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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That will turn heads where current Aura is ok but only a tick up from the usual bland stuff GM has been punching out for decades.
This is something to get excited about! Malibu, G8, Camaro and this design...is a giant awakening???
Regards,
OW
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Come on OW, I have been "spouting" here for 3 years that GM has awakened and is tromping over the entire world. Many still are acting as if GM is going out of business.
They have made many changes ever since Wagoner got his butt in gear. He hired Lutz. Went global engineering. Is running rampant in increasing global sales. Cutting the tremendous overhead. In two years GM will again be making loads of money. Too bad Chrysler will be a non player by then.
Still a lot of issues but the company is aligned the best they can except for the dealer issue. Way too many yet.
OK I will now get off my soapbox again.
photos">
http://gm.wieck.com/forms/gm/*query?08invicta&source=all
Only one view.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Goes into production spring next year
Slowing Growth
GM, battling Toyota to extend its reign as the world's largest carmaker, expects to sell 75 percent of its vehicles outside the U.S. within a decade. Its sales in China grew 19 percent last year, the slowest pace in at least five years. Its first-quarter sales in the U.S., the world's largest auto market, fell 11 percent, as the subprime mortgage crisis crimped demand and the company lost market share to Toyota and Honda Motor Co.
``GM faces severe trouble in its home market,'' said Juergen Meyer, who helps manage 1.2 billion euros ($1.9 billion) at SEB Asset Management in Frankfurt.
GM has posted losses totaling more than $50 billion over the past three years, while Volkswagen's profit has risen by at least 50 percent a year. GM shares have also fallen 38 percent over the past year in New York. Volkswagen has risen 61 percent in Frankfurt.
Regards,
OW
I gotta admit, that if the stock market and/or my job were VERY good to me, and I felt like splurging for once, I'd really consider a G8. I'd definitely take a G8 over a Charger.
Even though it's more than I really want to pay for a car, the G8 seems like a lot of car for the money.
Regards,
OW
New Vibe looks pretty performance/youthful-need to drop in a turbo 4
Sostice is perfect
G8 is a great mid priced performance machine
G8 ute is a real unknown on how it will sell but it does look performance.
They need to replace the G6 asap with RWD or AWD (possible with EPS II).
G5 also needs a performance platform update.
Grand Prix and Torrent are gone.
How well did that work out for Acura? Unless GM is going to take the interesting step of making its next midsize platform capable of both true RWD and FWD, trying to palm off a front-biased AWD system isn't going to lure in the 3er crowd.
Well, the G6 could be RWD/AWD in keeping with Pontiac's performance image, but that would leave them without a mainstream midsize sedan.
A G8 ute? Nah. I'd badge it as a Chevrolet El Camino or a GMC Caballero first.
That's what the Malibu and Lacrosse/Allure/Invicta/whatever-name-the-Chinese-like are for.
Actually, it does remind me a little of the '64 goat!
Regards,
OW
AA Strike
Cross-posted to United Automobile Workers of America (UAW) - thanks for the link!
model. The only essential difference is the show car’s glass roof.
“We’ll power it with a 4-cyl. turbo engine,” he says, noting a new trend
that began with GM Holden Ltd. in Australia to downsize engines while
enhancing performance. Improvements in fuel-burn and other advancements
make it possible to do this while lowering fuel consumption and reducing
emissions.
Question is: is the 4 cyl turbo China only??
regards,
OW
Overall, GM, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC made an average of $3,814 less per car or truck than their prime competitors, Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co., according to a study of industry costs and profits by Laurie Harbour-Felax, managing director of Stout Risius Ross, a Chicago-based financial and operational advisory firm.
Still, GM made $2,123 less per vehicle than Toyota in 2006, according to the report. Toyota, the most profitable of all automakers on a per-vehicle basis, increased its profit per vehicle from $1,175 in 2005 to $1,977 in 2006, the report said. The numbers for individual manufacturers are at times lower than the overall gap because they do not include special write-offs, Harbour-Felax said.
The labour cost difference between the Detroit Three and the Japanese automakers amounts to $1,200 to $1,500 per vehicle, Harbour-Felax said. Although the domestic automakers likely are to seek parity with the Japanese in ongoing contract talks with the United Auto Workers, that won't solve all of their problems because labour costs make up only about 10 per cent of the cost of a vehicle, she said.
That is why market share is slipping...cutting costs while building great cars is not a piece of cake unless you are at the top of your game, firing on all cylinders, and everyone is moving toward the same goals...labor and management included!!
Regards,
OW
That $5000 is how much higher the new Malibu ATP is selling than the old Malibu. Is it all profit? No, but if the old car had a $3000 incentive and the new one does not then $3000 of it is profit. But a lot of that $5000 is increased option content and options have a much higher margin than the base price. So of that $5000 maybe $3-$4K is higher profit than the old car. So if GM was losing $1000 one each old Malibu they are now making $2-$3k which is probably about right.
However this car is in it's first year of production. As it gets older the ATP will most likely go lower and will not be as profitable. One saying is that the first two years of production is where you make all the profit. The 3rd, 4th and 5th are not as profitable.
Profit per vehicle is a strange thing to figure out. Does it include overhead? Obviously but is the amount of overhead the same on a $20k car as a $50k truck? If you put the overhead on the truck then the lower priced car gets more profitable.
Just playing with numbers.
the 2007 Malibu and $200 higher than the 2008 Camry, said Chevrolet chief
Ed Peper. The transaction price reflects deals automakers offer, so it's a
better measure of success than sticker price.
"We're selling more Malibus with higher trim levels and attracting younger
and better-educated customers than we did with the old model," Peper said.
He added that 38% of Malibu buyers are trading in a non-GM vehicle, another
key goal, and that the Camry is the car most frequently traded in.
footprint or size of their vehicles, under a new attribute-based system for
cars.
For Ford, that means it must average 35.5 mpg for its passenger car fleet
and 28.8 mpg for its light truck fleet by the 2015 model year. GM would
need to average 34.7 mpg for cars and 27.4 mpg for light trucks, while
Chrysler would have to average 33.6 mpg for passenger cars and 29.1 for
light trucks by 2015.
Toyota will have to average 34.6 mpg for cars and 28 for light trucks;
Honda will need to average 36.4 mpg for cars and 29.6 for light trucks,
while Nissan will need to average 35.9 mpg for cars and 28.2 mpg for light
trucks.
Wonder why GM's target for light truck is less than anybody elses? Are they smaller? I can see Honda having the highest car requirement since they sell no large cars and lots of small ones.
To see how badly GM is doing back home you only have to look at some of its foreign markets. Sales in Russia alone grew 78% and even in established markets like Europe GM managed to increase sales by 3%. Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela also saw growth of nearly 20% and in the competitive Asia-Pacific markets GM sales also rose 6%. Overall, GM sales outside of North America rose 8%.
GM has blamed the continued softness in the U.S. market, rising fuel prices and concerns about housing and credit availability as the main reason for the slump.
At the same time Toyota managed to overtake GM in the sales race for the first quarter, selling a total of 2.41 million vehicles this year versus the 2.25 million sales tally of GM - a 2.7% increase on its sales levels from just one year ago.
Regards,
OW
So true but it is easy to forget that GM has held onto it's retail penetration and the loss in sales is due to continuing cuts in rental fleet sales.
Actually GM is doing much better than I would have thought with gas over $3.50. GM has been over 50% trucks for years and the truck market is taking a dive. GM car sales percentage has increased and allowed GM to keep the retail penetration.
Overall, 64 percent of GM’s first-quarter sales came outside North America – a new record.
DiGiovanni also said that despite an eroding U.S. market, GM’s share is holding steady at 21 percent, where it has settled for more than two years. But there are trouble points:
• Despite the red-hot commodity of the new Malibu, Chevrolet’s North American sales were down 11 percent.
• The presence of the all-new, well-received CTS entry sedan still could not keep Cadillac from going into the red, with a 1 percent decline versus first-quarter 2007.Cadillac_ctsv
• The situation at Saturn (minus 16.2 percent) and Hummer (minus 23.3 percent) does not appear to be getting better, despite, in Saturn’s case, a demonstrably new product range.
• No GM division in North America recorded a sales gain.
DiGiovanni was asked about the affect on North American sales of the ongoing strike with large supplier American Axle Manufacturing and Holdings Inc., but he was noncommittal.
He also said GM will become more aggressive in the future about forecasting fuel prices, saying in an implied reference to fullsize pickups and SUVs that GM no longer believes it can “count on” some of the products it relied on in the past for large sales volumes.
He added, however, that he thinks fuel prices have become “unforecastable” because of the multitude of factors – including speculator activity – that now affect the price of gasoline and diesel fuel in the U.S.
When gas hit $2.00 a gallon at around $35/barrell, the blinders were still on with respect to focus on full-size SUVs. This has got to become way more intuitive to switch the focus going forward...also non-unionize should be the goal...it's inevitable. The unions are like an anchor around GM's neck!
Regards,
OW
Sorta good news but neutral
Chevrolet sales down 11%
The whole market is hugely down. Everyone is dieing. Also Chevy is known for large trucks and they are down due both to gas prices and contractors ain't buying due to housing market. Bad news but again sorta neutral compared to everyone else.
Cadillac sales down 1%
Again the whole market is down. And Cadillac's big seller is the Escalade which again is getting hit by gas prices. So actually sounds like good news.
Hummer down 23%.
Again large heavy trucks are being hit by the gas prices.
No division is seeing sales gain.
How many other companies have had a sales gain in the first quarter while also reducing rental fleet?
Saturn down 16%
Here is one that someone needs to get a slap on the side of the head. Saturn sells no large trucks. Saturn has lots of brand new small, fuel efficient cars. They should be at least close to the same sales as last year if not more. Saturn needs to turn up their marketing and increase the number of dealerships. They should trade standalone Pontiac and Buick dealerships for Saturns.
When gas hit $2.00 a gallon at around $35/barrell, the blinders were still on with respect to focus on full-size SUVs.
I am a little confused on this one. GM had a whole bunch of new competitive cars coming out just as gas was hitting $3. New Aura, Aveo, Cobalt, crossovers, etc. and now they have the highest mpg midsize product available out there. Yes they happened to release the new full size trucks at the time of high gas prices but it also kept the sales up for about two years while other companies lost market share. What else could they do? Stop the redesign and continue with the old one?
Seems like compacts and subcompacts are the only areas they fall short. If you compare a Cobalt to a Civic or Corolla, its fuel economy isn't that impressive. However, the Cobalt is a heavier car, and I think it's faster, too, at least if you're comparing base models.
I think the Aveo might come up a bit short compared to a Fit or Yaris. Still, not a bad little car, and probably comes in at a lower price point. I was really impressed by the "leatherette" package that they offer on the Aveo. Heck, it fooled me into thinking that it was real leather, until I read the window sticker!
Malibu 4 cyl 169 hp 22/32
Camry 4 cyl 158 hp 21/31
Accord 4 cyl 177 hp 21/31
Malibu does well in midsize.
Cobalt 4 cyl stick 148 hp 25/36
Corrola 4 cyl stick 132 hp 26/35
Civic 4 cyl stick 140 hp 26/34
Cobalt does well in compact stick
Cobalt 4 cyl auto 148 hp 22/31
Corrola 4 cyl auto 132 hp 27/35
Cicic 4 cyl auto 140 hp 25/36
Cobalt sucks in compact auto: needs a 6 speed to compete with 5 speeds.
Aveo stick 103 hp 24/34
Yaris stick 103 hp 29/36
Fit stick 109 hp 28/34
Aveo is competitive but not great
Aveo auto 103 hp 23/32
Yaris auto 103 hp 29/35
Fit Auto 109 hp 27/34
Aveo in outfield
The Civic and Corolla mean something where as lots of folks do not know what a Cobalt is or who makes it in passing conversation.
Honda/Toyota have branded these automobiles. GM switches names so much it's confusing and thus the resulting sales dilemma for Chevy,IMHO. Nothing against the car (Cobalt) itself, just the underlying strategy. They can change names every year and the sales will suffer to tried and true brand loyalty...make a BRAND and stick to it. Malibu is a PERFECT example. Heck, call it 90210 instead of Belaire but keep it around for awhile!
Just my opinion.
Regards,
OW
Wonder if GM will look as good? Probably not since they are investing heavily in new product.
How does Aveo compare to the Kia Rio or Hyundai Accent?
Passed a Suzuki dealer last night and they're selling XL7s for $7K off. Not a good sign seeing such a deep discount on a new model. Makes me wonder how long they'll hang in there. Sad thing is, Suzuki's got an excellent trump card if they'd only bring over their home market famous kei cars.
Wonder if GM will look as good? Probably not since they are investing heavily in new product.
Considering Ford's US product line, that is surprising. I guess they've done a very good job on the expenses.
Civic looks best in the compact segment.
You'd have to learn to start revving that little engine to get the power out of it, rather than the way you can just tap the pedal on the Park Ave, and it takes off with plenty of power. It takes a little while to get used to. I had to make the adjustment when I went from a 1989 Gran Fury copcar with a 318-4bbl to my 2000 Intrepid with more hp, but roughly half the displacement.
The Malibu's 3.5 pushrod/4-speed automatic combination is actually pretty efficient. It's EPA-rated at 18/29. And keep in mind that's the dumbed-down, easier-to-achieve EPA numbers. Using the same rating system as your Park Ave, it would probably be something like 20/32.
The 3.6 DOHC/6-speed is rated at 17/26, which sounds pretty thirsty, but under the old rating system, it was 20/28. At least, that's what it was rated in the 2007 Aura.
Oddly, your Park Ave, which was 19/29, is also rated at 17/26 under the new 2008 rating system. I guess 20/28 and 19/29 both come out to 17/26 because of the way they round the numbers?
Some car lot on my way to work is selling a low-miles Cutlass Ciera sedan that appears to be in pretty good condition. Did these cars come with the 3.8 V-6 or the dreaded 3.1 V-6? Did the 3.8 intake manifold problem affect the Cutlass Ciera any years?
Lemko, it depends on the year of that Cutlass. IIRC, the 3.8 was only offered for a few years, from around 1985 to maybe 1989 or so. It was then replaced by a 3.3 version (still the Buick block), but in the final years soldiered on with the Chevy 3.1.
I think the 3.8 manifold problem didn't come on until around 1996 or so. I'd imagine any 3.8 Ciera should be fine.
There's a guy at work who had a late 80's Ciera with the Chevy 2.8. Back in those days, I think the 4-cyl Iron Duke 2.5 was standard, with the 2.8 being a step up and then the 3.8 being the top engine.
The 2.5 was eventually replaced by a 2.2 engine, which I believe was also used in the Cavalier and S10 pickup. Not sure what engine it derived from though. I'm guessing either the 2.5 or the old Cavalier 2.0?
Can you rent a new Malibu or do they still offer only that crappy "Classic" based on the old old Malibu? I'll never forget that car, (in the same way somebody doesn't forget being incarcerated in a Turkish prison) as my girlfriend had its uglier sister the Cutlass sedan - an ersatz Oldsmobile that was a Rocket only in name.
I'm hoping that car is gone by now! If it was still around, it would basically be about 12 model years old, which is ancient by today's standards. I had an '01 Malibu for a rental once. It had the 3.1 V-6. It wasn't a horrible car, but it was no great shakes, either. Nothing to get excited about. Just a basic, anonymous appliance. In all fairness, I don't think it was a bad car, by 1997 standards. It just became outclassed really quickly, and by the time the '04 came out, it just wasn't improvement enough. Well, plus the '04 just seemed oddly styled, IMO.
As for the Cutlass, it seems to depend on the year and trim as to what V6 it could have. The '90s ones had either the 3.1 V6, or the 3.3L version of the '80s 3800.
Is the 3.3 V-6 any better than the 3.1 or does it have issues of its own?
A lot of the side and rear styling cues came from the Opel Vectra C, but unfortunately that's where the borrowing ended. The Satuirn Aura was basically the Vectra C refresh body on a Pontiac G6.
My 1985 Consumer Guide has a test of a Chevy Celebrity with the 2.8 V-6/3-speed automatic. It was carbureted, with 112 hp, and 0-60 came up in 11.2 seconds. I'd imagine with the 92 hp 2.5 Iron Duke, it would be around 13-14 seconds.
That issue also has a 1985 Century with the fuel injected 3.8, putting out 125 hp. Oddly, it was a touch slower, at 11.5 seconds.
In later years, I'm sure these cars would have been much quicker, especially once the 3.8 went to 150 and then 165 hp. The 3.3 was fairly strong too, at 160 hp I believe. The 3.1 that replaced it was a step down though...140 hp, I think.
The 2.5 was definitely more reliable than the 2.8 V-6. It was considered crude though, even back then. One issue the 2.8 tended to have was a propensity to blow head gaskets and warping the cylinder heads.
I'd imagine the 2.5 (or the newer 2.2 4-cyl) in these A-bodies would be pretty economical if you kept your foot out of it. I think one problem though, is that they only offered them with 3-speed automatics. In later years you could get a 4-speed with the V-6es, but I think the 4-cyl was 3-speed only, right up to the end. Overall I think all the A-bodies were fairly economical.
The '08 Malibu looks downright erotic compared to the '04, although I think I still like the looks of the Saturn Aura better.
Fuel economy using the 2008 numbers are:
22/28 for the 2.2/3spd
19/28 for the 2.5/3spd
18/25 for the 2.8/3spd
18/26 for the 2.8/4spd
17/26 for the 3.1/4spd
17/24 for the 3.3/3spd
18/27 for the 3.3/4spd
It's a shame that they pulled the 3.8 from the Century/Ciera...seems like it would've offered a great blend of performance and economy. I wonder if one reason they did that was because of the new W-body (Supreme, Regal, Grand Prix), which was supposed to be a step up, but initially was only available with a Chevy 2.8?
By this time, there really wasn't a huge difference in size, both inside and out, when you compared a Ciera, Supreme, 88, or 98. So maybe they felt that offering the same engine in the Ciera that you could get in your top of the line cars diluted the upscale cars, somehow.
But:
Peper says Malibu also hiked Chevrolet’s first-quarter retail market share
1.3 percentage points vs. like-2007.
So retail at Chevy was up while a gleet recuction broughtdown total sales 11%>