Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
You seem to like to invent arguments that have no basis on what actually occurred in the car industry over the last 3 decades
But he got fired for in-fighting. He wanted to prove he was cooler than the guy at Audi when they should be on the same team.
GM makes a mistake like the Cobalt or Aveo, and instead of learning from it, they rebadge it as a G3 or G5! And just when it seems like they're learning something and make the Cobalt SS, guess which version DOESN'T get rebadged as a "sporty" Pontiac?
I am not defending re-badge model decisions. I think this is what hurt them all along, not every brand needs to have a vehicle in every segment. I would never, ever buy an SUV from Saab, and the fact that they tried to market one makes me not consider a 9-3. Buick doesn't need an SUV. Nor does Pontiac. SUVs are not luxurious nor sporty. I think this is where Ford is way ahead. Lincoln has a clear charter, so does Ford, and for the time being so does Volvo. Toyota, Lexus and Scion all have clear charters, as do Nissan/Infiniti, Honda/Acura.
It was a cultural thing at GM, the brands used to fight with each other, Chevy had a Monte Carlo SS, Buick and a Regal T-Type and Grand National, Olds had the 442 and Hurst editions. It started even before that. You don't need 5 performance brands, you need a mainstream, luxury, and maybe something else.
What I was defending was the innovation and willingness to try something new. What I am not defending was half-a**ing the attempt, or not fully proving it out before giving it to customers. When you have that many brands, each brand doesn't need something in every market, that is just dumb.
How is that a failure? They tried something new. They developed a platform and it brought the Buick Rendezvous. The Aztec was ugly, the marketing groups missed. It wasn't scheduled to be a high volume seller either. The Buick was much more main stream and sold much more as a result. Neither had any real functional issues, both were basically well proven. I don't get what your beef is or why someone needs to get canned for trying something new. They tried, it was ugly, they went mainstream and it worked fine.
You seem to like to invent arguments that have no basis on what actually occurred in the car industry over the last 3 decades
How do you figure?
Someone said this car is terrible or that car is terrible yada yada, and then I mentioned what made a particular car innovative or interesting. Then I mentioned that other companies copied the concept, improved it, and its now the norm. There is a risk to being first and trying to innovate new ideas.
The ads are trying imply that have all their crap together. But, GM its too late, your problems are already uncovered. Even with your value and investment protection on new cars is attractive, but that would be 1 of the few things to be confident in the brand. It almost angers me to see the ads.
Its okay, just admit and swallow your pride. I think you could get a better response than pretending that everything is okay. People might feel a little more for ya.
GM its too late for the ads.
I thought the Allante was the best looking Cadillac since the 1950s. Nothing since is close. The current run of Cadillacs had to be designed at Disney or Looneytunes. I guess it appeals to kids that were raised on Transformers. Nothing else can explain it to my satisfaction. I guarantee Elvis would not be caught dead in a modern Cadiallac. :sick:
If the Govt put a 5000 dollar tariff on foreign cars back then, GM and FORD would have used the opportunity to raise their own prices by 6000 dollars to maximize profits, rather than using the opportunity to take over the market. Its the same old story. They would rather come up with markting gimmicks like "Buy American" while they continue to close plants and move their manufacturing to Mexico and Canada.. all the while NIssan, Toyota, and Honda building plants right here in the good old US of A creating jobs and building communties. We may as well entice them to move their corporate headquartes to the USA and just call them US Car companies and just finish the job. Hell, Nissan is practically a US company now as it is with design and engineering and marketing all taking place in California, Texas, Michigan, and even Denver I think...
Nissan is more a US Car company than Chrysler.
The FJ was a very poor implementation of the original. I know as I bought a new Land Cruiser in 1964. I was totally turned off by the FJ, from every aspect except the name. I think it was a disappointment for Toyota as well. They could not have possibly made money on their retro like Chrysler did with the PT Cruiser. The Aztek is ugly beyond belief. The FJ is right behind it.
Saab went in the toilet from the time GM took them over. They are just another failure of Wagoner's. And his buddy Klutz. Saab was at one time the finest FWD car on the planet. The Japanese should have taken notes if they did not. They probably did a lot of copying of Saab engineering.
Your post (unfortunately for the American auto manufacturers) is right on!
I
Granted, and I liked the '69 Bus I drove for a year. But the Caravan put the engine up front so you got a flat floor all the way to the rear hatch. The Bus half hatch wasn't nearly as useful.
One story I've heard is that it takes lots of time (months) to get just the floorpan engineered, and when Chrysler came out with the minivan, they had about a year's head start on everyone else. So not only did they own the market for a while, GM (and the rest) had to play catch-up and rushed their vans to market without all the design input they would ordinarily get to do. So you wound up with Dustbusters.
You know, that sounds a lot like the GM status quo.
Yup, its the transmissions that don't last, manuals and automatics.
Electrics were occasionally troublesome, and that's a bit surprising as they were generally Bosch.
The issue is the same as that of pre-Ford Volvo, where the small companies don't have the purchasing power to create their own specs. They have to buy/use off the shelf components and cost bid. The Eurpoean makes, because of this and other things, also had changes mid-model year, or randomly throughout the model year. This makes it very hard to troubleshoot and diagnose issues if VIN 003 had 3v on a given line and 018 had 5v on a given line,etc.
In that case, I don't want it anymore. It might as well be a Toyota for all I care.
Thanks,
Chintan
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Why does no-one remember that Toyota released its minivan at exactly the same time Chrysler did? I know, my family bought one. There were waiting lists in California.
Now as for credit where credit is due, Toyota (and Mitsubishi) merely added seats and windows to a cargo van it already sold all over Asia, while Chrysler engineered something entirely new in its lineup, but still the end result was both companies introduced minivans at the same time.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No plans to rebadge Pontiac models
General Motors plans to build the last Saturn vehicles this year, two years earlier than planned, as it speeds up plans to shed dealerships and divisions, CEO Fritz Henderson said today.
The Saturn brand still may survive if GM can sell it to another automaker or investor, but GM no longer will build vehicles for Saturn after the 2009 model year, Henderson said on a conference call.
.....Henderson also said that GM no longer will build Hummer vehicles after the current model year.
No Pontiacs will be rebadged as Chevrolets, he said. The new G8 sports sedan will be dropped as will the Solstice sports car. Henderson said the Pontiac Vibe could be built into 2010, pending negotiations with manufacturing partner Toyota Motor Corp., which assembles the same car as the Toyota Matrix at a joint venture plant in California.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090427/ANA02/904279978/1078
(registration link)
So Saturn is a goner at the end of the '09 MY, which is really only 6 months away when you think about it. And Hummer will either be sold or liquidated by the end of May, in a separate article I read today. And of course, as announced last week, Pontiac will be gone this year too.
In separate news, it seems that GM now says it will halve its dealer network by 2014 (previous proposed reduction: 34% in the same timeframe), and will cut additional workers.
In the "still slightly in denial" category we find it has reaffirmed its commitment to the Buick and GMC brands. Mistake. Buick should be sold to the Chinese. There is no reason to keep GMC except as a heavy-duty truck supplier with no light duty passenger vehicles.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Never wanted one in the first place, so it's not a problem for me.
I completely agree.
APRIL 27, 2009, 10:49 A.M. ET
General Motors Corp. outlined a revamped survival plan Monday that would leave the U.S. government as its majority owner in return for an extra $11.6 billion in federal aid.
The plan includes an ambitious debt-swap offer that moves the auto maker closer to restructuring through the bankruptcy court.
The company launched an offer for $27 billion in unsecured public notes that it said would keep it out of court. But Fritz Henderson, CEO, said sufficient acceptance of the offer is far from certain and a Chapter 11 filing is now "more likely."
.....The new plan envisages the U.S. Treasury extending an additional $11.6 billion to GM, in addition to $15.4 billion in existing loans.
The government will forgive half the debt in exchange for equity in a restructured GM. The auto maker expects to get the additional aid.
.....Under the exchange program, the company is offering to exchange 225 common shares for each $1,000 principal amount of outstanding notes.
Monday's bond exchange filing represents an important step in GM's effort to restructure its company, President Barack Obama's automotive task force said in a statement.
The exchange will commence only if 90% of bondholders agree to the terms. Under the plan, if GM fails to get adequate participation, it will file for bankruptcy protection.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124083476254259049.html
Also, this article outlines that of the 50% reduction in dealers, 40% is expected to happen by the end of next year.
And in a separate article this morning, GM has also agreed to pare down the number of nameplates it has from 48 to 34, and to introduce no more than one new one in the next 5 years.
It is sadly ironic that only now, as bankruptcy talk accelerates daily, is GM producing tenets of a plan that could sufficiently reduce the size of the company in the face of 2009 market reality. And still it seems they could go further. If they had the ten years they would have had if they had started at the end of the 90s, it would be plenty of time to make the proposed cuts and more, to get down to the right size. Now, with only 30 more days to come up with a plan and only 5 years allowed by the government for getting to viability, they are hamstrung.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Underneath the body of all GM cars, there are many, many common components.
You can call them passenger vans, but the Caravan was different enough to indeed be something new.
You could say the Mustang was another "new" vehicle that turned the industry upside down and became iconic.
Camaro/Firebirds were hot but not really "new." What GM model was in the last few decades? Something new that actually turned the industry on its nose? Meaning sales plus innovation (ruling out, say, the Toronado).
Somewhat true.
-Rocky
All the seats behind the driver were removable, and right from the get-go they had rear A/C and second-row windows that opened. They drove very much like the large Toyota cars of the day and seated seven comfortably, so they were definitely qualified to compete with the Chryslers of the day.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No platform development at all. The Asswreck and the Rendezvous were built off of the "Dustbuster" Minivan platform. Had a little better crash test ratings than the deathtrap dustbusters as well as the cheapo interiors and the same 3.4l Chinese boatanchor under the hood. The Pontiac was doomed from the start and the Rendezvous did OK from what I recall. Neither of them were in the same league as the competition (Lexus RX especially).
On an entity as stupid and myopic as GM, could ignore the firm with the best turbocharging technology on the planet, give it a mis-mash of models to sell and then kill it.
Finally, I can't see keeping GMC either. Chevrolet has the same vehicles, so why duplicate it. GM should have three good cars by summer's end. Malibu, LaCrosse and CTS. Other than that, they've got a long way to go in the passenger car area. :mad:
-Rocky
If Saab can make it through the bankruptcy and find a buyer, it will be much better off in the future.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
FWIW, pretty much ALL vans originally came from the same cloth as the old VW bus. The original Dodge, Ford, and Chevy vans all had driving positions where you sat over the front axle, with your legs essentially being the crumple zone.
I think it was the 1968 Ford vans that finally started moving the driving position back, to where the doors were behind the front axle rather than in front, and you finally had a little hood out front. I think Chevy/GMC and Dodge followed suit in 1971. It was a big move towards making these things safer and more comfortable, and a bigger step would come with the 1975 Fords, which had a long enough front-end that the wheel openings were completely ahead of the doors.
They were still big, heavy trucks though, and could be described as anything but car-like. And those little cabover things that Toyota and Mitsubishi were pushing were still cut from the old 1960's cloth. So when the Voyager and Caravan came out for 1984, they were pretty revolutionary, giving much of the functionality of a van, but with the comfort, fuel economy, and handling of a car. When the Aerostar and Astro/Safari debuted a year later, they were really more like 3/4 scale versions of regular vans. More "mini-van" than "minivan", if that makes sense.
Unfortunately, they already DID that. Hence all the trouble ditching Saab...they were making rebadged Chevys with turbochargers. Oh and one rebadged Subie for a little bit.
I love the minivan wars. Even more fun than the oil wars.
Those were the good old days - you could buy a minivan with a manual transmission for a few years there.
Ok, back to GM:
GM's New Viability Plan: An Opportunity To Restructure GM -- "And Do It Once"
The debt-for-equity swap is probably the biggest part of the news I think. The UAW has already made more concessions with Chrysler so that part is hopefully down to ironing out details.
And shaking out more dealers is the third leg I guess.
You'd still be able to get the car serviced at another local GM dealer, and the warranty should still be in effect for its full term. Now if GM itself gets shed, that's a different story. :sick:
With any luck though, the only problem you'll have with buying a new Pontiac will be poor resale come trade-in time. I wonder if some of the models, like the G8, might end up with some sort of minor collector status, such as the 1994-96 Impala SS did?
"We don't think what's being asked of us is too hard," Henderson said. "Our objective is to create an operating structure where we can win, not simply survive. I wouldn't accept the view that anybody is being too hard on us."
GM was never famous for developing "new cars", as much as innovations within cars, especially in the earlier decades. After the 70's, they even lost that ability, while Chrysler, Ford and the imports came up with innovations much earlier than GM did, like Fuel Injection, multi-speeded transmissions, coil on plug ignition, etc., the list goes on and on. GM has been playing "me too" for decades now, no real leadership shown, which drove me in the early 90s to Ford after having had a string of very mediocre GM product prior.
Pontiac also had a lot more cars than Buick...G5, G6, Solstice, G8, Torrent, and the remnants of the Grand Prix. I suspect most G5, Grand Prix, and Torrent sales went to rental fleets. And while the G6 has had fairly good sales, again here I think they tend to load up rental fleets with them. And now, Pontiac has the G3!
In contrast, the Buick Enclave and Lucerne are fairly expensive vehicles, and are probably more profitable for GM, even if they don't bring in as much volume. The LaCrosse ends up in rental fleets, but not nearly to the degree that G6'es and Grand Prixes do (or the old Century), so there's probably a bit more profit there, as well.
The G8 is an awesome car, but honestly it's generic looking enough that they could probably change around some easy items like a grille and taillights and then sell it as a Buick Centurion or Wildcat or Gran Sport or something. Likewise, the Solstice could be restyled and sold as a Buick. Cars like the G3, G5, and G6 really don't have any business being a Buick, IMO, although the G6 coupe with the retractable hardtop was pretty neat. The Grand Prix and Torrent are history, so they pretty much took care of themselves.
What I don't understand is the announcement that in killing Pontiac they will not convert anything currently marketed as a Pontiac - meaning no Vibe, no Solstice and no G8. I don't understand that part of it.
Vibe should have been a Chevy right from the beginning, and I bet you could easily find a bunch of Chevy dealers who would love to have it to sell. Does HHR sell very well? I don't think so, I think Vibe outsells it by a factor of two.
Apart from that, it makes perfect sense to me not to continue any Pontiac models as Chevys. Although if they had any money at all, it would make sense to continue Solstice as a "baby Corvette" in the Chevy lineup. Instead, Miata will once again be unopposed in the North American market! (at least, by anything under $40K in price)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Now if they made an HHR that was a a Vibe/Matrix under the skin now we're talking!
Buick's Chinese sales put it over Pontiac, which doesn't exist outside of North America (and only exists in a desultory fashion outside of the midwest).
It would look better as a Chevy imho. I've been tire kicking them, and the all white ones are ok, but I've wondered if I could clip a Matrix front end on some of them.
Sounds like badge snobbery!
Regards,
OW
Then, Chevy will be the EXCITEMENT division and Buick/GMC will be next to bite the bullet, one way or another.
Chevy and Caddy together, PERIOD! :surprise:
Regards,
OW
It is good to see that Fritz has sharp elbows and is willing to do what it takes to make GM a great company. He isn't listening to the delusional loyalists that think biggest is best. Like Rocky
They took our jerbs!
The Malibu is pretty close in size in interior room, about the same power and both are FWD. I'd scrap the current Impala, and make rename the G8 to be the Impala and the Impala SS, offering Chevy buyers a full-size RWD option.
Regards,
OW