By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Neither is Pontiac IMO.
Give em another 50 billion, they've earned it. :sick:
Don't give a crap about the fugly rental car, but the Bel Air end is sad, especially to someone like me who never grew up when those things were around.
Sadness
That is really sad to watch, but at the same time, it's morbidly fascinating. Also gives new meaning to "they don't build 'em like they used to" :sick: Considering how badly that 4-door sedan got torn up, I wonder what the outcome would've been with one of the less-rigid pillarless body styles. Or worse, a convertible! They beefed up the hardtops to compensate for the lack of a B-pillar, and the convertibles to compensate for the lack of a roof, but still, I'm sure the outcome would've been even worse.
I've heard that GM's wasp-waisted X-frame never did "crash" very well, but I'd always assumed that was just for side impacts.
I wonder how something like a '59 Plymouth would have fared in comparison? Those cars used a boxed ladder frame. A '59 Ford also used a ladder frame, but I dunno if it was boxed or not.
It's a shame something so old was wasted - but at the same time many old cars are destroyed simply via their stubborn owners who are too poor to properly care for them, but not poor enough to need to sell them, so the cars wither away. An ordinary sedan that wouldn't bring 10K in concours condition...oh well.
Also, the tri-five Chevy's frame wasn't that great either, essentially being two thin-section frame rails, a huge front cross member and a puny rear bar. The perimeter frames from 65-on (beefed up in 66) for the full-sizers offered better protection.
GM is probably more lenient than I would be. They are doing this just to quiet the dissenters, who now will rely more heavily on name calling to put GM in it's rightful place, right behind whatever they drive.
I disagree. Nope, IMO GM's doing this to keep those plants running because currently sales are sliding off for GM, while Ford is rising. Thank those "brilliant minds" in DC for pulling Cash for Clunkers, and now the 60-day refund policy will only make it worse. :sick:
is the Lucerne being discontinued soon? I saw an article in Motor Trend and it did not list the Lucerne as a future vehicle.
I wouldn't be surprised if they drop it soon. However, it's still around for 2010 I think. I remember either MT or C&D doing their new-model rundown in one issue, and for the Lucerne they had a blurb that said something like "Cars like this are the reason GM had to file for bankruptcy!" :surprise:
And to think that if I was going to get a new/newish GM car, I would've actually considered a Lucerne.
Nope is right. GM is ramping up production of the 2010 Equinox, SRX, LaCrosse, and Camaro, because ALL are selling ABOVE expectations.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090917/VIDEO/309179931/1219
One thing that this article mentions is that the 1959 Chevy didn't have seatbelts. You could get them as an option, I'm sure, but that crash test dummy wasn't belted in.
Not that I want to see the IIHS waste another '59 Chevy, but I'd be curious to see how that test would've played out if the driver at least had a lap belt. He still would've hit the steering wheel I'm sure, but at least his whole body wouldn't have been flung forward. Might have meant the difference between life and death, who knows?
It's hard to believe them, as they don;t even explain just how much "above" expectations the sales were. Too many unexplained questions IMO.
To have "sales above expectations" one only needs to set expectations very low!
And the bottom-line is not how many vehicles you sell, as that can be influenced by giving large rebates and losing money on the vehicles.
The bottom-line is how much money GM makes or loses at the end. Nothing else matters as much as that.
Top 10 Depreciating Cars
1. Chevrolet Classic -8.2%
2. Chevrolet Malibu -5.5
3. Chevrolet Malibu Classic -5.5
4. Nissan 350Z -4.9
5. Buick Century -4.7
After all the hype, you wouldn't expect to see Chevrolet Malibu listed as having the second-worst depreciation in August by Kelley Blue Book, compared to July. Or in ninth place, the vaunted, ever-so-hip Smart ForTwo.
Yet there they are, victims of falling prices on used smaller cars. Malibu, a midsize, lost 5.5% of its value for the month despite being one of the General Motor's most highly touted cars, considered "world class" by its executives. GM spokesman John McDonald says the KBB figures are at odds with GM's internal findings about the car's resale value.
Full Article: Depreciation Shocker!
Not to me, that is. Typical GM. I got used to it.
Regards,
OW
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTQyNTh8Q2hpbGRJRD0tM- XxUeXBlPTM=&t=1
Regards,
OW
In any case, almost no one used seat belts in 1959 in the US, and the vast bulk of cars sold didn't have them. I highly doubt that lap belts would have made much of a difference anyway in that test, considering the way the steering column was rammed backward and upward toward the dummy's head, combined with massive intrusion of the instrument panel and footwell into the driver's survival space.
Yes, it does. For the 4 models in question, all but the Lacrosse are selling better than August of last year. (The Camaro wasn't even available, but 8,000 plus units for a sports car is good. Equinox sales all but TRIPLED. SRX is up 30%. As far as the Lacrosse, when I was looking for mine, the '10's weren't available 'til mid-month, and the 3 dealers I went to had no more than 2 '09's, and by the end of the month they were gone.
The point is, those 4 particular all new models are selling well, and better than they thought.
Hence we get the 60-day refund policy, at the cost of taxpayers money again. :sick:
WHOA Nelly!!! The 2010 version wasn't available until mid-August. Prior to that, the 3 dealerships I visited in search of one not only didn't get one until then, they only had 1 or 2 '09's on the lot. The 2 2010's my dealership got in August both sold in less than one week, less actually because the owner of the dealership took them home for a couple of days beforehand to check them out himself. You can't sell what you don't have. I just saw an advertisement from the dealer that sold me mine that said there are 15 2010's on the way.
As far as C4C, I would assume that if you were trading in an elegible vehicle (like an SUV) most of the Caddy cars would've worked. I would assume that the CTS would at least be elegible
How so??? If there is a $500 rebate in lieu of the 60 day offer, could that $500 go towards an insurance policy against the depreciation over 60 days? So, in essence, if you choose to take the offer of the refund over the $500 rebate, you, and not GM or the dealer are paying for it.
I agree that those 4 models won't cover a slump in the other models. And I will also say that the Camaro's sales won't be forever, but could be as steady as the Mustang's in the long run.
However, considering all 4 models are NEW, and have also received some good press, that is encouraging. The Cruze, slated to come out next year, is also showing some encouraging signs. Check this out:
http://www.freep.com/article/20090917/BUSINESS01/909170441
Some comments:
".....During its first full selling month in July, the Cruze compact car rose to the eighth best-selling car, according to General Motors numbers."
".....The U.S. and Australian car markets have some fundamental similarities -- both are mature, wealthy markets with relatively cheap fuel, wide open spaces and consumers who have preferred full-size cars and SUVs.
Both markets are also beginning to see fuel price increases and growing demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Australia could be considered "a precursor to the U.S.," Armstrong said, noting similarities between the countries."
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Btw, the fact that those 4 models are new is another reason I'm being skeptical. New models tend to sell well on the 1st year or 2, and then it'll slide down most of the time. I don't see SRX sales lasting long, as the car, like it or not, is simply an Equinox twin with fancier bits in it. The same goes to Camaro, it's pretty much a niche car. From what I see LaCrosse and Equinox are the only ones GM can really depend on, and that is assuming Buick can broaden it's market share. As for now Buick is pretty much a quasi-niche brand already, at least that's how I see it.
Hope they get it right with Cruze, taking down Civic, Mazda3 and Corolla will be a darn tough job to do.
I don't know if I explained myself all that well. I'm suggesting that it's possible that GM will either sell you the car at say, $20,000 and buy an insurance policy against you returning it. If you do return it, GM will collect on the policy for whatever amount it's for (let's say, on a $20K car, $2500). If you don't return it, then GM is out the policy amount (say $500). If you forgo the return arrangement, as I would've, they rebate you the $500 they would've spent on the policy.
"..... I don't see SRX sales lasting long, as the car, like it or not, is simply an Equinox twin with fancier bits in it."
Fair enough, as the pundits have been less than thrilled as well. However, if the '09 SRX is selling like a station wagon because people think it looks like one, then the '10 SRX, even if sales drop off some, will do it's job "stealing" some small luxury CUV sales, while the CTS Sportwagon sells like a wagon.
Interior-wise the Lexus still trumps it in features and I'm looking forward to making a more legitimate comparison at this years auto curcuit.
However, if such thing is actually implemented I doubt it'll do much for GM's sales. The biggest problem with the idea is finding an insurance company willing to accept such offer. Insurance companies will most likely think that the majority of buyers will return the cars and that'll cost them a whole lot of money.
Second, to minimize the losses on GM should customers refund their cars, GM will need to receive at least about $5000 per unit from insurance, as that's pretty much the depreciation cost of GM cars in the $20k range. And I seriously doubt there's any insurance company willing to pay that much for this kind of contract.
In the end, both the insurance companies and GM will lose money under this scenario.
The interior looks good and attractive, but a closer look will reveal that it's not worth the sticker price. Alas, the whole package seems less and less attractive once you look at the sticker. To win against Lexus RX is a far reach IMO. Equinox will most likely fare much better, and worth the money too.
They don't stock cars at all, except for a sprinkling of Impalas and Corvette (2 or 3 of each at a time).
They tried selling the "fabulous new" Malibu for a while, had a dozen of them sitting there so long the paint began to fade, haven't stocked any Malibus since.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Regards,
OW
I would not want to take on the risk of being stuck with a vehicle I didn't want because of some inane rule someone very untrustworthy was hanging their hat on. The fine print allows a lot of room for interpretation for someone untrustworthy to take advantage of and "stick it" to the customer. If I were dealing with a trustworthy company, I'd consider the 60 day trial promotion more seriously.
Since GM isn't on my list of trustworthy companies, I would rather save myself from the pain of a potential legal battle and the stress that would add to my life.
:mad:
Since GM isn't on my list of trustworthy companies, I would rather save myself from the pain of a potential legal battle and the stress that would add to my life.
But since you've already identified yourself time and time again as never being a GM, Chrysler or Ford customer, I don't think they are losing too much sleep over it.
But yeah I agree, at least Ford isn't using much of taxpayers money.