both cars were located back far enough that the bulk of the weight was behind the front axle.

The Monte weighed more than the Malibu, but it also had a V-8 compared to the Malibu's V-6. That was probably good for 150-200 pounds right there. And the Monte probably had more sound insulation. I doubt if even 100 pounds was attributable to that car's extra length. Now 100 pounds might make a difference going from, say, 2000 to 2100 pounds, but if it bumps a car from 3300 to 3400 pounds, you're not going to really notice it. And as for those 6 inches, it might make more of a difference with a smaller car. For instance, if you're used to a car that's 160 inches long and start driving one that's 166 inches long, you'll probably notice the difference. But going from 194 inches to 200 isn't really that much. I dunno...maybe if you're going auto-crossing or something it might, but out in most traffic situations it would be pretty negligible.

If the Impala handles worse than the Accord, it's going to be more of a factor of how the mass is distributed, rather than just the overhang itself.

andre1969

Hmmm....how did the 95 Cavilier stack up against the Dodge Neon at that time which one would you say was the better car at the time Andre taking out the reliability equtation because I think that generation of Cavilier was more reliable than than that generation of Neon even though that generation ran longer than that particular generation of Neon though.

Well, if reliability concerns could be ignored, I'd take a '95 Neon over a '95 Cavalier, mainly because I found the Neon to be a more comfortable car. I don't know if it's actually roomier inside, but it seemed packaged better so that I could fit more comfortably. The Neon was a good handling car, and pretty peppy with its standard 132 hp 2.0 4-cyl. The Cavalier came standard with a 2.2 4-cyl and 120 hp. And it was *gasp* a PUSHROD! :P

One advantage that the Cavalier had though, was the availability of a 4-speed automatic. You had to pay extra for it, but at least it was available. I don't think the Neon got a 4-speed automatic until 2002.

Oh, and according to Consumer Guide, the Cavalier was built up through 2005.

I like the look of the 88 Cavilier Coupe and especially the convertible but again GM ran it until the 94 model year and they waited to long too redesign the thing I mean 7 years for a redesign? I actually liked the 88 cav Coupe exterior better than the 95 models exterior looks.

One of my friends in college had an '89 Cavalier Z24 coupe. It was red with silver trim and a black luggage rack on the decklid. For the time, it was a hot looking car, and I think they still look good today. I think they really mucked up the styling on these though for 1991, when they went to a front-end that had bigger headlights and was grille-less. It had a plastic piece between the headlights that was painted body-color, and just made it seem cheap.

As for the 1993-97 Corolla and the 1998-02, I think the biggest difference is in the rear. The '93-97 had full-width taillights, like this. I think some models or years might've had some blackout trim in the center, though. I don't know what you'd call the shape of the '98-02 style taillights. Maybe a distorted jellybean? They were shaped a bit like the '95 Cavalier's taillights, but also vaguely similar to many other cars. They have a hint of Taurus in them as well, and even the current Corolla is a bit of an evolution from this style.

I still question how "all new" the '98 Corolla was, but according to the Edmund's generations article on the Corolla, it was pretty significantly altered. One notable difference was that it grew enough to get reclassified, from subcompact to compact.

However, it doesn't take an all-new design to move from one size class to another. The Taurus did just that with the 2000 restyle. The reshaped roof changed the headroom measurement enough to bump interior volume up from around 101 cubic feet to 105, and the less-sloping rear end increased trunk volume from 16 to 17 cubic feet. That was enough to push total interior volume from 117 cubic feet to 122, passing the 120 cubic foot threshold into the world of full-sized cars.

1racefan

"Can we all agree that most boringly shaped 4-door sedans look similiar? "

Oh great, just what this board needs, a peacemaker. Go away, with you around, it will get real boring around here.

Just kidding!!!

gsemike

I never looked that closely at the car, but that RL looks damn sharp.

stever

I can tell the difference between a lumina and an impala just fine too.

Yesterday we walked up to our 8 year old silver minivan and I got ready to click the fob when I realized that the van we were heading for was an Odyssey. Our Quest was 5 slots down in an otherwise empty parking lot at a little neighborhood park.

Sedans are even worse - unless I can spot a badge, there's no way I'm going to be able to tell you whether that was a Lumina or Impala that just passed me. It could be a MB C-Class for all I know. Most of them look like generic clones of each other to me.

Quiz the general population and I bet a large percentage couldn't tell the difference between a Hyundai Azera and a Dodge Stratus from 15 feet away.

cooterbfd

When will the American nameplates get it that most import owners DO NOT need or want more power?

Then how do you explain the "tuner crowd" spending thousands of dollars on their Civics and such for chips, suspension parts,fender flares, and coffee can mufflers???

American car buyers have always been attracted to more power; hence the muscle car wars, slogans like "power of a six, price of a four", "there is no replacement for displacement". That is probably the main reason the Aura is not offered with a 4 banger.

With gas prices up there, people ARE paying more attention to fuel economy, but I don't think that the difference between 31 and 33 mpg is going to be a deal breaker. More often than not, the car will sell itself, and that is why it will be intriguing to see what happens when the new Malibu is out there in full force, as opposed to the Camry and new Accord.

andre1969

Sedans are even worse - unless I can spot a badge, there's no way I'm going to be able to tell you whether that was a Lumina or Impala that just passed me. It could be a MB C-Class for all I know. Most of them look like generic clones of each other to me.

I think the biggest problem these days is that there really isn't anything truly new out there. Nothing we haven't seen before, just different re-hashes, combinations, and updatings of styles we've seen in the past.

There was a first time for wraparound windshields, tailfins, big cars, little cars, tall cars, low-slung cars, hidden headlights, rectangular headlights, composite headlights, slanty, raked-back headlights, boxy cars, wedge-shaped cars, rounded cars, aerodynamic cars, limousine/aircraft-style doors, etc.

I think style-wise, cars quit advancing about 20 years ago. It used to be that if you put a brand-new car up against a 20 year old car, you'd see a world of difference. For instance, think of a '77 Chevy against a '57 Chevy. But nowadays, I'll see a 20+ year old Taurus, Audi, or even a LeBaron coupe, and they just don't look that outdated compared to modern cars.

Quiz the general population and I bet a large percentage couldn't tell the difference between a Hyundai Azera and a Dodge Stratus from 15 feet away.

I've noticed that I'm somewhat inconsistent about this. If it's something I have knowledge of or familiarity with, for some reason it sticks with me. For instance, I can spot a 2000 Intrepid base model almost instantly. Probably because I own one. Now the only difference that I know of between the '00 and the '99 is the '00 has larger wheels and a different hubcap. And then for 2001 they started calling the base model "SE" and putting that badge on the little black plastic spacer behind the rear door window.

And for some odd reason, I could always differentiate every single year of Malibu from 1978-83. Again, probably because I owned an '80. And if anybody's really curious, the quickest way to tell an '82 from an '83 is that the '82's were all badged as "Malibu Classic", and it was written in a fancy cursive font. The '83's were just badged as "Malibu", and it was in kind of an '80's-futuristic, blocky font.

It's amazing sometimes, the amount of useless junk that sticks in the human brain. :P

andre1969

American car buyers have always been attracted to more power; hence the muscle car wars, slogans like "power of a six, price of a four", "there is no replacement for displacement". That is probably the main reason the Aura is not offered with a 4 banger.

I actually liked this feature of the Aura. IMO, it gave the car a bit of an upscale image, having standard V-6 power while the Malibu and G6 had a standard 4. But alas, it looks like the Aura is getting a 4-cyl Ecotech standard for 2008.

With Japanese cars like the Camry, Accord, and Altima, the 4-cyl usually makes up the bulk of sales. For awhile, the Malibu came as a V-6 only car. It wasn't as powerful as the V-6es offered in the Japanese cars, but it was still a step up from the 4-cylinder models at the time. In power and acceleration, if not refinement. That was a selling point for the Malibu for awhile. Basically, the "power of a 6, price of a 4" comment you made.

But then the 2004 Malibu went to standard 4-cyl power, with the V-6 being optional. I wonder if the Malibu went to a Japanese-type percentage, where the bulk of them are 4-cyl, or if most of them are V-6 in this case. It seems like in the case of the Malibu, the V-6 gives you a lot of extra power, but not much loss in fuel economy, and a fairly low price. In fact, I think CR once did a test of a 3.5 Malibu and a 2.2 Malibu, and the 3.5 got BETTER economy! :confuse:

louiswei

Okay, I am going to end this once for all with nothing but pictures.

Now someone with an open mind PLEASE tell me that the Cobalt does NOT look like a Cavalier.

Disclaimer: I don't like either car but I just have to prove that these 2 cars does NOT look like each other.

















Source: MSN auto

lemko

That blocky font Chevrolets used throughout much of the '80s was called Eurostyle.

1racefan

"Disclaimer: I don't like either car but I just have to prove that these 2 cars does NOT look like each other"

I agree, 1 is a red Cavalier, and the other a silver one. Just Kidding - I agree they don't look the same, but there are several similarities. In other words, it isn't a stretch that they are made by the same manufacturer, and one is the replacement of the other.

62vetteefp

But we do agree the current Imp doesn't look like the last Lumina, but when it was first intro'd the Impala was just a rebadged Lumina with a different tail lamp section.

Could you prove this statement?? Just give me the years. thanks.

and when in the past have I not admitted the obvious??

louiswei

In other words, it isn't a stretch that they are made by the same manufacturer, and one is the replacement of the other.

Who's arguing against that?

LOL!!!

but there are several similarities

Want to elaborate where are those similarities except the bow tie Chevy badge? Please feel free to use those pictures I have provided.

62vetteefp

The shapes and angles of the taillight and headlight housings on the Impala and Lumina are practically identical.

I think you meant the Impala and the Accord taillights are identicle, right?

62vetteefp

General Motors Corp. is trimming production at six plants that make large
pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles as the biggest U.S. automaker
moves to clear dealer lots in a sales decline.

The factories, in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, will eliminate previously
scheduled overtime the rest of this year for models such as the Chevrolet
Suburban SUV and GMC Sierra pickup, company spokesman Tom Wickham said in
an interview today. The reductions, which he declined to detail, began this
week.
I guess they figure there will be no strikes.

chuckhoy

IMO: the Cavalier looks better.

They don't look all that much alike. If you had 20/80 vision, took off your glasses and squinted at them from 100 paces, they could be mistaken for the same car or a camry, sentra, civic, porsche, trans am, F1 racecar or a horse drawn carriage.

62vetteefp

Sales of the Solstice are down 19 percent this year through July, and GM,
which apologized for not building enough Solstices initially, now has
nearly a five months’ supply in inventory, double the carmaker’s average.
Sales of Pontiac-branded cars and trucks are off 17 percent, compared with
9 percent for all eight GM nameplates, according to Autodata, which tracks
industry statistics.

“It was such a radical departure from what people expected out of Pontiac
that it created a tremendous buzz when it first hit the market,” said Wes
Brown, an automotive consultant and a partner in the Los Angeles marketing
firm Iceology. “It looks pretty cool, but ultimately it’s not able to
overcome some of those barriers people have within their mind with regard
to the brand image.”

Meanwhile, demand for the Solstice’s fraternal twin, the costlier and more
angular Saturn Sky, has shown no signs of subsiding. GM has about one
month’s worth of the Sky available, and many buyers still have to wait
several weeks or months for their Sky to arrive.
dealers have 10 or more in stock, and some have been trying to
push them out the door by cutting as much as $1,000 off the sticker price.
Edmunds.com, a Web site that gives car-buying advice to consumers, reports
that Solstice buyers are getting an average discount of $475, while the Sky
is selling at sticker price. (Saturn dealers have a no-haggle pricing
policy.)

andre1969

I dunno, they look like dead ringers for each other to me...just like a Granada and a Benz! :P

Y'know, I never really thought about it before, but I think the Cav looks a bit better, too. I like the front-end better, with the smaller headlights, and the grille-less design. And the roofline seems a bit sleeker than the Cobalt, which seems a bit formal to me. Now when the Cavalier went to that really odd looking front-end around 2002, I thought that was pretty nasty.

Now I do think the Cobalt is a definite improvement over the Cavalier when it comes to comfort, build quality, and such, but just going on styling, I'd give a slight nod to the Cav. At least, the earlier Cav like what's pictured above, and not that c2002-2005 model.

gsemike

I see evolutionary design, not revolutionary styling. As bad as the Cav was, revolutionary styling was called for.

The cars have the exact same configurations, similar silouhettes, single headlights with turn signals on the outisde that are about the same height, solid red taillights with the reverse lights imbedded on the lower inside corner.

If the car would have offered a 5 door and had quad headlights, it could have seemed much fresher.

louiswei

The cars have the exact same configurations, similar silouhettes, single headlights with turn signals on the outisde that are about the same height, solid red taillights with the reverse lights imbedded on the lower inside corner.

WOW!!!

:surprise: :surprise: :surprise:

1487

Cavalier was a compact chevy.

Cobalt is a compact chevy.

You are complaining because the cars look somewhat similar. You believe Chevy should drop out of the compact market because the Cobalt may remind people of a Chevy.

I dont get it.

1487

"What reality distortion field are you in? "

None, I explained my reasons. Either dispute them or don't. I havent seen any good rebuttals yet. Resale value is calcultaed of MSRPs, not what was paid for the car. When you think about it that way you see the values are closer than KBB would have you think- not that its KBB's fault.

Also loan amount and financing have to be taken into account. If you borrow $2k more at 1% higher APR for an Accord vs a Malibu (of same MSRP) and then get $2500 more at trade for Accord did you really save money? No.

Its pretty simple actually.

1487

"You can't be serious and are asking a conveniently wrong question.
- I get to see 6" longer when I look at the car
- I get to maneuver those 6" through parking lots
- I get to parallel park those extra 6"
- I get to try and fit those extra 6" in the garage "

I'm a pretty good driver. Like I said, just drove a Charger with no problems. For those with depth perception issues and the like I suppose a compact car is the best choice. If you suddenly struggle behind the wheel because one car is 5.5" longer than another I dont know what to tell you.

Most people rarely paralled park anyway.

1487

"I see evolutionary design, not revolutionary styling. As bad as the Cav was, revolutionary styling was called for. "

yeah because most Toyota and Honda redesigns are revoluntionary. And before you say "they are excused because they sell a lot of cars" I would like to point out the cavalier also had high sales over its tenure. Radical designs are pretty rare amongst mainstream compacts and midsize cars. Just look at the new Accord which looks like a 2004 BMW.

1487

"The RL has quad headlights, to the Accords duals. The RL has squarish wrap around taillights to the Accords triangles. The RL grills is tall and crest shaped while the Accords is low profile and more rectangular. Just where is the similarities? "

You are right, except for the fact that they have similar greenhouses, side window shapes, hood shapes, tailight shapes, grilles, etc. they have NOTHING in common. Who would ever know they are both made by Honda? Same with TL- that looks NOTHING like the Accord.

m1miata

I pick the Cavalier for looks. I do like the new door handles on the Cobalt Cavalier though. Cav. looks a bit lower and smoother, like a Civic. Cobalt is the Cavalier after taking steroids. Doctors keep telling people it is dangerous.
Loren

m1miata

Both are attractive, and the two can dance. The RL look just adds to the basic shape. Perhaps a better dress, and a little more cleavage showing.
L

louiswei

I thought taking steroid will only get people to buff up and hit balls longer...

Don't know that steroid can also change a person's shape completely. Maybe ugly people should start taking it then.

BTW, like I said, I don't care for the look of these 2 cars, as matter of fact I don't like either but just trying to prove a point that the 2 do NOT look alike.

m1miata

Saturn Aura XR is the real deal. If Saturn to be anything more than just another Chevy, they should have only made the upscale and most powerful Aura. It would also have been the best for the Aura image as being only a top model.
Saturn appears to be a planet sucked into the GM universe.
Now a universal part GM, when it was suppose to be its own shining plant far and far away of the ordinary GM earth.
imho, L

chetj

they are similar in looks but i think the biggest difference is the interior and engineering improvements fo rest of car...i liked my 99 cavalier, it was cheap and easy to maintain...still going strong w/ 162 k..my buddy bought it

62vetteefp

Yet the Saturn still pulls sales primarily from non GM owners.

andre1969

You can't be serious and are asking a conveniently wrong question.
- I get to see 6" longer when I look at the car
- I get to maneuver those 6" through parking lots
- I get to parallel park those extra 6"
- I get to try and fit those extra 6" in the garage

I think a lot of this might have to do with personal experience than the actual cars. For instance, I swap back and forth among a 203" Intrepid, a 208" LeMans, a 212" long pickup, a 215" Catalina, and a pair of 221.3" long New Yorkers on a regular basis.

Believe it or not, the New Yorkers are actually the EASIST of the bunch to maneuver around in! For me, at least. Visibility is the best of that group, and while I've got to deal with an extra foot and a half compared to the Intrepid, I can see almost to all four corners of the car. It's a big car, but it turns pretty tight. It's also slightly tapered in the front and rear, and the bumpers are an early attempt at integration. They're still chrome and stick out, but they don't jut out on the sides. In contrast, the Intrepid is just too hard to see out of, and while shorter, is almost as wide as the New Yorker. The hood and decklid are almost invisible from inside the car. The LeMans has good visibility out of the front, but poor visibility out of the rear. And there's something about the way the beltline swoops on the car that throws me off whenever I try to parallel park it!

The pickup, while not all that long, is wide. And it's wide up front and in back, not just at the midsection like most modern cars. It also has a long 131.5" wheelbase that just doesn't translate into much maneuverability in tight spaces. The Catalina turns tighter than the truck, but is longer and just as wide. And like the truck, and the LeMans, the ends aren't tapered. It's just as wide across the front and rear as it is across the center.

As for parallel parking, it's very rare that I have to do it, so I'll admit I'm not all that good with it. And there have been times that I'd have to pass up a spot in my New Yorker or pickup truck that I could squeeze into with my Intrepid.

Conventional, pull-in parking spots, however, are no big deal for me. As for the garage, mine is 39'2" from the door to the 4x6 posts in back. I could see a smaller garage being a concern, though. I used to have a condo that had a garage that was about 10 feet by 19'2". I used to park a 1957 DeSoto in there, and at 218" I noticed it was more of a pain than the Catalina's 215". And compared to that, the Intrepid's 203" was a breeze. Plus, the fact that the Trep's a 4-door and the others are 2-doors. My New Yorker, a 4-door, would fit in there pretty easily. It would be a bit tight front and rear, but side-to-side wasn't bad.

Being used to bigger cars, I wouldn't probably notice much difference between something that's 194" and something that's 200"...as long as they're similar otherwise (width, visibility, turning circle, tires, etc).

As for turning circles, a short wheelbase does not always guarantee a tight turning circle. Some of those big old full-sized GM cars from 1977 onward had a turning circle of around 38-39 feet.

As for the Accord versus the Impala, it depends on the tires. And the bigger-engined models have bigger tires. For instance, the base Impala's turning circle is 38 feet. The SS, with the V-8, is 40. I dunno abou the '08 Accord, but for the '06, the 4-cyl is a pretty nimble 36.1 feet, but the V-6, again with those fatter tires, is a 1977 Caprice-ish 39.6 feet! :surprise:

Just for kicks, I looked up my 2000 Intrepid. 37.6 feet. Mine is a base model. Oddly the R/T model, which had larger wheels (17" versus 16") is the same...37.6 feet. However, I think they both use a 7" wide rim, so maybe that's why there's no difference. I imagine with the Accord and Impala, the big engine models use wider rims.

m1miata

The '98 Corolla was the most handsome design, modeled after the previous Camry look, which is the '92 and Camry best of look. Both will stand the test of time. Not overly flashy, but simple beauty sculpturing.
L

m1miata

OK let a kid look at the side profile of the Cav, then hand him a crayon and let him draw it on a piece of paper. So he got the thing a little more blocky looking; not a big deal. Maybe that is how they did that design? I am on to something here. Recall a time when cars did not have big butts? Recall when low and wide was something specially good, like a Pontiac. Recall a time when there was more to style changes than the plastic head lamps, or plastic bumpers?

The coupe in a Balt is the most appealing of the two styles. That said, it has that been there, done that look about her. The Civic coupe is very fresh and exciting looking. The new Corolla has yet to hit the shore. The current one looks too narrow, as they raised the roof on the old platform. The '98 was the last good looking Corolla. I guess the Tc is the coupe, and it is alright, in a yea, that's a current look car sort of way. Nothing exciting.
L

tlong

When will the American nameplates get it that most import owners DO NOT need or want more power?

Then how do you explain the "tuner crowd" spending thousands of dollars on their Civics and such for chips, suspension parts,fender flares, and coffee can mufflers???

The tuner crowd is not a large proportion of the buyers.
Much of the tuning is about appearance (chrome wheels, bling lights, etc.)

chuckhoy

OK let a kid look at the side profile of the Cav, then hand him a crayon and let him draw it on a piece of paper. So he got the thing a little more blocky looking; not a big deal. Maybe that is how they did that design? I am on to something here. Recall a time when cars did not have big butts? Recall when low and wide was something specially good, like a Pontiac. Recall a time when there was more to style changes than the plastic head lamps, or plastic bumpers?

I agree with you quite a bit on this. Is there a good reason why every passing generation of cars has less and less visibility out the rear? Is it too much to ask to be able to see anything meaningful out the rear side windows? Should internal rearview mirriors be made optional anymore? Why should ANY sedan need backup sensors? I can see it for a minivan or SUV, but for a caddy sedan? Are we too lazy to turn out heads anymore or is it meaningless because the rear windshield is the size of a serving platter? Loren, I want answers!

tlong

"I see evolutionary design, not revolutionary styling. As bad as the Cav was, revolutionary styling was called for. "

yeah because most Toyota and Honda redesigns are revoluntionary.

Most Toyota and Honda designs are *well thought of*. Not so Cavalier.

I would like to point out the cavalier also had high sales over its tenure.
= rental queen

louiswei

So you are saying Cobalt is not an "exciting design"?

Who's arguing against that?

I guess I am too young to appreciate all the "exciting designs" back then but compare to those old cars I like modern cars' simplicity. I like the fast back trend currently going on with the sedans and the short trunk lid. I like the big butts and prefer a gentle touch of the Bengle influence. The high belt line looks great on a sedan which gives it a coupe-like slick look.

Plastic lamps are intended to protect the pedestiran during an accident. As for plastic bumpers, are you aware of that even with plastic bumpers modern cars are actually safer than the old metal bumper one? I know you like small, nimble and light cars, would you rather to have the metal bumper or plastic one in order to safe couple hundred pounds?

To each of their own I guess...

m1miata

So they think it is all about brand image? How about style over substance. As for the Sky, what image is Saturn suppose to have? I am thinking little plastic cars, with Green Party people driving them. Maybe a starter car, second car, or simply that cheaper Volvo, car owner drives the Saturn? The old S1 was pretty cheap. When compared to the Corolla, I ended up getting the Corolla. Both do get good gas mileage. Blaming falling sales though on brand image, is pretty lame. It is all about the product. Performance, reliability, durability, how easy the roadster is to live with, should count for something. Solstice wins on looks, if you don't mind the bathtub effect.

L

andre1969

The '98 Corolla was the most handsome design, modeled after the previous Camry look, which is the '92 and Camry best of look. Both will stand the test of time. Not overly flashy, but simple beauty sculpturing.

For some reason, I always liked the style of the 1988-92 Corolla. I just liked that sleek, rounded/wedgy style that looked like a scaled down '87-91 Camry (which I also thought was a good looking car). I agree that the '98-02 is nicer looking than the '93-97, but neither of those two styles, nor the latest Corolla, are going to win any beauty contests! Of course, neither will the '88-92, which I like! :P

I also liked that 1979-83 style which offered a wide variety of body styles, among them a hardtop coupe and another body style that probably hadn't been offered since the early 60's...a hardtop wagon!

m1miata

You missed the chop top Mercury era..... of maybe not. Just get a bulky old Mec and lower the top and you have the modern look. If big butts are your thing, the Milan may be the most attractive car these days and still retains your big butt look. Chris Bangle has some interesting ideas for cars. Not sure the rear of the 7 looks good at all, but on the 5 and 3 it is good, to good enough. The Camry knock-off is OK. The Z4 flames sculptured look is very odd, but I must applaud for the new look, and the daring move on BMW's part. That said, I prefer the Z3, which is pretty much spot on sexy. The Z4 is interesting.

High beltline for cars, IMHO, is gives the car a stubby, boxy, flat sided, and almost casket look to most cars. Guess the 1930's have returned. They just chopped the top a little off the old Chevy. You could dislocate an arm, simple trying to hand an elbow out :surprise:

I did not say anything about the usefulness of new lamps and bumpers, but rather it is the only styling cue changes between models or has become most of the design. In other words carrying the weight of the old days of chrome, accents, and actual nice sculptured lines to a car.
L

gsemike

D'uh. When the Corolla or Civic is redesigned, they don't need to distance themselves from the previous morbid generation. The cars are well regarded so the new model can leverage that and promise that it's the same but even better. The Cav was miserable and the Cobalt looks more close to the Cav than the current gen Civic looks like the previous.

The Balt is an also ran already because it's more of the same. Name change or not, it's the new Cav. I don't care if they sold a million Cavs. They were miserable and the only reason anyone ever bought one is because the price was undercutting an Aveo by the end.

chuckhoy

Saturn is becoming what Oldsmobile should have become: GM's near-luxury import-fighting division.

It is kind of funny that the development of Saturn has somewhat mirrored my life. When Saturn first came about I was just getting out of college and I had no money. They only made cars that were small and cheap. You could get the same car as either a coupe, sedan or wagon. They were reliable little cars that were a little thin on the creature comforts. Just like my first apartment.

Flash forward a few years and I was married and had a kid with plans for another soon. Hauling around 2 kids and a wife in an old S series would be no fun. It was about this time that they came up with the L series. We liked the old S series, so we got one of those.

Flash forward a few more years and the family is doing pretty well. We have some money. Kid number 3 is here and we need something large and nice. A minivan-type vehicle. What does Saturn do? They made the Outlook.

Now Saturn had better hope I don't get laid off or something. It could be doom for them. Muhahahahaha!

1487

"Most Toyota and Honda designs are *well thought of*. Not so Cavalier. "

here's the thing, dull is dull regardless of who does dull. Besides, I was talking about the cobalt, not the cavalier.

I dont find theh Cobalt to be any more offensive than the last gen camry, corolla, accord, Sonata, etc. The current civic is a bit adventurous in terms of design but its the execption, not the rule.

"well thought of"? according to whom? even Import Fanboys usually acknowledge the majority of Asian car designs are bland at best.

gsemike

The current and last gen Coralla and Civic were considered bland and good. They were top selling cars with average transaction prices thousands more than a Cav or Cobalt.

The Cav was considered a miserable car that either sold to rental agencies or because it was $9,995.

The Coralla and Civic continue to sell primarily to individuals for thousands more than the average transaction price of the Cobalt. Toyota and Honda (and Porsche and BMW) don't need to distance their cars from previous generation cars because they're well regarding by the buying public and the automative press.

Mazda had a revolutionary redesign when they went from the Protege to the 3. Nissan's redesign of the Sentra was significant because the previous car had gotten so stale. The Cobalt is the new Cav and it's an also ran just like the Cav. They should have thought out of the box a little more on the design instead of just slapping a different name on the same old thing.

1487

First of all most import people like you are quick to say Toyota and Honda have proven that people dont care about styling- they care about quality. When GM designed the cobalt they improved the quality all the way around and skipped radical styling following after the Japanese formula that proved successful.

I didnt state any reasons for the cavalier's success. Sorry you hated the car, but it was a successful vehicle with name recognition in the marketplace. Prior to the 3 coming out there really werent any daring designs in the compact class so I find it comical and ironic that you are so critical of the Cobalt as if its the only vanilla design in the segment. Get real.

1487

". The Cobalt is the new Cav and it's an also ran just like the Cav. They should have thought out of the box a little more on the design instead of just slapping a different name on the same old thing. "

first of all the cobalt is 3 years old and is the 2nd oldest compact on the market.

Furthermore the FACTS state that a compact car with class leading standard power, class leading acceleration, 173hp optional engine, 17" rims, good build quality, stability control, leather, heated seats, sat radio, Pioneer sound system, 6 CD changer, remote start, etc. isnt an also ran by any means.

"The Cav was considered a miserable car that either sold to rental agencies or because it was $9,995. "

except for the millions sold to retail customers you are right on target.

Let the GM bashing continue.........