I'd say the 1977-90 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice should be on a list of the best cars of all time. Everybody I knew, including myself, had extremely good luck with these cars.
Yeah, but you reside within a temporal anomaly where domestic cars are built with pride by skilled workers using quality materials. The rest of us had to deal with Caprices that crapped out their ancillary systems on a regular basis.
The Aztec looks modern, as something you would see in an old Star Wars, or whatever perhaps older movie about the future.
Perfect fit would be an update of old Flash Gordon series with Zarkoff and clay people. Aztek would be just right on the set maybe in that awful yellow color. Series update would have clay people using Azteks in tailgate parties instead of just standing around. Movie "set" requirements could put a premium on clean/used Azteks.
Yeah, but you reside within a temporal anomaly where domestic cars are built with pride by skilled workers using quality materials. The rest of us had to deal with Caprices that crapped out their ancillary systems on a regular basis.
I'd say that from 1977-80 they were probably some of the best cars around (for that timeframe at least, but not necessarily of ALL time!) but in 1981 they started computerizing a lot of stuff and that caused problems. Also in 1981, GM started using that lightweight 4-speed automatic transmission, which was troublesome at first. 1982-83 were also some pretty bad years, but they began to turn around by 1984. Consumer Reports was still pretty generous with the little black dots on the Caprice, but I think by this time, it was getting to the point that a car could score "worse than average" and still not be a bad car.
The only car I've had of that downsized B-body design was a 1985 LeSabre that my grandmother gave me. It was a good car, and was very reliable past 100,000 miles. By the time I got it, it was 15 years old and had about 144,000 miles on it, so it was starting to show its age. Finally got rid of it in 2002, with 157,000 miles on it. I would've kept it longer, if it wasn't for a few things that came up at that time. First, my Mom got a new truck, and asked me if I wanted her old one. I figured I'd rather have the truck than the Buick. Second, I had too many vehicles at the time, anyway. Third, the brakes went out on it, and that sealed my decision to not put any more money into it and get rid of it!
The Camaro used the 350 until its end. The Corvette went to a 6.0 or something like that.
The Camaro and Firebird got the aluminum 5.7L LS1 in 1998, a year after the C5 Corvette. The Z06 C5 got the hot-dog LS6 version, then the C6 Corvette got the 6.0L LS2 in 2005.
The 396 was dropped for the 454 big-block in 1973.
I'd say the 1977-90 Chevrolet Impala/Caprice should be on a list of the best cars of all time. Everybody I knew, including myself, had extremely good luck with these cars.
77 Caprice wagon. One of best full-size American station wagons of all time for utility and comfort is what I would say.
Except for a warranty issue I had on camshaft (dealer was very good at taking care of), my 77 Caprice Classic "Station Wagon" was a fine vehicle. For its time (1977), it was good. It had all the options and a bench seat in front. It was commodius, could easily and comfortably accomodate 6 adults in front and middle seats. Never used the rear seat. Could handle 4x8 sheets plywood/drywall. Was great for hauling people or stuff. It had that "magic" tailgate that could either open down or from the side. Went to Suburban after this Caprice.
Really? So what was in those T/A's from the Smokey and the Bandit era? I thought those were 6.6's? My math may be a bit fuzzy since it's Friday, but 6.6 is a 396 isn't it (396/61)?
Nah, a lot of that is off the top of my head, so don't take it as the gospel...my memory's not as good as it used to be! :P
Those 1994-96 SSes are sweet cars, and the 1996 is the one to have. Initially I think they only had a column shift and no tach, but they added one of those things for 1995 and the other for 1996, and I think that makes most people want the final year model.
I came close to buying a used 1996 Caprice with the 260 hp 350 back in 1999. It was a fast car, but because it was a greenish-gray Caprice and not a black SS, it looked the part of a sleeper. It had 36,200 miles on it so it was just out of warranty. I think they wanted something like $13,900 for it, refused to budge on that price, acted like they were doing ME a favor, so I balked. I'm sorry, but I wasn't about to pay nearly $14K for something with a 90 day warranty! They called me back near the end of the month and left a message, saying they were ready to deal. I didn't call them back until a few days later, after the new month began. Salesguy said kind of snotty, well, that was last month, this is now.
The following weekend, I drove my uncle down to the dealer (different place, not the snotty one) to pick up his truck, which was in for servicing, and before I knew it, I was driving out of there in a brand-new 2000 Intrepid, for a monthly payment not much more than what that used Caprice would have been.
Really? So what was in those T/A's from the Smokey and the Bandit era? I thought those were 6.6's? My math may be a bit fuzzy since it's Friday, but 6.6 is a 396 isn't it (396/61)?
Those 6.6 Trans Am's came with either Pontiac 400's or Olds 403's. Some areas like California had stricter emissions standards, and Olds engines were cleaner running than Pontiac engines, so that forced them to switch. Pontiac engines in general didn't take too well to emissions controls, and strangled down as such, I don't think they handled high-altitude areas well, either.
The 400 had 200 hp and was slightly hopped up from the 180 hp version that was found in regular cars like a Catalina or Bonneville. The 403 had the same 185 hp that it had in a Delta 88, 98, etc.
I think the 396 actually comes out to a 6.5L, but I'm not positive.
Oh, as for Smokey and the Bandit itself, I've heard that they actually put Pontiac 455's in the '77 Trans Ams used in the movie...an engine that was dropped after 1976. Supposedly the stock '77 Trans Am wouldn't have been powerful enough to keep ahead of those police cars! :sick:
Incidentally, I vaguely recall MT or C&D doing a test of the 1977 crop of police cars. I think the LeMans Enforcer, which Sheriff Justice drove, was actually kind of a dog in real life, compared to other police cars at least. So it's a wonder that he was able to keep up with the Bandit! Dodge and Plymouth police cars back then used mainly 440's which were putting out around 240 hp I think...so a 200 hp Pontiac 400 would be kind of a dog in comparison.
Oh, as for Smokey and the Bandit itself, I've heard that they actually put Pontiac 455's in the '77 Trans Ams used in the movie...an engine that was dropped after 1976. Supposedly the stock '77 Trans Am wouldn't have been powerful enough to keep ahead of those police cars! :sick:
Yeah, I remember reading that the '77 T/A barely had enough power to spin the wheels via brake torque. So the smoke show in Smokey and the Bandit needed some hollywood help.
396, 400, eh who's counting It's all a big clusterbomb of engine sizes with GM back then isn't it, lol...
Yeah, GM did have a slew of 'em back then. I guess it made sense at the time, though. For the most part, each division made their own engines, and they had high enough volume to justify it.
I guess it did get a little silly though, once there were four different 350's and three different 455's, plus a 454. A lot of the choices were pretty redundant, too, or just didn't make much sense.
For example, I think my '76 LeMans was offered with the following engine choices... 250-6-cyl, with ~110 hp (why bother in a 3800+ pound car?) 260 Olds V-8, 100-110 hp (again, why bother...wouldn't be able to get out of its own way) 305 Chevy V-8, maybe 145 hp (probably marginal power, but fuel economy might not be too bad) 350 Pontiac V-8, 160-170 hp (2/4bbl). Mine has the 2bbl, and I'd consider it the bare minimum to move a car this size with any dignity. 400 Pontiac V-8, 180 hp (would this really give you that much better performance than a 350-4bbl?) 455 Pontiac V-8, 200 hp. NOW you're talking! Probably the only one of the bunch to break the 10 second barrier in 0-60!
One thing I never really understood was offering a V-8 that's close in size and power to a 6-cyl engine.
I guess it sort of made sense at the time, though, to offer all those engines. If nothing else, with each step up you got a bit better power. That Chevy 6-cyl or Olds 260 probably took 20 seconds to get to 60 mph! The 305 might've knocked it down to 15, and then to 13 for the 350. The 400 probably put you down to 11, and maybe 9 seconds for the 455? But nowadays, it's pretty rare to find a car that's slower than 10 seconds from 0-60. That's sort of the starting point these days, compared to the lofty goal it once was. So maybe that's one reason they don't need all those engines. Nobody would tolerate a modern car doing 0-60 in 20 seconds.
One thing I never really understood was offering a V-8 that's close in size and power to a 6-cyl engine.
Marketing. 6 cylinders was the poverty option on a "regular"-size car while offering a dinky V8 let people preserve some small amount of dignity, even if the V8 in question was a miscegnated crapbox.
A friend bought a Caprice police package car, one of the original boxy style cars. Neat. After she passed away he ended up with it. The insurance was extra high on it because it showed as a police package by the VIN number.
That's interesting...I had a 1989 Gran Fury ex police car, and insurance on it wasn't any more than any other car I'd ever owned. I guess it might just vary from region to region, or by insurance company? I just had liability on it.
Oddly, I never got an emissions test notice for that car either...until, naturally, after it quit running and I started cannibalizing it. :sick:
When I got my Gran Fury, I actually wanted a Caprice. I went to this used car lot that specialized in refurbished police cars. However, I saw this 1989 Gran Fury that caught my eye. It was lower mileage (73K versus 90-100K) than the Caprices, and equipped better (cloth seats, power windows, nice stereo with tape player) than the Caprices (crank windows, cheape sound system, school bus/taxi quality vinyl seats, etc). The Fury was a a sheriff's car, so it was equipped nicer than your typical copcar, I guess. It was also about $300-400 cheaper than the Caprices.
The guy at the dealer told me that the weakest spot on the Mopars was the suspension. On the Caprices it was the transmission. And on the Fords, the engine.
Oddly, the Gran Fury, which has its roots in the humble Volare/Aspen, had slightly more legroom than the Caprice. In published dimensions, I think the Gran Fury was 42.5 inches, versus 42.2 for the Caprice, but it was enough for me to notice. The steering wheel was pretty close to my chest, though. And it had an airbag, so I could see something like this being downright dangerous for a short driver!
Sometimes I kinda wish I got the Caprice, though. While I'm a Mopar fan in general, I just didn't warm up to that Gran Fury like I did other Mopars I've had.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — While its crosstown rival Ford puts its niche European brands on the auction block because it can't afford to feed them future products, General Motors not only plans to keep Saab but will expand its product line.
At a media event to unveil the 2008 Saab 9-3, Knut Simonsson, executive director of Saab Global Sales and Marketing, confirmed to AutoObserver that a new compact car is a few years away.
And it will not repeat the exercise of the 9-2, a hastily re-engineered Subaru Impreza WRX that bombed in the U.S. market and was dropped in 2006. The new subcompact Saab, says Steve Shannon, Saab Automobile USA's general manager, will key on three elements: "breakthrough" design, sporty driving characteristics and strong functionality and utility.
The addition of a new compact car is part of GM's plan to expand Saab's product portfolio, which currently consists of the 9-3, redesigned for 2008, the 9-5 midsize sedan and the 9-7X SUV, a craftily reskinned Chevrolet TrailBlazer that never has been right for the brand.
Saab's first priority, before the new small car arrives, is to replace the 9-5 and add a new crossover model. The crossover likely will ride on a GM front-wheel-drive platform, a premium version of the General's global midsize architecture. Past speculation had been that the Saab crossover would be a variant of Cadillac's rear-drive, Sigma-based SRX. However, Simonsson asserts Saab "will never skip front-wheel drive" as a base drivetrain layout. Like rival Audi AG, Saab also plans to increase the use of all-wheel drive as an enhancement to front-wheel drive.
Shannon confirms the new 9-5 and the Saab crossover will come to the U.S. at about the same time, probably around 2009-'10.
Following those two crucial models will be a vehicle smaller than the 9-3, currently Saab's entry-level model. Saab executives will not provide a timeframe for when the new entry-level Saab — a competitor for Audi's A3, BMW's Mini Cooper, Volvo's C30 and the coming BMW 1 Series — will be launched, saying only that it will arrive after the next-generation 9-5 and all-new crossover model.
What this means to you: More models to select from in the Saab showroom of the future.
I am underwhelmed. Just what the world needs is yet another crossdresser car, like that was what SAAB was all about. As for a smaller car to match the others? Well why is so late to the party. It is always about what we are going to do, going to do, going to do. People live in the now.
Well the reason why it was so late to the party is a easy answer and that is they (GM) had a profit margin bleeding red ink because of Truck and SUV sales going in to the tank because of the greedy oil company's on a record profit margin agenda. :mad: It was a hard pill ($3-4) to swallow every gallon in the gut of those automobiles. The buying public would still rather drive Trucks and SUV's but many folks can't swing the extra dough for a variety of economic reasons. My generation right now is living in the worst economic conditions since the depression. :sick:
As far as Saab, goes it's a brand that can be a money maker for GM, by offering the consumer a safe, powerful, fuel efficent, sporty, all-season scandinavian choice with tons creature features, and with out the every other onelook of most cars today. If a Saab, is in your rear view, you will know it !!!! :shades:
-Rocky
P.S. Has anyone seen any new news on the Buick Velite or like vehicle ???????
P.S. #2 Has any one heard if the 9-3 convertible might get XWD in the future ?????? If they build that type of vehicle I wouldn't care as much if the Velite stayed dead.
My generation right now is living in the worst economic conditions since the depression. :sick
B.S. The 70's were much worse. 15% mortgages, plus double digit inflation, along with high energy costs. Plus big time layoffs.
I'm a Gen X'er and was little then, but I can still remember everything getting boarded up. My wife's dad was laid off for 2 years from the steel mills during the early 80's.
I graduated from college in '94 and the job market for new grads was far worse then than it is currently.
It's the same 'ole BS being spread around all of the time. They told me back then that my generation would never be able to afford a house. We'll myself and most of my friends are on our 3rd, 4th, and 5'th, house. And I have no doubt that myself and most of my friends will be more successful than our parents. Most of my friends, along with myself already are.
Oh my, I would not say these are the worst economic times. Seems like the unemployment figures show otherwise. No I can see several factors coming together which could spell disaster for the economy, but it is not here - not now. Pretty good times, as times go. I started full time work back in 1973 and the economy was not looking so good, then we had the hyper inflation, then the crash of '87, then, then and then, but we are still all hanging in there. Owning a home is really tough to do with one pay check - this is true, but has been so for some time. I can see the potential for the dollar turning to darn near nill for worth, but lets not dig deep into worst case scenarios when the economy has yet to fail (OK is appear not to be in fail mode) and we are not selling apples on the corner. Only Steve Jobs is selling Apples on the corner, and that is from his stores. Doomsday is always possible, but if take only the negative advice, it becomes a reality. They told my Dad and Mom not to buy a new home because the Russians were soon to be coming here in a great WWIII and blah, blah, blah. Of course now Al Gore and the World are meeting a certain doom due to global warming. You get the point. If GM can not take the lemons thrown them and make lemonade, they are in trouble. Same goes for today's youth, you simply have to adapt and make due with the economy at hand. I ended up with working in a hardware store which had a great 1970's to early 80's. Something somewhere is always working out.
SAAB was pretty quirky looking in the old days, which was a good trade mark. They are starting to look a bit more common these days. I would hope for a little more old SAAB attitude going forward. The SAAB buyer is a different breed, some say. I am told, like me, they will look over the car, go back and do it again, then a test drive, and then another one. One of those things which could last a year or more before making a purchase. Many seem to be people which appreciate the drivers seat, and are not just passengers in the car world. Performance is important, as is safety for the SAAB buyer. Seems like a they want a bit more performance and style than does the Volvo owner, in general, but we all know generalizations are not an exact science :shades: Any grafting with a Subaru car had to be a mistake. SAAB owners did not need another reason to fear GM influences on SAAB. It is like Volvo/Ford. Very good company to acquire no doubt, but you have to not leave an impression you are in any way diluting a pure product. At below $25K, I may consider some SAAB, but in the above $30K I am thinking more RWD cars. A major concern about SAAB for me has been reliability issues. It appears they are doing much better in that respect these days, but I would still keep an eye on the data before buying a new SAAB. L
Loren - I would tend to agree with your assessment of the SAAB owner demographics. I've owned four SAABs from a Type 93 with the 2-stroke 3 cylinder engine, a 99E, and two Classic 900's - one 900 8-valve 4-door sedan (which is still a daily driver), and a 900S 16-valve 3-door hatch. "Back in the day," SAAB used to have a sales brochure that covered the engineering aspects of each model. This covered such design parameters of brake lines that ran inside of the car, rather than outside, to minimize brake line corrosion. SAAB was an engineers or technicians car - those folks who looked beyond the exterior looks and appreciated attention to detail.
Reliable and durable - yes, if and only if, the owner follows the recommended service intervals exactly. My 900 daily driver is an '85, on its way to 300K, and the head has never been off. In fact, the only powertrain-related replacements have been: a starter, one new clutch, PS pump, and a water pump - that's it in 22 years of ownership. The 5-speed manual gearbox is original, as are the half-shaft U-joints. The car runs without any squeaks or rattles as if it was the day I drove it off the dealer's lot in April 1985. Plus, it still looks good. Although I take meticulous care of it, I can't seem to kill it either - it's like the "Energizer Bunny."
Old-time SAAB owners didn't take kindly when GM bought 51% of SAAB in 1990, and the remainder a decade later. To most, the current SAABs are not real SAABs. But, some will argue with that statement. Placing the ignition switch between the two front bucket seats doesn't make a SAAB (LOL).
I hope SAAB continues to exist. Having both SAABs and Volvos, I can empirically state that SAAB is more of a driver's car than "I roll" - the closest literal Latin translation of the Svenska word "Volvo."
Yeah, I hope SAAB stays around. They've never been one of my favorites, but I've always appreciated them non the less. They've always have been different. I hope GM keeps them that way. No more rebadges please! Like the 9-2X and the Trailblazer with a Saab emblem.
Some of you old timers will remember this phrase about GM. I was in this line of work for around 30 years. Last job with Toyota. This has been the culture at GM. Place the new Saturn Aura next to any of the high priced sedans. Let Opel design the cars.
My partner in Alaska had a 1990 Turbo 9000 sedan. The only problem he had was the rear window exploded sitting in his driveway. It was less than a year old and took the dealer 3 months to get it replaced.
He traded it in on a new XC70 Volvo in 2004. He does not like the Volvo near as well as the Saab. Just not in the same league.
SAAB 9-3 appears to be in the family of Epsilon. Seems like a dozen ways around the World, comes the Epsilon platform to your neck of the woods. So is this car, with an i4 turbo, perhaps the way to go for those wanting a sporting Epsilon car rather than say the Aura or New Malibu / G6. I always thought there was quite the price difference, but come discount time, perhaps they are no more costly than say the Aura XR discounted. Are these real SAABs? I ask this because I have not really followed the recent history at all. If the new ones are reliable, perhaps they are something to consider. In the mid-$20's ??? after discounts, it sounds reasonable. So much so I am wondering about the car being the real deal. Seems like a lot of those on the lot were a lot more money though -- simply can not recall the actual $$$, as it was not something I was considering at the time on buying, so never wrote a thing down on the car. L
I highly doubt that many people are cross shopping a new Civic and a 3 year old Buick. If the Buick appeals to you (it doesn't to me) you'd probably be overjoyed to get one for less than a new Civic.
"Again, and furthermore, their reluctance to fix the tranny's would not equal "never fixing them." Eventually, the customer will strong arm a dealer into fixing"
Read some of the comments by Camry owners here on Edmunds and get back to me. Some had trannies replaced and others had dealers tell them there was nothing wrong. Sorry to say but the numbers dont mean much, the overall trend is what's important and GM/Ford's numbers are trending down. On top of that GM sells a lot more expensive trucks than Toyota does and I would assume repairs on those trucks could be more pricey than on Corollas and Camry 4s which make up a huge portion of Toyota's sales.
"Actually I'm using another experience to confirm assumptions about GM. It's funny how every problem related to GM that I've experienced lately from the tranny leak on my mother's Impala, the ABS problem on my Father's Century to my brother's broken moonroof and oil leak are all isolated experiences."
Same thing I hear everytime I bring up problems with imports. Funny how that works.
You bring up problems that you've heard of. I go on first hand experience. I don't care that some guy two blocks over from you may have blown a tranny in his Honda 3 years ago.
I look in my driveway and I see a car that has never been fixed in 4 years and that replaced a car that was never fixed in the preceding 4 years. I never had such good fortune with GM and none of my family members that have GMs have had such good service in the past 8 years.
How do you figure that the numbers don't mean anything? If I'm buying a car today, the numbers today mean more than a trend. When the numbers are equal. The trend only matters if you're comparing the GM of today to the GM of yesterday, which is irrelevant to your buying decision.
If you rate cars by the pound. Sort of like shopping for groceries, and buying vegetables, I guess. It is all so much per pound. I would say the Buick is different, and if interior room or softer ride is the thing, ya got it. Just hard to cross shop the two. L
Simple reality, not rocket science, indicates less people were satisfied with a GM product over their life if they have lost so many customers over time. This could be satisfaction as rated in the way the car does something, or in relation to reliability. My Dad was say 65 before he bought his first Toyota. He was not sure he was going to like a smaller, lighter car, with a stick shift. After a decade of use the Camry never failed once, nor needed service other than oil and filter changes. He always comments on the steering being more crisp than the Olds. and Buicks and such. It is easier to drive, park and requires no trips to the service dept. for repairs. Yes, an older person liked the lighter car feel. He bought another Camry in 2000 because he liked the first one. The real problem is that GM left the customer over the years by not being up with the time, let alone looking to be ahead. It was always the same line as we hear today. New and better is around the corner. Be patient and wait a couple of years. A precious line was and is, we are now producing a product every much as good or nearly as good as that of Japan, at a lower price. I bought into that back in 1986 and guess what, it was all so many words. They had more robots, but the products still sucked.
Now, fast forward to today. We have cars which are pretty good, or almost the same, or they are close, and offer an old V6 vs. their i4 for the same price. All the old selling points which did not work in the past keep showing up again and again. Is Saturn to place the V6 2008 Accord and Camry on the lots to compare the cars to an Aura - hell no they won't. Will they offer standard safety equipment the other had for years? Sure, in a year or two, they will have the same equipment. The New Malibu looks like a good, pleasing looking little car. Of course by the time it gets to the market, as a third or is it fourth generation car much like the rest of Epsilon cars, it may find itself with larger cars to deal with. While I buy for me, most will be buying for families, and thus size could matter. The Aura is a skosh on the narrow side and in the rear seat, area is tends to show. The thing is there is not the dramatic difference in style as compared to the old days when Japan and American were clearly different. Nothing really stands out as a wow factor in the exterior of the Malibu to some. It will be judged first on other merits, and are those better? The Camry, Accord, Mazda6,Fusion/Milan, Altima all look pretty darn good in their own ways. For 2008 you are going to have loads of good looking cars to choose from. Sure, not stellar or wow factor cars, but nonetheless, good cars which the New Malibu will have to compete with. If I was GM, I would just avoid placing the Camry and Accord V6 or i4 cars on the lot for comparison. I guess they could do the value play, though Chevy salespeople will not mention the resale value when talking price. So there you are, head to head, as GM likes to say. I believe it to be a fatal mistake. L
"You bring up problems that you've heard of. I go on first hand experience. I don't care that some guy two blocks over from you may have blown a tranny in his Honda 3 years ago. "
nice excuse. So what you are saying is the people that tell me about their problems are lying or exaggerating because they want to give me a bad impression of imports. Got it. I havent owned enough cars to have a vast database of problem history so I need to get info from others. The problems are real whether they happened to me or not. I cant understand how you can honestly think problems that occured to a car that isnt mine arent real problems.
Hold on- you think a car that lasts four years without problems is super reliable? I thought Hondas gave you at least 10 years without any issue. My parent's Intrigue didnt give them any problems for the first 4 or 5 years of ownership.
"How do you figure that the numbers don't mean anything? If I'm buying a car today, the numbers today mean more than a trend. When the numbers are equal. The trend only matters if you're comparing the GM of today to the GM of yesterday, which is irrelevant to your buying decision."
I dont care either way- GM isnt the lowest in the industry and they arent the highest. GM sells a lot more cars than Ford and DC so the fact that thier total warranty costs were lower than both is a good thing to me. Toyota is better, but that doesnt mean GM is making unreliable cars as you continue to suggest (over and over and over again) so I dont see your point. Common sense dictates that if GM continues to reduce warranty costs at a much faster rate than Toyota they will get close to Toyota's numbers.
"Will they offer standard safety equipment the other had for years? Sure, in a year or two, they will have the same equipment."
you keep running this same argument over and over and over again. Its just not true. Honda didnt make 6 airbags standard until 2006 and stability wasnt even offered until that year. GM had stability on the G6 in 2004, Intrigue in 1999, Grand prix in 2003, etc. Furthermore the Aura came out with 6 airbags standard as will the Malibu. In fact every GM car that offers 6 airbags has them standard. Could you site some examples of GM not offering safety features until 3-4 years after Honda/Toyota? You keep saying it so I would like some examples. Toyota doesnt make stability standard on ANY model of the camry. Aura has it standard on GL and XR and it will be standard of XE with V6 for 2008. Malibu has it standard on top two trims as does 2008 Impala. Lacrosse has it standard on CXS and Super model.
"Sure, not stellar or wow factor cars, but nonetheless, good cars which the New Malibu will have to compete with. If I was GM, I would just avoid placing the Camry and Accord V6 or i4 cars on the lot for comparison. I guess they could do the value play, though Chevy salespeople will not mention the resale value when talking price."
GM is NOT doing the head to head comparo with Malibu so you can relax. Furthermore I have explained numerous times why the resale value issue is nowhere near as major as import people like you make it out to me. You PAY less for the car up front and BORROW less and you get LESS when you trade it in. Its pretty simple actually. When you compare residuals they take into account MSRPs not transaction prices. The difference is minimal in most cases when you consider all the facts, not just "official" resale value.
BTW, why in the world would GM be afraid to compare Malibu to camry? Malibu looks better inside and out and will be cheaper and will be able to match camry's performance. fatal mistake? sounds like an exaggeration.
BTW, how do you explain the fact that GM is near the top in owner loyalty, even higher than Toyota if you believe that GM doesnt satisfy customers? That would tell me GM has a lot more positive ownerships experiences than negative. Also, why doesnt every Toyota owner buy exclusively Toyota for life? You are arguing that GM cant ever win back customers because no import owner would ever defect from a reliable brand but I've seen no proof that Toyota holds on to customers better than GM or Honda or anyone else. How has Hyundai managed to increase its sales dramtically if what you are saying is true? According to your logic no one should've ever abandoned a Japanese brand to buy Hyundai because there was nothing wrrong with their perfect Japanese cars.
Bottom line is styling, pricing and warranty play a much bigger role in decisions than you realize. IF everyone shopped based on resale value and positive ownership experiences Honda and Toyota would probably be the only two brands left.
"1487 has been completely clear about this. The Cobalt is competing with the old Honda Civic, Mazda Protoge, Jetta, Excel, etc not the current models. What is so hard about this for CR to understand?????"
"BTW, why in the world would GM be afraid to compare Malibu to camry? Malibu looks better inside and out and will be cheaper and will be able to match camry's performance. fatal mistake? sounds like an exaggeration."
You keep on saying like its fact that GM styles better cars than everybody else. Ok GM is styling some great products right now I'll give you that too you 1487 but stating like GM styles better cars than everybody else is not fact its based on your own opinion.
"My generation right now is living in the worst economic conditions since the depression."
Rocky, as far as we are living in the worst ecomomic times since the great deppression thats a little drastic of you to say I mean as somebody said earlier the late 70's/early 80's was bad I mean I was small then(I only turned 3 in late 1982 I think) but the economy did suck then I mean judging by car sales I mean only 8 million vehicles were sold in 1982 compared to the 17 million that were sold total in both 2000 and 2001 by all car makes that are in the US market. The early 90's recession for the economy was worse than now too. I mean how many cars were sold in 1991? 10 million I think.
"The Chevette wasn't a bad car...just a very average one. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad, either. Just basic, reliable transportation - nothing more, nothing less."
I think my Mom had a Chevette and friends of our family had one too in the early 80's.
"It's all in the marketing. If the Aztek were to have come from Honda it would have been marketed to the chic and would have accepted by the reviewers just like the Element, Xb, etc., as a wonderful step forward from stodgy old designs."
Oh please the Element is a boxy design and there is nothing thats a step foward about that vehicle on the styling front and I do dig Honda. The XB I don;t see many of them on the road.
"Send an email to the address in my profile. If you have a side-by-side I may be able to help with the noises. I just did trouble-shooting and reengineering on mine; it's about 7 years old just before the changes started happening at Maytag for deterorating quality (like at Toyota). "
The problems with Toyota cars are first year of new bodystyle models like the 07 Camry and new Tundra I think Toyota will get the kinks worked out of both those vehicles(the Tundra and Camry) should be extremely reliable throughout their current generation run. I don;t know Toyota's aren;t reliable out of the box(first year of a new generation of vehicle bodystyle) like they were say 10-14 years ago of a model being ultra reliable out of the box.
You PAY less for the car up front and BORROW less and you get LESS when you trade it in. Its pretty simple actually. When you compare residuals they take into account MSRPs not transaction prices. The difference is minimal in most cases when you consider all the facts, not just "official" resale value.
I still remember buying a Mercury Sable for 6K off MSRP (18K) on the same month a friend paid MSRP on his Honda Civic (14K). Five years later, I sold the Sable for 5K and he sold his Civic for 6K. I lost 13K vs. his 8K. I thought the Sable was a much better car anyway, but it had at least 5 unscheduled visits to the dealer during the time, mostly related to Ford infamous brake components.
Ya do in California. At one time they had a waiting list for xB Scions. Today they still sell pretty good, as a second generation design. I think they did lose the cuteness however. Oh well. As for the Element, I think they do look a bit odd, in a good way, oh yeah and a bad way too - that plastic fenders thing going on there. L
I think that you hear what you want to hear about the epidemic of unreliable foreign cars. If you're satisfied to have a car that is more reliable than a Ford or Dodge, than by all means buy a GM. When I buy a new car, I expect NO problems for a number of years so I'll buy something else.
Also keep in mind that until about a month ago, most GM cars had a 3/36 warranty so that is one way to keep the warranty costs down when the car falls apart at 37 months old. Let's see how they look over the next two years.
So standard side air bags and stability control is standard on the Accord LX V6 in 2006 and on the SE V6 in 2007. How is that not being there ahead of GM in standard equipment?
You want to know how Hyundai is selling Sonatas? 27.6% to fleet sales, and the rest discounted up to $4K off sticker, that is how.
As for all the rest, there is simply too much to respond to. It is hot in here today, and quite the effort. I see all the things I said, or is that you say I said or think, and I guess I will just let those things rest. Too much effort to explain the obvious, and defend that which I never said. Loren
You do realize they had an advantage in that those cars were very old and well refined over the years. And now they are somewhat retired. I say somewhat due to the same ol' stuff seems to reappear in these cars for decades. Maybe you are right, good ol' reliable as always. Sort of like a 1940's Beetle to 1965 Beetle.
Oh please the Element is a boxy design and there is nothing thats a step foward about that vehicle on the styling front and I do dig Honda. The XB I don;t see many of them on the road.
Exactly! As I recall, the Element kind of bombed with its intended market, younger people. It found a niche with middle-aged boomers though, who liked its utility and upright, easy-to-enter seating position.
I don't find either one attractive to look at, but I'd still give a slight nod toward the Element. Especially once they started offering the models that had body-color plastic, instead of that industrial gray stuff. The Element had some ugly details, like that mis-matched, randomly applied plastic, sort of a homely front-end, etc, but it's like the ugliness was in the details. In contrast, the ugliness in that Aztek went right to the bone. It could be cleaned up somewhat, as evidenced by the Rendezvous version at Buick, but I think the minivan underpinnings just showed through too much, in areas like the high beltine, front wheels set back close to the firewall, etc. I never liked that sloping rear end, either. If they had squared it off like a normal minivan or SUV, that would've helped somewhat.
As for the xB, I'd say it was the least offensive of these designs. I always looked at it as a 2/3 scale Chevy Astro, just not as modern looking because of that blocky front-end. It was also the smallest though, so there was less there to offend the eye! Easier to overlook.
Comments
Yeah, but you reside within a temporal anomaly where domestic cars are built with pride by skilled workers using quality materials. The rest of us had to deal with Caprices that crapped out their ancillary systems on a regular basis.
Perfect fit would be an update of old Flash Gordon series with Zarkoff and clay people. Aztek would be just right on the set maybe in that awful yellow color. Series update would have clay people using Azteks in tailgate parties instead of just standing around. Movie "set" requirements could put a premium on clean/used Azteks.
I'd say that from 1977-80 they were probably some of the best cars around (for that timeframe at least, but not necessarily of ALL time!) but in 1981 they started computerizing a lot of stuff and that caused problems. Also in 1981, GM started using that lightweight 4-speed automatic transmission, which was troublesome at first. 1982-83 were also some pretty bad years, but they began to turn around by 1984. Consumer Reports was still pretty generous with the little black dots on the Caprice, but I think by this time, it was getting to the point that a car could score "worse than average" and still not be a bad car.
The only car I've had of that downsized B-body design was a 1985 LeSabre that my grandmother gave me. It was a good car, and was very reliable past 100,000 miles. By the time I got it, it was 15 years old and had about 144,000 miles on it, so it was starting to show its age. Finally got rid of it in 2002, with 157,000 miles on it. I would've kept it longer, if it wasn't for a few things that came up at that time. First, my Mom got a new truck, and asked me if I wanted her old one. I figured I'd rather have the truck than the Buick. Second, I had too many vehicles at the time, anyway. Third, the brakes went out on it, and that sealed my decision to not put any more money into it and get rid of it!
The Camaro and Firebird got the aluminum 5.7L LS1 in 1998, a year after the C5 Corvette. The Z06 C5 got the hot-dog LS6 version, then the C6 Corvette got the 6.0L LS2 in 2005.
The 396 was dropped for the 454 big-block in 1973.
77 Caprice wagon. One of best full-size American station wagons of all time for utility and comfort is what I would say.
Except for a warranty issue I had on camshaft (dealer was very good at taking care of), my 77 Caprice Classic "Station Wagon" was a fine vehicle. For its time (1977), it was good. It had all the options and a bench seat in front. It was commodius, could easily and comfortably accomodate 6 adults in front and middle seats. Never used the rear seat. Could handle 4x8 sheets plywood/drywall. Was great for hauling people or stuff. It had that "magic" tailgate that could either open down or from the side. Went to Suburban after this Caprice.
I could agree that it was the least worst domestic car available then.
Nah, a lot of that is off the top of my head, so don't take it as the gospel...my memory's not as good as it used to be! :P
Those 1994-96 SSes are sweet cars, and the 1996 is the one to have. Initially I think they only had a column shift and no tach, but they added one of those things for 1995 and the other for 1996, and I think that makes most people want the final year model.
I came close to buying a used 1996 Caprice with the 260 hp 350 back in 1999. It was a fast car, but because it was a greenish-gray Caprice and not a black SS, it looked the part of a sleeper. It had 36,200 miles on it so it was just out of warranty. I think they wanted something like $13,900 for it, refused to budge on that price, acted like they were doing ME a favor, so I balked. I'm sorry, but I wasn't about to pay nearly $14K for something with a 90 day warranty! They called me back near the end of the month and left a message, saying they were ready to deal. I didn't call them back until a few days later, after the new month began. Salesguy said kind of snotty, well, that was last month, this is now.
The following weekend, I drove my uncle down to the dealer (different place, not the snotty one) to pick up his truck, which was in for servicing, and before I knew it, I was driving out of there in a brand-new 2000 Intrepid, for a monthly payment not much more than what that used Caprice would have been.
Oh well, have a great labor day weekend all.
Pontiac 400 cid V8s.
Those 6.6 Trans Am's came with either Pontiac 400's or Olds 403's. Some areas like California had stricter emissions standards, and Olds engines were cleaner running than Pontiac engines, so that forced them to switch. Pontiac engines in general didn't take too well to emissions controls, and strangled down as such, I don't think they handled high-altitude areas well, either.
The 400 had 200 hp and was slightly hopped up from the 180 hp version that was found in regular cars like a Catalina or Bonneville. The 403 had the same 185 hp that it had in a Delta 88, 98, etc.
I think the 396 actually comes out to a 6.5L, but I'm not positive.
Oh, as for Smokey and the Bandit itself, I've heard that they actually put Pontiac 455's in the '77 Trans Ams used in the movie...an engine that was dropped after 1976. Supposedly the stock '77 Trans Am wouldn't have been powerful enough to keep ahead of those police cars! :sick:
Incidentally, I vaguely recall MT or C&D doing a test of the 1977 crop of police cars. I think the LeMans Enforcer, which Sheriff Justice drove, was actually kind of a dog in real life, compared to other police cars at least. So it's a wonder that he was able to keep up with the Bandit! Dodge and Plymouth police cars back then used mainly 440's which were putting out around 240 hp I think...so a 200 hp Pontiac 400 would be kind of a dog in comparison.
Yep, cid / 61 = L (there's actually a little tiny bit after the decimal in the 61, but it's not enough to worry about for car engines).
Yeah, I remember reading that the '77 T/A barely had enough power to spin the wheels via brake torque. So the smoke show in Smokey and the Bandit needed some hollywood help.
Yeah, GM did have a slew of 'em back then. I guess it made sense at the time, though. For the most part, each division made their own engines, and they had high enough volume to justify it.
I guess it did get a little silly though, once there were four different 350's and three different 455's, plus a 454. A lot of the choices were pretty redundant, too, or just didn't make much sense.
For example, I think my '76 LeMans was offered with the following engine choices...
250-6-cyl, with ~110 hp (why bother in a 3800+ pound car?)
260 Olds V-8, 100-110 hp (again, why bother...wouldn't be able to get out of its own way)
305 Chevy V-8, maybe 145 hp (probably marginal power, but fuel economy might not be too bad)
350 Pontiac V-8, 160-170 hp (2/4bbl). Mine has the 2bbl, and I'd consider it the bare minimum to move a car this size with any dignity.
400 Pontiac V-8, 180 hp (would this really give you that much better performance than a 350-4bbl?)
455 Pontiac V-8, 200 hp. NOW you're talking! Probably the only one of the bunch to break the 10 second barrier in 0-60!
One thing I never really understood was offering a V-8 that's close in size and power to a 6-cyl engine.
I guess it sort of made sense at the time, though, to offer all those engines. If nothing else, with each step up you got a bit better power. That Chevy 6-cyl or Olds 260 probably took 20 seconds to get to 60 mph! The 305 might've knocked it down to 15, and then to 13 for the 350. The 400 probably put you down to 11, and maybe 9 seconds for the 455? But nowadays, it's pretty rare to find a car that's slower than 10 seconds from 0-60. That's sort of the starting point these days, compared to the lofty goal it once was. So maybe that's one reason they don't need all those engines. Nobody would tolerate a modern car doing 0-60 in 20 seconds.
Marketing. 6 cylinders was the poverty option on a "regular"-size car while offering a dinky V8 let people preserve some small amount of dignity, even if the V8 in question was a miscegnated crapbox.
That's interesting...I had a 1989 Gran Fury ex police car, and insurance on it wasn't any more than any other car I'd ever owned. I guess it might just vary from region to region, or by insurance company? I just had liability on it.
Oddly, I never got an emissions test notice for that car either...until, naturally, after it quit running and I started cannibalizing it. :sick:
When I got my Gran Fury, I actually wanted a Caprice. I went to this used car lot that specialized in refurbished police cars. However, I saw this 1989 Gran Fury that caught my eye. It was lower mileage (73K versus 90-100K) than the Caprices, and equipped better (cloth seats, power windows, nice stereo with tape player) than the Caprices (crank windows, cheape sound system, school bus/taxi quality vinyl seats, etc). The Fury was a a sheriff's car, so it was equipped nicer than your typical copcar, I guess. It was also about $300-400 cheaper than the Caprices.
The guy at the dealer told me that the weakest spot on the Mopars was the suspension. On the Caprices it was the transmission. And on the Fords, the engine.
Oddly, the Gran Fury, which has its roots in the humble Volare/Aspen, had slightly more legroom than the Caprice. In published dimensions, I think the Gran Fury was 42.5 inches, versus 42.2 for the Caprice, but it was enough for me to notice. The steering wheel was pretty close to my chest, though. And it had an airbag, so I could see something like this being downright dangerous for a short driver!
Sometimes I kinda wish I got the Caprice, though. While I'm a Mopar fan in general, I just didn't warm up to that Gran Fury like I did other Mopars I've had.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — While its crosstown rival Ford puts its niche European brands on the auction block because it can't afford to feed them future products, General Motors not only plans to keep Saab but will expand its product line.
At a media event to unveil the 2008 Saab 9-3, Knut Simonsson, executive director of Saab Global Sales and Marketing, confirmed to AutoObserver that a new compact car is a few years away.
And it will not repeat the exercise of the 9-2, a hastily re-engineered Subaru Impreza WRX that bombed in the U.S. market and was dropped in 2006. The new subcompact Saab, says Steve Shannon, Saab Automobile USA's general manager, will key on three elements: "breakthrough" design, sporty driving characteristics and strong functionality and utility.
The addition of a new compact car is part of GM's plan to expand Saab's product portfolio, which currently consists of the 9-3, redesigned for 2008, the 9-5 midsize sedan and the 9-7X SUV, a craftily reskinned Chevrolet TrailBlazer that never has been right for the brand.
Saab's first priority, before the new small car arrives, is to replace the 9-5 and add a new crossover model. The crossover likely will ride on a GM front-wheel-drive platform, a premium version of the General's global midsize architecture. Past speculation had been that the Saab crossover would be a variant of Cadillac's rear-drive, Sigma-based SRX. However, Simonsson asserts Saab "will never skip front-wheel drive" as a base drivetrain layout. Like rival Audi AG, Saab also plans to increase the use of all-wheel drive as an enhancement to front-wheel drive.
Shannon confirms the new 9-5 and the Saab crossover will come to the U.S. at about the same time, probably around 2009-'10.
Following those two crucial models will be a vehicle smaller than the 9-3, currently Saab's entry-level model. Saab executives will not provide a timeframe for when the new entry-level Saab — a competitor for Audi's A3, BMW's Mini Cooper, Volvo's C30 and the coming BMW 1 Series — will be launched, saying only that it will arrive after the next-generation 9-5 and all-new crossover model.
What this means to you: More models to select from in the Saab showroom of the future.
-Rocky
GM - get with it!
L
As far as Saab, goes it's a brand that can be a money maker for GM, by offering the consumer a safe, powerful, fuel efficent, sporty, all-season scandinavian choice with tons creature features, and with out the every other onelook of most cars today. If a Saab, is in your rear view, you will know it !!!! :shades:
-Rocky
P.S. Has anyone seen any new news on the Buick Velite or like vehicle ???????
P.S. #2 Has any one heard if the 9-3 convertible might get XWD in the future ?????? If they build that type of vehicle I wouldn't care as much if the Velite stayed dead.
More Saabarus? :-)
B.S. The 70's were much worse. 15% mortgages, plus double digit inflation, along with high energy costs. Plus big time layoffs.
I'm a Gen X'er and was little then, but I can still remember everything getting boarded up. My wife's dad was laid off for 2 years from the steel mills during the early 80's.
I graduated from college in '94 and the job market for new grads was far worse then than it is currently.
It's the same 'ole BS being spread around all of the time. They told me back then that my generation would never be able to afford a house. We'll myself and most of my friends are on our 3rd, 4th, and 5'th, house. And I have no doubt that myself and most of my friends will be more successful than our parents. Most of my friends, along with myself already are.
Same goes for today's youth, you simply have to adapt and make due with the economy at hand. I ended up with working in a hardware store which had a great 1970's to early 80's. Something somewhere is always working out.
SAAB was pretty quirky looking in the old days, which was a good trade mark. They are starting to look a bit more common these days. I would hope for a little more old SAAB attitude going forward. The SAAB buyer is a different breed, some say. I am told, like me, they will look over the car, go back and do it again, then a test drive, and then another one. One of those things which could last a year or more before making a purchase. Many seem to be people which appreciate the drivers seat, and are not just passengers in the car world. Performance is important, as is safety for the SAAB buyer. Seems like a they want a bit more performance and style than does the Volvo owner, in general, but we all know generalizations are not an exact science :shades: Any grafting with a Subaru car had to be a mistake. SAAB owners did not need another reason to fear GM influences on SAAB. It is like Volvo/Ford. Very good company to acquire no doubt, but you have to not leave an impression you are in any way diluting a pure product. At below $25K, I may consider some SAAB, but in the above $30K I am thinking more RWD cars. A major concern about SAAB for me has been reliability issues. It appears they are doing much better in that respect these days, but I would still keep an eye on the data before buying a new SAAB.
L
Reliable and durable - yes, if and only if, the owner follows the recommended service intervals exactly. My 900 daily driver is an '85, on its way to 300K, and the head has never been off. In fact, the only powertrain-related replacements have been: a starter, one new clutch, PS pump, and a water pump - that's it in 22 years of ownership. The 5-speed manual gearbox is original, as are the half-shaft U-joints. The car runs without any squeaks or rattles as if it was the day I drove it off the dealer's lot in April 1985. Plus, it still looks good. Although I take meticulous care of it, I can't seem to kill it either - it's like the "Energizer Bunny."
Old-time SAAB owners didn't take kindly when GM bought 51% of SAAB in 1990, and the remainder a decade later. To most, the current SAABs are not real SAABs. But, some will argue with that statement. Placing the ignition switch between the two front bucket seats doesn't make a SAAB (LOL).
I hope SAAB continues to exist. Having both SAABs and Volvos, I can empirically state that SAAB is more of a driver's car than "I roll" - the closest literal Latin translation of the Svenska word "Volvo."
He traded it in on a new XC70 Volvo in 2004. He does not like the Volvo near as well as the Saab. Just not in the same league.
L
Read some of the comments by Camry owners here on Edmunds and get back to me. Some had trannies replaced and others had dealers tell them there was nothing wrong. Sorry to say but the numbers dont mean much, the overall trend is what's important and GM/Ford's numbers are trending down. On top of that GM sells a lot more expensive trucks than Toyota does and I would assume repairs on those trucks could be more pricey than on Corollas and Camry 4s which make up a huge portion of Toyota's sales.
Same thing I hear everytime I bring up problems with imports. Funny how that works.
I look in my driveway and I see a car that has never been fixed in 4 years and that replaced a car that was never fixed in the preceding 4 years. I never had such good fortune with GM and none of my family members that have GMs have had such good service in the past 8 years.
How do you figure that the numbers don't mean anything? If I'm buying a car today, the numbers today mean more than a trend. When the numbers are equal. The trend only matters if you're comparing the GM of today to the GM of yesterday, which is irrelevant to your buying decision.
L
Now, fast forward to today. We have cars which are pretty good, or almost the same, or they are close, and offer an old V6 vs. their i4 for the same price. All the old selling points which did not work in the past keep showing up again and again. Is Saturn to place the V6 2008 Accord and Camry on the lots to compare the cars to an Aura - hell no they won't. Will they offer standard safety equipment the other had for years? Sure, in a year or two, they will have the same equipment. The New Malibu looks like a good, pleasing looking little car. Of course by the time it gets to the market, as a third or is it fourth generation car much like the rest of Epsilon cars, it may find itself with larger cars to deal with. While I buy for me, most will be buying for families, and thus size could matter. The Aura is a skosh on the narrow side and in the rear seat, area is tends to show. The thing is there is not the dramatic difference in style as compared to the old days when Japan and American were clearly different. Nothing really stands out as a wow factor in the exterior of the Malibu to some. It will be judged first on other merits, and are those better? The Camry, Accord, Mazda6,Fusion/Milan, Altima all look pretty darn good in their own ways. For 2008 you are going to have loads of good looking cars to choose from. Sure, not stellar or wow factor cars, but nonetheless, good cars which the New Malibu will have to compete with. If I was GM, I would just avoid placing the Camry and Accord V6 or i4 cars on the lot for comparison. I guess they could do the value play, though Chevy salespeople will not mention the resale value when talking price. So there you are, head to head, as GM likes to say. I believe it to be a fatal mistake.
L
nice excuse. So what you are saying is the people that tell me about their problems are lying or exaggerating because they want to give me a bad impression of imports. Got it. I havent owned enough cars to have a vast database of problem history so I need to get info from others. The problems are real whether they happened to me or not. I cant understand how you can honestly think problems that occured to a car that isnt mine arent real problems.
Hold on- you think a car that lasts four years without problems is super reliable? I thought Hondas gave you at least 10 years without any issue. My parent's Intrigue didnt give them any problems for the first 4 or 5 years of ownership.
"How do you figure that the numbers don't mean anything? If I'm buying a car today, the numbers today mean more than a trend. When the numbers are equal. The trend only matters if you're comparing the GM of today to the GM of yesterday, which is irrelevant to your buying decision."
I dont care either way- GM isnt the lowest in the industry and they arent the highest. GM sells a lot more cars than Ford and DC so the fact that thier total warranty costs were lower than both is a good thing to me. Toyota is better, but that doesnt mean GM is making unreliable cars as you continue to suggest (over and over and over again) so I dont see your point. Common sense dictates that if GM continues to reduce warranty costs at a much faster rate than Toyota they will get close to Toyota's numbers.
you keep running this same argument over and over and over again. Its just not true. Honda didnt make 6 airbags standard until 2006 and stability wasnt even offered until that year. GM had stability on the G6 in 2004, Intrigue in 1999, Grand prix in 2003, etc. Furthermore the Aura came out with 6 airbags standard as will the Malibu. In fact every GM car that offers 6 airbags has them standard. Could you site some examples of GM not offering safety features until 3-4 years after Honda/Toyota? You keep saying it so I would like some examples. Toyota doesnt make stability standard on ANY model of the camry. Aura has it standard on GL and XR and it will be standard of XE with V6 for 2008. Malibu has it standard on top two trims as does 2008 Impala. Lacrosse has it standard on CXS and Super model.
"Sure, not stellar or wow factor cars, but nonetheless, good cars which the New Malibu will have to compete with. If I was GM, I would just avoid placing the Camry and Accord V6 or i4 cars on the lot for comparison. I guess they could do the value play, though Chevy salespeople will not mention the resale value when talking price."
GM is NOT doing the head to head comparo with Malibu so you can relax. Furthermore I have explained numerous times why the resale value issue is nowhere near as major as import people like you make it out to me. You PAY less for the car up front and BORROW less and you get LESS when you trade it in. Its pretty simple actually. When you compare residuals they take into account MSRPs not transaction prices. The difference is minimal in most cases when you consider all the facts, not just "official" resale value.
BTW, why in the world would GM be afraid to compare Malibu to camry? Malibu looks better inside and out and will be cheaper and will be able to match camry's performance. fatal mistake? sounds like an exaggeration.
BTW, how do you explain the fact that GM is near the top in owner loyalty, even higher than Toyota if you believe that GM doesnt satisfy customers? That would tell me GM has a lot more positive ownerships experiences than negative. Also, why doesnt every Toyota owner buy exclusively Toyota for life? You are arguing that GM cant ever win back customers because no import owner would ever defect from a reliable brand but I've seen no proof that Toyota holds on to customers better than GM or Honda or anyone else. How has Hyundai managed to increase its sales dramtically if what you are saying is true? According to your logic no one should've ever abandoned a Japanese brand to buy Hyundai because there was nothing wrrong with their perfect Japanese cars.
Bottom line is styling, pricing and warranty play a much bigger role in decisions than you realize. IF everyone shopped based on resale value and positive ownership experiences Honda and Toyota would probably be the only two brands left.
Uh...I think you meant Elantra instead of Excel.
You keep on saying like its fact that GM styles better cars than everybody else. Ok GM is styling some great products right now I'll give you that too you 1487 but stating like GM styles better cars than everybody else is not fact its based on your own opinion.
Rocky, as far as we are living in the worst ecomomic times since the great deppression thats a little drastic of you to say I mean as somebody said earlier the late 70's/early 80's was bad I mean I was small then(I only turned 3 in late 1982 I think) but the economy did suck then I mean judging by car sales I mean only 8 million vehicles were sold in 1982 compared to the 17 million that were sold total in both 2000 and 2001 by all car makes that are in the US market. The early 90's recession for the economy was worse than now too. I mean how many cars were sold in 1991? 10 million I think.
I think my Mom had a Chevette and friends of our family had one too in the early 80's.
Oh please the Element is a boxy design and there is nothing thats a step foward about that vehicle on the styling front and I do dig Honda. The XB I don;t see many of them on the road.
The problems with Toyota cars are first year of new bodystyle models like the 07 Camry and new Tundra I think Toyota will get the kinks worked out of both those vehicles(the Tundra and Camry) should be extremely reliable throughout their current generation run. I don;t know Toyota's aren;t reliable out of the box(first year of a new generation of vehicle bodystyle) like they were say 10-14 years ago of a model being ultra reliable out of the box.
I still remember buying a Mercury Sable for 6K off MSRP (18K) on the same month a friend paid MSRP on his Honda Civic (14K). Five years later, I sold the Sable for 5K and he sold his Civic for 6K. I lost 13K vs. his 8K. I thought the Sable was a much better car anyway, but it had at least 5 unscheduled visits to the dealer during the time, mostly related to Ford infamous brake components.
L
Also keep in mind that until about a month ago, most GM cars had a 3/36 warranty so that is one way to keep the warranty costs down when the car falls apart at 37 months old. Let's see how they look over the next two years.
You want to know how Hyundai is selling Sonatas? 27.6% to fleet sales, and the rest discounted up to $4K off sticker, that is how.
As for all the rest, there is simply too much to respond to. It is hot in here today, and quite the effort. I see all the things I said, or is that you say I said or think, and I guess I will just let those things rest. Too much effort to explain the obvious, and defend that which I never said.
Loren
L
Exactly! As I recall, the Element kind of bombed with its intended market, younger people. It found a niche with middle-aged boomers though, who liked its utility and upright, easy-to-enter seating position.
I don't find either one attractive to look at, but I'd still give a slight nod toward the Element. Especially once they started offering the models that had body-color plastic, instead of that industrial gray stuff. The Element had some ugly details, like that mis-matched, randomly applied plastic, sort of a homely front-end, etc, but it's like the ugliness was in the details. In contrast, the ugliness in that Aztek went right to the bone. It could be cleaned up somewhat, as evidenced by the Rendezvous version at Buick, but I think the minivan underpinnings just showed through too much, in areas like the high beltine, front wheels set back close to the firewall, etc. I never liked that sloping rear end, either. If they had squared it off like a normal minivan or SUV, that would've helped somewhat.
As for the xB, I'd say it was the least offensive of these designs. I always looked at it as a 2/3 scale Chevy Astro, just not as modern looking because of that blocky front-end. It was also the smallest though, so there was less there to offend the eye! Easier to overlook.