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
Does America Even Need Its Own Automakers?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I have owned and liked Ford vehicles. GM has offered nothing that I would want to buy for a long time. Were I shopping now, though, I might give their european imports a shot in the hope that they would have european style handling, rather than GM style.
Unpredictable when the decisions were made to develop them...yes. Just as $4 per gallon gas in 2008 was not a certainty in 2003.
You continually make the mistake of assuming that because something has occured that it was certain to happen that way. Hybrids were selling with gas at $2 per gallon, even though it made no economic sense to pay the extra cost (now, at $4 per gallon and with subsidies from the Government, the calculations may be different). So, yes, there was no certainty that hybrids would be successful. A reasonable person could have looked at this even in 2003 and figured they might flop, after they finished selling them to the greenies.
Going back to your immoral profits issue. Why are profits earned by oil companies immoral (I assume that is what you were getting at), while at the same time you criticize auto manufacturers for not making profits?
However, American automakers have instead largely been of the attitude, 3 years in, of: "Oh look, gas is rising faster than expected...glad I bought all those oil stocks. By the way, don't you think we need a V10 option on this V8 machine?"
Ironically, then they drive home in their imports. :shades:
I have to disagree that Ford is in better shape. Ford has some glaring problems: no fuel efficient 4 cylinder engine to match the imports; little capital for engine development which is why they were considering selling Volvo; and what to do with Mercury. Ford's business model (like GM) is still based on pickups and SUVs. this is why they pushed to have the F-150 revamped ahead of schedule. They were hoping the re-design would improve sinking sales but I don't think anyone predicted $4 gas. Simply, their cash cows are the F-150, Explorer, Expedition, Escape, etc. With the exception of the Escape all those sales are down which takes the air out of the Focus and Fusion sales. It's going to be tough for Ford especially with this market. GM started their turnaround earlier and their presence in China gives the company some extra capital to work with.
It will be an interesting 18 months for both companies.
Oh, Ford's been doing that for years now. Starting around 1991 or 1992, the Ford Escort started sharing its basic platform with the Mazda Protege. The Ford Probe shared some of its design with the Mazda 626 and MX-6 coupe.
I always thought the Mazda 6 was a good looking car...just a bit too small inside for my tastes. So stretching it out to make the Fusion worked out pretty well, IMO. Now, if they just get to upgrading the base engine.
And that is the problem Ford faces. They need to match or better the Accord and Camry. A hybrid option would be nice.
The Focus combined mpg rating is 28, the Civic is 29.
The Fusion does give up 2 mpg to the Accord and Camry, not sure if that will get better or worse with the new 2.5 L engine.
But as you indicate the real problem for the companies is their money-makers are not selling. I'm very happy to see this, as anything that reduces the number of SUVs and trucks on the road trying to kill me is good. (and besides, my natural resources fund is going up as fast as the price of gas
In 2000, there were two 2.0 engines offered in the Focus. One was rated at 25/31 and the other was at 26/33, with the automatic. (22/28 and 23/30 using the new EPA rating method).
By 2007 though, the Focus was boosted to 27/37 (24/33 with the new #s) with the automatic. The Civic is still better, at 30/40 (25/36 with the new #s) but the gap has been narrowed.
Actually, the Fusion isn't quite as bad as I thought it was. First off, for some reason I was under the impression it was only using a 4-speed automatic with the 4-cyl, but it's actually a 5-speed. And I had it in my mind that it was only EPA-rated at 23/29. Turns out it was rated at 24/32 for 2006 and 23/31 for 2007. In contrast, something like an Accord or Camry was rated around 24/34, using those older numbers, so it's not as far-off as I thought.
Maybe the 2002-2006 Altima is what I was thinking of? Its 2.5 4-cyl/automatic combination was rated at 23/29, which was a bit thirsty on the highway. But in its defense, at the time it was a bit more muscular than an Accord or Camry 4-cyl.
I wouldn't quite say the Astra has landed yet, seeing as it has yet to get a single advertising campaign and dealers have yet to get stocked with certain trim levels. It could certainly use an advertising campaign, since most people still think Saturns have plastic panels and cheap interiors....
However, it is also true that they have not been selling well. Sales numbers have yet to break 1000/month...
It's kind of odd, in looking at fuel economy for small cars, leaving out, manuals, hybrids and minicars, the best ones have annual fuel cost estimate of $1925 (eg. Civic, Corolla), the Focus trails just a bit at $1992. But, despite both having only a 4 speed auto and having the same engine, there is a bigger difference between the Mazda3 ($2148) and the Focus than there is between the Focus and Civic/Corolla.
The Astra is a tough-sell. Personally I would buy a base V-6 Aura and get much more car for slightly more, and get pretty close economy.
If I'm looking for the same class as the Astra, I would pick a Civic EX. If the Astra with the same equipment isn't a couple of thousand cheaper, I go Civic. The depreciation on an Astra will be larger then a Civic.
I did look at the Astra (on paper) and decided that for slightly more I could get an AWD, turbo, Mazdaspeed6 with Bose stereo. OTD was $22,100. I had also looked at the Chevy HHR SS, which was comparable in OTD price, but I couldn't find one with the side-air-bags in the color I wanted.
The company now states it doesn't think it will be able to make a profit in North America in 2009 either, contrary to its previous assertions.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/ANA02/657458891/1176- /emailblast02&refsect=emailblast02
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Which company is being delusional here?
But GM already had its production cut...courtesy of the American Axle strike and labor actions at its plants, not because of any foresight on the part of GM management.
Um.... the economy is not close. V6 Aura= EPA 20 combined. Astra=27 Combined -> 35% better mileage. How is that close??
If I'm looking for the same class as the Astra, I would pick a Civic EX. If the Astra with the same equipment isn't a couple of thousand cheaper, I go Civic. The depreciation on an Astra will be larger then a Civic.
It's arguable whether the Civic is in the same class, even if it is in the same price range. The materials in the Civic are simply not the same quality as those in European built vehicles like the Astra and VW Rabbit. In addition, the Civic is not a hatchback, and thus loses some utility, but is supposedly more "stylish." Slightly more power and fuel efficiency in a civic though (excepting the Si which has a lot more power but significantly less efficiency).
Mazdaspeed6 ... Chevy HHR SS
Do you mean Mazdaspeed3? Regardless, those are in a different class as well, as those are performance cars that drink a lot more gas, and premium at that. Although is the SS the one with the turbo or the one that drinks premium? In the case of the turbo, the fuel costs aren't that bad...
Well, the base 3.5 OHV V-6, which I think it only available in rental fleets these days, is rated 18/29 The Astra with a stick is 24/32, or 24/30 with an automatic.
So out on the highway, there wouldn't be much difference in the economy. But in city-type driving, the V-6 is going to use 1/3 more gasoline, presuming you match the EPA estimates.
As Andre looked up 18/29 is pretty close to 24/30; In the real world GM V-6's usually return better then EPA in several I've owned and rented. And most Astra's will be autos, as that's what the market here buys.
The materials in the Civic are simply not the same quality as those in European built vehicles like the Astra and VW Rabbit.
That and design are subjective. I like the Civic better than the pictures of the Astra.
No I mean Mazdaspeed6 which i just bought 2 months ago. It is tough to sell a Saturn Astra for close to MSRP, when it is competing against other brand sthat will take over $6,000 off sticker. All of a sudden a mazdaspeed 6 is a few thousand more than an Astra.
as those are performance cars that drink a lot more gas, and premium at that.
I'm getting 21mpg in mostly city driving during the worst mpg period - the break-in. It only has 2.3L of displacement, and the dirct injection technology make sit more efficient than an Astra which doesn't use DI.
Also I didn't think this topic valued mpg so highly. There is a lot more to driving such as enjoyment, safety (DSC and AWD), rigidity and roadfeel. I really couldn't care if my gas costs $3.90 for 87 octane, or $4.10 for 93 octane.
Before the EPA down-rated those numbers, I think the Aura with the 3.5 was rated at something like 20/30, although oddly, in the bigger Impala I think it was 21/31, and in the older style Malibu, it was 22/32. Maybe the Aura is geared a bit more aggressively than the Impala? Also, while it's smaller, I think the Aura is still a pretty heavy car, so the weight might actually be close.
I remember reading a Consumer Reports test a few years ago, I think when the 2004 Malibu first came out. IIRC, in their testing they actually got better fuel economy with the V-6 than they did with the 4-cyl! I think they were also getting economy about on par with the Accord and Camry 4-cyl models.
I do like the Aura's style. They say the 3.6/6-speed auto is really the one to get, but I think the 3.5/4-speed is probably plenty adequate. If I were in the market for a new car, at this point I think the Altima would be my first choice, but I'd give the Aura a serious look, at least.
That and design are subjective. I like the Civic better than the pictures of the Astra.
From sitting in them at the auto show, I like them both, but think I like the Civic a little better. I don't have a problem with the interior materials on either one, but the Civic is EPA-rated a bit better, and the driving position feels a bit roomier to me. I imagine though, because of its European heritage, the Astra is probably a better handler. Unless GM found a way to mess that up in the American translation of that platform, but I was under the impression that this time around, for once, it's coming over pretty much un-molested. I guess the hatch would be more versatile, but I need back seat space more often than I need luggage capacity, so I'd probably go with a Civic sedan, over an Astra hatchbback.
Oops, looked at the wrong V6 on the EPA site. I was in a hurry and I thought I had clicked on the higher mileage one. So I was wrong, the highway mileages are pretty close, but the city ones are still quite far apart. And that's still a 20% difference in overall fuel economy which is still significant.
Mazdaspeed6..... will take over $6,000 off sticker.
There's a reason for that discount, which is why I asked if I had read that correctly. The Mazdaspeed6 was discontinued last year and is a 2007 model, hence the steep discount in 2008, which makes for a completely unfair comparison to a 2008 model being sold in 2008 that is brand new.
Also I didn't think this topic valued mpg so highly
Um, American automakers will have to value gas mileage to survive and they have started down this path. The Japanese automakers have always been good in this regard, but Detroit has started to catch up, and can leap ahead if they poach from some of their European fleets (e.g. Ford Fiesta, Opel Corsa).
I'm getting 21mpg in mostly city driving during the worst mpg period - the break-in. It only has 2.3L of displacement, and the dirct injection technology make sit more efficient than an Astra which doesn't use DI.
I have never gotten less than 25 MPG in my Astra and my engine is still not broken in either (<2000 miles). The Astra only burns gas at 0.2 gallons per hour when idling, I don't know how that compares your Mazda....
I'm not saying an Astra is for everyone, all I'm saying is that it has some things to offer (ride, handling, comfort, and MPGs) and that it is way to early to proclaim it to be a failure.
Not really since they are both new cars sitting on a lot.. The number in front of it means little to me; it could have been 1234 instead of 2007, for what it matters. I don't plan on trading it in unless it has lemon-law type problems, or gas hits $15/gal.
And yes you get a little bit better mpg than I will; but you could have also made some other choice to get better mpg. The point is we both could have chosen better mpg cars, but we gave up better mpg to get something else in our car. The difference is how much performance, or safety or size we chose and how much mpg we may give up for that. That's just personal preference.
And my personal preference if I were to buy a $15K - $20K car, to get better mpg, would be a Honda Civic. But I would do as I did, and consider spending slightly more and getting the next class up for very little extra. But then if the $ is my primary concern - the total of the purchase+gas+taxes+insurance - I'd just get a nice 2 year old used car (preferably someone I knew).
If I was spending $20K or so on a new car, I don't quibble over whether it gets 24 or 26 mpg, or else I shouldn't be spending that kind of money on a car.
Not really since they are both new cars sitting on a lot.. The number in front of it means little to me; it could have been 1234 instead of 2007, for what it matters
It may not matter to you, but it matters to the majority of buyers, as it means a $2000 hit in resale value (or more). Comparing a 2007 to a 2008 is most certainly not apples to apples. Dealers know that well, and at least $2000 of that $6000 discount is recognition of the fact.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Maybe a better example for you on what makes a car like the Astra a tough sell is to compare it to a Volvo C30. Look at the price and equipment you get on a base-model C30 using European Delivery. It's a little over $21K. You get a nice 6-speed turbo, full safety features, and pretty good economy. Price a comparable Astra, and note whether you get the same safety features, or better performance. Go sit in a C30 and take a look at the materials and how the doors close solid.
Then consider that for a little over $21K, you get 2 free tickets to Sweden, you get the car to drive around on a vacation, and they throw in a night at a hotel. An $18K-$19K Astra is a tough sell when for a couple thousand more I get a sportier car, and part of a vacation.
Saturn does discounts now too, just like everyone else. They offered $1000 cash back on the Astra recently. In addition, some Saturn dealers have started to discount below MSRP.
Maybe a better example for you on what makes a car like the Astra a tough sell is to compare it to a Volvo C30
The C30 is a nice car. However, it is still much more expensive than a base Astra and doesn't have that many more features. I paid $16,205 for my Astra (only option I wanted was a/c), which is at least $5000, if not $7000 cheaper than the Volvo.
Also, Cars.com did a comparison between the C30, the Astra and the Mini Cooper, and the Astra was quite competitive:
Premium Hatch Faceoff
There's a reason for that discount, which is why I asked if I had read that correctly. The Mazdaspeed6 was discontinued last year and is a 2007 model, hence the steep discount in 2008, which makes for a completely unfair comparison to a 2008 model being sold in 2008 that is brand new.
That is true and I don't think $6k off sticker on a left-over 2007 is such a great deal. But similar discounts and more seemed to be available throughout 2007, I believe some got $7-8K off.
Even an ordinary Mazda6i, like mine, was often available at $5000 off MSRP...an in my case that MSRP was "only" about $21K.
But the day of Saturn has come and gone, I'm afraid. Nobody is buying the Aura, nobody is buying the Astra, nobody is even aware the brand still exists. It cannot survive on Vue sales alone.
On a side note, I noticed that Autoweek managed only 14.8 mpg in their extended trial of the Outlook. Geez, that's awful. The minivans it was designed to compete against all do at least 20 mpg or so. These new Lambda models may be all that and a bag of rice in many respects, but they still have a ways to go in weight reduction and fuel economy improvement. (AW also deemed it slowish, and said the weight was very noticeable in all aspects of the drive).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think Saturn is in a bit of a pickle right now because the vehicles they sell now are too expensive for the tastes of the original Saturn customers, and the new customers they hope to attract are ignoring Saturn because those customers don't realize that Saturn has the vehicles they might be interested in. If they don't get a good marketing campaign going, I agree Saturn is not going to survive because no one is aware that they exist and are selling quality products.
If they want a european import line, maybe Saab could do that?
When the Saturn Ion came out, it showed how good GM is at botching up a Euro design when they re-translate it to American tastes. And then they started using its one good feature, the Ecotech 2.2, in the Cavalier, and seemed to have better results there! Then the Cobalt came out, which was basically an improved version of the Ion.
Now the Saturn Aura is a nice car, in my opinion. But is there really anything there that the Malibu or even the G6 doesn't offer? I think it's the best looking of the trio, but it's just a different flavor of something that you can already get at another division, unlike the old S-series or even the much unloved L-series, which were unique cars.
And while the Astra seems pretty unique, isn't it just the updated version of whatever Euro model the Cobalt and Ion were originally based on? So I'm guessing that when they finally get around to re-doing the Cobalt, it'll be more like the Astra, just in coupe/sedan form rather than hatchback?
Saturn originally did well because it offered something no other GM division did, fuel efficient, cheap, small cars. Now it offers a fuel efficient upscale hatch (Astra) and a well-designed small SUV (Vue), and other models which are nearly identical to other GM vehicles.
Ideally, what GM should do is shift it's small car lineup to Saturn, its general car lineup to chevy, and its performance car lineup to Pontiac.
So the lineup would look something like this:
Saturn - Aveo, Astra, Vue, Vibe
Chevy - Cobalt, Malibu, large SUV's, pickups, Camaro
Pontiac - SS versions of chevys rebadged as pontiacs, G8, Solstice
Of course this would never happen, since in reality, Chevy dealers, Pontiac Dealers, and Saturn dealers all want as many models as possible to bring profits to individual dealers. They want to be everything to everyone. And it's just not going to work....
And while the Astra seems pretty unique, isn't it just the updated version of whatever Euro model the Cobalt and Ion were originally based on?
Sort of. The Astra is based on the same platform, but the Cobalt is actually a newer design (2005) than the Astra (2004).
I don't know what to make of the Astra. It doesn't impress me much and the fact that it's built in Europe makes me worry about its long-term reliability. I've had my experiences with VW which makes me wary of Europe's ability to build a reliable inexpensive car. Heck, if they can't make an S-Class Mercedes reliable at its price point, what chance does an Astra have?
Opel is the brand that Germans buy when they get fed up with VW's breaking down, so hopefully it should be more reliable than VW (although that's not saying much).
One thing to consider though is that there are a significant number of VWs that are in fact reliable. From talking with various Volkswagen owning friends of mine, VWs built in Germany have excellent reliability. Unfortunately, most of the ones sold in America are actually built in Mexico, and they are so spectacularly unreliable (maybe someone should start a thread on epic stories of VW unreliability) that they swamp the reliability of the ones from Germany. So following that logic, the Astras built in Belgium should be fairly reliable.
Of course, this does not bode well for the 2010/11 Saturn Astra, which is rumored will be built in Mexico.
One other side note, the new VW Rabbit was rated to have above average reliability by Consumer Reports and is only built in Germany.
That might not be an automatic death sentence, though. The Fusion is built in Mexico, and so is the PT Cruiser. Neither of those are bad cars. Not exactly class-leading technological tour-de-fources, but they're not 1976 Volares or 1980 Citations, either. :P
Yeah, that's something for the "they don't build 'em like they used to" files. I remember a few years ago, my cousin got her 2002 or so Durango stuck in the mud. She had parked on the soft shoulder in front of my mother's house, instead of in the driveway for whatever reason. Ended up getting stuck. When we tried to push her out, I remember trying to shove against the rear liftgate, and the whole thing started to buckle in. Luckily I let off before leaving an imprint. :surprise:
And to think that with my old '85 Silverado, sometimes if the tailgate didn't close right, I'd just kick it closed! Guess you can't do that with a new truck! Sometimes if the door didn't close right (you have to really slam it, which I'm sure really helped contribute to the squeaks and rattles those 70's/80's vehicles would often develop), I'd just shove against it and it would close. That would probably muff up a newer truck, too. :sick:
I am looking for a very clean pre 1995 Ford F250 Powerstroke. I want to get rid of my 1999 V6 Ranger that is underpowered.
The similar, built only in Mexico, Jetta achieved an average reliability ranking in last year's auto issue...have not seen this year's issue. I really don't think the parts care too much about where they are put together. I think the whole "cars built in location X are bad, cars built in location Y are good" thing is mostly mythology.
All the luxury brands should get out of the entry-level game unless they can build in the same quality in the low-priced models that gave them their cachet in the first place.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I see new C-class all the time now, they must be selling decently. I haven't read anything bad about them or the new S, either,
Although I think that the Big 3 management has made some big mistakes in the direction they've taken their product line ups over the last several years, I think they'll be able to make the adjustment to a "car" biased market okay (Ford and GM especially). Both of the companies European and Asian operations have tons of models and small car engineering expertise they can pull from (which they're doing frantically from what I can tell) - Ford is bringing over a lot of their great European product in a year or two and GM is utilizing their European engineers for upcoming mid size and small cars. Moreover, the small cars that they already offer are beginning to gain some traction (Focus) which is a good sign.
I think GM (and Ford) need to improve their marketing however. They have to figure out intelligent ways of getting people to give their cars a chance - if they can do this, that'll be even better.
The problem is that the smaller, more efficient cars that buyers now want...are far less profitable for both manufacturers and dealers. Denny Fitzpatrick, a GM dealer in California, observes that he makes more money selling ten Chevy Tahoes than he does selling 50 Honda Civics.
and I imagine the Civic is far more profitable than the Cobalt or Aveo.
See page 73 :confuse: golly, you're as out of date as the US automakers
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670623&CFID=135275- 18&CFTOKEN=90008540
Which brings me to another point: There is an economy of scale component as well that I notice a lot of these writers don't touch on. More cars will be sold that are shared by other regions - which makes them cheaper overall. They don't make as much profit as a truck, I'll give you that - but once they've adjusted their output and closed down the factories that make trucks (or convert them), there's a good chance that they'll be making some money on their cars, and the one factory spitting out F150s, will be profitable too. Another factor: GM and Ford are laying off TONS of people - and hiring some of them back at 1/2 the wage.
There are many, many components that are truly unknown when trying to predict the fate of the Big 3 - but I can say one thing - they're huge and still do have quite a bit of money, and quite a big of reach globally. Bankruptcy seems way too far fetched quite frankly.
They may not make as much profit as they did in their glory SUV years, but they'll also be smaller entities with a lot less cost.
Having been one of the sources for many articles and at other times the writer, I can see your point. My articles have always been less hype and more story-telling or historical, which is probably why you've never read one of them. On the other hand, my quotes have always been taken in such a way to make me sound speculative (at minimum) or forboding (at worst). In my most famous (to me) quote, I "predicted" the dramatic consolidation of the industry.
They're in business to sell newspapers, not bring the news to you.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080724/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_ford
jeffrey -- thanks for the slap on the wrists but I don't think Economist had that article up when I searched for it back when. Maybe I didn't look hard enough?