Are you responding to my message? If so, please reread it. I did not say, "It's someone else's fault." I said the dumping occured in many brands and many flavors.
A couple weeks ago I did my anecdotal summary of factors in the US automaker's problems. They include overpaying an aggressive union similar to the ones in the steel industry. They include management decisions and government decisions on safety and mileage standards by bureaucrats.
However, dumping did occur. It works much the same as the heavily criticized by noneconomists sales to rental companies. Of course rental companies have to buy their cars somewhere; but GM got lots of criticism for the cars. Selling to the rentals and lease companies helps pay the bills for the fixed costs even if they don't make a profit. That's what part of the dumping by Japanese and other companies was doing; it was better to keep the factories working so they didn't have to pay people for making no product. At that time the mantra was that Japanese companies had workers with jobs-for-life.
Please reexamine my post's meaning before jumping on it.
Now, that I agree with...if Toyota isn't careful, they will follow GM. Some of the problems result when you get "too big not to fail". Even Wal-Mart better watch it!
The FJ wasn't Toyota's only recent failure. I'd include the Echo and the Tundra on that list.
So, that is just some models rather than an entire corporation of GM that failed.
Maybe on the new GM memories board, somone could start listing all the GM brands and models that failed and were discontinued or sold off (as in Hummer). This list could fill pages of text.
Saw a segment on tv today where GM's Laneve said that some of GM factories running at capacity (paraphrase) producing models such as Camaro and Malibu. Camaro built in Canada. Laneve did not answer a question of why Camaro production not also set up in US if demand apparently so high.
Exactly, The Devilles up to 1999 still looked good, and El Dorado was unchanged in appearance from 1992 2002, Now that car looked terible as a coupe with its massive C pillar, but it sure looks nice as a convertible. I should know because i've got on in my garage, waiting for me to get back home to drive it to Miami for a week.
I think the 1992 and up Eldorado would've looked a lot better if they had made the rear quarter window a bit more triangular, sort of like a 1981-83 Imperial. The reason the C-pillar looks so bad IMO is because the leading part of it is vertical, while the rear is sloped. If they had sloped the leading part as well, it would have made the whole car look more complete and flowing.
The article says they will get $100-200 million for Saturn, and mentions that the price they will be getting from the Chinese for Hummer is about $100 million. Whew, these brands aren't worth much cash.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think the reason for the leading edge of the pillar being vertical is they wanted to capture the flavor of the classic FWD Eldorado. It would've worked better if the rear was more upright like the original, but it might've looked awkward on the smaller 1992-era Eldo. Photoshop, anybody?
The article says they will get $100-200 million for Saturn,
Will be interesting to see the details of the deal later. Assume that the purchase includes assembly plant(s) and Saturn engineering/accounting staff and assembly workers. Staff will be fortunate to be working in the Penske empire vs GM.
Probably about enough to cover the closing costs on those deals. Are they buying the nameplates for that? I would imagine it covers current tooling as it is not worth much to anyone else. Those factories are probably not included in that price. Which leads me to believe the vehicles will be made elsewhere. Saturn by Opel Germany and H2/H3 in China.
With Saturn and Penske, I would guess that you are correct: given the way Penske operates (he is a distributor, not a car-builder), I would suspect his plan is to continue selling the current Saturn Opels even as they go through future development cycles in Europe, and bring them here without changes.
I bet that once the current Outlook model gets redesigned, however, that will be the end of the Saturn Outlook under Penske's watch, as it is built by GM North America.
As for Hummer, I recently read an interview with the Hummer CEO where he was enthusing about the future of the brand under Chinese ownership, and implying that Hummer would continue to be built in North America. Maybe he was in for a rude awakening, or maybe Hummer is just so worthless in the current environment that $100 million covers staffing and a production plant in addition to the nameplate.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Penske is not getting any of GM's assembly plants, GM will contract to make some cars for 2 years.
From Detroit News today:
"The deal includes the Saturn brand, the service and parts operation based in Spring Hill, Tenn., and a network of about 350 dealerships."
"Penske said GM will supply vehicles on a contract basis for at least two years, at which point Saturn would import vehicles made by foreign automakers. "
But, Penske also said he wants to build them in US eventually, wonder how that could happen?
Toyota is far from perfect but nothing or no company compares with GM for utter failure across the board...that's why C11 was inevitable.
Well, I don't know about that. If Chrysler wasn't a bigger failure than GM, at least I'd argue they were a more catastrophically epic failure.
Either way, it's almost as if Chrysler and GM workers were competing to be the worst and biggest failures in American automotive history for the last 20 to 30 years.
Reminds me of some sports teams on the cusp of winning a good lottery draft pick by performing worse and worse, all trying to outcompete the other pathetic teams to be bigger failures so they can get a better draft pick (or in GM & Chrysler's case, a better case at needing a gov't backed bailout).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Why would GM do that? The whole idea of the BK is to "right size" GM - right number of dealers, right number of brands, right number of models, right number of plants, right number of workers.
GM selling cars to the "New Saturn" would be like GM selling cars to Avis or Budget ... it would only serve to keep plants open and people employed that really ought not to be.
And, like all fleet sales, it would depress the market value of used vehicles.
While I am not 100% sold on the plan GM has going forward - I still think 4 brands are two too many here in the US - it will put GM in a better position to compete with Toyondissan - and Hyundai.
What makes sense is for Penske to partner with a company that doesn't already have a presence in the US - PSA, for example - to federalize what is already being built in Europe (or South America or Asia) and import it.
Penske has already stated that he sees a business plan much like the large Japanese manufacturers - import them at first, then build manufacturing capacity in the US as sales volume increases.
It will have to sell good products to succeed in this crowded market.
Correct.
Look what happened to Daewoo, which, I believe, was the last company to attempt to build a sales network in the US.
It will be difficult to build brand recognition from scratch - which is why you won't necessarily see Fiat badged vehicles sold here - but that is what Saturn has going for it - 20 years of history. I suspect that many folks will keep an eye out on the new product that is sold and serviced by the dealers.
If they start small - and Penske has stated that he will stick with core models - and try not to bite off too much too quickly, it's quite possible that they can build to an overall sales volume of 150-250K vehicles per year.
It's surprising that Chrysler held out for as long as it did since it was a failed enterprise back in 1979. In fact, Chrysler has been one of the most savvy automakers over the past 30 years -- it created the minivan market, made popular the sport utility market when it bought Jeep in the mid-eighties, brought back the convertible in the early eighties, and it brought back the retro styled vehicles with its Pt Cruiser, 300 series and Challenger. Chrysler's problem was that it wanted to compete with the big players (Toyota, GM, Ford, etc.) eventhough it did not have the size and money to spend to develop new vehicles. It tried to get by partnering with other automakers (Mitsubishi, Damiler Benz) but these partnerships failed. If Fiat can provide Chrysler with competitive small and mid-size cars, Chrysler is a viable business because it still sells 80,000 to 100,000 vehicles per month with its trucks, minivans and Jeep lines. I believe Chrysler has a better chance of success than GM. Also, the head of Fiat, Sergio Marchionne has shown that he can bring back an automaker that was considered dead.
You don't even need people crashing into you. In FL the sun BAKED the clearcoat off the front bumper top cover on my Fleetwood and i had to have it re-painted. Of course that car had a BIG Chrome steel front and rear bumper so someone bumping it in a paerking lot wouldn't hurt it too much
Saturn is a failure. Saturn has never made money for GM. So would someone please explain to me why Penske would want it, and how it will make money for Penske, as long as GM keeps making the cars for Saturn that have never made them money in the first place???
Maybe he has the same inbred MBA braintrust that GM has...and the strategy is the same as GM - lose money on every sale, but make up for it with volume
I'm sure what he's after is the already there dealer network but I wonder how much that is worth now with it shrinking by the day and the fact that they will be limited to current Saturn vehicles for two years.
Bot of a head scratcher for sure.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Join Consumer Advice Editor, Phil Reed, and other Edmunds staff for an auto industry chat Wednesday night, 9:00 -10:00 pm/et (6:00 -7:00 pm/pt). To enter the chat, click on the banner at the top of the page. See you there!
I think Penske knows how to run a lean car distribution network. He will take the fat out of the Saturn network, while maintaining the quality of service which is the only reason people kept returning over the years (at least, the few who did).
He will also be good at scaring up new models from foreign manufacturers to sell through the network.
He has done a good job with smart - I think he will be successful in reinvigorating Saturn. Good luck to him. I had a Saturn once - good dealer, low-to-mediocre car. Now, supposedly, the cars are better......
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I hope you are right. I think it is a relatively cheap gamble for Penske. I don't think the Saturn name is as strong as everyone is making it out to be. Saturn has never had a great car. The S-series was good but that was 18 years ago, nothing groundbreaking since.
It will take years for the idea of change needed at GM to filter into the products. Time will tell but how much time? Will it really become a new company??
Rattner is making a few changes that could hopefully bring change to GM.
For example, Mr. Rattner himself was behind the appointment Tuesday of Edward E. Whitacre, the former chief executive at AT&T, to become G.M.’s new chairman. Four more vacancies on the board also have to be filled.
Cleaning out the inept BOD was a major first step.
In just one example, whenever a top G.M. executive was called to appear before lawmakers in Washington, staff members would prepare a briefing binder as thick as a Manhattan phonebook and hold multiple meetings to strategize over five minutes of testimony (Fritz Henderson, the new chief executive, has told employees to stop doing that).
Now if they can get rid of the 2200 page UAW contracts they will be making progress. Also fire the employees that waste so much time with meetings. That may be the biggest waste of manhours in Corporate America today. By the time I thankfully retired we spent more time discussing a project that we did on the project.
If GM wants to gain back some of the lost market share they could be proactive. When they have several designs for a new model send out a brochure questionaire to all past owners of that model. They have to have a database of who owned an Impala in 1985 and it was the last GM vehicle they bought. Ask for customer suggestions rather than believe some first year engineer knows what people want in a new car. Research lost customers. I would be happy to tell them how they lost me after buying 5 new GM trucks from 1989 to 2005.
Heck, you should be the CEO or at least the Chief Marketing Director. Your post is exactly what will build back their sales base. It was always only about how the product served the customers. The Asians do it better now.
Time to "Just Do It". Forget about the "Paralysis by Analysis".
When they have several designs for a new model send out a brochure questionaire to all past owners of that model.
Or focus groups? Or maybe just benchmark, reverse engineer "best-in-class" mainstream vehicles to meet/beat competition. They don't need Hummers, SSR pickups and similar nonsense.
I'm always amazed by the expertise of Monday morning quarterbacks. We needed them to get on the boards of these companies and do something years ago. It's easy to tell what should have been done, now.
But the reality is what I'm said many times before and that is that the general attitude toward GM has been downhill since Nader and his Consumer Reports went on their push against them long ago.
As for the design by committee of new vehicles, designing a vehicle now based on what people's bitching was about previous autos from decades ago won't work. The cars need to be built as well as they can and designed to be effective competition. Of course now we have the people's elected government takeover specialist running GM so that's not going to happen. Nor is the UAW contract going to be negated. But that's a problem to blame on all the lawyers who have written the laws through the years.
Another point is that everyone wants to GM to design, for instance, an Accord equivalent (without the road noise, harsh ride, high speed whining of a 4-cylinder, cheap interior panels, et cetera) and be a better car. BUT no matter what GM were to put on the market, every person would pick one item that they would determine is better on the Accord and therefore the GM product is JANG (just ain't no good). So the technique is to build toward a nearby part of the market, not to compete exactly for the Accord buyer market, who are firmly entrenched, in my opinion. In that case, what people do is complain anyhow that the car doesn't this or doesn't do that, but new buyers will see it as a slightly different choice from being a direct competitor to their preferred other vehicle. In fact, this is how the early imports took over a part of the market by not competing directly with US automakers but by building the econoboxes of the 80s.
Focus groups are difficult because where they are from within the country brings their bias against or toward a brand with them.
So the technique is to build toward a nearby part of the market, not to compete exactly for the Accord buyer market, who are firmly entrenched, in my opinion.
Well, maybe GM in last 3 decades just lacked overall engineering and management competence to "even" match the level of Honda, much less beat it.
Chrysler "owned" the minivan market untill Honda and Toyota came along and matched then beat Chrysler. GM never had a minivan that was competitive with the Chrysler then Honda and Toyota later. GM first attempt at minivans were the miserable dustbuster snout front ends. GM realized they could not compete in this segment and withdrew their minivan offerings. GM was never able to match the Civic nor Corolla. Would have thought they did reverse enginering on these, but apparently not.
Chrysler still had good share of minvan market until melt down. Honda and Toyota's minvans have declined, even they are not immune.
Back to GM, they had a 'not invented here' attitude to minvans and tried too hard to be different. First with radical styling, then with the narrow and smallish U bodies. The last straw was the 'SUV look', but ended up with huge snouts. GM ended up dumping U bodies into the Postal Service fleets.
This will likely be the first of many such announcements:
GM Pulls Plug on 2010 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid (AutoObserver)
And not just hybrids, but various models in the lineup.
Man, GM management is a joke. "The Malibu hybrid has failed to capture buyers' attention as it is more expensive and achieves only somewhat better fuel economy. The base Malibu costs $22,300; the hybrid, introduced in 2008, adds $4,000.".
No kidding, that was obvious from the start. It didn't take a genius to figure out the Malibu Hybrid was uncompetitive from the start. This company has been short sighted and pathetic for as along as I can remember. I have no doubt the Volt will disappoint as well. It seems to me the more GM hypes up a product the more it disappoints.
Edmunds did a comparison of Aura, Altima, and Camry hybrids a couple years back. The Altima did 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, 8.4 for the Camry, and 11.0 for the Aura.
I could forgive the Aura's 0-60 time if it offered something in exchange, like stellar fuel economy. But nope, it came up short there, too. They used more generous ratings back then, but the Aura came in at 28 city/35 highway, compared to 40/38 for the Camry and 42/36 for the Altima.
I think the only advantage the Aura had was price. It was around $23,000, versus $30,000 for the other two. However, the other two had leather seats, power sunroofs, killer sound systems, etc. The Camry had Nav and the Altima had XM. The only extras the Aura had were a power driver's seat, steering wheel-mounted radio controls, and heated outside mirrors.
Comments
Are you responding to my message? If so, please reread it. I did not say, "It's someone else's fault." I said the dumping occured in many brands and many flavors.
A couple weeks ago I did my anecdotal summary of factors in the US automaker's problems. They include overpaying an aggressive union similar to the ones in the steel industry. They include management decisions and government decisions on safety and mileage standards by bureaucrats.
However, dumping did occur. It works much the same as the heavily criticized by noneconomists sales to rental companies. Of course rental companies have to buy their cars somewhere; but GM got lots of criticism for the cars. Selling to the rentals and lease companies helps pay the bills for the fixed costs even if they don't make a profit. That's what part of the dumping by Japanese and other companies was doing; it was better to keep the factories working so they didn't have to pay people for making no product. At that time the mantra was that Japanese companies had workers with jobs-for-life.
Please reexamine my post's meaning before jumping on it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
So, that is just some models rather than an entire corporation of GM that failed.
Maybe on the new GM memories board, somone could start listing all the GM brands and models that failed and were discontinued or sold off (as in Hummer).
This list could fill pages of text.
Saw a segment on tv today where GM's Laneve said that some of GM factories running at capacity (paraphrase) producing models such as Camaro and Malibu. Camaro built in Canada. Laneve did not answer a question of why Camaro production not also set up in US if demand apparently so high.
Hehe. Those foreign companies only make "good" cars is what a few posters have always posted as they criticized GM, C, and F.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Regards,
OW
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090605/CARNEWS/906059993
The article says they will get $100-200 million for Saturn, and mentions that the price they will be getting from the Chinese for Hummer is about $100 million. Whew, these brands aren't worth much cash.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Will be interesting to see the details of the deal later. Assume that the purchase includes assembly plant(s) and Saturn engineering/accounting staff and assembly workers. Staff will be fortunate to be working in the Penske empire vs GM.
I bet that once the current Outlook model gets redesigned, however, that will be the end of the Saturn Outlook under Penske's watch, as it is built by GM North America.
As for Hummer, I recently read an interview with the Hummer CEO where he was enthusing about the future of the brand under Chinese ownership, and implying that Hummer would continue to be built in North America. Maybe he was in for a rude awakening, or maybe Hummer is just so worthless in the current environment that $100 million covers staffing and a production plant in addition to the nameplate.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
From Detroit News today:
"The deal includes the Saturn brand, the service and parts operation based in Spring Hill, Tenn., and a network of about 350 dealerships."
"Penske said GM will supply vehicles on a contract basis for at least two years, at which point Saturn would import vehicles made by foreign automakers. "
But, Penske also said he wants to build them in US eventually, wonder how that could happen?
Even perfect appliance maker has flaws. I'm still waiting when Toyota starts making cars
Well, I don't know about that. If Chrysler wasn't a bigger failure than GM, at least I'd argue they were a more catastrophically epic failure.
Either way, it's almost as if Chrysler and GM workers were competing to be the worst and biggest failures in American automotive history for the last 20 to 30 years.
Reminds me of some sports teams on the cusp of winning a good lottery draft pick by performing worse and worse, all trying to outcompete the other pathetic teams to be bigger failures so they can get a better draft pick (or in GM & Chrysler's case, a better case at needing a gov't backed bailout).
The Aura, Outlook, and Vue continue for two more years, then have to source from other places.
Who knows, maybe GM will stay a supplier?
Possible, but rumor has it that it may be Renault/Samsung motors out of Korea
Why would GM do that? The whole idea of the BK is to "right size" GM - right number of dealers, right number of brands, right number of models, right number of plants, right number of workers.
GM selling cars to the "New Saturn" would be like GM selling cars to Avis or Budget ... it would only serve to keep plants open and people employed that really ought not to be.
And, like all fleet sales, it would depress the market value of used vehicles.
While I am not 100% sold on the plan GM has going forward - I still think 4 brands are two too many here in the US - it will put GM in a better position to compete with Toyondissan - and Hyundai.
What makes sense is for Penske to partner with a company that doesn't already have a presence in the US - PSA, for example - to federalize what is already being built in Europe (or South America or Asia) and import it.
Penske has already stated that he sees a business plan much like the large Japanese manufacturers - import them at first, then build manufacturing capacity in the US as sales volume increases.
It will have to sell good products to succeed in this crowded market.
Correct.
Look what happened to Daewoo, which, I believe, was the last company to attempt to build a sales network in the US.
It will be difficult to build brand recognition from scratch - which is why you won't necessarily see Fiat badged vehicles sold here - but that is what Saturn has going for it - 20 years of history. I suspect that many folks will keep an eye out on the new product that is sold and serviced by the dealers.
If they start small - and Penske has stated that he will stick with core models - and try not to bite off too much too quickly, it's quite possible that they can build to an overall sales volume of 150-250K vehicles per year.
smart
And perhaps not coincidentally, that one is also a Penske operation in the US.
Also, the Chevy Suburban dates back decades. So to claim that Chysler popularized SUV's is a bit of an overstatement.
Also, Chrysler's "problem" was just poor quality of its 'pretty cars'. Neon's got attention, but they fell apart, as with the LH and Cloud cars.
And perhaps not coincidentally, that one is also a Penske operation in the US.
True; I stand corrected.
Also, Mini, though most of those were paired with existing BMW dealers.
Regards,
OW
Sometimes Penske baffles me the moves they make.
Bot of a head scratcher for sure.
Penske is a pretty smart man but with his involvement with the Smart car and now Saturn, one has to ask what kind of Kool-Aid he's drinking.
He will also be good at scaring up new models from foreign manufacturers to sell through the network.
He has done a good job with smart - I think he will be successful in reinvigorating Saturn. Good luck to him. I had a Saturn once - good dealer, low-to-mediocre car. Now, supposedly, the cars are better......
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
U.S. Takes On the Insular G.M. Culture
Regards,
OW
For example, Mr. Rattner himself was behind the appointment Tuesday of Edward E. Whitacre, the former chief executive at AT&T, to become G.M.’s new chairman. Four more vacancies on the board also have to be filled.
Cleaning out the inept BOD was a major first step.
In just one example, whenever a top G.M. executive was called to appear before lawmakers in Washington, staff members would prepare a briefing binder as thick as a Manhattan phonebook and hold multiple meetings to strategize over five minutes of testimony (Fritz Henderson, the new chief executive, has told employees to stop doing that).
Now if they can get rid of the 2200 page UAW contracts they will be making progress. Also fire the employees that waste so much time with meetings. That may be the biggest waste of manhours in Corporate America today. By the time I thankfully retired we spent more time discussing a project that we did on the project.
If GM wants to gain back some of the lost market share they could be proactive. When they have several designs for a new model send out a brochure questionaire to all past owners of that model. They have to have a database of who owned an Impala in 1985 and it was the last GM vehicle they bought. Ask for customer suggestions rather than believe some first year engineer knows what people want in a new car. Research lost customers. I would be happy to tell them how they lost me after buying 5 new GM trucks from 1989 to 2005.
Time to "Just Do It". Forget about the "Paralysis by Analysis".
Regards,
OW
Or focus groups? Or maybe just benchmark, reverse engineer "best-in-class" mainstream vehicles to meet/beat competition. They don't need Hummers, SSR pickups and similar nonsense.
But the reality is what I'm said many times before and that is that the general attitude toward GM has been downhill since Nader and his Consumer Reports went on their push against them long ago.
As for the design by committee of new vehicles, designing a vehicle now based on what people's bitching was about previous autos from decades ago won't work. The cars need to be built as well as they can and designed to be effective competition. Of course now we have the people's elected government takeover specialist running GM so that's not going to happen. Nor is the UAW contract going to be negated. But that's a problem to blame on all the lawyers who have written the laws through the years.
Another point is that everyone wants to GM to design, for instance, an Accord equivalent (without the road noise, harsh ride, high speed whining of a 4-cylinder, cheap interior panels, et cetera) and be a better car. BUT no matter what GM were to put on the market, every person would pick one item that they would determine is better on the Accord and therefore the GM product is JANG (just ain't no good). So the technique is to build toward a nearby part of the market, not to compete exactly for the Accord buyer market, who are firmly entrenched, in my opinion. In that case, what people do is complain anyhow that the car doesn't this or doesn't do that, but new buyers will see it as a slightly different choice from being a direct competitor to their preferred other vehicle. In fact, this is how the early imports took over a part of the market by not competing directly with US automakers but by building the econoboxes of the 80s.
Focus groups are difficult because where they are from within the country brings their bias against or toward a brand with them.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well, maybe GM in last 3 decades just lacked overall engineering and management competence to "even" match the level of Honda, much less beat it.
Chrysler "owned" the minivan market untill Honda and Toyota came along and matched then beat Chrysler. GM never had a minivan that was competitive with the Chrysler then Honda and Toyota later. GM first attempt at minivans were the miserable dustbuster snout front ends. GM realized they could not compete in this segment and withdrew their minivan offerings. GM was never able to match the Civic nor Corolla. Would have thought they did reverse enginering on these, but apparently not.
Back to GM, they had a 'not invented here' attitude to minvans and tried too hard to be different. First with radical styling, then with the narrow and smallish U bodies. The last straw was the 'SUV look', but ended up with huge snouts. GM ended up dumping U bodies into the Postal Service fleets.
I've often wondered how many focus groups vetted the Aztek.
This will likely be the first of many such announcements:
GM Pulls Plug on 2010 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid (AutoObserver)
And not just hybrids, but various models in the lineup.
GM Pulls Plug on 2010 Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid (AutoObserver)
And not just hybrids, but various models in the lineup.
Man, GM management is a joke. "The Malibu hybrid has failed to capture buyers' attention as it is more expensive and achieves only somewhat better fuel economy. The base Malibu costs $22,300; the hybrid, introduced in 2008, adds $4,000.".
No kidding, that was obvious from the start. It didn't take a genius to figure out the Malibu Hybrid was uncompetitive from the start. This company has been short sighted and pathetic for as along as I can remember. I have no doubt the Volt will disappoint as well. It seems to me the more GM hypes up a product the more it disappoints.
I could forgive the Aura's 0-60 time if it offered something in exchange, like stellar fuel economy. But nope, it came up short there, too. They used more generous ratings back then, but the Aura came in at 28 city/35 highway, compared to 40/38 for the Camry and 42/36 for the Altima.
I think the only advantage the Aura had was price. It was around $23,000, versus $30,000 for the other two. However, the other two had leather seats, power sunroofs, killer sound systems, etc. The Camry had Nav and the Altima had XM. The only extras the Aura had were a power driver's seat, steering wheel-mounted radio controls, and heated outside mirrors.