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
Inside, nary a floor mat is carried over from the previous model. Thoroughly modern, high-tech and luxurious, the interior surpasses what most will expect from a car of this ilk.
Infotainment and heating/air conditioning controls are less intuitive on this model, but with several redundant buttons and a dial that centralizes several functions, operation becomes second nature quickly enough.
The ’08 CTS isn’t merely an improvement on the previous generation. The redesign marks a giant leap that takes the car out from among the also-rans in a crowded segment and puts it right alongside those at the head of the class.
By Jim Mateja
Sept. 18, 2007
Perceptions take a long time to change.
A nationwide survey of consumers found that 15% say once was enough — they'll never buy a General Motors, Ford or Chrysler nameplate again. That's four times the number of folks who say they'll never buy a Toyota, Honda or Nissan again.
But those numbers actually are encouraging for domestic automakers, considering the fact that three years ago the no-more-domestic number was 25% of consumers. Those who say they'll never buy a Toyota, Honda or Nissan again has risen from 2.7% three years ago to 3.5% today.
"The ‘never buy’ figure among those who own domestics has gone down because the cars have gotten better, owners have had fewer problems, and since they haven't been turned off they are more likely to buy one again," said Art Spinella, general manager of CNW Marketing Research, which conducted the survey.
Why the rise in unhappiness among Toyota, Honda and Nissan owners, even though it’s still a very small percentage?
"The more who own and the longer they own, the more likely that some will be unhappy,” Spinella said, “but it's also that they've grown to expect too much from those brands."
Still, domestics don't have cause for euphoria just yet.
"It took lots of years of building lousy cars to get people to the point they didn't want to buy another again, and it will take years to convince those people to buy again,” Spinella said. “It's not easy to get people back once burned."
I rather doubt it. Chevrolet is GM's core brand, and there's nothing on deck to address that possibility. Lots of stuff "under development" that won't get here before the end of the decade at best.
But those numbers actually are encouraging for domestic automakers, considering the fact that three years ago the no-more-domestic number was 25% of consumers. Those who say they'll never buy a Toyota, Honda or Nissan again has risen from 2.7% three years ago to 3.5% today.
Another indicator is that of happiness or unhappiness with vehicle purchased. CR April 2007 issue had results of their survey question asking if vehicle owners would definitely get their vehicle again. In seven categories of vehicles that were "least satisfying", showing total of 28 models of various mfrs, GM had 14 models. Under "most satisfying", with 13 categories of vehicles and 45 vehicles, GM had 5 vehicles. These were: Corvette, Solstice, Lucerne V8, Tahoe 2WD, Yukon 2WD.
Perhaps GM will add more in "most satisfying" in years to come with new CTS, Acadia, Enclave, etc.
Believe that Jim Mateja has had a pro-American brand bias in all of his years of testing/writing about vehicles. Just my opinion.
According to CR April 2007 page 19, following are/were some GM models built in Mexico or Canada: Rendezvous, Escalade, Avalanche, HHR, LaCrosse. These were models introduced while Wagoner was in power. Apparently, Wagoner chose to build these outside of U.S. Don't know if these models were ever built in U.S.
and the original comment:
He and GM are gradually shifting vehicle design and production out of the U.S.
Plants were already there building other products before Wagoner took over as CEO. The Canada plant has been building GM cars for over 75 years. I worked there for a total of 3 years. First time was back in 87 or so when they built the OLD Century. Mexico has also been building US bound vehicles at Ramos since 1981. Silao since 94. Wagoner became CEo/Pres in 98 and chairman in 2003.
No, Waqgoner has not led the build up of plants to import vehicles into GM. If anything more plants were built in the US which of course only partially made up for the plants being closed.
Your feeling has no basis in reality.
SAAB has NO product portfolio of their own.
They are 100% dependent on Opel and chevrolet right now,and for the forseeable future.
Volvo has their own engines,chassis',factories,designers,engineers.
BTW, it was Jag that cost Ford $500 MILLION
They HAVE to sell Jag because jag costs them big $$ to run.
Volvo is a profit center.
The only reason to sell all or part of Volvo is to realize the equity that is in the brand.
Otherwise,you may as well just keep it.
Which is looking more likely every day.
AB Volvo has said they aren't interested.
BMW isn't.
Renault could be,they have wanted to own Volvo cars in the past.
Beyond that,the list really ends.
-Rocky
The Saudi's are trading in their dollars for Euro's and pretty soon that currency manipulation problem hurting the big 3 might not be a issue before long. :surprise:
-Rocky
For mininum wage ? :surprise:
-Rocky
Otherwise,you may as well just keep it.
Which is looking more likely every day.
AB Volvo has said they aren't interested.
BMW isn't.
Renault could be,they have wanted to own Volvo cars in the past.
Beyond that,the list really ends.
I really do not know what kind of income/loss Volvo gives to Ford but if no one wants to buy them except maybe Renault/Nissan then they do not sound like they are worth much.
I'm afraid that I don't get your logic.
That is like saying a beachfront home in Palm Beach isn't worth much because people aren't lined up to buy it.
Problem is,most of the companies that could afford to buy Volvo already have their own luxury divisions.
Why would you want to compete with yourself?
The other thing is,Ford doesn't have to sell Volvo.
So, this isn't distressed merchandise like Jaguar.
That sounds like a very good question and made me think for a second and I must say I agree and wonder the same thing now ?
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
Um, no.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is a good question.
If you step back for a moment and look to see A)who can afford Volvo and
These companies can afford to buy volvo
Toyota-won't because thet have Lexus
Honda-same,have Acura
VW Group-already have Audi
Daimler Benz-pretty obvious why they won't
BMW-ditto
Renault-Nissan- Renault has no luxury arm,Infiniti is weak around the world
thats the list.
Beyond that, you have smaller fry like Peugeot,Chrysler,Subaru that can't afford to buy Volvo,or private equity firms.
None of this has any real bearing on Volvo's inherent worth.
It just means that there aren't many suitors.
It may be that Ford ends up deciding that it would be better to keep Volvo,and it probably is better long term for Ford to do so.
Once they jettison the boat anchor that is Jaguar their bottom line will improve. Volvo has made Ford money every year except 1.
Even this year,a down your for Volvo,they will make money for Ford.
Did you know that Vauxhall is part of GM? How about Opel? They sell a heck of a lot of diesels.
Did you know that Cadillac sells diesels (in Europe)?
Did you know that GM Daewoo in Gunsan Korea manufactures of 250,000 1.5L and 2.0L diesels a year?
GM is not scared of diesel cars, GM simply believes they are not needed to succeed in the US market.
When the HHR project began, I read that GM was targeting some kind of answer to the Chrysler PT Cruiser. I thought this was good. And I could think of a few things that could have been done. I was hoping mainly that they might make something close to the PT Cruiser, but better, and for styling, I could think of nothing better than the 1936 and 1937 Chevys. Between them, I actually preferred the 1936 Chevy styling, but to be true to the idea of a "heritage" tribute, the 1937 would be the one to pick, because the 1936 did not achieve the "best selling car in America" standard. The 1937, for whatever reason, did achieve this. There are technical advances in the 1937 versions that might account for this better sales performance, but it might have been the result of something completely different, like a change in advertising, or a difference in relative pricing. I do not know. I only know that 1937 sold better than 1936, but in both cases, the styling, with the "fencer mask" grills was fairly striking for its time and contributed to the sales.
When the HHR arrived, I was disappointed. The 40's - 50's "Suburban" was not a true "heritage" vehicle. It sold well enough to justify its existence, but even in its day it was not really a major cornerstone of GM's sales. In fact, that platform was mainly known for its panel truck version. And even when it sold, the "Suburban" was not a vehicle bought to fill any kind of aesthetic value. Just about every one was sold to fill some kind of "business" goal. It was a small school bus. It rode prisoners around to the courts. I lived through the very tail end of that era and I do not remember any family that had one. I think I only saw one in something close to a private owner use, and I think that was some kind of gospel singing group using it as a touring vehicle. In general it is fair to say that few people really wanted a Suburban. They bought them because they had to.
So the PT Cruiser evoked an urbane, popular style and the HHR evoked a fairly ignoreable style, and the vehicle sales in their day reflected that difference.
Because of this, I have been annoyed by what I have been reading about the HHR for a while now. I keep reading how the HHR is a "success". It is no surprise to me that after about 3 years of sales, I still rarely see HHRs on the road. Mostly, I see them sitting on the dealers parking lots. I have not seen specific sales figures but they cannot be anywhere near the PT Cruiser that it was supposed to "answer".
Why am I writing this today? I just read an article about the coming replacements for the 2008 Matrix and Vibe. The reason? Well, apparently, Toyota is "unhappy" with the sales of the current version of the Matrix. How "bad" are the sales? Well, again, I do not have all the figures, but the article quotes the figures for the Vibe sales "in the first eight months were down 27.4% to 24,925 units, from 34,353 in like-2006" (per "WardsAuto.com"). Consider that the Matrix probably sells a similar number as well, I doubt if the HHR will come close to such "poor" sales numbers as the Matrix or Vibe this model year. Yes, it is true that the HHR is generally a higher price bracket vehicle. But they are all in roughly the "popular" price ranges.
Going back to what I said about Shakespeare, if you think the HHR is a "success" then you are not being very "honest with yourself". I would go back to the drawing board and do something about it. Either I would take the current interior and underlying pieces, drop the HHR name, and do a more modern looking vehicle, or I would do a heavier re-vamp and maybe go back to the Heritage idea and get it right -- most likely basing it on the '37 Chevy. It might be too late to get the sales that such a car could have achieved if it were brought out in the first place, but at least I would show that there really was a "heritage" of exciting vehicles which were desirable -- proven by sales in their day, to look back on with some pride.
Perhaps that is what they will do. It's hard to dump a money maker.
-Rocky
That is like saying a beachfront home in Palm Beach isn't worth much because people aren't lined up to buy it.
Problem is,most of the companies that could afford to buy Volvo already have their own luxury divisions.
Why would you want to compete with yourself?
The other thing is,Ford doesn't have to sell Volvo.
So, this isn't distressed merchandise like Jaguar.
Fords does not have to sell Volvo but I thougt they were up for sale anyway. Am I wrong about that?
If there is no one that wants Volvo for any reason, whether it be a money maker or loser or whatever it still is worth nothing.
That may be why Ford is moving more slowly with its likely sale of Volvo. The Dearborn automaker is conducting a "strategic review" of the Swedish brand and hopes to reach a decision on its fate by the end of the year, but CEO Alan Mulally has already said Ford does not need Volvo or any other global luxury brand to succeed. He wants to focus on rebuilding Ford's core Blue Oval brand.
On Wednesday, Leif Johansson, the CEO of Swedish truckmaker Volvo AB, the former parent company of Ford's Volvo car division, told Bloomberg News that he is not interested in buying it back.
Saab is in the best shape, which tells you just how bad things are at VW and Jag. Saab's future is about as safe as any money-losing, low-selling brand's ever will be, thanks to a sporty crossover SUV and at least one new car under development.
Nonetheless, the high-performance all-wheel drive sedan and station wagon that go on sale early next year are vital first steps to making Saab the profitable global luxury brand General Motors always dreamed the Swedish company would become.
Saab has fallen behind as brands like BMW, and Lexus matched its safety and left its performance in the dust. The new all-wheel drive system, which Saab calls XWD, aims to remedy that by wringing every drop of speed and handling out of the company's fuel-efficient 280-horsepower 2.8-liter turbocharged V6.
In its heyday, Saab was safe, socially conscious and fast; the thinking man's sport sedan. XWD is its best chance to regain that mantle.
"The customers Saab wants are going to gravitate toward this car," said Joe Phillippi, principal of AutoTrends Consulting in Short Hills, N.J.
GM demonstrated the combustion process, known formally as homogeneous charge compression ignition, or HCCI, for the first time in two driveable concept vehicles, a 2007 Saturn Aura and Opel Vectra. When combined with the enabling advanced technologies such as direct injection, electric cam phasing, variable valve lift and cylinder pressure sensing, HCCI provides up to a 15-percent fuel savings, while meeting current emissions standards.
In an integrated engine concept, HCCI, along with other enabling advanced technologies, approaches the engine efficiency benefit of a diesel, but without the need for expensive lean NOx after-treatment systems. Its efficiency comes from burning fuel at lower temperatures and reducing the heat energy lost during the combustion process. Consequently, less carbon dioxide is released because the vehicle’s operation in HCCI mode is more efficient.
They should have made a big deal about the huge potential for reduced NOx emissions by combusting at a lower temperature.
So, in this world of today when everybody is talking CO2 footprint the article should not have mentioned that this new "holy grail" engine puts out less CO2??? :confuse:
I think what's involved here is beyond a semester of high school chemistry. The lower temperature also affects the overall heat efficiency in the process.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Does any car company encourage buyers to go with an I4 vs a V6 engine for the sake of "reducing CO2 emissions"? No. That is because everybody should know that any time you improve mileage you reduce CO2 emissions per mile travelled. How is this a shock to anybody?
Holy Grail? I think not. Just an evolutionary step in the development of the internal combustion engine.
Five GM Vehicles Nominated for N. A. Car and Truck of the Year
The Detroit Free Press recently released the short list of vehicles vying for North American Car and Truck of the Year honors and GM has five products on the list.
The three finalists in each category will be announced Dec. 12 and the winners named Jan. 13 at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. GM held both the car and truck of the year honors in 2007 with the Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Silverado. GM products on the contender list this year are:
Cadillac CTS
Chevrolet Malibu
Buick Enclave
Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid
Saturn Vue
Call it what you want, it has been something researchers and engineers have been working on for decades. And to us it has been something just not feasible until now. And to almost double the efficiency of an engine would be pretty cool and perhaps not just an evolutionary step.
Most of the major automakers, in addition to researchers at universities around the world have been experimenting with HCCI for much of the last three decades and now it's finally driveable.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/26/abg-tech-analysis-and-driving-impression- -gms-hcci-engine/
And Hondas take on it a few years ago.
In 2004, when discussing the potential of its HCCI work, Honda CEO Takeo Fukui estimated that an HCCI Accord could get 50 mpg (double that of conventional Accords) and that a HCCI hybrid Accord could boost mileage to 70 mpg.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/honda_making_si.html
1. Sell Volvo to raise cash to cover their overall inept management.
2. Keep Volvo and correct the real problem; inept management.
3. Keep Volvo and keep the inept management.
My guess is they will do number 3.
As a start, I would dump Mercury and greatly enhance Volvo as a prestige brand. Done right Lincoln and Volvo wouldn't really compete with each other.
GM also needs to clean house and I would start by using Saab as a prestige brand.
In this regard, Volvo and Saab are irreplacable for Ford and GM. They need to admit that Lincoln and Cadillac have a narrow appeal and are really designed for nascar fans who come into a little money.
The great thing about Saab and Volvo is that they give GM and Ford the ability to use them at the low end to compete with Honda and Toyota and at the high end to compete with Acura, Audi, BMW, Infiniti, Lexus and the others.
-Rocky
Perhaps it has to do with its intro date.
Nascar fans and Caddy??? Do not get that one.
Perhaps you are right.
Nascar fans and Caddy??? Do not get that one.
Glad I'm not the only one 62' :surprise:
-Rocky
Overall though, I think I still prefer the PT. I believe the HHR is actually a bit roomier inside, but the small windows make it feel claustrophobic to me. And I prefer the texture of the cheap hard plastics in the PT to the texture of the cheap, hard plastics in the HHR.
The HHR has a lot to offer, though.
-Rocky
I also don't mean to put it down as a good idea. Any improvements in efficiency should be commended. This is just a hot-button catch-phrase to me. I get worked up about these things.