Surprised that in commercials they don't bring back references to old-time GM guy named Harvey Earl
They can't. He's rolling over in his grave too much. Sorry, I couldn't help it, you lobbed that right over the plate. :P
Also, his name is Harley Earl. And don't forget Bill Mitchell and Larry Shinoda.
I kind of thought the rear taillights look like they were taken from an older Acura product.
But I know what you mean in terms of the TV ads, particularly Pontiac and Chevy. The only commercial where the vehicle lines can actually be seen very well is a Cobalt commercial. Everything else the vehicle is moving/sliding/flashing across the screen, or the background is dark and so is the car exterior.
Speaking of which I did see a 350Z commercial last night, very, very good. Basically it was the car going through a downtown area and as the car was moving past buildings and taking corners, different iterations of the car showed up on the building glass, from stock, to modified to race versions, coupe to convert and everything in between. Also had nice shots of the cockpit, passenger compartment, driver/passenger position. A really nice commercial. I thought, man, why can't GM do something like that.
I think that the concept that Stabilitrak or whatever it's called by each brand is oversold and is not as much a necessity as some claim. It's like navigation builtin with all the additional costs and problems. I'll buy a Garmin or one that is being advertised on TV locally.
If Stabilitrak we on every Chevrolet there would be people complaining they shouldn't have forced it on everyone; they should have saved the cost. In this atmosphere of pile on GM they don't do anything right for many of the posters. It gets wearing to read. OTOH they idealize their favorite other brand and it's the archexample of perfection. Sheeesh.
Speaking of which I did see a 350Z commercial last night, very, very good. Basically it was the car going through a downtown area and as the car was moving past buildings and taking corners, different iterations of the car showed up on the building glass,... A really nice commercial. I thought, man, why can't GM do something like that.
The benchmarks for excellence in TV commercials for vehicles are Honda, VW and Lexus. Why can't GM get advertising agencies of this caliber?
Recall a VW Jetta commercial a few years ago. Think it was shot in New Orleans. A young couple (man,woman) were driving a black Jetta in the rain and the expressions on their faces was pure joy. I had a VW once, and except for a rust problem, liked it. Almost wanted to buy a black Jetta even though we didn't need another car at the time.
I keep getting the impression that GM has too many commercials that are aimed at young boys (who cant buy cars) showing a vehicle hauler with the SSR or guys that want to drive pickups in the mud. Last night's Lucerne commercial targetted at senior and senior+ crowd. Thought that they wanted to appeal that car to younger generations.
I have to really work at getting the stability control system to activate on my 2002 Seville. I do think that it is helpful on icy roads, but if one is driving sensibly, probably you will not need it. I think 4 wheel drive vehicles probably need it more.
But the reckless and self-destructive bit was a little too much. :surprise:
Another thing is, if you got married and had kids, both of you would HAVE to work just to pay for the daycare, which is $$$$$.
Yes, it seems that many people don't see the whole picture of the $10 - $12.50/hr jobs. Many seem to not remember that the figures are for "gross" pay, not net. Ans yes, while a person making the $50K/yr, that's not what they bring home. Taxes, insurance, bills, car payment, retirement!! And add in the latest / greatest housing scams (over-priced), can you say baloney and cereal diet?!
Will cut it off there, Rocky and I was explaining this to others in another forum so no need to rehash.
Nomad was the 3-door hatchback; the 2+2 coupe was the Saturn Curve. Wilmington is nowhere close to capacity building just the Solstice and Sky. None of the above will ever be high-volume sellers, but the Nomad and Curve would both stake out currently unfilled market segments (BMW 1-series coupe, and neo-240SX respectively) and bring in some cash and cachet.
I would scream out a rebuttal to these "sky is falling" rants, but the 21 year old pickup I drove to work doesn't have a sunroof, and the power window froze shut this morning! :P
Basically, to put it bluntly, there's a lot about this country that sucks. But there's also a lot that doesn't!
Great, they offer nav. No one is buying it. Think they think this is Japan where everyone has the latest techno gadget? They are probably still trying to figure out why it does not sell here in the states.
Ummm... why should someone have to buy a Buick to get safety?? Does that make sense??? You can BUY VSC on a Corolla. You can get tons of safety features on the Hyundai Azera and Sonata. Even the Koreans are creaming GM. Please... try and stop make excuses for POOR business decisions.
As to NAV. Maybe YOU don't like it, that's why Garmin is selling tons of 'em and they actually have commercials during prime time which shows that NAV sells. 2 grand is high, but people DO want them.
Theoretically you can buy certain safety options on Toyotas, but it is not easy.
Looking at carsdirect, Corollas are offered standard without even ABS. Then, you have to buy ABS and an auto trans to even get the option to purchase VSC. Also, around these parts, the odds of finding a Highlander or a Camry with side airbags are pretty much slim and none until you get up to the full boat limited models.
Safety is one reason I don't really shop Toyotas. It is too hard to find the safety options I want, and if I can find them, the safety options push the price too much higher than a Honda.
At least offer them to customers. You don't think GM plays the same game? They are,,,, You need to step up to a Buick from a Chevy to get stability control. I am not saying Toyota is better, I am saying that GM is currently the largest auto maker in the world. If they want to maintain that title, offer SAFETY in cars. Hyundai has only been selling cars in this country for around 20 years. Their cars offer more safety features than you can get from GM's largest division. Makes NO sense!
Not only about stabilitrak. It is about SAFETY. GM is where they are today because they DON'T care what their customers want. You GM fans may find that hard to swallow. I only wish them the greatest possible success. Since GM in a sense represents America's power and ingenuity it would be very sad to see it tumble. I want them to succeed and I will support them IF they sell what I want. I currently have a 2002 Mercedes C230 coupe. I have my eye on the new V6 RAV4. AWD, 270 HP, stability, curtains, ABS, all for under 30 grand. What does GM have that competes with that?
Anyone see the latest CR? Chevy HHR finished last amongst all the contenders. Still poor build quality. Can't they get it right for once???
RAV4 for near $30K = ouch!!! Maybe GM need not put all that junk on their cars, if a baby SUV will cost near $30K. Maybe driving lessons would help more than ABS, Stabile-track, eight or is now up to ten airbags, brake assist, and all the rest. You squeeze the brakes and if they lock, you ease up. You don't back off on the gas in the middle of a turn, and brake before the turn. Stability controls won't always save one's butt. Yes, side air bags work, but they should be a choice. Not sure why the government requires an air bag in a car they don't own. Guess the government owns us. The seatbelts on cars do the most of any safety feature, and are lightweight, and inexpensive to add to cars.
Most of the GM current styling is somewhat sleepy, though some, like the LaCrosse are pleasing to the eye. In the back of the mind, I bet people are wondering how things are going in the Delphi and GM plants. Are the workers going to be happily working away, or disgruntle? Wage cuts and plant closing would not make most people too happy. The overall look of cars, like the Impala, is not bad. The problem is there are other cars, like the Accord which look the same ( a little smaller ), and have better resale, and perhaps are more refined. You can debate all day about which is the better value. The beauty of cars like the Chrysler 300 is that it stands alone. The PT Cruiser created a new class of cars. The Magnum is a station wagon; yet like no other. Like I have stated before, GM can try all they want in building the perfect Japanese car, but it won't fly. They did not beat VW with the Corvair. They will not topple BMW with Cadillac, though they are closer to being on track there. The CTS is pretty popular and saved the Caddy line, along with the Denali -- oops, I mean to say Escalade. Are any of the Cadillacs a value? Used, is the only way I would buy one. The CTS has a really cool ( or strange ) style, which really sets it apart in the crowd. I like that. Is it better than a BMW3? Personally, I see it valued more like a Chrysler 300. Be more fair in pricing, and they will sell more. The STS looks so close to the CTS, you have to really look closely. Once a new CTS hits the show room, in a year or two, perhaps they will be a wider style difference. Price wise, if they cost the same as a Lexus, Acura, Mercedes, or BMW, then I would imagine more people in my age group, of 50 something, will not buy the Cadilac. The comeback of Cadillac may indeed just be a blip on the radar.
If you read about the new RAV you'd know that is nearly identical in size the the HH. It is 28 grand with 270hp nicely equipped with that deliciously smooth V6 that is in the Avalon. Sorry to hear you're not a fan of safety equipment. Perhaps we should revert back to the 60's and have 4 wheel drum brakes that stop from 60 in 200 feet. I'll take technology any day of the week. This is where GM lacks. Now they're scrambling to get hybrids to market. What is that CEO's name?? Bozo???
Would you want a snazzy, edgy, retro/hip-hop/macho/whatever styled car that would keep dragging you back to the dealer because GM focused on styling and didn't build it with quality parts?
Or would you like a somewhat more modest yet nicely styled vehicle that is reliable and dependable?
The former is what GM is offering now, especially in their first-year offerings. I hope someday they will rediscover the latter.
I think some vehicles, like that Nomad concept, do blur the distinction between a wagon and a hatchback. Another one that kinda blurred it was that Mazda Protege5 wagon they had a few years back. At first glance, I'd just call it a wagon. But when you actually looked at one compared to the Protege sedan, it was stubbier in the rear, with less overhang. Usually a "true" wagon is just as long, if not longer, than its sedan/coupe counterparts.
Sorry, I have never stated my personal opinion on Nav. I only stated that at $2000 or so they do not sell in lower level (< $30K)vehicles. Proof is that they just do not exist in the dealer lots on those vehicles. Hopefully the price will be reduced so that they are commercially viable.
Hyundai has only been selling cars in this country for around 20 years. Their cars offer more safety features than you can get from GM's largest division. Makes NO sense!
and they have a very low costs basis and can put in the features. GM is in trouble because they cannot put in the features at the current costs level.
Hyundai overcame their stigma by offering a long warranty and building cars with tight body gaps that would make a GM engineer blush. If they do not change their ways, they will go the way of the dinosaur. They lost a potential sale. I really do like the new Impala. I even like the Lucerne!! I just want the goodies to go along with it. Am I asking too much??? I think the V8 engine that they have in the Impala is SWEET!!!
As far as the pictures goes. The Honda Civic IS a hatchback, I mean even Honda called it that! The concept Nomad now that is a wagon, that's they called it a Nomad.
Hey Andre what do you call the Kia Rio Cinco as compared to the 2006 Rio5? I say 2004 Rio Cinco is a wagon . Which I own now and changed my mind about trading on a 2006 Rio5 because it became a hatchback. :mad:
hmmm, looking at the two, I'd definitely say the 2004 Rio is a wagon, while the '06 is a hatchback! Looks to me like they lopped about a foot off the rear of the '06! :surprise: Does the '06 have much less cargo room?
I'm still at odds on what to call the Nomad concept, though. At first glance it looks like a wagon, but I think part of the reason is that it looks more low-slung and sleek, and with that rakish B-pillar and long rear side window that wraps around, it makes it more seductive. But then when you really look at it, the car almost ceases to exist beyond the rear wheel. It doesn't look like there's much room behind the rear seat at all. So IMO, it's still a bit of a hybrid of the two. Part wagon and part hatchback.
The question of how much value to put into the different cars has been a continuous rant by a few on the previous discussion group which this one replaced. Many people say there should be a basic group (Chevrolet), a Middle group (Buick or Pontiac or mix), and a luxury group (Cadillac).
The Chevrolet group would not have all the luxuries of the luxury or middle group. These folks probably are describing what GM will be in the future.
The Chevrolet group is not going to have all the features, safety features, luxury items of the luxury group! You can't have it both ways...
No, oh no, I like 4 wheel disk brakes. Drums have problems of over heating and stopping in wet weather. Disk brakes are good - no doubt. As for hybrids, unless nessasary, I prefer a car with one engine. Just improve the gas mileage of the gas engine. Look at the MPG on the new Civic. That said, nothing sounds better than a 5.0 or even a 4.6 Mustang GT. Let's see a RAV4 or a Mustang GT??? I'd take the car.
imidazol97: The Chevrolet group is not going to have all the features, safety features, luxury items of the luxury group! You can't have it both ways...
That's a problem, as Chevy's chief competitors - Toyota, Honda and even Ford - WILL have those features, because those companies have fewer brands to market and keep separate. Here's where GM's multiple brands become a burden.
Unless Chevy is going to target Kia. That would be a huge comedown for Chevy, which through the late 1960s led the mass market in style, features and performance.
What matters is... will the Nomad's styling lead to many sales? I don't mean in the Nomad itself, but its design features carried forward to real production models.
(As for what doesn't matter, I think wagons have to be 5-doors and have to have long rear overhangs. The Nomad only looks like it has a long rear overhang because the front one is so short. The long rear window is wagonesque too but the Civic hatches - except for the '96-'00 generation - had long rear windows and was a hatch. Ultimately, if you can't fit a family and their worldly belongings in it, it's not a wagon.)
Hydroformed body panels are still too slow for GM to make widespread use of. Ah, the practicalities of styling...
Two-door wagons used to be a very common body style up until the early 60's. It's a style that was mainly seen in low-line cars, like Plymouths, Dodges, Chevies, and Fords, and served as a basis for another body style, the sedan delivery, which was a 2-door wagon with the two rear side windows replaced with sheetmetal. Mopar didn't offer them, but Chevy did, and I believe Ford did as well. It was mainly a utilitarian style, as 4-door wagons back in those times were actually viewed as luxury vehicles...they really didn't get the Family Truckster/Pre-historic minivan stigma until probably the late 60's. I'd imagine that the Brady Bunch had a lot to do with it, especially later in the 70's when anything associated with Brady was considered way uncool.
Other 2-door wagons, like the Nomad, attempted to inject a little flash and sportiness into the station wagon. Chevy called the Nomad (Pontiac had a version called the Safari) hardtop wagons, but they weren't true hardtops. Mercury did offer a true 2-door hardtop wagon, as shown by this 1958 model. At various times, Mercury, Olds, Buick, Chrysler, and Rambler also offered 4-door hardtop wagons.
Generally though, these styles were all considered impractical. 2-doors were harder to get into, while some of the hardtop models (especially Buick/Olds) were low-slung, which while it looked sleek and pretty, really cut into the cargo area, and had a rakish C-pillar that made entry/exit to the rear seat awkward. Hardtops were also more shaky than pillared models. So in the end, the 4-door wagon pretty much won out. I think most big 2-door wagons were gone by around 1960-61, although the style persisted in some compacts, like the Falcon, and of course foreign subcompacts.
strange how a discussion here kicks off an article in Wards!
Despite reducing sales to national rental fleets by more than 5 percent, General Motors Corp.’s commercial-fleet sales are up slightly this year, says Brian McVeigh, general manager-fleet and commercial operations.
The lower rental sales are more than offset by higher volumes from national corporate and government accounts.
“We’re up a couple percent,” McVeigh says. He claims GM has 43.5 percent of commercial-fleet sales, while Ford Motor Co. is second, somewhere in the mid-30 percent range.
Per Webster (not my biggest authority but at least a def.)
an auto with rear seats that can be folded down and a tailgate that can be opened for storing packages.
Per Wikipedia A station wagon (United States usage), is a car body style similar to a sedan car but with an extended rear cargo area.
Most station wagons are modified sedan-type car bodies, having the passenger area extended to the rear window (over the normal trunk area of the vehicle). Unlike a hatchback car, which otherwise meets this description, a station wagon is the full height of the passenger cabin all the way to the back; the rear glass is not sloped too far from vertical. A station wagon is distinguished from a minivan (MPV) or SUV by still being a car, sharing its forward bodywork with other cars in a manufacturer's range.
station wagon n. An automobile having an extended interior with a third seat or luggage platform and a tailgate.
Main Entry: station wagon Function: noun : an automobile that has a passenger compartment which extends to the back of the vehicle, that has no trunk, that has one or more rear seats which can be folded down to make space for light cargo, and that has a tailgate or liftgate
but I think that GM ought to close about 20 more plants and lay off about 50,000 people in order to be competitive.
The sad fact remains that GM is not giving Americans what they want in cars. With truck production they seem to be putting out what a lot of Americans want. SUV production, especially that of large SUV's, should be shut down completely.
GM is not taking their own demise seriously enough. Unless they lay off thousands more, cut benefits and increase production of quality cars they are doomed.
Can anyone else see it coming?
Ford is diversified enough to remain as long as they keep making new cars like the Fusion. That is the sort of thinking that GM needs to adopt.
GM has the lamest cars around...they really do.
I'd go test drive one of Bricklin's Visionary Vehicles from China before I'd ever jump into a GM showroom and take a test drive.
I think nowadays most station wagons have a 1-piece hatch in back, but that wasn't always the case. Back in the old days, I think many of them had a two-piece gate where the bottom part folded down like a truck tailgate, and the upper part folded upward and mostly out of the way, like this 1958 Ford or this 1955 Chevy.
At some point they started coming out with 1-piece tailgates where the window would roll down into the tailgate, which would then fold down like a truck, as shown by this rather awkwardly drawn 1958 DeSoto.
At some point they started coming out with 2-way tailgates, where the window still rolled down into the gate, but then you could either drop the gate like a pickup truck, or open it to one side, like a refrigerator door. I think Ford was the first to offer this in their '65 wagons.
In 1973, GM's intermediate wagons had a 1-piece gate that was hinged at the top and had a fixed window. Most likely it was a cost cutting move. The window istelf could not be opened. The 1978 GM midsize wagons went back to a 2-piece, with a hinged glass section that would lift up and a tailgate that dropped down. You could ride with the rear window open, but the owner's manual said not to do it, because it could suck exhaust fumes back into the car.
I guess one differentiation between a hatchback and a wagon could be that on a wagon, usually the rear opening extends all the way down to the floor, so you can slide items in and out without having to lift them. Usually a hatchback still has a liftover in back, as the hatch doesn't go all the way down. But then again, there are exceptions. The AMC Hornet wagon of the 70's, which became the Concorde and then the Eagle, didn't have a full opening in the back. Here's a 1976 Hornet Sportabout showing its rump.
Well it depends on who made it. Remember the General's "clam shell" system? Or their mid size wagons with a one piece hatch/door? Of course the others had the traditional "tailgate".
good call, I forgot to mention those GM "clamshells" from '71-76. It was a nifty design where the rear window actually retracted up into the roof, while the tailgate went down into the floor. Seems to me that a design like that would eat up a lot of interior space, but they were still roomy wagons. They had a forward-facing 3rd seat, so that might be one reason...it probably just rolled down into where the footwell would have been for a rear-facing third seat. And the spare tire was probably stored in a well on the side.
I appreciate the history lessons. I keep forgetting there were cars back then.
Well, GM's trying to save Saab with wagons. Or is the SportCombi a wagonette? No wait, it's actually a SportCombi. In Europe I've heard "Combi" used for wagons, but more often for those little trucks they have that look like a small pickup with a big round enclosed cargo area, like the Berlingo or Kangoo.
Saab's approach is to increase the rake at the back to look more sporty. For the SportCombi they've also shortened it much like Volvo's done on their small one. Visually it works pretty well, but it won't exactly save GM in 2006 (or even Saab).
Comments
They can't. He's rolling over in his grave too much. Sorry, I couldn't help it, you lobbed that right over the plate. :P
Also, his name is Harley Earl. And don't forget Bill Mitchell and Larry Shinoda.
I kind of thought the rear taillights look like they were taken from an older Acura product.
But I know what you mean in terms of the TV ads, particularly Pontiac and Chevy. The only commercial where the vehicle lines can actually be seen very well is a Cobalt commercial. Everything else the vehicle is moving/sliding/flashing across the screen, or the background is dark and so is the car exterior.
Speaking of which I did see a 350Z commercial last night, very, very good. Basically it was the car going through a downtown area and as the car was moving past buildings and taking corners, different iterations of the car showed up on the building glass, from stock, to modified to race versions, coupe to convert and everything in between. Also had nice shots of the cockpit, passenger compartment, driver/passenger position. A really nice commercial. I thought, man, why can't GM do something like that.
If Stabilitrak we on every Chevrolet there would be people complaining they shouldn't have forced it on everyone; they should have saved the cost. In this atmosphere of pile on GM they don't do anything right for many of the posters. It gets wearing to read. OTOH they idealize their favorite other brand and it's the archexample of perfection. Sheeesh.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The benchmarks for excellence in TV commercials for vehicles are Honda, VW and Lexus. Why can't GM get advertising agencies of this caliber?
Recall a VW Jetta commercial a few years ago. Think it was shot in New Orleans. A young couple (man,woman) were driving a black Jetta in the rain and the expressions on their faces was pure joy. I had a VW once, and except for a rust problem, liked it. Almost wanted to buy a black Jetta even though we didn't need another car at the time.
I keep getting the impression that GM has too many commercials that are aimed at young boys (who cant buy cars) showing a vehicle hauler with the SSR or guys that want to drive pickups in the mud. Last night's Lucerne commercial targetted at senior and senior+ crowd. Thought that they wanted to appeal that car to younger generations.
But the reckless and self-destructive bit was a little too much. :surprise:
Another thing is, if you got married and had kids, both of you would HAVE to work just to pay for the daycare, which is $$$$$.
Yes, it seems that many people don't see the whole picture of the $10 - $12.50/hr jobs. Many seem to not remember that the figures are for "gross" pay, not net. Ans yes, while a person making the $50K/yr, that's not what they bring home. Taxes, insurance, bills, car payment, retirement!! And add in the latest / greatest housing scams (over-priced), can you say baloney and cereal diet?!
Will cut it off there, Rocky and I was explaining this to others in another forum so no need to rehash.
They can't. He's rolling over in his grave too much. Sorry, I couldn't help it, you lobbed that right over the plate.
Also, his name is Harley Earl. And don't forget Bill Mitchell and Larry Shinoda.
Yeah, I knew Harvey was dead. I meant the actor that played him in previous GM TV commercials over the last few years.
Basically, to put it bluntly, there's a lot about this country that sucks. But there's also a lot that doesn't!
Great, they offer nav. No one is buying it. Think they think this is Japan where everyone has the latest techno gadget? They are probably still trying to figure out why it does not sell here in the states.
Pay for safety... nice going GM!!!
Uh yea, you need to pay for safety. Ain't free.
“The Chevy Nomad draws quite a bit of its inspiration from the 1954 Motorama Nomad concept vehicle, arguably one of the first crossover vehicles,” said Ed Welburn, General Motors North America vice president of design. “It was a cross between a sports car, the [Chevrolet] Corvette and a wagon.”
http://www.cars.com/go/features/autoshows/vehicle.jsp?autoshow=&vehicletype=conc- ept&autoshowyear=2004&vehicle=concept_Chevrolet_Nomad
As to NAV. Maybe YOU don't like it, that's why Garmin is selling tons of 'em and they actually have commercials during prime time which shows that NAV sells. 2 grand is high, but people DO want them.
Looking at carsdirect, Corollas are offered standard without even ABS. Then, you have to buy ABS and an auto trans to even get the option to purchase VSC. Also, around these parts, the odds of finding a Highlander or a Camry with side airbags are pretty much slim and none until you get up to the full boat limited models.
Safety is one reason I don't really shop Toyotas. It is too hard to find the safety options I want, and if I can find them, the safety options push the price too much higher than a Honda.
Anyone see the latest CR? Chevy HHR finished last amongst all the contenders. Still poor build quality. Can't they get it right for once???
I don't see why this isn't.
Most of the GM current styling is somewhat sleepy, though some, like the LaCrosse are pleasing to the eye. In the back of the mind, I bet people are wondering how things are going in the Delphi and GM plants. Are the workers going to be happily working away, or disgruntle? Wage cuts and plant closing would not make most people too happy. The overall look of cars, like the Impala, is not bad. The problem is there are other cars, like the Accord which look the same ( a little smaller ), and have better resale, and perhaps are more refined. You can debate all day about which is the better value. The beauty of cars like the Chrysler 300 is that it stands alone. The PT Cruiser created a new class of cars. The Magnum is a station wagon; yet like no other. Like I have stated before, GM can try all they want in building the perfect Japanese car, but it won't fly. They did not beat VW with the Corvair. They will not topple BMW with Cadillac, though they are closer to being on track there. The CTS is pretty popular and saved the Caddy line, along with the Denali -- oops, I mean to say Escalade. Are any of the Cadillacs a value?
Used, is the only way I would buy one. The CTS has a really cool ( or strange ) style, which really sets it apart in the crowd. I like that. Is it better than a BMW3? Personally, I see it valued more like a Chrysler 300. Be more fair in pricing, and they will sell more. The STS looks so close to the CTS, you have to really look closely. Once a new CTS hits the show room, in a year or two, perhaps they will be a wider style difference. Price wise, if they cost the same as a Lexus, Acura, Mercedes, or BMW, then I would imagine more people in my age group, of 50 something, will not buy the Cadilac. The comeback of Cadillac may indeed just be a blip on the radar.
Loren
Loren
Or would you like a somewhat more modest yet nicely styled vehicle that is reliable and dependable?
The former is what GM is offering now, especially in their first-year offerings. I hope someday they will rediscover the latter.
Sorry, I have never stated my personal opinion on Nav. I only stated that at $2000 or so they do not sell in lower level (< $30K)vehicles. Proof is that they just do not exist in the dealer lots on those vehicles. Hopefully the price will be reduced so that they are commercially viable.
and they have a very low costs basis and can put in the features. GM is in trouble because they cannot put in the features at the current costs level.
Touchay! Point well made!
To the rest of you don't worry, Hillary is coming soon and all the "sky is falling" talk from the press goes away with a Democrat in office LOL!!
Hey Andre what do you call the Kia Rio Cinco as compared to the 2006 Rio5? I say 2004 Rio Cinco is a wagon
Mercedes and Hyundai both have plants in the US.
I'm still at odds on what to call the Nomad concept, though. At first glance it looks like a wagon, but I think part of the reason is that it looks more low-slung and sleek, and with that rakish B-pillar and long rear side window that wraps around, it makes it more seductive. But then when you really look at it, the car almost ceases to exist beyond the rear wheel. It doesn't look like there's much room behind the rear seat at all. So IMO, it's still a bit of a hybrid of the two. Part wagon and part hatchback.
The Chevrolet group would not have all the luxuries of the luxury or middle group. These folks probably are describing what GM will be in the future.
The Chevrolet group is not going to have all the features, safety features, luxury items of the luxury group! You can't have it both ways...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Loren
That's a problem, as Chevy's chief competitors - Toyota, Honda and even Ford - WILL have those features, because those companies have fewer brands to market and keep separate. Here's where GM's multiple brands become a burden.
Unless Chevy is going to target Kia. That would be a huge comedown for Chevy, which through the late 1960s led the mass market in style, features and performance.
Y'all already know what I think.
More pictures:
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-2004-Chevrolet-Nomad-Concept.htm
(As for what doesn't matter, I think wagons have to be 5-doors and have to have long rear overhangs. The Nomad only looks like it has a long rear overhang because the front one is so short. The long rear window is wagonesque too but the Civic hatches - except for the '96-'00 generation - had long rear windows and was a hatch. Ultimately, if you can't fit a family and their worldly belongings in it, it's not a wagon.)
Hydroformed body panels are still too slow for GM to make widespread use of. Ah, the practicalities of styling...
The original 2 door Nomad wagon.
But then how would you classify something like 1957 Plymouth? Or this 1957 Dodge?
Two-door wagons used to be a very common body style up until the early 60's. It's a style that was mainly seen in low-line cars, like Plymouths, Dodges, Chevies, and Fords, and served as a basis for another body style, the sedan delivery, which was a 2-door wagon with the two rear side windows replaced with sheetmetal. Mopar didn't offer them, but Chevy did, and I believe Ford did as well. It was mainly a utilitarian style, as 4-door wagons back in those times were actually viewed as luxury vehicles...they really didn't get the Family Truckster/Pre-historic minivan stigma until probably the late 60's. I'd imagine that the Brady Bunch had a lot to do with it, especially later in the 70's when anything associated with Brady was considered way uncool.
Other 2-door wagons, like the Nomad, attempted to inject a little flash and sportiness into the station wagon. Chevy called the Nomad (Pontiac had a version called the Safari) hardtop wagons, but they weren't true hardtops. Mercury did offer a true 2-door hardtop wagon, as shown by this 1958 model. At various times, Mercury, Olds, Buick, Chrysler, and Rambler also offered 4-door hardtop wagons.
Generally though, these styles were all considered impractical. 2-doors were harder to get into, while some of the hardtop models (especially Buick/Olds) were low-slung, which while it looked sleek and pretty, really cut into the cargo area, and had a rakish C-pillar that made entry/exit to the rear seat awkward. Hardtops were also more shaky than pillared models. So in the end, the 4-door wagon pretty much won out. I think most big 2-door wagons were gone by around 1960-61, although the style persisted in some compacts, like the Falcon, and of course foreign subcompacts.
To me, this is a wagon
and the original Nomad is a hatchback (even though the term hadn't been invented yet).
Despite reducing sales to national rental fleets by more than 5 percent, General Motors Corp.’s commercial-fleet sales are up slightly this year, says Brian McVeigh, general manager-fleet and commercial operations.
The lower rental sales are more than offset by higher volumes from national corporate and government accounts.
“We’re up a couple percent,” McVeigh says. He claims GM has 43.5 percent of commercial-fleet sales, while Ford Motor Co. is second, somewhere in the mid-30 percent range.
Also a discussion on plant capacity and capability
an auto with rear seats that can be folded down and a tailgate that can be opened for storing packages.
Per Wikipedia
A station wagon (United States usage), is a car body style similar to a sedan car but with an extended rear cargo area.
Most station wagons are modified sedan-type car bodies, having the passenger area extended to the rear window (over the normal trunk area of the vehicle). Unlike a hatchback car, which otherwise meets this description, a station wagon is the full height of the passenger cabin all the way to the back; the rear glass is not sloped too far from vertical. A station wagon is distinguished from a minivan (MPV) or SUV by still being a car, sharing its forward bodywork with other cars in a manufacturer's range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon
station wagon
n.
An automobile having an extended interior with a third seat or luggage platform and a tailgate.
Main Entry: station wagon
Function: noun
: an automobile that has a passenger compartment which extends to the back of the vehicle, that has no trunk, that has one or more rear seats which can be folded down to make space for light cargo, and that has a tailgate or liftgate
Now can we get off this. Chevy called it a wagon.
They generally have a one piece hatch in the back, don't they?
The sad fact remains that GM is not giving Americans what they want in cars. With truck production they seem to be putting out what a lot of Americans want. SUV production, especially that of large SUV's, should be shut down completely.
GM is not taking their own demise seriously enough. Unless they lay off thousands more, cut benefits and increase production of quality cars they are doomed.
Can anyone else see it coming?
Ford is diversified enough to remain as long as they keep making new cars like the Fusion. That is the sort of thinking that GM needs to adopt.
GM has the lamest cars around...they really do.
I'd go test drive one of Bricklin's Visionary Vehicles from China before I'd ever jump into a GM showroom and take a test drive.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
At some point they started coming out with 1-piece tailgates where the window would roll down into the tailgate, which would then fold down like a truck, as shown by this rather awkwardly drawn 1958 DeSoto.
At some point they started coming out with 2-way tailgates, where the window still rolled down into the gate, but then you could either drop the gate like a pickup truck, or open it to one side, like a refrigerator door. I think Ford was the first to offer this in their '65 wagons.
In 1973, GM's intermediate wagons had a 1-piece gate that was hinged at the top and had a fixed window. Most likely it was a cost cutting move. The window istelf could not be opened. The 1978 GM midsize wagons went back to a 2-piece, with a hinged glass section that would lift up and a tailgate that dropped down. You could ride with the rear window open, but the owner's manual said not to do it, because it could suck exhaust fumes back into the car.
I guess one differentiation between a hatchback and a wagon could be that on a wagon, usually the rear opening extends all the way down to the floor, so you can slide items in and out without having to lift them. Usually a hatchback still has a liftover in back, as the hatch doesn't go all the way down. But then again, there are exceptions. The AMC Hornet wagon of the 70's, which became the Concorde and then the Eagle, didn't have a full opening in the back. Here's a 1976 Hornet Sportabout showing its rump.
Of course, Toyota didn't make hatchbacks, just "liftbacks."
Well, GM's trying to save Saab with wagons. Or is the SportCombi a wagonette? No wait, it's actually a SportCombi. In Europe I've heard "Combi" used for wagons, but more often for those little trucks they have that look like a small pickup with a big round enclosed cargo area, like the Berlingo or Kangoo.
Saab's approach is to increase the rake at the back to look more sporty. For the SportCombi they've also shortened it much like Volvo's done on their small one. Visually it works pretty well, but it won't exactly save GM in 2006 (or even Saab).