General Motors discussions

jae5

Going off memory, 1999, maybe 1998. But the very first glimpse of the car was in spring 1997. Check Automotive News, the first week of March. Don't know if you can go into the online archives, but I'm pretty such you can find the hard-print on CD in a local library. The car is white with black camouflage. What was really strange was when we got an order for components on the car and it was listed as a full-size car. In terms of the taillight section, they where made by Guide, in Indiana. The plant is right down the road from the old Delphi facility.

Do I need to go on?

m1miata

CLASS LEADER - CLICK HERE
just trying to be helpful,
L

m1miata

Education in the USA is clearly lacking.
Must say the showroom is impressive, with nice seating's and interior decor, at my local dealership. Beyond that, it is all the same. Parts is parts, is how the saying goes.
L

stever

High beltline for cars

Isn't there a safety benefit to the high beltlines - better side impact safety? Or is it all just for style and perhaps just a feeling of safety (and maybe less safe due to less visibility)?

andres3

Name another Toyota product besides the camry that leads in power and fuel economy if you can. Good luck.

How about the RAV 4 V6 for compact SUV's?

gsemike

"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."

All that and the average transaction price is still thousands less than Civic and Corolla. Being better than the Cav isn't a high enough bar for the Cabalt.

I, and I doubt anyone else, ever said that buyers of Toyota and Honda don't care about styling. Rather, their appearance is fine.. A OK. Not every car can be a stunner. I actually guess that the Balt is as good or as bad looking as a Civic or Coralla. It just falls well short in so many other ways.

gsemike

"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."

All that and the average transaction price is still thousands less than Civic and Corolla. Being better than the Cav isn't a high enough bar for the Cabalt.

I, and I doubt anyone else, ever said that buyers of Toyota and Honda don't care about styling. Rather, their appearance is fine.. A OK. Not every car can be a stunner nor does it need to be. I actually guess that the Balt is as good or as bad looking as a Civic or Coralla. It just falls well short in so many other ways. That's why I see it on sale for $10,995.

jae5

Sorry I had to cut my reply short, the tornado sirens went off due to a sighting/funnel touchdown and I had to head for cover.

But back to what I was saying, in looking at the Lumina 4-dr going to the wayside & the Impala coming on, it was really a rename, especially on the 2-dr. When myself and co-workers got the first looks at the design freeze (I want to say early 1998, I think I typed 1997 in my earlier posting in error) we made a big stink about the rear tail lights (only 2 per side instead of the requisite 3, an Impala trademark) and other things. And seeing as I was rebuilding the '66 SS at the time and pops had previously owned a '65, '74, and an '80, we on the home-front were a little upset as well. Also look at the green-house, switchgear, seats and seating position, layout...c'mon, the GM-10 / W-Body only allowed so much. Do I really need to go on?

And I'd never forget going to the Auto Show in January 1999, and most everyone that was at the Chevrolet section hated that car, with the majority of us stating "It's a rebadged Lumina!" We all wanted the '96 Impala back, or hoped they rushed the Nomad concept into production. And this, my friend, was not from industry insiders, but the buying public, young and old.

Again, just changing the front and/or rear clip or doing a rename does not a total redesign make, not when the BIW is the same, a-la badge-engineering. Which is what you seem to have problems with. Hate to bring up an old topic, but when the dreaded "badge-engineering" comes up and what makes something badge-engineered you'll come up with this, that and the other stating it's not, when in fact it is. Then the topic goes back and forth, forth and back on what qualifies as B.E. and what you say does not qualify B.E., when you feel GM hit their marks when in fact they did not...on and on and on. :sick:

I think we've beat this and the Cavalier/Cobalt to death, you want to move on or keep rehashing? See you tomorrow, I have to check outside for storm damage...

m1miata

Well it is also safer to drive under 50 MPH, and only on a four lane divided road, and well you get the point. You can slip in a tub and kill yourself. There are some cars, like a Corvette which have to use a low seat position and the doors are going to be pretty high. That said, GM did a good job of allowing a good view ahead and the feel inside is not too bad compared to the Nissan 350Z . For most cars, I just see no need to sit in a tub to drive. I owned a first generation Miata a couple years ago, and you can easily hand an elbow out the window. Of course when on a freeway the truck tires are taller than your head :surprise: Oh what the heck, you learn to dance and not get under those wheels. That would hurt! I may buy another one some day, or maybe the Z3 or SLK. Those two add side air bags for safety. The current Miata has too narrow seats in them. Would consider a Solstice Coupe, though the door sills seem high, and they may never build it.
L

m1miata

One other note: The Solstice high door car had virtually unusable arm rests, which do not extend far enough backwards and have a wrong angle to them. The Tiburon has the tall doors, but a pretty good arm rest. If they insist on too tall doors, please make the worlds best arm rests.

your enclave of knowledge source,
L

stever

Chevrolet Malibu: “Very Important” to GM and Chevy (Auto Observer)

andre1969

Wow, from reading that write-up, it sounds as if this new '08 Malibu just might be the Car You Knew America Could Build! :P

Let's just hope it doesn't turn into the car you knew America would build. :sick:

gsemike

Some angles it looks good, others not great. That third grill on the bottom doesn't enhance the looks and the back looks weird in this pic:



Maybe it's too flat?

The interior looks nice. The big question is how will the base model interior look? Certainly it's way better than the current model wich is completely homely.

andre1969

Yeah, I think you nailed it...the rear end is too flat. And that gives the taillights sort of a thrown-on look. IMO, the taillights also look like two designs got stuck together. If you eliminated the part on the trunklid it would look like two million other cars out there. But then if you kept the trunk part and made the part on the quarter panel more level with it, it would look kinda like a Jetta or Corolla. I really don't care for styles where it looks like two different designs just got stuck together. The Avalon is guilty of that as well, and I've also seen that affliction on some BMW's.

As for the front end, I think that they need to tone down the air dam, so that it doesn't look like a third grille. But they should also move that upper grille down a bit. Stuck up high on the front of the car like that, it makes me think of the upper grille on a '61 DeSoto!

Still, the car does look like it has potential. One thing that bothers me about the one interior shot I've seen, though, is that it looks like it has small-car seats. Could just be the camera angle distorting it, though.

As for the current Malibu, maybe I'm being too kind, but its interior really doesn't bother me. It's not the most attractive, but I didn't think it was too bad. Big step up from the '97-03. And sadly, I still remember the Corsica! :sick:

m1miata

The new Malibu looks OK. The back side is kinda ordinary. I saw a car about a block away, and lost it for a couple blocks while trying to catch it for a better look. The end looked new to me, and I was thinking it might be a Malibu test car. After a few turns, I caught up this car. I was a Suzuki Verona. The 2004 is not a bad looking car. Of course the New Malibu is a bit sharper, but at a distance these cars are all looking the same these days. The advantage a New Malibu may have over its older brother the Aura could be found inside if it looks like the show car. And perhaps some extra room inside too, especially around the right knee area of the dash. This brother of the Saab 9-3,G6, and Aura has some good possibilities.
L

m1miata

Take a look at the rear of a Lucerne, and you will see an enlarged '98 Corolla tail end. On a scale of 1-10 the Lucerne is what - say a 7 ? Not using today's standards for good looks in a car.
L

m1miata

Excluding Saab use of platform, you have the G6, and Aura, so this would be one of those third time's a charm thing. :shades: Or think of it as a third generation G6. G that's good.
L

andre1969

For some reason, the Lucerne actually appeals to me. I think it's a definite improvement over the LeSabre. There was still something about the Park Ave that had a bit more presence to it. But the Lucerne's definitely better than the Park Ave when it comes to interior quality, fit and finish, etc.

For awhile, I remember thinking that the Lucerne's rump reminded me a bit of a '95 Cavalier, but yeah, I see a bit of '98 Corolla there, too.

lemko

Dang! Which is which? Is the Mercedes the one on the bottom? I didn't know those Granadas were so expensive back in the day! Twenty-three grand for a Ford?

lemko

Oh, I still like the 2005 Buick Park Avenue Ultra. I was thinking about getting one to replace my current '88 Park Ave, but they're still up there price-wise for a decent used one. There was one at a Subaru dealer near me with only 14K on it and they wanted close to $25K for it. Love those Ventiports!

tlong

I dont find theh Cobalt to be any more offensive than the last gen ... accord.

I don't know how to reason with you if you find this to be the case.

tlong

"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."

All that and the average transaction price is still thousands less than Civic and Corolla. Being better than the Cav isn't a high enough bar for the Cabalt.

Is it a jewel or a rock? Jewels sell for more than rocks.

Of course some people think the Balt is as nice as an Accord.

Throw that Balt in the lapidary tumbler!

m1miata

I can't believe how many of those Mercedes are still around these days. The SL is everywhere. One house up the street has three of them -- who knows why. And there are a couple others close by. That is a lot of Mercedes of any model being that old to still be around. I wonder about the new stuff from Mercedes? Is it good, bad or plan ugly for reliability? I was thinking of an SLK at one time.

Speaking of Alante's, I wonder how those held up compared to the Mercedes. With FWD, was it ever really considered a contender though to the SL ? I did Mercedes came up with a modern look soon after the Caddy Allante.
I asked the saleman about the HP not being higher, and he said they kept it lower so the transmission would not blow. Interesting.
Loren

big_prize

"If the SS means so little, then I guess it really doesn't matter. Trucks and vans are now SS models. May as well slap an SS on the forklifts at GM too. Are they using the Rally Sport or RS these days, or is that waiting for next Aveo? Oops, it is used on the trucks. Wonder if Camaro wants that back? Actually, it matters little. Names seem to mean little these days. Can't even buy a vowel for a DeVille these days. Then there was the Euro Sport. Could have a Euro Super Sport or ESS. The Malibu use the first letter of M, but that of course would the Malibu Euro Super Sport or MESS. Oops, that is as bad as Toyota Racing Development, or TRD. T*RD Just don't sound right."

I see the bigger problem being that in five years, SS might mean something totally different....again. If Chevy just sticks with SS = "sportiest version of this car that we make" and Pontiac likewise with GXP, it will be understood what those labels mean. Instead, we get SS, or RS, or Eurosport, or ES, etc. Honda is fairly consistent with trim level designations...DX, LX, EX, (and Si for the Civic); it's been that way for a long time. Not so with GM. Pontiac had SE, GT....then GT, GTP....now GT and GXP...no consistancy at all. No one knows what the hell they're looking at from year to year. Just pick something and stick with it!!!

gsemike

In the interest of peace and advancing the discourse, I will stipulate:

There was no need for GM to distance the Cobalt from the Cav because the Cav was a terrific car loved by consumers and the automotive press. The Cav always sold primarily to individual buyers on it's merits not just because it was cheap, so much so that there were few left to be sold to rntal agencies.

or

The Cobalt is outselling the Civic and Corolla because it's a pace setting design. GM's designer really went all out to think outside the box and when they come up with a less refined car in favor of more HP, they read the compact car market perfectily. An usable backseat even in the 4 door and 17 inch rims just complete the value proposition for small car buyers.

The GM loyalists can just pick one and we'll move on

lemko

...because I never shopped for cars in the Cobalt/Civic/Corolla strata anyway. If you see me in any one of them, I screwed up my life royally. They are what they are - cheap A-to-B transportation for those who don't care about cars and/or are too poor to afford anything better.

andre1969

If you see me in any one of them, I screwed up my life royally. They are what they are - cheap A-to-B transportation for those who don't care about cars and/or are too poor to afford anything better.

Hey, watch that remark...you've seen me in one of those wretched little things TWICE now! :P

Actually, I'd imagine that there are a lot of people who do care about cars, AND are pretty well-loaded, but just don't want to spend a lot of money on one. In my uncle's case, he has a commute that's up to 130 miles round trip, depending on where his company sends him. He has a '97 Silverado, but once it started getting up in miles, he bought his '03 Corolla as kind of a "sacrificial lamb", to run into the ground, and keep the miles off his truck.

I think the Corolla has about 143,000 miles on it now, whereas the truck has around 110,000. So if he'd kept on driving that truck, it would have about 253,000 on it now, presuming it was still running.

One thing I thought was amusing though, is that even my uncle gets sick of the Corolla after awhile, and does prefer the comfort of his truck. I thought that was actually a bit odd. Now in my case, I'm 6'3", and when I squeeze into that Corolla, it makes me think of those women that would come into Al Bundy's shoe store and try to squeeze into shoes 3 sizes too small. It has an odd position that would almost favor someone with really long arms and short legs. Which is actually my uncle's build. I figured he'd fit in the thing perfectly. But I guess the truck's seat is still higher off the floor, and you don't sit right up against the side of the door in the truck, like you do with the Corolla. I've found that when I drive the Corolla, I actually have to lean inward a bit, because the B-pillar is so close! Might just be a big car/small car preference, though.

I'd estimate with my uncle's driving habits, mostly highway, that Corolla has saved him about 4,000 gallons of gas in those 143,000 miles. I figured 18 mpg for the truck, 36 for the Corolla. It was probably worth it for him.

In my case though, I figure if I had that Corolla instead of my Intrepid, it would've saved about 1900 gallons over the 135,000 miles it's gone. In this case, with my more local, stop-and-go driving with occasional trips, I'd estimatte a lifetime average of 23 with the Intrepid and guessing maybe 34 with the Corolla? Considering that I'm not comfortable at all in the car for more than a few minutes (those trips I took to PA in it were a real learning experience!), the comfort trade-off might not be worth the fuel savings. But then, you never know. These days, it's rare that I'm driving a car for more than 20-30 minutes at a time. And to be honest, I don't think my Intrepid is the best long-distance car, either. It's not THAT generous in legroom, the dead pedal is in an awkward location, and the floorpan is at a slight angle. Where the Corolla is what I call a "10 minute car", I'd say my Intrepid is maybe a "45 minute car".

lemko

I just got tired of everybody going back and forth about the minutia of a Cobalt and Cavalier. I had a Cavalier as a rental car and it was reliable, but as crude as pig iron. I think the exterior styling of both the Cavalier and Cobalt are definately better than the Corolla and about on par with the Civic. It's the interior where the Cavalier and the Cobalt fall apart. The Cobalt most definately has a nicer interior than the Cavalier. Shoot, where could it go but up? "Soviet-bloc" definately describes the Cavalier interior. The Corolla has a bland interior made of mostly decent materials. The Civic has that far out Jetsons instrument panel I love and everybody else hates. However, the VW Jetta interior destroys all three. For my perfect small car - take a Chevrolet Cobalt coupe with a Honda engine and a Jetta interior.

lemko

...last night there was a really bad accident on the arterial street up the block from me involving a second-generation Dodge Intrepid. The driver went into diabetic shock, fell into unconciousness, and hit a utility pole head on. The car was absolutely destroyed, but the driver was removed from the wreck uninjured other needing to be treated for his diabetic condition.

gagrice

If you see me in any one of them, I screwed up my life royally.

I agree. You will not catch me in a little car for more than an errand buggy. I would not go on the freeway with any of the little cars being sold today. There are TOO many big heavy vehicles to contend with. I felt small in our Passat wagon on the highway. It would be a minimum size. The LS400 is barely big enough. Prefer PU or SUV for safety. IIHS statistics agree with you and I.

Little cars especially the Yaris, Metro & Fit size should not be allowed access to high speed highways.

lemko

Even my girlfriend wouldn't want anything smaller than her LaCrosse with all the SUVs out there being piloted by distracted drivers. Funny because her first new car was a 1986 Chevrolet Sprint! I think my 1988 Park Avenue is actually smaller than her LaCrosse when I see them parked next to each other.

When gasoline prices were climbing, I was thinking about getting a little hooptie like an Aveo or Cobalt, but the price of the car would wipe out any money I'd save on fuel.
Now, a 1974-like fuel shortage would be another matter.

gagrice

I have tried to figure how owning a small car for errands would pay off. It just does not. The cost of insurance alone wipes out any savings in Gas. Unless you have a long commute, owning a small car makes little sense. Even then driving 30-50 miles each way in a small car would be both hazardous and mentally debilitating.

nwng

Prefer PU or SUV for safety. IIHS statistics agree with you and

Just make sure when you try to avoid an accident (which I am sure will happen a lot more than you're in an actual accident), your suv or pu didn't get to rollover, ESPECIALLY on the highway.

Little cars especially the Yaris, Metro & Fit size should not be allowed access to high speed highways.

Hey, if your pu or suv takes that much more longer to brake, that much more easier to roll, and that much more difficult to manuever, I think it should be the other way around.

chuckhoy

I have tried to figure how owning a small car for errands would pay off. It just does not. The cost of insurance alone wipes out any savings in Gas. Unless you have a long commute, owning a small car makes little sense. Even then driving 30-50 miles each way in a small car would be both hazardous and mentally debilitating.

We have done the whole "buying a car to save $ for gas" thing and the calculations never work out in favor of buying a new car for the gas savings. Unless you were going from a M1A1 tank to a Prius. If you are getting a new car anyway, then looking at gas savings makes sense.

I just can't see how zipping around in a small car is LESS mentally debilitating than driving a land-yahat. I used to have an old S-series saturn and I now have an Outlook. The Outlook is better in every respect (except gas) than the old S. But, the S was still way more fun to drive around in. I could zip around traffic and into tight spots that the Outlook could only dream of.

ccostable

With all the talk about the transition of the Cavalier to the Cobalt and it's apparent lack of improved style/design, why is the HHR not brought up. I am no GM expert but if I remember reading correctly, instead of doing a typical hatch for the third iteration of the cobalt, they penned the HHR. Is that enough out of the box for the GM bashers?

andre1969

Just make sure when you try to avoid an accident (which I am sure will happen a lot more than you're in an actual accident), your suv or pu didn't get to rollover, ESPECIALLY on the highway.

Well, my 1985 pickup has been whacked three times in the past year. First by a 2000 Infiniti I30, second by a 2003 or so Hyundai Elantra, and third by a hit-and-run in a parking lot somewhere (rear bumper got bent up slightly and I didn't even notice it for a couple days).

Yeah, these little cars might be more nimble and could possibly brake quicker, but somehow many of their drivers missed the memo! :P

As for rolling over, now SUV's might be a different story because you do have a lot of bulk up high, but with pickup trucks, I don't think the center of gravity is really all that high. Sure, you sit up high in the cab, but there really isn't all that much mass high up. Just the roof over your head and the pillars. I'm sure it's easier to roll a pickup than most cars, but I'd imagine that SUVs are still in a league all their own.

Plus, it takes considerable talent (or bad luck or stupidity) to roll a vehicle. You have to be doing something really crazy or stupid. They're not going to just flip on their backs if you look at them funny. :shades:

gagrice

My most enjoyable vehicle was my 1998/99 Suburban. Except parking in some of these lots built for a Yugo. I can see the joy in driving a Mini or Boxster. I cannot imagine any joy driving a Civic, Corolla or Yaris.

sls002

Car and Driver, in their comparison test, said that they did a 360 with the SRX on a two lane road. I suspect that it may have been icy as it was a winter test I think. Apparently they did this on purpose. But SUV's, and 4x4 pickups have more ground clearance, which raises the center of gravity a bit more than cars.

With traction control and stability control, my SRX should be fairly stable if I don't push it too hard. I think that it has more capability than I do, but I am not going to see. Where a lot of people get into trouble is going off one side of the road and then over correcting.

cooterbfd

I think that's an excellent way of looking at it. However, the GM bashers will say that it's a Johnny-Come-Lately knock off of the PT Cruiser (which it is). Given the success of the PT, you can't blame them for giving it a go. I think the panel van is a novel idea (don't know about a woody or a convertible).

Either way, they both look worlds better than those Japanese litter boxes with covers.

cooterbfd

He did more than a 360...He damn near s&*t his pants trying to drift on ice at 80MPH!!!!!

louiswei

I cannot imagine any joy driving a Civic, Corolla or Yaris.

Unless that Civic is a Si.

Also, I'll bet that not many people WANT a Corolla, Yaris or Cobalt, instead that's all they can afford so they are stuck with it. Not all the people are as fortunate as you due to their background, surroundings and many unknown reasons. This will really be a nicer place if we are willing to step back, put ourselves in other people's shoes and be more considerable.

Also, by the way, for many people driving is not an enjoyment, they merely just trying to get from A to B. In that case, a Civic, Corolla or Cobalt serve them well.

sls002

You were there?

anythngbutgm

I don't see any enjoyment in driving a big ol' Cadillac or Buick either. Not to knock those who do and certainly not to gloat, but I could afford any larger car or SUV some of these folks own but I will never ever consider one. I'd much rather drive a Civic or a Corolla than any of those tanks.

Has nothing to do with me being "poor" or not being a car enthusiast, I, like others just prefer smaller cars.

nwng

rollover doesn't necessarily mean your truck goes 30 ft in the air, crash and roll 5-6 times before it stopped. It could be in a minor accident or the driver took a corner a bit too fast and the truck just tip on it's side. If you ask any police officer, it's a pretty common occurence when trucks or suvs are involved in an accident, it's just law of physics.

gagrice

OK, I forgot a friend had a CRX that I really liked driving. Have not driven a Civic si. I don't see where financial status is that much involved. You can buy a 3 year old Buick for a lot less than a new Civic or Corolla. My real fear is the Yaris & Fit size vehicles. They cannot be safe in a crash with anything but another of like size.

louiswei

Either way, they both look worlds better than those Japanese litter boxes with covers.

I'll take that Japanese litter boxes with covers called Honda Civic Si over any domestic compacts.

sls002

The big FWD Cadillac (DTS) or Buick (Lucerne) are not sport sedans and so are probably not more fun to drive than a Civic. The CTS may be a different story. The Escalade is probably as much fun to drive as a Suburban. The SRX is more of a car (sport sedan STS) than a suburban though. It is not a mini-cooper though, which would be a small fun FWD car I think.

louiswei

I don't like big sedans and SUVs either. At the same time I wouldn't settle for a compact if I can afford a bigarse SUV. I'll just go out and get me a nice sports sedan or coupe.

louiswei

You can buy a 3 year old Buick for a lot less than a new Civic or Corolla.

At least a new Civic or Corolla comes with bumper to bumper and powertrain warranties. What does a 3-year-old Buick come with? A bigarse land yacht gas guzzler. I would dump my girlfriend on the spot if she ever suggests to get a Buick. Luckily she knows better than that. :P

Lemko, yes I know your girl is happy with the LaCrosse and the Toyota dealer scare the *beep* out of her. There, saved you a post didn't I?

cooterbfd

No, but IIRC, John Phillips wrote about it in one of his columns a couple months ago.