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
ME! ME! ME!
I'd love to see a revival of something like the Gran Sport or Grand National!!! How about a hot Lucerne-sized car called the Wildcat?
The Saab Turbo X will sell its self based on merit
-Rocky
Either my eyesight is getting better, or EVERYBODY's just painting them worse nowadays. I even notice that BMW paintjobs aren't mirror smooth like they used to be. It's not so noticeable with lighter colors, but that orange peel shows up horribly with darker colors. I do still see a difference between, say, GM and Honda, but Toyota these days is nothing to brag about, although Lexus paint jobs still seem really nice. I'd say the two worst orange peel offenders I see these days are Nissan and Chrysler. I may be biased against Nissan though because I see my roommate's 2006 Xterra, which is a dark gray. I think they call it "Knight Armor". The orange peel is so bad on it that if it ever needs body work it'll either be easy to fix because the whole thing already looks repainted, or hard because they won't be able to match the orange peel!
OTOH, my Suburban is holding up well and I've never waxed it and I rarely put it in the garage, where as the Park Ave was always garage kept. Go figure.
I have an uncle that is a skilled car restorer and painter. He told me EPA regulations have changed automotive paints drastically over the past several years. He said it's harder to avoid orange peel now than it was years ago. Last time I visited him, he was repainting a '68 Corvette convertible w/a 427 tri-power and 4 speed. Very sweet. I wish I could have seen it when it was done. Guy he was painting it for was in the process of a frame off restore. I believe it had something like 65k miles on it.
I wonder if powder-coating would be a good solution. That system coats pretty evenly, but you can't paint plastic with it.
I don't know when they finally started getting the cars straightened out. My uncle's '97 Silverado has never been garaged, and not exactly washed religiously, and its teal/green paint is still nice and shiny. My 2000 Intrepid is still nice and shiny too...when it's clean, at least.
Put down the crack pipe and step away.
The last time a SAAB sold on "merit" was probably 1986.
If a more established company like Volvo,one with a far better reputation than SAAB currently has couldn't make a commercial success out of a more powerful car,what chance does SAAB really have?
Performance car buyers aren't going to give SAAB the time of day. Unless they are wannabe's that can't afford a bimmer or Benz or Audi S4.
I'd love to see a revival of something like the Gran Sport or Grand National!!! How about a hot Lucerne-sized car called the Wildcat?
I'm sure you would!
The question is,is it a reasonable use of Buick's limited resources?
What kind of custoemr is Buick REALLY going for?
Look at Lexus. They decided what kind of customer they wanted. Not the performance buyer,but the one who wanted quiet,comfortable quality transportaion at less than Mercedes prices. That is their customer to this day,and they are VERY loyal.
Now,once you have that custoemr firmly in the bag,you can branch out and offer different niche cars,like the IS-F.
But, Buick doesn't have that luxury right now.
They still have to make their case to their target customer.
Performance car buyers aren't going to give SAAB the time of day. Unless they are wannabe's that can't afford a bimmer or Benz or Audi S4.
Exactly. Saab used to sell to those eclectic folks who just wanted to be different, to stand out and such. They always praised quirky little things like the ignition in the floor and the hatchback bodystyle.
But those folks are a dying breed it seems, with the hatchback gone and rebadged Chevies started sharing the lot.
Example: I had a neighbor with probably 5 old "bathtub" style 900's from the eighties. Probably had 2 or 3 of them running, the rest were parts cars.
Then about a year ago a Honda Odyssey was in the driveway, down to just two Saabs.
Then 1 Saab. No more parts cars
Now an Infiniti G35x and zero Saabs.
People have moved on. Saab needs to start a serious revolution if they're going to remain relevant again. I highly doubt GM has the resources to keep it going any further, let alone revolutionize.
Based on the short times I was here, I saw him saying...
The '07 TL will be the bomb and leave all other entry lux performance sedans in dust.
The '08 CTS will be the bomb and might be his next car...
The '07 Volvo S80 is the bomb and might be his next car...
Now is the 9-3 Black Turbo's turn...
The Black Turbo will perform well no doubt, all Saabs generally do. But the interior is still crappy as usual.
If I am a betting man, between Saab and Volvo all my money is on Volvo.
Rumor has it that BMW might be the candidate to take Volvo away from Ford. Maybe MB should do the same to Saab since they just lost Chrysler... :P
I actually think they've got better paint now.
Don't forget the Denali pickup and the Escalade mixed in there
I'd much rather spend the money on a CTS if it was between it and the Turbo X.
No doubt.
I will even take the base CTS over the Turbo X if those are my only options. Actually the new CTS isn't bad at all, if I am in the market for a 5-series size of car I'll definitely give it a closer look.
Maybe it's just me but I still prefer NA engine over a force-induced one.
Uhhhhhhh :surprise: :surprise: (now the slurping sound of bringing the drool back in my mouth)!!!!!!
What kind of customer is Buick REALLY going for?
Well, traditionally, Buick has been understated luxury. People who want the best, but not the flair, panache, and attention that came w/ a Cadillac.
However, every once in awhile a sporty GEM came out:
1936 Century
1962 Wildcat
1963 Riviera
GS series
1970 GSX
GN series
1987 GNX
The GSX and GNX are the crown jewels
IF, by chance, they were to come out w/ a Lucerne based Wildcat sedan w/ a 375 hp(???) Northstar V-8 and a Wildcat GSX coupe and Conv. in limited #'s w/ say a 450 hp Corvette eng., THAT would draw attention, and provided they were priced accordingly, they wouldn't hurt Lucerne sales. In fact, they may INCREASE sales, as the "supercar" Lucernes would draw more attention to them, as they would catch the eye of the 35-55 crowd that now frequents Lexus showrooms.
Well, all I remember is that any GM cars that I or my family had with metallic paint would get faded and crows-footed, as those little metallic pigments burned out, but the paint wouldn't actually peel off. It would just gradually get thinner and thinner, and sometimes a bit of rusty scale would form between the cracks. I remember my 1980 Malibu was just starting to get some rust-through in the rear quarter panel in 1990 (the type that starts on the inside and works its way out), but otherwise the paint was holding on. It was still shiny on the sides, but faded on the Hood, roof, and trunk. I saw that car after I sold it, in 1991, and it didn't look like it was getting any worse.
I had my Grandma's '85 LeSabre and Mom's '86 Monte handed down to me. Got rid of the Monte in 1998. Actually someone else got rid of it for me by t-boning me! It was a 2-tone gray-over-silver. Again, the side surfaces were fine, but the silver trunklid and gray hood and roof were shot. No rust. We finally got rid of the LeSabre in 2002, and it had rust coming through the bumper. The hood was horribly faded, but the trunk wasn't that bad. It had a vinyl roof that was starting to shred, and was getting a little rusty along the lower edges of the doors. It was a dark gray.
I also had an '82 Cutlass Supreme, in jadestone (light bluish green) that I bought in 1993 and ditched in 1994. Same story, basically...nice on the sides, horribly faded on the hood, and somewhat faded on the roof and trunk.
I've had one metallic car from the 60's, a 1969 Bonneville 4-door hardtop in a nasty goldish-green color. I don't remember if it had ever been repainted or not. It was fading somewhat, but seemed like it was staying shinier than those 80's GM cars I had.
I'm not saying that GM cars were perfect up until 1987...more like they suddenly started getting WORSE around 1987, and then sometime later started to fix the problems. I agree that the paintjobs hold up much better these days, over the long term. But I think that the orangepeel looks worse. Maybe it just gets exaggerated because the paint finishes are deeper? Now that I think about it, I don't remember the metallic forest green on my grandparents' '72 Impala ever fading, either. The car was rusting, but that paint still had a nice shine to it when they sold it in '82.
I still have a few holdovers from those dark ages that are on their original paintjobs. Paint's still nice and shiny. The key though, is that they're all non-metallic. One of my New Yorkers is a 2-tone beige/creme, and the other is midnight blue, and my '85 pickup is red and white. They've all been touched up in places, and the repaint is fading, but the original paint is still holding up! However, when I wash them, my one NYer will turn the wash rag blue, and the pickup will turn it red! So that paint is still showing its age.
My dad had a 72 Impala. Great car but I'd have been happy to have the paint fall off. Turd brown. Or was it turd brown metallic? :P
It was a shame because other than the color it was a really nice car. My uncle worked for State Farm and had a line on the cars that got turned back in from agents and adjusters. They were always about two years old with maybe 40K on them. This was the best of those cars that we got. The others tended to be Fords which were OK in that time frame but they either had no power steering which was like trying to steer your house or they had notorious Ford 60s era power steering which made you hold that wheel dead steady or you;d drive off the road.
That Impala was great.
Dad had, I think, gotten his fill of Fords which were always the first thing offered from the company cars. He had a 67 or so Fairlane, which was OK, a 70 Custom which was something of a dog and a real stripper followed lastly by a 71 Galaxie 500 that was by far the best of that batch but still not up to that Impala. Its pale yellow paint job was definitely easier on the eyes than that awful brown though.
Oh pleeze, you haven't SEEN embarrassing until your '86 Monte gets taken out by a 1992...are you ready for this? Drumroll, please....TEMPO!!! :mad: And to add insult to injury, that fall, the same chick almost bounced off my '89 Gran Fury. I recognized the car, as it was a dark teal color and really stood out. And the icing on the cake? This was back when I delivered pizzas....every once in awhile they'd order from us. I got stuck with the delivery a few times...they were always dirt cheap tippers!
I almost wish I'd kept that Monte, un-fixed, so I could have pulled up to their house in it to make a delivery! That would've been epic! But as it was, I think I got something like $2600 from their insurance company (~$2100 for the car, $500 for pain & suffering so I wouldn't sue them I guess), and then turned around and got $800 for the car. It was still running strong, and had a lot of good sheetmetal on it.
As for brown cars? Well, the cars in the 70's were often crap anyway, so maybe the automakers decided to at least have a sense of humor about it. :shades: In general I don't like brown cars, but I've seen a few I can stomach. Usually if they have a white top and interior, I can deal with 'em, but I hate it when the whole thing is brown! Pontiac used some light browns that I didn't find too distasteful. I think they had a light touch of copper in them. And I've seen some Mopars, such as '74-78 vintage New Yorker, that look tolerable in brown. But by and large, it's not a color I would touch.
I had an old girlfriend who would manage to total cars (well, to be truthful only two that I knew of and I managed to miss that phase of her life). Her dad would ask for the totaled car and he'd fix it back and run it. One did happen to be a Monte Carlo but not in your neck of the woods....
Another example of GM competing with themselves. :sick:
Buick DOES want the Lexus crowd,but hasn't yet made a compelling case to that crowd.
a hot Buick won't do it either.
Spend the money instead on making the bread and butter Buicks better.
The GNX was a TERRIBLE car.
Yes,it was hella fast in a straight line,but it was creaky,noisy,handled like a drunk prom date,lousy materials,non existent ergonomics or comfort.
Now,imagine where Buick would be today if the cars was fast AND was world class in all respects
Yeah, SO terrible they pull in $80,000
Well the big difference is Saab, has some what of a performance history producing cars that were not only safe like Volvo, but also handled very well and is a brand that has a small history of automotive firsts......
Performance car buyers aren't going to give SAAB the time of day. Unless they are wannabe's that can't afford a bimmer or Benz or Audi S4.
Well Saab, appeals to the people who might not be able to afford that 2nd hand car and need a daily driver that is well fun to drive in all weather conditions. That is where the Saab, brand has made it's mark IMHO.
-Rocky
The '07 TL will be the bomb and leave all other entry lux performance sedans in dust.
Well what you saw and what you remember might be two different things.
I said in the past that the 07' TL Type-S IF it received SH-AWD would yes be the bomb. When the dust settled and all were dissapointed in the Type-S, then the folks realized that SH-AWD would not be brought to market until 2009' on the TL. I still do think a SH-AWD Acura TL, will sell very well if it can balance enough power and some what can maintain it's fuel economy.
The '08 CTS will be the bomb and might be his next car...
If I was still working at Pantex, and not going through a ugly divorce it was very possible a 08' CTS might of been purchased. I still love the car. :shades:
The '07 Volvo S80 is the bomb and might be his next car...
Well it was being considered at the time until I built it on Volvo.com and got sticker shock. :surprise: I said their is no way they are going to sell these and well I'm yet to see one out on the road.
Give him a break, this is rocky we are talking about here. He will get so hype up about a not-yet-availabe car and once the all the details (including price) are out then he'll find something and become dissapointed.
I admit I do get hyped up as I love the latest thing. However I as of late haven't been dissapointed with the stuff GM, has came out with.
-Rocky
-Rocky
I could have rented one in Vegas, but I was able to get an A6 for like $5/day more, so the decision was easy for me.
Here is how I always saw GM.
Not one person who works at GM has ever been to art school. The top brand, Cadillac, has always looked to me like a 65 year old woman who wears too much makeup. Garish is an understatement. The CTS snear, I still have nightmares. GM doesn't realize you can buy pencils with finer lead and then design more delicate, beautiful cars. I have never worried about GM quality because I couldn't get past the looks.
But, I try to keep an open mind when I car shop. I decide what kind of vehicle I want and then look at everything out there.
This time we were replacing our Lincoln LS and imagine my surprise when I came home with a 2007 9-5 Saab. The VW dealer I was visiting also sold Saab's. Great looks, nimble, nice power.
Would this car cause me to look at other GM products? Absolutely.
Congrats on the 9-5.
-Rocky
-Rocky
It's the paint. Low solvent and environenmentally friendly unlike the real good stuff they used a few years ago.
Not completely. Some cars still have awfully nice paint jobs and not just high end cars. At my train station, I regularly see a black Avalon and a silver Fusion that have noticably nice paint.
I have a neighbor with an Equinox in a weird purplish color and it completely looks like a $199 paint job. That's got the worst paint on any new car that I've seen.
Detroit auto makers use market research
Then I got to the part where you bought a GM product because it visually appealed to you.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I remember at the Philly auto show this past year, trying to keep track of the paint quality of various cars. While hardly a scientific study, I do remember thinking that the Lexus cars had some of the best paint jobs...nice, deep lustre, very little orange peel. The orange peel was worse on the Benzes, but not horrible. I'd say the worst offender, given the price of the car, was a black Maybach they had there. Honestly, I think you could take a spray paint can to a refrigerator and end up with a smoother finish! At that price, a car like that should be buffed by Playboy Bunnies wearing only the finest silks, wiggling back and forth in suggestive movements all over the car's surface. :P
Orange peel seems to be more noticeable, to me at least, on darker colored cars, although I'm sure it's there on the lighter ones too. You just have to look at it in the right light or angle. My Intrepid is silver, and I don't really notice it, but I remember one of my friends had a 2006 or so Jeep Grand Cherokee as a rental once when his Passat was in the shop. It was a dark blue and the orange peel was so bad that you could look out the upstairs window at it in the driveway and see the texture! Of course, it's also possible, and quite probably, that Chrysler paint quality has gone south over the course of those passing 5-6 years.
There's a black Camry in the parking lot at work, either a 2005 or 2006, and its orange peel looks pretty bad to me. At least, it was nothing to brag about compared to a GM or Ford. Better than my buddy's Xterra though, or my friend's rental Jeep!
I wonder if Toyota is learning how to make them like the domestics, with greater inconsistencies? Or maybe the paint booths are higher quality on some assembly lines than on others?
The United Auto Workers' four-year contract with Ford, Chrysler and General Motors is set to expire at the end of the day today. While Ford and Chrysler have penned deals to extend the existing contract, UAW officials revealed that they have targeted GM for a possible strike. D
Gee, I haven't seen a full scale car strike in ages. I hope I won't be seeing one now.
The DOHC V6's are one family, as are the pushrod V6's, so while there are a number of versions of each, there is probably only two distince lines of car V6s in production plus the 3800, which should be dumped after the 2008 model year.
The truck engines are, in the larger sizes, designed for truck use. Some car engines are used in trucks (the SRX is considered a truck, but uses the cars engines).
3.6 V6
3.6 DI V6
Another V6 for truck use
This could much simplify GM's engine lineup and cut cost to increase profit. Just look at Toyota, now a day all V6 models except the trucks are using the 3.5L 2GRE V6. Another reason why Toyota is printing money and GM is digging themselves out of the hole.
This sort of thing is as much why it costs more to build an Aura vs an Accord as any union contract is.