General Motors discussions

cooterbfd

No, I meant the 2 Barbie Hummers that Scion and Honda put out.

lweiss

Actually there was an article some time ago that premised that if gasoline prices remain high, there would be a gradual migration to way smaller vehicles than we have today- and that for a period of 10-15 years (until the current fleet turns over), there will be the mismatch of the big SUV's and trucks vs the new small cars. And you can't repeal the laws of physics- me (165 lbs) running headlong into a linebacker weighing 280 lbs... you get the idea. This was the main reason that I sold my motorcycle years ago- too dangerous.

But in fairness, there have been lots of safety advances for small cars, airbags and better protection. But until everything gets smaller, we will have safety issues.

nwng

I guess it has to do with where you live. If where I live requires a lot of hwy travel and not close to any major cities, then yea, a big car with a v6 or v8 would be my 1st choice for rides.

But I live in a bean town suburb and I don't tow anything so there really is no need for me to have a pu or suv. With the narrow streets and tight parking, driving anything bigger than a camry is a pain. I drive a 05 ody, the engine hums,the tranny is sweet and the handling is excellent for a boat this size. I sit up high and has a good command of the road ahead. But there is not one day pass by that I wish I am upshifting at 5k in 3rd in a civic.

xrunner2

I drive a 05 ody, the engine hums,the tranny is sweet and the handling is excellent for a boat this size. I sit up high and has a good command of the road ahead.

Yep. Handling on Ody is decent. Have one of these and it does pretty well for a minivan. Think that it probably outhandles most GM suvs/vans of similar size. And, it can hold more stuff than an suv. See that Chrysler is coming out with updated minivans though GM could not figure out how to make a good one and abondoned the market.

anythngbutgm

Makes sense, I guess if I were on the road for work I'd want something larger. But certainly not a Deville or a Buick, even an STS is too big. For the longest time I wanted to find a first gen M45 Infiniti to drive and I was even looking for an LS430. But when I did find one, and I did drive it (The Lexus, never found the M) I just thought I looked so silly driving it.

My gosh, I am in my 30's, not my 60's. I drive my cars, I don't ride in them...

Regarding your Odyssey, I assume you have kids? In that kind of situation I can see how driving becomes more of a necessity than a desire. That's when the priorities should lie in your family, kudos.

But there is not one day pass by that I wish I am upshifting at 5k in 3rd in a civic.

Oh man, there is just something about bangin' gears at 8200 RPM. That kind of pleasure accompanied by a light nimble chassis just doesn't exist in the big stuff.

lemko

The Camaro was a Johnny-Come-Lately to the Mustang
The Chevy II/Nova was a Johnny-Come-Lately to the Falcon
The Riviera was a Johnny-Come-Lately to the Thunderbird

None of these cars could be classified as a failure.

Heck, some cars came too early, the Barracuda came a few months earlier than the Mustang. The Barracuda wasn't a failure, but it wasn't the smash hit the Mustang became.

Then, there were cars like a Marlin which looks like a response to the Barracuda and was a dismal flop. AMC made up for it later with the Javelin, which I think is more attractive and modern-looking than either the Mustang or Camaro.

m1miata

One year after completion of the PT Cruiser coming to market, the designer of the PT moved on the GM. This is why the features and overall concept appear to match. You know there is the tray in the back and such. The HHR seems like a nice little van/wagon. Now back to Cobalt. I doubt that people think the car overall is not an improvement. What it is not is something really new after all these years. The car is going to be compared to the best in its class, and of course started out with a grade of C. For some reason, every responce which tried to inject a dose of reality is deemed a GM bashing. How is it better to live in this dream world where everything is fine. The Cobalt is a more solid Cavalier, which lost a little of its looks along the way. The HHR is a good knock-off of the PT penned by the designer of the PT. It gets better gas mileage than the PT, and in most every way would be the better of the two to buy. But the innovation was Chrysler.

Now we have retro Mustang, then Challenger, then here comes GM with the Camaro. This is the reality; late again.
L

m1miata

Well car not only has to be first, it can't look ugly. Later 'Cuda or and AMX would be very cool indeed!
L

lemko

What does a 3-year-old Buick come with? A bigarse land yacht gas guzzler.

You're obviously living more than 20 years in the past. Both my 1988 Park Avenue and her 2005 LaCrosse deliver phenomenal fuel economy. Twenty-nine MPG is common on the highway and a decent 19-21 MPG in town depending on traffic conditions. Both are happy on regular fuel. By my standards, both are rather small cars.

lweiss

"Pioneers get the arrows, settlers get the land"

And for that matter, the Japanese did not invent the automobile, or the watch, or television, or computers, etc- but they seem to be doing a great job improving on existing ideas. Being innovative should have its rewards, but it is no guarantee of long term market dominance.

m1miata

Actually the Corolla I had after the Achieva and it was great to drive around. I may add, with less trips to the garage. The Corolla and Civic become a trusted friend, like your dog. And they scoot around in traffic with great ease. Parking them is sooooo easy. That said, the Civic Si would be the fun one -- whooo-hooo!
L

lemko

Didn't think the first 'Cuda was that good-looking as it looked like a glassy fastback grafted onto a clunky Valiant sedan. Later 'Cudas (1968-74) are definately are very attractive. The Marlin was grotesque and got even stupider-looking when they put it on the big Ambassador chassis. The Javelin/AMX was beautiful. I prefer the less flamboyant first generation.

Speaking of being first but ugly, go back to 1934 with the Chrysler Airflow. It could be considered the first streamlined car, but boy, was it ugly. The Lincoln Zephyr which appeared in 1936 was a better response. Then you got crazy-looking cars like the 1938 Graham "Sharknose." I like it, but others find it hideous.

louiswei

Okay, so 20/29 is nice but what if I can get 25/35? A MPG more is a MPG more, no way around it. All Hondas and Toyotas are happy on regular fuel as well. You can live by your standard all you want but one thing is certain: your standard ain't mainstream. Oh, and that's NOT IMO, it's a fact.

As for the Park Ave, it has a 165HP V6 right? You know that a current day V6 with TWICE of that horsepower can match the FE right?

bumpy

My real fear is the Yaris & Fit size vehicles. They cannot be safe in a crash with anything but another of like size.

Pffft. Given the proliferation of airbag suites and seat belt pretensioners these days, it doesn't matter what you're in or what you run into. If anything, smaller cars are better since they have less mass to decelerate in a collision.

lemko

Fuel economy isn't my first priority, but it is important, that's why you won't ever see me in any big SUV. If fuel economy was a priority, I might be driving a Civic Hybrid as the Prius is immensely too dorky-looking.

Number one is that I want an attractive yet affordable car. Buick accomplishes that in spades.

Number two is that I want I good-quality car which Buick delivers. I know that from over 25 years of experience with the make. Buicks do last a long, long time if you take care of them. My 1968 Special Deluxe was around for 24 years and my 1988 Park Ave is going on twenty.

Number three is that I want good performance with respectable fuel economy. Once again, Buick does it!

I want something that is easy to maintain and won't break the bank if something does go wrong. Again, Buick.

I want a good sales and service experience with the dealership. Our local Buick dealer delivers that in spades. Going to the local Toyota dealer is like diving into a tank full of sharks, barracudas, and piranhas swimming in bloody water while wearing a meat suit. I've dealt with surly personnel at dealerships - notably the old Chrysler-Plymouth dealer, but they were nowhere a pitbullishly aggressive as the 'Yota guys.

The geriatric image? I have enough self-esteem not to worry what others think. Besides, seniors didn't get to be old by being stupid. Funny how seniors are objects of ridicule in our culture while they are cherished in others.

nwng

dude, the crx is out of production for almost 16 yrs. Your pricing is right on for a used buick, but how come no one is snapping up used buicks instead?

andre1969

The Camaro was a Johnny-Come-Lately to the Mustang
The Chevy II/Nova was a Johnny-Come-Lately to the Falcon
The Riviera was a Johnny-Come-Lately to the Thunderbird

I can think of a few that you can add to that list...
The Caprice was a response to the Ford LTD. They actually both came out in the same model year, so GM was getting their response time down, and Plymouth was able to get its Fury VIP out that same year too, but the LTD was the first one on the drawing boards.

The 1964 GM intermediates were two years behind the Ford Fairlane and Mercury Meteor. In 1962, Dodge and Plymouth fielded intermediate-sized cars as well, but some people don't count those, as they were actually marketed as full-sized cars.

The 1964 GTO gets credited as being the first muscle car, but what it really was is the first car of that type to be BILLED as a musclecar. Those types of cars had been out before, it's just that the name "musclecar" hadn't been coined yet. Some might take issue with cars like the Chrysler 300 Letter Series, Dodge D-500/501, DeSoto Adventurer, Impala SS409, etc being called musclecars. They had big, high-output engines and aggressive performance, and in some cases offered with a stick. And there were downsized '62 Plymouths and Dodges equipped with high-performance big-blocks and sticks that could embarrass a GTO.

As for the Barracuda, I don't really know how to classify it. It was released to the market first, but the Mustang was the first to be designed. Chrysler just decided to rush the Barracuda out extra fast to try beating the Mustang to the market. So yeah, the Barracuda was first. But it was Ford's idea first.

GM tended to let Ford, and in some cases Chrysler, forge into those new markets first and see if they got any nibbles, but then GM would jump in with both feet and usually end up dominating the market. With the exception of the Mustang.

I imagine that the 1958 Impala was the last time GM really led in a market. It was the first Chevy to push into middle class territory. For 1959 Ford joined in with the Galaxie, while Plymouth expanded the Fury into a full lineup.

I guess the Corvair was kind of a leader as well. It didn't do too well as a mass market compact, but the sporty versions of it did show that there was a demand for small, sporty cars. So that could have, in a rough sense, paved the way for the Mustang.

louiswei

You are funny...

Why do you need to defend your position as a Buick owner is beyond me. Never once in my post criticized your decision of buying Buick. The car that suits you is the best car for you so with that train of thought your beloved Buick is not the best suitor for everyone else. So it's not that hard to understand why more people choose those compacts over a used Buick.

If fuel economy isn't your first priority why you brought it up? I wouldn't bring up fuel economy if you didn't mention it. As matter of fact, I really don't give a *beep* about FE as long as it's not horrible and that's why I am driving a 300HP sports sedan.

As for Toyota dealer, your story is getting old just like Andre3's horrible Neon experience. The bottom line is: we get it, chill. I have dealt with Toyota dealers 3 times in the last 2 years and never once experienced something like you did. If you don't like the dealer then don't go there again, simple as that.

Last but not least, based on my experience with Buick I wouldn't call it good quality, especially interior wise. Yes, compare to the 70's Asian econo box it might be good quality but compare to today's midsize/fullsize sedans it is not. Also, nothing against seniors, they can drive whatever they want for all I care, doesn't matter to me.

1487

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

not sure what you are helping me with. When did I ask about he civic Si?

m1miata

What are the other cars which can be found at that Buick dealership. They can't make a living on Buicks these days.

As for Toyota dealerships, I imagine they vary as much as GM and all the rest. What I found is that some have changed over the years. Basically it is a variable. There is no absolute control over these dealers. Honda seems to leverage ad money and perhaps allocation of cars (who knows) to control the dealerships a bit. ALL brands seem to have the good, the bad, and the plain ugly dealerships selling a product. As for your '88 Buick, you just got lucky. Had you bought one in '87 it may be crushed by now. From what I could gather after owning the Olds is that it had good potential, as in ride, handling and gas mileage, but poor execution, as in a multitude of problems from day one.
Guess I was the tester for your year of car. What was really funny is that I was told that GM had come much closer to Japan quality with new robot plants and proceedures, and the return to greatness was but around the corner. Now, in 2007, it is we are almost there -- again!
I am thinking if the 2009-2010 stuff is a flop, it is all over. The New Stuff must be spot on good, or it is a third strike.
L

gsemike

I think that it's very difficult to rate dealer networks. We know that the high-end places give you the red carpet treatment but the mass market dealers differ greatly from store to store. I've heard some folks talk about Honda being the gold standard for dealers, but I was not impressed at all by mine.

Lemko's Toyota dealer probably was awful. Car dealers are like the RE market. They're all local.

m1miata

So sorry, I thought you may interested in the true class leader, as you had mentioned class leading car. You didn't mention the Si, so I thought I would just guide you to the site where you can find the class leader.
just trying to be helpful,
L

stever

Funny how seniors are objects of ridicule in our culture while they are cherished in others.

Like in Japan? :shades: Maybe Buick salespeople can start bowing too.

Here's a way to let the world know about your dealer experience whether's it's a Buick shop or a Toy one:

Dealer Ratings and Reviews

nwng

deal with the online sales dept, that's the best way to go.

1487

No, not really interested in the class leader. Besides, the Si doesn't have many direct competitors. It certainly didnt outperform the cobalt SS/SC in any way, shape or form. Matter of fact, I dont think the Si has won any comparisons in magazines yet.

just trying to be helpful.

m1miata

Wasn't the Olds Rocket 88 the first muscle car, and NASCAR winner for many years ??? As for the Corvair, it was the American VW. And as you know, the VW was already around a long time by then.
L

anythngbutgm

Going to the local Toyota dealer is like diving into a tank full of sharks, barracudas, and piranhas swimming in bloody water while wearing a meat suit.

I've had mixed experiences at Toyota dealerships. One in particular is notorious for their "take it or leave" attitude. There are others where I have test driven cars and I am able to safely walk out of the dealer with no hassle. I had a recent experience at two of them driving the new RAV4. At the moment they are both working offers for me and both sales men have exhibited courteous and reasonable negotiation skills.

I do remember reading that Toyota corporate was cracking down on those crooked dealerships, I believe we are starting to see those effects.

m1miata

Oh really now. How much HP without a turbo or supercharger does a Cobalt put out? An Si turbo charged would be ??? A Cobalt SS, SC, BS is still a Cobalt. Next thing ya know, a turbo Aveo will be annouced as an SS model.
L

1487

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

Styling is subjective. This is common knowlegde. Since the Cobalt is a Chevy you find it to be unacceptably dull but since the Accord is a Honda you are OK with its styling. Neither car is bad looking, but neither is beautiful. Compared to the corolla, last gen civic, Sentra, etc. I dont see how you find the Cobalt to be so dull looking. Oh wait, its American so its got to be unacceptable.

m1miata

Too many hungry salespeople. They should reduce the numbers of salespeople, so those left can make a living. They jump on you quickly due to there being more on the sales floor working, than customers buying cars.
L

lemko

If you want to get really technical, the 1936 Buick Century was the first muscle car. It took the big Buick Roadmaster engine and put it in the smaller, lighter Special body.

1487

"h really now. How much HP without a turbo or supercharger does a Cobalt put out? An Si turbo charged would be ??? A Cobalt SS, SC, BS is still a Cobalt. Next thing ya know, a turbo Aveo will be annouced as an SS model."

All irrelevant to the original point.

Look at the torque of the civic and the Cobalt SC model- not even close. That is what the supercharger does for the 2L engine. You can make a lot of power from a small engine, but you cant do much with torque. This is why the Cobalt was faster even though it was heavier.

"Cobalt SS, SC, BS is still a Cobalt."

cute, but bottom line is the lowly cobalt beat the Si in every measure possible and had Recaro seats, 18" wheels and high peformance Pirelli tires. Civic couldnt catch it, stop shorter or outhandle the cobalt. BS indeed.

m1miata

Well, I am looking right at it! :surprise:

this is so easy, a caveman could do it!
L

m1miata

Wow, Recaro seat, it must be a race car. And 18" wheels for more unsprung weight, wow, such a deal! Can't wait to see the 2008 model.... oh wait, there is none, darn it.
L

louiswei

Matter of fact, I dont think the Si has won any comparisons in magazines yet.

A little research would be helpful before making that statement...

From our very own Inside Line:

2006 Honda Civic Si vs. 2006 Volkswagen GTI

Winning over a GTI is no small honor, if throw in a Sentra SE-R and Cobalt SS there is little doubt the Civic Si will still come out on top.

1487

there are pics of the base model interior available online. It looks like the one you've seen except its gray and doesnt have auto climate control. I have not seen a pic of the LS model with 16" wheels but there are pics of the LT and LTZ available. Go to autodeadline.com and look under photos.

the car certainly isnt lacking in styling when compared to the Accord we just saw the other day.

1487

"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. "

wrong again. You continue to fail to produce a list of objective reasons why the cobalt is so much worse than corolla and civic. THe Corolla beats cobalt in mileage, that it. Civic has a better design and a few more features and better mileage but its newer and that is to be expected. cobalt still has more power, better acceleration, several features not found on either, better warranty and more space. another interesting thing is that the 173hp engine is no less efficient than the 2.2L model so for Civic money you can get FAR more peformance with a 3mpg penalty in mileage for the same money.

Cobalt's incentives arent even that high. good luck finding a new model for $11k as you stated. Do you have any proof they are selling Cobalts at that price? Just curious.

BTW, have you ever driven the cobalt? You seem to be quite the expert so I assume you have extensive seat time in the car.

m1miata

SS less turbo charger is rated poor -- the one with turbo is average, yea!
It is the total in and out price.
L

anythngbutgm

lightly used 2007 models

New Cobalts start at $13,790. Let someone else take the deep depriciation hit...

gsemike

Yes I did have a Cobalt rental car (where else). The car was more coarse and had a lower quality interior than my friend's 03 Corolla. It also had an unusable backseat. The Coralla's is surprisingly spacious. I also found that it sucked gas in surprising quantities. I'll save you the rant and of course I got a bad one that was not maintained and every other one is a jewel. I guess that one had lived a long 3,000 mile life.

"another interesting thing is that the 173hp engine is no less efficient than the 2.2L model so for Civic money you can get FAR more peformance with a 3mpg penalty in mileage for the same money."

The thing is that the buyers of economy cars are not willing to pay a 3 mpg penalty for that HP. They're also not willing to buy $175 replacement tires for their 17 inch rims on an economy car. That's just GM misreading the market AGAIN. Now you go to mid-size cars where the power may matter and they're consistently on the low side. That's way Cobalt sales are barely 60% of Civic or Coralla sales even with fire sale pricing. Those are facts.

anythngbutgm

another interesting thing is that the 173hp engine is no less efficient than the 2.2L model so for Civic money you can get FAR more peformance with a 3mpg penalty in mileage for the same money.

Bull crap.
24/32mpg for Cobalt LTZ- 30/40mpg Civic EX

You also get a much safer car than a Cobalt. Sorry, 3 star side impact ratings are pathetic in this day and age.

link title

Edit: My apologies, you're comparing the higher performance modelslink title

cooterbfd

Okay, so 20/29 is nice but what if I can get 25/35?

My Park Av is 245 horse, and does 23/33 on mid grade. Not bad for a car that is 800lbs heavier and has gobs more room than a Camcord-hell, I could put a Camcord or 2 in my trunk !!!

cooterbfd

I guess the Corvair was kind of a leader as well. It didn't do too well as a mass market compact

It did, actually. They sold 250,000 in 1960, as opposed to 400,000 Falcons.
Yet, because the Falcon looked like a small Ford, and the Corvair looked like nothing else, Fords Large car sales dropped by like 10% or so, while Chevy's large car sales went UP 15% or so.

tlong

Can't wait to see the 2008 model.... oh wait, there is none, darn it.

No '08 Cobalt SS you say? Must have been very successful.

Has Honda dropped the Civic Si for '08?

chetj

i have seen it on sale for 11k in NH-mass...seems like a lot better deal than a overpriced honda

cooterbfd

Why do you need to defend your position as a Buick owner is beyond me. Never once in my post criticized your decision of buying Buick.

Um....when you go aroun making comments like:

You can live by your standard all you want but one thing is certain: your standard ain't mainstream. Oh, and that's NOT IMO, it's a fact....

it sounds as if you are lobbing a bomb on our Buick buying decisions. BTW I'm 38, and all I've ever owned is BUICKS.

cooterbfd

Absolutely!!! World's first production car to do 100 mph from the factory-that's why they called it a Century

chetj

my cavalier ran great..still running at 162 k...1999...i was in a 99 corolla and i didnt see no difference...cept a higher price...

chetj

i find that hard to believe and i am a GM supporter

m1miata

Wow, is that taking it up to 50 MPH downhill