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
We did a little survey once and it is amazing how many very large people there are that look with fear at console cars. They do not fit. That is one reason the 6 passenger is still around and large SUV's sell.
While Ford is bleeding red ink, at least outwardly they've appeared to let the Volvo engineers do their thing and have it trickle down to the other lines. Even if they're sold off, at least most people in America know what a Volvo is.
Yea, a company that used to sell cars. :P
They did the same thing with the last gen and yet the regular Malibu dominated the fleets by the end of it's life cycle.
link title
Classic: 99% went to fleets
Malibu: 47.9%
link title
Classic: 44% went to fleets
Malibu: 60%
link title
Classic: Pretty much gone
Malibu: 58.8%
There is no reason to believe the next Malibu won't follow the same pattern. The new Accord, the new Mazda 6, the current Altima and the reigning king, the Camry are going to make it very difficult for the Malibu to gain a foothold in the segment unless the thing turns out to be something REALLY Special.
What SUVs have a front bench? :confuse:
I know you can get a front bench seat in a Suburban for seating up to nine. Don't know about the Tahoe. I'm sure Ford offers a similar setup in the Expedition too.
What SUVs have a front bench?
I meant they have lots of room even with the console.
I do think the new style of the Malibu will appeal to a broader set of customers.
So after a few years of driving small cars, and then going back to a big car, you may end up saying "never again" and go back to narrower cars.
I doubt if most people buy cars with a bench seat for 6-passenger seating, though. After all, there hasn't been a car made that could really handle 3-across up front since maybe the 1979 Lincoln Town Sedan/Coupe'. Once they started downsizing large and intermediate cars, the transmission humps and dashboards started getting in the way. And something like a compact, even if it had 3 seatbelts up front, well you really didn't want to use that center section for very long!
Once FWD came along, that eliminated the tranny hump and driveshaft hump, although in some cases it replaced it with an exhaust/catalytic converter hump. But FWD cars never really got wide enough for 3-across seating up front, and you often still had the dashboard getting in the way.
Those split bench seats, if they're a 50/50 split, at least, are wider than the buckets, so I could see them being more comfortable to some people. Sometimes they'll do a 60/40 split though, and in that case, the 40 is really just the passenger side bucket, and the contouring on the 60 side is going to match the other side, so you're still going to end up with a space for your butt that's no bigger than the bucket seats were. But, getting rid of that center console and being able to flip the armrest back does give the car a roomier feel.
No doubt about that. The current Malibu IMO is just horribly ugly. It screams rental/fleet car to me. The new model has some style inside and out. That alone should help it increase sales. The key will be not to cannibalize sales from the G6 and Aura. GM needs to take away some sales from competitors.
Trucks still sell close to 50% and they still need to park at the malls because those are the ones buying the big SUV's. Not sure where these smaller spaces are but perhaps in the downtown of large cities?
FYI the 40 sections of the seats are the same seats as the buckets
Go GM! Make me proud, and my pocketbook will support you. :shades:
How does that work nowadays? Is the center section adjustable too, or fixed? I remember there used to be a 40/20/40 seat option for the Dart/Valiant back in the 70's, most common on the uplevel Brougham and SE models, and in that case I think the center part was stationary. Basically it was little more than an armrest bolted to the transmission hump, with another armrest on top of it that could be folded back to double as a backrest. Not a bad idea in situations where you have a short driver and tall passenger, but that center section would almost be useless it seems.
I'm sure that center spot is useless on the GM cars these days, too, for a center passenger, but at least it looks like they give you some storage, with the little bins built into the armrest and such.
I wonder how many people nowadays pack a car so tightly that they even need to get 3 people across up front? Last time I did it was in an '89 Gran Fury. We crammed 6 adults into that car. That was one rare instance where a solid bench seat would be the most comfortable. If it was a split bench, that center section would have been a horrible place to sit. I think these cars used a 50/50 split with a little armrest for each side, but I'm not positive. Lemko would know for sure, as he had an '85 5th Ave.
I had an '85 LeSabre that had a 50/50 split, with those little armrests. The individual seats were nice and comfy, although the passenger side was kind of low to the floor. That center spot was uninhabitable though.
I think GMs (and Ford's) biggest challenge, really, is marketing. For whatever reasons, such as liberal journalists, old consumer prejudices, poor advertising campaigns, many people are convinced that it is financial suicide to buy anything other than a Toyota. I think today, it is probably a better financial move to buy American.
Anyway, three cheers for the turnaround so far.
ROTFFLMAO @ 62vetteefp
Well "62" you hit the nail on the head with that whopper pal.
The bottom line is Volvo, is trying to be a hybrid of a bunch of different makes. They look like a Audi, competitor but they don't have the performance or handling to convince those buyers to switch. I don't really know what they are trying to do ????? The price of one of their nice models like the S80, also get's pretty pricey. The C-70, is super expensive and it's about as fun to drive as a Scion xB :P
-Rocky
Some 2007 number:
Jeep Patriot: 69.1"
Jeep Commander: 74.8"
Jeep Grand Cherokee: 73.3"
Honda CR-V: 71.6"
Dodge Dakota: 71.7"
Even most of the ones you probably think of as wide are probably less than 80".
And yes, when I drive vehicles near the 80" size, I really will skip parking spaces that might be "big enough", but just barely. There is no point in parking in a space where the guy next to you is guaranteed to put a ding in my door (which happens even in my *small* vehicle).
A bit off topic, but I have often thought that insurance companies should get active in trying to fight this trend of small parking spaces. It is costing us in vehicle depreciation and/or body repairs. Then again, the insurance companies won't cover that stuff, so I don't know who to turn to.
Ordinarily, I would expect more in the way of facts from you.
Volvo has numerous new product coming out over the next 3-4 yrs. C30, new V70,XC70,new S60,XC60,new XC90,C30 Hybrid.
These are projects already WELL on the way to completion.
these are cars engineered and built by Volvo.
What does SAAB have to compare to that?
NOTHING.
Finally,there are actually a number of parties interested in Volvo,don't believe otherwise.
Ford will maintain about 20% ownership,and continue to benefit from Volvo's technology and platforms,as they do now.
now,you are just being silly.
The ONLY car comparable to the C70 is the new BMW hardtop convertible,which is MORE money.
The C70 is less than an Audi A4 cab fer cryin out loud.
I think the 9-3s are somewhat interesting, but really, what is Saab anymore? Maybe GM will do something with them, but I see very little that makes me think Saab will be around longer than Volvo. I see probably 10 volvos for every Saab on the road.
Yeah, I like the 9-3 too. If I were to buy a GM, that'd be the one I would give a chance too.
I also saw the new CTS on the road today. hmmmph, not bad actually. I saw one in Concord, MA a few months back and it was completely oblivious. Stuffed in the middle of a ritsy, downtown and yet it was getting about as much attention as a Malibu. People could care less, probably because in the flesh, if you aren't a car enthusiast you'd probably mistake it for either an old CTS or an STS. There was just nothing new about it.
But, the one I saw today was on a truck, in a pearl white which was a great color for it. Much more pronounced than the black one that I saw in Concord. I really think this car will look good in red! :shades:
Got me wondering though. How much attention to detail went in to the new car? How much real engineering was in there? I'd love to hear stuff touted like this
link title
Seriously, watch this, it is amazing the level of engineering that went in to the new C. THings that you would never know were actually designed in. The level of detail, the level of ergonomics, comfort... and yet the price-point is right at the old one. Wow.
How does the new CTS stack up? Does it have slick new technology or innovations that can really get the enthusiast excited like the new C-class? I've tried looking but came up with nothing really, just stuff about improved interiors and nurburgring testing...
Tell me GM fans, what is so special in the new CTS. Really, I mean it. I am very interested in this car so sell me on it
I wouldn't buy another one- Volvo and Saab are kind of declining brands caught between the BMW/Mercedes higher end, and the Asian mid-price. Some companies are paying the price of the Asian market share increases- Volvo seems to be one of them.
Another benefit- Volvos have about the lowest incidence of theft- who wants to steal something that boring (haha!)
2007 Frankfurt Auto Show: Saab Turbo X
FRANKFURT, Germany — Saab is promoting the public debut of its restyled 9-3 with the introduction of a special limited-edition model, the Turbo X, some 30 years after the original 99 Turbo was unveiled at the 1977 Frankfurt Auto Show.
The Turbo X, which goes on sale next spring, combines a powerful turbocharged V6 with Saab's new XWD all-wheel-drive system.
The engine is a 2.8-liter V6, delivering 280 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque. It is mated to XWD, which bundles active torque management with an electronic limited-slip differential. Saab has fitted larger brakes, as well as stiffer shocks and springs (including self-leveling dampers at the rear). Chassis height has been lowered by 0.4 inch.
The car rides on 18-inch titanium-finish alloy wheels shod with 235/45R18 performance tires; a 19-inch wheel/tire combination is also available.
All Turbo X models are finished in metallic jet black, with the grille and other exterior details accented in a matte gray titanium finish. Saab has added a deeper lip spoiler with integrated air intake, plus a restyled rear spoiler, bumper and insert panel with twin rhomboid tailpipes.
Inside, the car features black leather upholstery (natural leather is an extra-cost option) with carbon-fiber accents and a thick-rimmed, soft-grip leather steering wheel.
The Turbo X is available as a sedan or wagon. It can be programmed by the dealer to carry a personalized message, including the owner's name and vehicle number, in the instrument display.
What this means to you: This looks like the ultimate Saab, at least for now.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=122570#1
link to story and pics of the new "Turbo X" :shades:
-Rocky
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/11/frankfurt-2007-2008-saab-turbo-x-arrives-dres- - - sed-in-black/
Turbo X - official car of the Sith
http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/category/saab-black-turbo
What this means to me: Saab's are truely Born From Jets !!!!!!!!! :shades: :shades: :shades:
-Rocky
Heck, you're giving them too much credit! Everytime I think of an X like that I'm thinking "UnknownToSpeedThisIsHisOlderBrotherRexWhoRanAwayFromHomeYearsAgo".
"Turbo X" sounds too close to "Taurus X".
It amazes me how Americans consider this and BHP as important stats. Torque, specifically the torque band, and mid-range acceleration figures are the real world figures that count, because they dictate your ability to accelerate under real world conditions.
You avoid being run over by an SUV by being a good driver, not sitting in a hot rod. I drove a Saturn SL2 for years which was a total dog with no mid range pickup whatsoever and I just learned to not put myself in situations where I needed to accelerate hard.
Some facts from the Vauxhall ( UK Opel ) site in Europe.
The 1.8 VVT engine variant there develops 140BHP and 175 ft/lbs of torque at 3800 rpm. It looks like the US version has lost 45 ft/lbs of the torque and so it will possibly not perform that well. Begs the question as to why they would detune the engine in this way? I suspect so that they can con the Americans into paying another $3k for a 6 cylinder variant they don't really need that gets crap mpg.
It is hard to relate fuel economy figures but the mixed cycle UK figure is 36.2mpg which translates to 30mpg using US gallons. Highway consumption in US gallons is 37.8mpg which seems to be pretty good. Overall it looks as economical as one would expect.
It's a pity for me that they are not out yet. I just bought a Golf ( i.e. Rabbit ) and I was not chuffed at having only a 2.5 liter engine option. I for one don't need to be catapulted to 60mph in under 10 seconds.
Maybe do it with a Buick; you could substitute the midgrade moniker with Special.
It happens every morning on the Saw Mill and Hutchinson River Parkways in the New York area.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I am no GM fan but I think I can answer your question...
3.6L DI Engine + better interior + over dramatic front fascia.
What Saab really need to do is to revise its shameful interior. I would say most of the midsize sedans out there like the Accord, Aura, Altima, Camry and even Sonata all have better interiors (especially material) than the "supposed-to-be-luxury-brand" Saab.
Also, the "born from jets" slogan ain't working either...
Umm, yeah. I'd really like to see some paternity test results to back THAT one up! :P
Read the review from C&D or any other enthusiasts mag. Only negative so far is the cupholder location.
Amazingly, each new product coming down the GM pipeline these days seems to signal that the once-defining beancounter bureaucracy has finally been replaced by a genuine desire to create top-notch products. And this latest CTS is the most comprehensively integrated vehicle we’ve seen yet.
On the street, our initial impression is that the CTS is more comfortable than a Sport-package-equipped BMW 3-series or Infiniti G35 without giving up much ultimate performance,
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/13537/full-test-2008-cadillac-cts.html
Things got slots in the rear taillamps for airflow to reduce lift. Every button was engineered to require a consistent 4N of force. That kind of stuff wins over tech freaks like me. As Rocky calls it, I want to hear the "Gadgetology" of the CTS.
That's why I prefer the Euro reviews. Rather than rifling off the 0-60, 1/4 mile, g-force, blah, blah, blah, I want hear that the brand really sweat the details on their new releases. And in the case of the C-class, from an enthusiasts point of view, the car is a technological masterpiece.
I spent some time on the computer trying to find some of the hidden engineering breakthrus on the new CTS and came up empty. I already know the interior is improved over the old one. I know about the DI3.6. How about some nitty gritty? :shades:
As it is, it isn't enough now.
I'm sorry, but 280 hp isn't enough for the ultimate anything in this market.
I'll wait for the GSX or GNX to come out. Nobody EVER lost money on a Buick that ended with an X!!!!
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/10/video-fifth-gear-takes-on-the-vauxhall-vxr8-a- ka-the-pontiac-g8/
Stop teasing me!
While a hot rod Buick sounds nice,who is gonna buy it?
That is the inherent problem w/ GM. They try to be everything to everyone,and they don't concentrate on being good at any one thing.
As it is, it isn't enough now.
I'm sorry, but 280 hp isn't enough for the ultimate anything in this market.
Well Volvo, had the S60R and for some odd reason it didn't sell worth a hoot. :confuse: That was my favorite Volvo, well until the new S80 came out. I like I told you prefer the unwaxed wood they have in Europe's S80's instead of the faux looking over polished stuff we have here in the states.
The bottom line is this Saab, might not have the 0-60 time of the S60R, yet to be unproven but where it might lack in sheer straight line performance it will make up in droves with it's nimble handling thanks to XWD w/ eLSD :shades:
I will take the $10K+ cheaper sticker over the Volvo S60R, that's not made any more and throw in my GM, discount to knock off another $5K or so and have the best "Ultimate" production car money can buy IMHO with some of the latest "gadgets" in GADGETOLOGY 101.
-Rocky
I was considering buying a Pontiac G6 coupe later this year. I checked out that car's board and all I saw were complaints about quality issues. Leaks, breakdowns, bad electronics, sub par paint, you name it.
The one reason the Japanese are killing GM is superior quality and reliability (or at least the perception of it).
I mean come on, if even battered Mitsubishi can build a car that in a long term test had ZERO defects over 40,000 miles, then why can't GM even paint their cars right?
I've owned several GM cars and have found their drivetrains pretty much bulletproof. But if the frame rusts out after 125K what good is that?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible