IIHS: 2009 Chevy Malibu vs. 1959 Chevy Bel Air (Just Because They Can)
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.
I always thought the 1959 was ugly. The 1960 was a bit nicer looking. Still the demise of Chevy started with the 1959 model. 1955 to 1958 being the peak years for Chevy, and GM cars in general. What is a 1959 Bel Air 4 door worth these days? Not that much I would say. Maybe a 2 door hardtop brings a decent price? My neighbor bought a 1959 Cadillac 2 door hardtop from another neighbor for $1800 and was tickled to to sell it on Craigslist for $3000.
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.
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.
Yeah, they're kinda ugly, but still cool IMO. And I think it's sad for something to survive 50 years, only to get destroyed in a crash test. As for value, I'd imagine a really primo '59 Bel Air 4-door sedan might fetch $8-10K?
I have to wonder about how it crashed, and agree with some of the comments on that linked page. The rust cloud and the way it appeared to lack an engine don't bode well, it might have been a car with serious structural issues. Very interesting, this video will be a hit.
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.
Oh it IS a vacation!!!! You must pay for the entire week at the campground during Hershey week (as opposed to exorbanant hotel rates for the swap meet days) at regular rates, so we go and stay the whole week. We'll get there Sat, Sun-Tues we roam the area, and Wed-Sat is spent in the fields. I'll bring some Sam Adams lite for us around a campfire!!!!
Correct, the X-frames may have look sturdy but that design was inherent to crumbling in a front or rear crash, more so the rear. The front had the huge cross member which helped hold it together (taking the brunt of the force) in a front impact. the shock would go through that frame and just crumple it. Add in 50 years of rust and that Bel Air was doomed - still sad though. :sick:
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.
If it were my hide that the refunds were coming out of, I'd have the returner of the car be out reasonable costs for 60 days of car ownership. What does the first 60 days of car ownership go for? You'd probably make one payment, and pay the $350 excise tax here in Indiana, the $1700 sales tax, and all the dealer fees for paperwork. Maybe an insurance bump. I'd charge daily pro-rated interest if it were between 30 and 60 days, and expect the car back without a spot or scratch on it, inside or out. The sales tax would be refunded and the plates can be transferred, in effect pro-rating the excise tax. About the same as if it were a lease, where door dings are your responsibility to repair at turnback. I could see requiring an oil change if they were close to the 4000 mile limit. Then I'd require they come in with the replacement purchase and show all documents. If they returned a vette and then purchased a sebring, they would be hit with the market daily rental rate for the vette, since it would have been executed with dubious intent. If they came back with a hemi challenger then I'd ask them to tell me why they are now fully satisfied. Of course they could just say that they are not, but now they have to live with their decision.
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.
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. A G8 would probably be my first pick, though.
The Lucerne is an awesome car and my second choice behind the Cadillac DTS. That writer doesn't know what he's talking about! I guess he thinks he's being funny at GM's expense. Well, I find him to be as funny as advanced pancreatic cancer! :mad: There are many cars that contributed to GM's present situation, but the Lucerne isn't one of them!
"..... 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. "
Nope is right. GM is ramping up production of the 2010 Equinox, SRX, LaCrosse, and Camaro, because ALL are selling ABOVE expectations.
Lem, I don't know. The next 2 Buick sedans out are supposed to be the Regal, and the Baby Buick. Both are going to be smaller than the Lacrosse. Now, last January at our auto show, a Buick rep said to look for a Lucerne replacement, but she wouldn't say what, or when.
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?
Those are merely 4 models, not nearly enough to keep all the jobs running. When these 4 are selling "above" expectations, remember that 1) all those 4 aren't selling in huge volumes, and 2) the other models are on the slump, and 4 models aren't enough to cover for them.
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.
Yes without data, some GM marketeer pumping out a story about 4 models selling better then expected, sounds very hollow. If GM wants to make money then they had better sell a "lot-more" of their high volume models like Silverados, Malibus, and Impalas.
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.
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.
The only sales figures I can find are for the Equinox, which sold over 13,000 last month. I know that the Camaro has been selling briskly, moreso than the Mustang. As far as the SRX, I'm not surprised it's selling well (compared to the 2009 SRX) as it is more of a conventional CUV, whereas the old model looked like a station wagon (and sold like one, too). As far as the Lacrosse goes, I can only confirm 2 sales (mine and the 23 yr old's)
If I recall correctly, GM did not offer seat belts as a factory option until sometime in the early 60s, unlike Ford and Mopar. It wouldn't surprise me if they were a dealer option though. The Corvette was an exception, adopting standard lap belts in 1958.
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.
".....Thanks for the link. Well, since it explains everything, I have nothing further to say."
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.
What it tells me is government motors should dump Buick and not Pontiac. They could give the Enclave to Pontiac. Maybe they should do away with Cadillac, Pontiac and Buick. Just pick out the few models that they can make money on and have them as Premium Chevy models. The SRX is down over 50% for the year. I think the only reason for them selling 1401 units during August, it was one of the only models of Cadillac that could take advantage of C4C. I am sorry about your new Buick LaCrosse. It should do better in its first year than being down 50%. If GM was modernized where they could build all the premium models in one factory interchangeably they may survive. Total sales for Cadillac and Buick combined is about 90k cars and SUVs. They will be lucky to top 135k for the year. That is only about 30% capacity in a modern plant, which GM does not have. My understanding is a modern auto plant has to run 85% capacity to break even.
I agree those particular models sell well. However I stand by what I said earlier, 4 models are NOT enough to cover for the slump of all the others models.
Hence we get the 60-day refund policy, at the cost of taxpayers money again. :sick:
I say forget Pontiac and Buick, kill them both. Take all trucks, commercial duty vehicles and the like out of Chevrolet and give them to GMC to both keep the Pointiac-Buick-GMC dealers open and to distribute business more evenly. Chevy can keep all cars and crossovers. Add Cadillac and call it a day with 3 brands.
"..... I am sorry about your new Buick LaCrosse. It should do better in its first year than being down 50%."
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
".....Hence we get the 60-day refund policy, at the cost of taxpayers money again."
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:
".....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."
The Cruze is already on sale in Australia, huh? The only Chevy dealer anywhere near me doesn't stock Cobalts, so I don't know if I will ever see a Cruze in person. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The taxpayers money used to keep those plants running, for one. $500 rebate is nowhere near as tempting as refunds. The biggest problem will come when the customers return those cars and get the refund, they get their money back, and GM get the cars back, sure, but then the market's gonna be flooded with used cars GM can never sell for new, then who's gonna cover the depreciation? GM, at the cost of public money again.
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.
".....The taxpayers money used to keep those plants running, for one. $500 rebate is nowhere near as tempting as refunds. The biggest problem will come when the customers return those cars and get the refund, they get their money back, and GM get the cars back, sure, but then the market's gonna be flooded with used cars GM can never sell for new, then who's gonna cover the depreciation? GM, at the cost of public money again."
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.
from a little family get-together, with a lot of my relatives from down south. Good lord, I don't think I've ever seen so many domestic cars in one driveway in my life! And the majority of them were GM! :surprise:
Thing about the SRX that should help is unlike a lot of other folks out there, I think the exterior of new SRX is very attractive compared to the outgoing model. The proportions are great alothough the front overhang is a bit much but it still looks better than the Lexus RX IMO.
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.
SRX is pretty good looking (although a bit too round for my taste). The problem I see with it isn't with the looks. The car's heavily based on Equinox and it shows both inside and out. Second, it's FWD platform is pretty much inferior to the old platform, it'll be hard to win over luxury customers' hearts.
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.
I just went to Caddy's website, and it seems the new SRX starts off at around $33,000. IMO that just seems too downscale of a territory for Cadillac to be in. Maybe they should've marketed it as a LaSalle?
I find it odd that they won't stock one of their best selling cars.
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)
I think Caddy will have a hard sell with the SRX compared to the Lincoln MKX which I find much more attractive. I looked at one yesterday and it looks much more like a luxury CUV than the SRX. At least from the outside. And Lincoln is not using as many of my tax dollars to survive.
I think you GM lovers out there are underestimating the MISTRUST and DISTRUST of GM by the average American out there. Someone that has been burned before not only doesn't trust GM's engineer's and designers, but also has a dislike of their assemblers and builders, and their customer service and management.
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:
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
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.
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.