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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In Germany, a company called Mercedes does build the largest cars to have three zones of softness to them. This in part is a consideration for the lesser cars. The other is de-acceleration is not as abrupt on impact. There is softer zone, with lighter steel and a middle zone and a hardened zone to protect passengers. The car has all the goodness of large, without killing those inside due to bulk weight, and killing those inside the other cars or pedestrians.
That may be the extreme case. It is easier to see the differences between monsters vs, normal cars to smaller in the damage done. It should be obvious that 4X4 do not match up properly in crashes due to height extremes. It is not rocket science here. At one time you had a few ranchers and construction people driving say a Suburban, which makes perfect sense, when compared to soccer moms driving these monsters to school or beauty parlor. The sheer numbers of all the largest of steel hunks makes for dicey times come travel time. While accident and deaths may be down, this is due to better cars, better safety devices, and such. It could be even lower with some planning by the government and car manufacturers to build and market cars which better match with other cars for the masses. And when sold, they should have standards which work.
A simple reduction in size and weight, and you will also have some of the goal for energy independence accomplished. Wasn't there suppose to be such a goal set last time we had a crisis in the 70's???
simple logic,
Loren
In the purest form, any ad which shows how YOU the customer is somehow enhanced by the product, and how much a product is going to better their life is the ad of choice. How good you are as a company and blah, blah, blah at a point becomes all so much bull. The customer needs to have product and understand why they need that product. While there could be great hoopla about an American comeback, and boosted sales numbers, in the end, it means nothing to a customer if they can not see the benefit or the fit to their world for this product.
See the USA in a Chevrolet, with images of happy customer (you) in this beauty of a car, with a good looking gal, tooling down the highway, is a brilliant ad. It was all about YOU the customer.
Finally the product has to live up to the advertising for the long haul. Be consistent with products. And if it is price which is only good thing to say about it, by all means it is about the price. Don't pretend to be a BMW for handling, only to have the customer dismayed in the end. It is all about what it does for you the customer, with a product to back up the claims.
If possible, I would wait for the Camaro and Impala to be released together. Have all the cars shown on the same day across the nation with free coffee and donuts, and NO heavy strong arm sales pitches.
just adding my two cents, and a nickel :shades:
Loren
AAAAHH!! The thought of cruising down America's highways and experiencing her as you drive top your destination.
A lost art in the just get me from point A to B world of today.
I hope you weren't trying to say that Daimler-Benz built the Mercedes with the crumple zone so it wouldn't hurt other cars much in an accident. That's not going to be the resultant effect. They were designed that way because they were large and heavy and could put a strong frame around the passenger compartment--it's pure physics.
That's sort of like saying cigarette makers put filters on their cigarettes out of consideration for the health of the smokers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I thought it was apparent I was talking about midsize V6 crossovers like the Pilot, Edge, Toureg, etc. I wasnt talking about 3500lb compacts like the CR-V or RAV4. The combined mileage difference between the large V6 crossovers and BOF V8 models is indeed about 3mpg at best. The Tahoe gets 15/21 under current standards with AWD. The CX-9 gets 16/22 with AWD, the Pilot gets 17/23 with AWD, the Edge gets 17/24 with AWD. The difference is quite small.
"Well, 16mpg is lower than the 18/24 that is on the sticker. So in their case, their test sample performed poorly. Just stating the facts is all they were doing. "
yeah only GM makes vehicles that dont meet 2007 EPA sticker numbers. Glad you cleared that up for me. As I stated, the author was trying to single GM out when there is nothing to singled out for.
"Car like ride, better interior packaging (in most cases), maneuverability, tauter handling, fold away third row seating, ingress/egress...
In the end, you don't agree with it because it reflects negatively on GM Not the journalists fault the thing didn't perform up to snuff. "
what? The author was criticizing the Enclave because he felt it wasnt much more efficient than the traditional SUVs. My point wasnt that crossovers dont have advantages, it was that most large crossovers do not get great mileage. This is hardly something unique to the lambdas as the author suggested. He is misrepresenting the crossover class in an attempt to make his point that GM is addicted to gas guzzlers. He is biased or ignorant (or both) as I stated.
its not useless for kids. The CR-V's third row on the other hand...........
Most crossovers are imports. There's your advantage right there. Lets not get caught up in actual mileage numbers. Honda is "green" because it makes the Pilot while GM is "greedy" for making the Suburban. Got it?
There is no comparison between a Tahoe and a RAV4 or CR-V. If you are going to compare those just because they are SUVs you might as well compare the civic to the GS430 since they are both cars. Smaller SUvs with much less space and no towing capacity are going to get significantly better mileage than large V8 powered SUvs than can tow 3 or 4 tons.
Lets stick with comparing BOF SUVs to midsize and large crossovers with V6 power. The mileage on the Q7, ML, X5, Toureg and CX-9 is barely better than GM's SUVs.
My '85 Silverado had twin 16 gallon tanks, for a total capacity of 32 gallons. Back in 2005 both tanks finally gave out. I only had the money to replace one, so the repair shop totally disconnected the other one. That 16 gallons really hampers my cruising range and makes me fill up more often, but it does help out psychologically. Keeps me away from those $80-100 fillups! Sure, if you fill up twice as often but only pay half as much, the net effect is the same. But it just "feels" better somehow!
I've often wondered if the weight shed by losing that extra 16 gallon capacity has helped fuel economy any? What's a gallon of gas weigh? Maybe 6 pounds? Somehow I get the feeling that shedding 100 pounds off a 4200+ pound vehicle is meaningless for economy!
Ex. my wife drives a 2003 Acura MDX, average mileage I get with it is 18 - 20mpg which is commendable but my wife fills it up every 4 days. During the height of the price (gouging) crunch it cost me almost 70 bucks to fill up. Seventy! flipping dollars!!! :mad: So I was looking at almost 500 bucks a month just in gas to drive the thing. That is just nuts...
Thankfully, prices have subsided and I am at about 400 per month instead... whoopee :sick: Will I get rid of it? Probably not because it has cost me little to no money outside of maintainence costs and is still one of the best luxury sport utes money can buy.
But still, it grows tiring after a while. We bought it in 2004 when prices were still around 2 bucks a gallon and it took about 40 bucks to fill her up. So imagine what a shock 70 bucks is.
Jeeze, I would hate to know what it's like to see triple digits roll across the screen every fillup, like my friends Suburban. I figure she also fills it up every 4 or 5 days between driving back and forth to work, dropping off and picking up their kids, Depot runs, whatever.
So, is 700 - 750 bucks a month in gas really worth it? I'd have to really, really, really like the thing to justify that kind of cost.
The 1996 Toyota RAv 4 and 1997 Honda CR-V spearheaded the crossover SUV explosion. The Domestics did have a car-like SUV like the Jeep Cherokee Sport around that time but Honda and Toyota were really the ones that got noticed for spearheading the crossover SUV explosion in the mid to late 90's and GM and Ford were behind in the crossover segement in the mid to late 90's. Gm didn't have a crossover until the Saturn VUE debut for the 02 model year I think and Ford debut the Escape for the 01 model year.
As for bigger SUVs its not like the Japanese makes had 0 of them. in the late 90's Toyota had the 4 Runner in their model line in the late 90's as did Nissan with the Pathfinder. Honda had the Passport which was a rebadge of the Isuzu Rodeo in the mid to late 90's.
You'd have to drive an awful lot to have those kind of fuel bills. I figure at $3/gal and say avg. as low as 13mpg thats 3000miles a month. About double what the avg. person drives. To date this year I've avg. $350 a month in my Suburban.
My fuel bills are up this year mainly due to our moving from Kansas to Illinois and where we live now is further away from just about everything. Plus my wife now has a Grand Prix for a company car instead of the Ford 500 she left behind in Kansas. We hate the GP, so we take the Suburban on many trips that we would normally take her car.
I don't care if the Burb costs more to drive. It's way more comfortable. My back can't take the GP.
My Suburban has a 31 gal. tank. Since I usually still have at least 5 gallons when I fill up, I generally fill up with about 26 gallons and that is no where near $100. About $80 is the most a fill up has ever cost me.
My burb is paid for. It makes absolutely no financial sense to buy another vehicle to try to save fuel. I've thought about it only because I'd like a nice sports sedan to drive around town in. In the end it's just a waste of money.
L
Thats different markets I don;t think anybody is going to cross-shop a Civic with a Buick.
I don't think the Z-3 sold that well here in the States because I don't see like a lot of them.
Thankfully, prices are dropping but for how long? If we get nailed with another hurricane (or 2) I can see the prices easily going back up to 3.50 - 3.60 per gallon. Maybe even more... You may be stuck riding in that Grand Prix afterall :P
J/K. Seriously though, I'm not knocking you for the thing. I'm just having a hard time believing that those driving cars wish they were driving Suburbans, Tahoes, Yukons, or other full size ute as claimed by a quote from an article 62' posted which is where this all started.
Y'know, it's funny, but that's one reason why I prefer my 1985 Chevy pickup. It doesn't seem like it should be a very comfortable vehicle...flat vinyl seat with a thinly padded seatback, no headrests (unless you want to count the glass rear window, and I can tell you from experience that it hurts like hell when you hit it with your head when you get rear-ended! :surprise: ), and not an overly generous amount of legroom. Still, the seat is just high enough to give me decent thigh support, and the backrest seems to support my back in all the right places.
Many cars, especially modern ones (if they don't have lumbar support) force me into a slouching position, which causes my lower back to hurt after awhile.
My burb is paid for. It makes absolutely no financial sense to buy another vehicle to try to save fuel.
Every time I get on the fuel economy kick, I tell myself the same thing. I probably drive 6-7,000 miles per year (majority of that with my truck), and it would never make sense economically to buy a new vehicle just for the fuel savings. Eventually the truck will wear out, and that will be the factor that replaces it. Not fuel economy.
I drive no where near 3000 miles/mo. Generally I'm around 1,000-1500/mo. I generally fill up once a week. The fill-up is usually around $70. I will use an extra tank on 1 or 2 weekends a month depending on where we go boating. Due to boating trips I drive a more in the summers than winters.
As for what people aspire to drive, heck I don't know. I wouldn't have a BOF SUV if I didn't tow. I'd probably just get a nice sport sedan.
I guess you could afford paying high gas prices. On a side note My company provides us with a truck to drive around in and the cost to fill it up is 40.00$ and its a Dodge Dakota and to me thats alot of money to fill up a vehicle with gas. The last time before the 40.00$ gas tank fill-up I got the gas tank filled up for the Dakota it costs 46.00$.
Well it's not necessarily that I can afford the higher gas prices...I just don't want to pay the higher car payment! I'd estimate that my aging pickup gets about 13 mpg in mixed driving (majority local, but some highway). Best I've gotten this year was right around 16, and the worst was 9, but it took winter driving and a defective muffler to get it THAT bad!
Anyway, figure 7,000 miles per year, 13 mpg, is 538 gallons. If I went to something like a Corolla, and was able to get 35 mpg out of it on average (probably optimistic in my driving situation, but let's pretend), well that's still 200 gallons of fuel used. Or a difference of 338 gallons.
At $3.00 per gallon, that would be $1014 per year. Or $84.50 per month. At $4.00 per gallon it would be $1352, or ~$113 per month. Even at $5.00 per gallon, it would only be $1690, or $140 per month.
I have liability-only insurance on my pickup, which is about $300 per year. Getting a new vehicle, even a cheap one, would probably bump it to $600 or more with full coverage. And what kind of newer, more economical car could I get for $85, $113, or $140 per month? Something that's still used, and still most likely going to break down from time to time.
Now nobody in their right mind is going to replace a full-sized pickup with a compact or subcompact car. If/when my pickup dies, it'll get replaced by another pickup. Probably just something cheap and basic, with a small V-8. Something like that might get 17-18 mpg in my type of driving, and the fuel savings there would NEVER offset the cost of acquiring a replacement vehicle.
Ah, I miss read your previous post... Surprisingly, my wife puts on around 25 - 30k miles a year on her Acura so 3000 miles a month is the norm in my family! :surprise:
I put around 1700 miles a month on my little Scoobydoo (Impreza wagon). Thankfully, she's getting 31mpg so my monthly fuel bill is a mesely (well, not really) 250 bucks.
How about something like a diesel? I don't think you've ever put forth any opinions on those, have you?
Have Diesels gotten to the point that they make a good short-commute vehicle? I know they've come a long way over the years, especially since the era of those old converted gasoline Oldsmobile engines.
Most of my driving is really short, like trips of 3-5 miles. I dunno if the improved economy of a Diesel would offset the cost. While I like having a pickup, I really don't need a 3/4 ton truck (although I'll admit I've grossly exceeded the GVWR on my half-ton a few times.
Now if they start offering Diesels in 1/2 ton trucks, and the fuel economy is good enough to justify the increased cost, I'd definitely consider one.
My uncle had a 1994 GMC Sierra with a 6.5L Turbo Diesel. That thing was nothing but trouble and seemed to go in the shop every other week. And it was only a few years old when he got it...late 1996. The engine/driveline were fine, but there was always some sensor, computer, or some other peripheral thing going bad on it. He gave up on it after about 7 or 8 months and traded it on a brand-new 1997 Silverado with the 4.3 V-6.
Ned Nickles, a Buick designer, punched some holes in the front fenders of his 1947 Buick and put some colored lights in the holes hooked up to the distributor. Each light would flash when the particular cylinder to which it was hooked would fire.
Great history point about Nickles. These type of lights could be a possibility for dealer installed option on Buicks, but without distributor. Some inventive sema type could make one of these with microprocessor box under hood and controller in console that would let driver select colors to use along with timing and sequence. They could even market this as a safety item being that car could be seen better at night. This would make more sense then padded tops on Caddies and Lucernes.
Recently saw an Impala (2005?) with a tan padded top. What is it about owners of GM makes and models putting on padded tops. Have never seen a padded top on a BMW, Acura, Infiniti, Lexus, etc or even an Accord and Camry. Is it something in the genes of some GM buyers.
Sounds alot like my Mom's old 1992 or 1993 Grand Am always some sensor going off or and the A/C would need work every summer.
But such a short commute? Ya, it probably wouldn't be necessary.
Those ventiports were usually located on the fender of the car, just ahead of the door. Kind of where that side marker light is on many modern imports, such as this BMW. So if nothing else, they could be rigged to serve that purpose. I don't think making the things flash at high intensity, change colors, etc would be a good idea, because it would probably be distracting enough to negate any safety potential.
Recently saw an Impala (2005?) with a tan padded top. What is it about owners of GM makes and models putting on padded tops. Have never seen a padded top on a BMW, Acura, Infiniti, Lexus, etc or even an Accord and Camry. Is it something in the genes of some GM buyers.
I've seen an occasional Camry or Lexus with one of those hideous padded tops, so evidently buyers for them ARE out there. But they still seem to show up more often on GM cars. And all too often, they find their way onto Chrysler 300's.
The other day I saw a fairly new Malibu with one of those tops...horrible! I think the only cars I've ever seen that could pull off one of those aftermarket tops with any dignity was the 1980-83 Dodge Mirada/Chrysler Cordoba, 1979-85 Toro/Riv/Eldorado, and 1980-85 Seville. The Seville had a neoclassic enough look about it anyway that the carriage roof really didn't do any more harm to it than Bill Mitchell did in the design room. And those other cars were faux hardtops to begin with, so the carriage roof just made them look like convertibles with the top up. And even in these cases, the cars still look much better with plain steel roofs.
http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofedsl.htm
and here is some info on problems:
http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0408phr_worst_automobile_engines/
note that in addition to the olds diesel, there is info on the 8-6-4 and 4100 plus some other wonders...
If GM or other vehicle manufacturers could make a good profit on padded tops, they would some how bring them back as option. What they would need is to have high profile stars such as Tiger be seen getting into a Lucerne with paddded top a number of times. Would also need actors/actresses getting into a Caddy or Buick with padded top in movies. Add in sports stars and it would be a reconstituted fad. But, it would need a new marketing twist and naming. Then it would be fashionable. Just like GM and others bringing back car based station wagons but calling them something new and "in" such as Crossover.
I figured that the local gas station that replaced their leaded fuel pump with a diesel pump were probably clueless.
As for padded tops, I haven't had a vinyl roof on a car since I bought my 1989 Cadillac Brougham. It is one of the few cars that still looks good with one. Even my 1988 Buick Park Avenue doesn't have a vinyl/padded top. Those padded tops you see these days are aftermarket. Not too many of today's cars look good with a padded top.
I spent a year in Florida (Melbourne) and I saw padded top Camrys, Avalons on regular basis. It does make me sick, one of the reasons why I moved away.
L
L
any port in a storm,
Loren
If you went with a motorhome the up front cost would be higher than a camper I assume. Maybe $30k to $80K for a decent one.
Loren
As for the gas cost debate, the larger picture got totally missed. Bring down consumption overall by cars and trucks which use less gas, as in savings for each vehicle, and prices come down, and surpluses start to build. Wasn't he total picture that of a National Energy Policy benefit?
Everyone has their own story, but the bottom line is more efficient vehicles do matter.
L