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.
Options

General Motors discussions

1539540542544545558

Comments

  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    Hi BV,
    In that article they said that they were cutting costs by not updating the G6. It would cost too much to bring it up to Malibu standards.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Well a complete retro design is not the same as "genetic memory" with a few styling cues from the past---big difference in my mind at any rate.

    I understand the desire of the Big Three to not emulate Japanese designs, so that their products don't get lost in the anonymous maze of most generic Japanese design cues, but the retro style does in fact inhibit where the car can go technically.

    for one thing, "retro" forbids too much "aero" design, and in many cases you can't pass off a retro FWD as the old RWD original.

    Retro is an okay "niche" but if its gobbling up resources of a cash-strapped company, this is simply not a good way to go IMO.
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    There is demand for the Camaro. Whether there is e uf to make a profit or not is debatable - as usual, GM is late to Ford's party and the Mustang has already sucked a lot of the air up for these new Pony cars. Like the also late Challenger - it sells, but profitably? Its questionable.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Maybe I'm missing something in the pictures but this new Camaro does nothing for me. Add the market to that and I see it as another money drainer for GM. Put it in the same boat with the last Thunderbird.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Really? You think more than a couple thousand people want this car? Or are they just the talkers who write to car magazines but won't open their wallets when its Show Time?

    Well, we'll see.....I only hope and pray it's a *lot* better a car than the last Camaro we saw....
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Younger generations don't "get" retro, but boomers do and aren't tired ot it yet. I'm not. I'm totally into my Thunderbird.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    ret⋅ro –adj. See "old."

    :shades:
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Maybe I'm old, but I don't have a Buick!
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    No, that would be Lemko. :shades:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Ah so you're under 80 then? :)

    Well okay if the Camaro is a baby boomer car then I hope they design it for the "larger" individual, or they just lost their market, in the same way nobody over 6 ft drives a Miata.
  • stewpidasostewpidaso Member Posts: 45
    they should make a retro caddy hurst so they can drive all the baby boomers to their final resting place. :P
  • nvbankernvbanker Member Posts: 7,239
    Fair enuf, if U'll take an English class and learn how "hearse" is spelled.
  • stewpidasostewpidaso Member Posts: 45
    I like the way I spelled it better, I learned it that way from the school of hard knocks.
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    I like the new Camaro. The V-6 is a performance bargain. I doubt that the Mustang or Camaro will make or break their respective companies. More like the icing on the cake.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    in a rented Malibu this week, my car is in the body shop, this Malibu is a brand new LT with 1400 miles on the clock. I have driven it enough in two days to know that if I were in charge of GM, I would get out of the car-making business completely and just focus on trucks and BOF SUVs. It's the one thing the General does pretty well.

    Everyone has been squawking about this new Malibu, yet it is still easy to see (for me, anyway) that it is playing catch-up to the J3. It doesn't shift smoothly, the doors make this awful clanging sound when they close, the seat is loose, and the 4-cylinder engine sounds awful, just like the Ecotec in the Cobalt (they are probably the same engine, right?). Not to mention the switchgear feels cheap and delicate, like it could break quite easily. If this is the best they can do after ALL this time, and with their toes to the fire of potential bankruptcy, then they will never make it as a carbuilder in the globalized market we have today. Never.

    As a truck builder, maybe.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    If the WWII generation is the greatest generation, what is the name for the baby boomers? The credit card generation? The skip the bill generation? The we drove GM to the ground generation? :lemon:
  • dbostondriverdbostondriver Member Posts: 559
    They went super cheap on the transmission. Put the last generation 4sp auto in it instead of a modern 5-6spd.
    You can get the 6spd now as an "option". Good luck finding one.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    I like the way he spelled it too, only 'cuz you can put it in the CTS-V and drag Linda Vaughn out to hawk it ;)

    Of course, he's probably too much of a stewpidaso to know what I'm talking about w/o googling it
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Yeah, it's the same engine as in the Cobalt. Reasonable enough: successful car makers use engines in more than one vehicle, including Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, etc. GM's problem is that...well, the engine is also in the Cobalt. :shades:
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    That hearse got a Hurst in it?

    Ah, wrong discussion.
  • jet0nejet0ne Member Posts: 4
    first off I would only ask for 100k a year. Next, I would break the unions strangle hold on the American car industry, declaring bankruptcy to void out all the grand fathered nonsense contracts. now comes the fun part Id break up GM. We no longer need a Chevy Impala, a Buick Impala and a Pontiac Impala. People don't buy cars like they used to.
    Chevrolet would make Pickup trucks up to the 3500 and Corvettes. that's it. GMC would make all larger than 3500 trucks, Yukons and Suburbans, that's it. Pontiac would absorb Saturn and build the throw away cobalt type cars that's it. Buick would sell mid range CARS that's it. Cadillac would sell luxury CARS...that's it. Hummer, well sorry but you are outa there, get a job building GMC's.
    They (GM) need to redefine what they do, and yes I just bought a new Yukon hybrid as I think its time we re-invent and re-invest in American products but no one needs 70.00 per hour (gimme a break, unions are just dinosaurs) or 5 million dollars a year (CEO's should be embarrased and ashamed of their actions)
    Oh, and id sell all the GM corp. jets and other perk crap, we have a serious problem in this country and it takes serious action to get out from under this.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    ...you sound like a good candidate for the job!
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Believe it or not, Impala is one of the very few cars that GM really doesn't rebadge. :shades:
  • stewpidasostewpidaso Member Posts: 45
    what are you talking about cooter is roscoe & enis giving you grief for felonious bone hawking bo & luke duke. I'm to lazy to look it up or even care. Although, that would be cool to have a hurst in a hearse. my momma always said, "stupid is as stupid does". cts-v is nice just not as nice as a bmw 5series or nissan g
  • stewpidasostewpidaso Member Posts: 45
    I think all those phrases would fit the bill. The greedy crooked CEO generation? the lets give ourselves a nice pension generation? the lets piss in everyones cornflakes generation?
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    No, the G8 would make an excellent platform for a REAL Impala SS - just as long as it has the proper six taillights and does NOT look like the second coming of the Lumina or an Accord on steroids like the current car.

    LeMans name was destroyed by that awful late '80s Daewoo-built travesty. Besides, it sounds too much like "lemon."

    I'd say Holden = Good GM.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    The Marauder wasn't a retro design, just another variation of the Grand Marquis which is only retro by Ford allowing it to become antiquated. The others were deliberately designed to be retro.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Is that a Cadillac with a Hurst shifter and wild gold and black graphics on a white car?

    image
  • stewpidasostewpidaso Member Posts: 45
    ha ha, looks like that thing could pass everything on the road except a gas station. I'm waiting for Starskys identical twin brother to jump and slide across the hood.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Oh maybe I was thinking of Challenger then. Yes I guess Marauder was an attempt to emulate the spirit of the popular (and short-lived) Impala SS.

    How ironic that the only collectible sedan in the entire GM stable in the 1990s was produced for only 3 years. You can get very good money for a '96 Impala SS.

    Think you're going to get good money for a 2009 Impala in the year 2022? Doubt it.

    If I were in charge of GM, I'd herd the entire boardroom to a Barrett-Jackson auction and force them to watch the audience every time a '57 Chevy comes up for sale.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Would agree about Impala taking G8 Holden and putting on real Chevy taillights. The G8 has a fine profile, body shape, but the taillights are awful.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    >boardroom to a Barrett-Jackson auction and force them to watch the audience every time a '57 Chevy comes up for sale.

    I'm not familiar with values on older Chevies. Is the '57 a great example of a collectible or a poor one?

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    It's pretty much the most popular Chevrolet of all time--my point was to witness the *excitement* generated by the car, not its value per se.

    Of course it's getting harder and harder to hit a home run in the Automotive Design world.

    Probably the last car to generate a really high level of excitement throughout the media, and to inspire T-shirts, decals, etc. was the new MINI from BMW.

    Prior to that, the Audi TT for a couple of years at any rate---now it's just a footnote in history.

    Why can't GM just spend 10 million bucks and hire the best designers in the world?
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "In 1955, GM jumped on that bandwagon and left everyone else in the dust with their competitors' dowdy old designs."

    Ford Motor Company and Chrysler Corp. also introduced very successful all-new models for '55. Among other things, Ford introduced some safety features, but these were trumped by Chevy's new performance push. As for Chrysler, they broke with the past completely with the "Forward Look" and new V8s, like Chevy and Pontiac.
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 58,415
    With the exception of maybe Buick and Olds who were a year ahead, and a few like Caddy and Lincoln who didn't change tremendously, most who bought domestic cars in 1954 must have been pretty miffed by the flashy new style 1955 models.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    GM had smashing good cars up and down the line---Ford and Chrysler had one or two interesting vehicles. It was "no contest" IMO. GM had a "vision", the other two had some interesting 'products'. It was still "catch up". GM came out with flashy new "two-tones" so Chrysler decided on "THREE tones"--LOL! And Ford tried glass roofs and other gimmicks, but really GM owned the 1950s.

    It's like how BMW owns the sport sedan market right now or Porsche the high end sports car market. Currently invincible.

    Whatever time warp or fourth dimension GM stepped into from 1954 to 1955, it has to do that again, and soon.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    I could see that!

    image

    1954 Chevrolet

    image

    1955 Chevrolet
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Ford also introduced the Thunderbird in '55. Then, for '57 Ford and Chrysler introduced all-new models throughout their brands, beating GM by a year.

    The bad news, as we now know, is that quality and reliability took a hit, beginning with the '55 models.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Almost forgot that Chrysler also introduced the 300 for '55.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    "GM had smashing good cars up and down the line---Ford and Chrysler had one or two interesting vehicles. It was "no contest" IMO. GM had a "vision", the other two had some interesting 'products'. It was still "catch up"."

    Although it's true that GM maintained sales leadership, and generally featured better quality than Ford and Chrysler in the second half of the '50s, I think GM's smaller competitors had as much vision as the General. "Interesing products" is subjective. However, I also believe that, adjusting for the fact they had fewer brands, they matched GM in terms of interesting cars.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    I felt that Ford started the style trend in '53

    image

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    One can cherrypick this or that good model, but GM had it all back then. That's what makes a company successful IMO. Great motors and transmissions, very nice styling, colors and options, good value for the $$$ and to top it off, Cadillac, a prestige brand that Ford and Chrysler simply could not compete with, constantly failing with the Continental and Imperial.

    And look how Corvette and Thunderbird diverged in 1958.

    So GM dominated the prestige market, the sports car market and the "bread and butter" sedan market.

    It would be like having Porsche, Benz and Toyota rolled into one company.

    Ah, a brief but glorious time! 1955-1972 for GM.
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Member Posts: 4,600
    Here's my take on the domestic car industry during the '55-'72 period: Although I don't have the sales numbers handy, as I recall GM maintained its wide sales lead over Ford, but I don't think it increased its market share much over Ford or Chrysler from '55-'72. GM's sales were less volatile, however, particularly compared with Chrysler's Nevertheless, Ford and Chrysler put up a strong fight. The independents were the big losers during those years, much as the Detroit three are struggling mightily now against foreign competitors.

    Ford and Chrysler competed most strongly against GM at the lower and lower mid-range of the market. Sure, except for 1957, when Ford edged out Chevy as the top selling brand, as I recall, Chevy was consistently number one. That doesn't mean that Ford and Plymouth didn't put up a darned good fight, though, because they did. Mercury and Dodge competed reasonably well against Pontiac, although Pontiac outsold both. However, Mercury, Edsel, Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler, combined, were no match for Pontiac, Olds and Buick. GM's showing improved the higher up the mid-range you compared. As you pointed out, at the luxury end of the market Cadillac reigned supreme.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I guess we can agree that GM had "product depth" and excellent "brand equity" (repeat business.

    Also the Chevy V-8 dominated the street racing seen, and Ford and Chrysler street cred just evaporated until the Mopar revolution ten years or so down the pike. We all know Ford made slug motors in the 50s, let's just admit it. :P

    Also Corvette entered the professional road racing scene (domestically, not internationally) and T-Bird did not.

    So yeah Youth Market, Sports Car Market, Prestige Market ----game GM!
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    Lem, what the stewpidaso doesn't understand is that there isn't a piece of [non-permissible content removed] crap even worth what that car is worth.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Good move to keep the CTS-V an automatic. Their manual transmission was kinda clunky. It's too big a car for a manual trans anyway. This is smarter marketing.
  • jet0nejet0ne Member Posts: 4
    I simply used impala as a generic as I think unless you live in a cave somewhere, you have heard of the impala. My first was a '62 SS. :)
  • lokkilokki Member Posts: 1,200
    But hurry. Whether you opt for the manual or automatic, the CTS-V isn’t likely to persist. Not with a $2600 gas-guzzler tax. Not with the Obama administration looking over GM’s corporate shoulder. Not with GM’s performance group disbanded and reassigned elsewhere in the corporation.

    I guess I should post this in "Future Collectibles" but I've been musing about the impact of the new Camaro on the survivability of GM. I understand that even if they sold every one for MSRP it wouldn't save GM financially, but I wonder about the psychological impact.....

    Here's the logic fantasy - I think that there will be a line 3 miles long for Camaro SS models, from people wanting to buy "The last Camaro". This is going to give an artificial bubble in sales - and in showroom traffic. It'll look just like the 60's for a while where people come out to see the new and greatest.

    GM will be able to tell Obama that sales are BACK! and that GM is therefore on the road to recovery, thanks to their new popular models... and please give us XXX3 billion dollars, and we'll going to be just fine.

    Will that work? Will there be huge sales of the Camaro SS? Will the new Camaro really become a collectible? Or should I just see if my house is still worth enough to trade in on a CTS-V as a collectible? (By the way, anybody ever tried sleeping in those Recaros, and to you think you can run a toaster from the cigarette lighter?) :)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    HIstorically speaking, aside from the ZR1 and the Cobra R, nothing collectible has come out of Detroit for the past 20 years. And even those two cars I mentioned are still not worth their MSRP.

    Why is this? Because unlike the 60s, cars today do not come with a bewildering array of significant engine and transmission options and 99% of cars produced are made in numbers too large to warrant collectibility. Corvettes are cranked out at over 30,000 a year and I suspect Camaros will also be made in very large numbers.

    What will happen is that those people who want an SS will buy one and horde it, then realize in 10 years that it's going nowhere, and they will all come up for sale at once, glutting the market and driving the price down.

    This has happened so many times in the last 20--30 years.

    I don't think the new Camaro will do GM any harm, and maybe even some good, but the magic is gone, gone, gone IMO.

    As for CTS-V, etc.....ANY car with that much HP will always find a buyer at a decent price, but if you're thinking 60s Hemi prices, I don't think so.

    I sure wouldn't mind having one though to drive everyday. I wouldn't "save it" however.
This discussion has been closed.