I heard that was happening! Now that Tiger Woods is likely to be divorced - still quite wealthy, women know he was always attracted to Buicks. I bet they're doing the dark window-tints and turning those Enclaves into Tiger-trap love machines.
Bah, my mom finally quit driving at ~85 ... after she got a speeding ticket.
A speeding ticket at 85??? Get your Mom back on the road immediately!!!
She should be rewarded, not punished for that. Most 80+ I see on the road are driving way too slow and impeding traffic and thereby causing accidents. She should get a bonus for being able to drive that fast safely (after all, a ticket isn't an accident, it's just some bozo officer deciding to make revenue for the State on a particular day - probably a nice sunny warm day).
Tell her to go to traffic school to erase the ticket and her insurance won't go up either.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Speaking of photo radar, what an abomination of the American way!!! It completely disregards our bill of rights (4th and 5th Amendments) and the 14th amendment too. Completely and utterly unconstitutional and just plain "bad" thinking by a corrupted and insane gov't.
Someone should do a study to see how Corvette & Camaro sales plummet in States that enact and legalize Unconstitutional photo radar enforcement for GM.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
1. Price the enclave is cheaper then the XC90 and if you already have a GM vehicle there are apparently some very solid loyalty offers.
2. Styling the Enclave isn't a bad looking vehicle at all. Looks much better in person then pictures.
3. The XC90 is long in the tooth and a couple of years past needing a redesign already.
I haven't driven he Enclave but from what people tell me it drives pretty good. One couple had one as a rental after their old van got totaled and they were between a XC90 and the Enclave for a replacement and they bought the Enclave.
So what kind of deals can be had on the XC90 then :P
LOL, I still think it is one of the more handsome utes out there and I love the ergonomics (It is a Volvo...) and the seats are some of the best. Only thing I've been told to stay away from was the T-6 because the automatic trannies are garbage. Did they change those out yet?
1. Price the enclave is cheaper then the XC90 and if you already have a GM vehicle there are apparently some very solid loyalty offers.
Are these folks cross shopping the 3.2 or the V8 in the XC90 to the Enclave?
2. Styling the Enclave isn't a bad looking vehicle at all. Looks much better in person then pictures.
I've seen the Enclave and have to agree.
3. The XC90 is long in the tooth and a couple of years past needing a redesign already.
Probably true.
My wife likes the XC90, though we don't have a need for 3 rows of seats anymore. Depending upon the budget (and whether we need an SUV), we may look at an XC60 when the VUE needs to be replaced - which, I hope, is many, many years down the road.
LOL, I still think it is one of the more handsome utes out there and I love the ergonomics (It is a Volvo...) and the seats are some of the best. Only thing I've been told to stay away from was the T-6 because the automatic trannies are garbage. Did they change those out yet?
Not much of a deal cause there aren't any out there. We only have two XC90s in stock and one of them was sold till the woman switched to... an Enclave.
She had a SAAB and Volvo was giving their regular owner loyalty to SAAB owners but GM gave her a whole lot more. Oh and the lemon lawed her SAAB too which we haven't had happen in a long, long time. I can't remember the last SAAB buy back we have had.
No T6 engines in the XC90 since 2004 or 2005 I forget and yes the trans in those are garbage. They happen to be a GM trans too. They had the only transmission that would fit in a transverse mount behind an engine as long as that twin turbo inline six.
There is a new T6 motor that goes in the S80, XC70 and XC60 but that motor has nothing to do with the old twin turbo T6. So far those new T6 engines have been great with no problems.
Volvo only has 500 dollars back on XC90s right now and another 1000 dollars of loyalty.
re these folks cross shopping the 3.2 or the V8 in the XC90 to the Enclave?
Mostly the 3.2 as the Enclave doesn't have an equivalent trim level to the V8
i just read a review on cts wagon that said it was very roomy with a excellent interior and beautiful interior lighting...very fast too...i think it is on some kind of mothers cars reviews, i saw it in NH union leader...this one was probably 40k with awd though new...the lady who reviewed said she didnt think she would lose many 0-60 races in it...it had a 300hp engine...i remember bob lutz of GM saying a couple of years ago the vettes and caddies are very competitive with any euro car now in handling and speed...the turbo ss cobalt is one of fastest cars in world on a mile track even beating out cars more than twice its price...she should also try a buick again, they were either one or two in quality
.i remember bob lutz of GM saying a couple of years ago the vettes and caddies are very competitive with any euro car now in handling and speed
Well that was a few years ago. BMW's upcoming 3 & 5 Series are incredible performance wise (styling is subjective of course). The upgraded 320Hp 335 coupe will have a 0-60 under 5 seconds while offering 26mpg/hwy. That will be about a second quicker than the new CTS coupe. The new 5 series will be offering a turbocharged 4.4L v8 offering 400hp and 450 ft-lbs of torque. Cadillac doesn't have an engine that can compete. Even the current 300hp turbo 3 liter in a 335 will blow away a 3.6 CTS. Granted you will pay more for a BMW, but I thought we are talking about the standard of the world, and in that regard Cadillac still has a long way to go.
I think the CTS is still more than good enough. I really like the styling. The new CTS coupe looks great. But if you don't have the V model, I'd suggest not picking fights with BMWs.
Also, Porsche is developing a new 2011 911. The competition just keeps plugging along improving the product where GM seems to take twice as long to update models. They are competitive when introduced, but within 3 years or so, they are behind again.
Even Lincoln is ahead in the powertrain department. Caddy doesn't anything to compete with Ford's Ecoboost v6. An MKS is a lot quicker than a CTS, same goes with MKX/MKT vs SRX, powertrain wise, the Lincolns have a significant advantage.
Let me know when GM/Caddy beats the 3-series in the compact category....I'll be gone wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before that happens! Send me a paranormal message from Earth!
Yeah, the Alpha-based Caddy will be announced this year but I'm SURE it will not even come close to 328/335 or even the G37/G25/A-4.
on the flip side, GM doesn't have to compete with 3/5/G37/G25. that crowd, as BMW has demonstrated, is small. Many people would love to have the kind of quality, but not necessarily the kind of handling / performance, for a daily driver. Cadillac can survive, quite well actually, if their cars are just not as bloated and superfacial.
the CTS is a good starting point. There ought to be a smaller version of it that is less pretentious and more versatile.
I understand your point but Caddy is in the same market as BMW...and their cars are just not as desirable. One way or another, Caddy needs to beat the premium Euro-Asians afaic. At this point, they are at least trying.
No, but GM has to compete against SOMEBODY in some market. What market does GM excel in such that they can support all their operations and retirees?
Cadillac can survive, quite well actually, if their cars are just not as bloated and superfacial.
Well I don't have the breakdown of what Cadillac contributed to GM over the last 3 decades, but do you think Cadillac was making money and holding it's market-share while GM sales dropped each year, and they lost money most years? Cadillac needs to survive on what they make, not what they draw or wish they built. The guy down the street could play in the NBA if he weren't so bloated and he could shoot.
"No, but GM has to compete against SOMEBODY in some market. What market does GM excel in such that they can support all their operations and retirees? "
not sure about "excelling" but GM does a pretty good job with trucks and large SUVs. it is too bad that that market is shrinking.
there is a huge market for lowly priced low quality cars and if GM focuses on it it can be a great business to be in. It supported Toyota / Honda / Nissan on their way up and I am not sure why it wouldn't support GM on its way up.
"Well I don't have the breakdown of what Cadillac contributed to GM over the last 3 decades, but do you think Cadillac was making money and holding it's market-share"
we are all speculating here but I would say that Cadillac is one of the better run divisions within GM. Chevy isn't bad either.
GM's issue is fundamentally a management issue (no products that consumers want to buy) and a cost issue (UAW). Cadillac has consistently put out some reasonably good products since the turn of the century, with its flashy SUVs and CTS, etc.
Unfortunately, the brand has been so tarnished that I don't think BMW / MB buyers would seriously consider a Cadillac now. thus you see the quick and heavy discounting of their vehicles.
I think Cadillac is better served just being comfortable where they are and produce products for the segment they are in: near luxury vehicles, and being a 2nd tier player, for now. Establish their brand image and improve their reputation. Once they fix that, they will be able to move up the chain.
There's also the issue of 99% of the public not needing 400HP in a car, no matter who makes it. The idea of 400HP in a car even twenty years ago would have been met with almost unanimous "that's nuts - they'll wrap it around a tree in the first week".
And I still agree. Racing to see who can turn a sedan into a 4 wheel jet fighter isn't necessarily a sane thing to do. There's a reason that Lexus and Acura sell so well. They've (finally figured out that bigger isn't always better.
we are all speculating here but I would say that Cadillac is one of the better run divisions within GM. Chevy isn't bad either.
Don't know how you define "well run". Chevy can be as well run as they want, but if they don't have vehicles that are decent it hardly matters.Compare many key categories and what Chevy (or any part of GM) has in those categories:
- Good quality economy car: FAIL (nothing likea Civic) - Quality Sporty sedan: FAIL (nothing likea BMW-3 or even TSX or Jetta) - Small entry level luxury sedan: FAIL (nothing like an A4 or MB-C class) - Minivan: FAIL (no need to comment) - Small truck: FAIL
I guess that is well run? Just no good products in too many categories for the biggest car company (almost) in the world. This level of fail is ok for Mazda or Subaru or Mitsubishi (niche brands). Not for such a large manufacturer.
GM has two areas, though, where it does get it right.
1 - Doing what Hyundai does in undercutting the competition and offering a 5 series/E class competitor for $10-$20K less. (new CTS)
2 - Making retro revival cars. The Camaro is awesome - cheap, fast, and fun to look at and drive.
The thing is, they need to continue doing only this. You'll note that Ford as well as Hyundai already have this figured out. If you can't BEAT the competition, then make a similar car for less, or make something so unique that it has no competition.(the Mustang for Ford, for example, comes to mind)
if you read what I wrote, I said Cadillac is one of the *BETTER* run divisions.
a *BETTER* run division can still be run terribly. it is a relative measure within the GM family. I never said that either unit is *WELL* run; just that they are *BETTER* run.
let's make that clear before we go any further.
"- Good quality economy car: FAIL (nothing likea Civic) - Quality Sporty sedan: FAIL (nothing likea BMW-3 or even TSX or Jetta) - Small entry level luxury sedan: FAIL (nothing like an A4 or MB-C class) - Minivan: FAIL (no need to comment) - Small truck: FAIL"
everyone of them is true. But since we were talking about BMW, let me list their "failures" in the spirit of this discussion:
- Good affordable quality economy car: FAIL (nothing likea Civic) - Quality affordable Sporty sedan: FAIL (nothing likea Miata or even TSX or Jetta) - Midsize affordable family sedan: FAIL (nothing like an Malibu or Camry class) - Minivan: FAIL (no need to comment) - Small truck: FAIL - Medium truck: FAIL - Full size truck: FAIL - Full market coverage: FAIL - Large displacement affordable sports cars: FAIL - Vehicles to haul my work gears: FAIL - Class 6/7/8 trucks: FAIL .....
the point is that every manufacturer / brand has a niche and they play within that niche to maximize their competitive advantage.
that means Chevy doesn't need to be BMW and BMW doesn't need to be Chevy. It is downright stupid to insist that one brand is a failure just because it doesn't offer products that another brand does.
" If you can't BEAT the competition, then make a similar car for less, or make something so unique that it has no competition.(the Mustang for Ford, for example, comes to mind) "
agreed. they need to provide a reason why people should consider their vehicles because their revival is even a possibility.
There's also the issue of 99% of the public not needing 400HP in a car, no matter who makes it. The idea of 400HP in a car even twenty years ago would have been met with almost unanimous "that's nuts - they'll wrap it around a tree in the first week".
It's not about need. Who needs a Cadillac or a BMW? Nobody. It's about what people want.
I can tell you that I never cross-shop'd the CTS - never considered it actually.
the CTS seems to be somewhere in between the 3 and 5, or C and E/S. it is smaller than a 5/E but bigger than a 3/C.
so I am not sure if an average 5/E buyer would seriously cross-shop a CTS. To me, a Cadillac buyer will like come from an upgrade from a traditionally domestic buyer, rather than import buyer. aka a Malibu buyer may buy a Cadillac, but a Honda buyer is less likely to buy a CTS.
The CTS may have physical dimensions much closer to an E/5er than a C/3er, but I just don't see it as really competing with the former, and the previous CTS certainly didn't compete with the former. I am not trying to knock the current CTS as it is a nice car and light years ahead of the original, I just think it has somewhat of an undetermined market position.
the point is that every manufacturer / brand has a niche and they play within that niche to maximize their competitive advantage.
that means Chevy doesn't need to be BMW and BMW doesn't need to be Chevy. It is downright stupid to insist that one brand is a failure just because it doesn't offer products that another brand does.
Agreed, and I was not trying to argue, just comment on how well/not well Chevy is run. The problem is that in your comparison, BMW is a niche brand. Chevy is supposed to be the pedestrian mainstream brand of the largest car company in the world. So while they might not have a competitor to the 3-series, they SHOULD have competitive offerings in small car, small truck, minivan, entry level sporty car, etc. VW has the Jetta and they are not a high end brand. Mazda has the Miata and they are not a high end brand. Chevy, in their defined niche, is missing competitive vehicles in too many areas.
Agree also that Caddy is the best run GM division. Any others, well, they still have a long way to go.
There's also the issue of 99% of the public not needing 400HP in a car, no matter who makes it.
Well if the auto engineers got off their behinds and built some flying cars, maybe we could use 400+ hp more frequently. I would also like a force-field to protect against things like hitting deer. Maybe Cadillac could get back to #1 with some breakthroughs like those.
Chevy is supposed to be the pedestrian mainstream brand of the largest car company in the world. So while they might not have a competitor to the 3-series, they SHOULD have competitive offerings in small car, small truck, minivan, entry level sporty car, etc.
Hmmm....perhaps that's why they kept GMC....for trucks. So why are there trucks in Chevy? Not too great of a decision for a company that HAD to go bankrupt and then shed as much cost as possible.
As far as comapring BMW, that would be directly at Caddy. The 3'er can't be touched by any Caddy in refinement, performance and desirability. Same goes for the 5'er.
Looking at sales data, 2008 - 2009 saw CTS sales fall from 58,774 - 38,817. (-34%)
The 3-Series sold 112,468 in 2008 and dropped to 90,960. (-19.1%)
The 5-Series sold 45,915 - 40,109. (-12.6%)
AFAIC, the CTS, as good as it is, still does not best BMW comparing either category.
Why is CTS slipping??? Even after all of the incentives????
Hmmm....perhaps that's why they kept GMC....for trucks. So why are there trucks in Chevy? Not too great of a decision for a company that HAD to go bankrupt and then shed as much cost as possible.
You know that has been the basis for my (and many others') criticisms of GM in the past. Remember '62vette was always positive and professional, and he would say that the many divisions helped GM sell to different demographics. But it seems that GM was more enamored of having lots of divisions than of *having good cars!*.
So while the recent changes are a huge step in the right direction, it still puzzles me why you have a Corvette in the pedestrian Chevy, you have big SUVs in Chevy and GMC which are rebadges of each other, but you also have crossover SUVs in Buick, Chevy, AND GMC. Although the divisions have been pared down, they still don't have enough brand identity, with the possible exception of Cadillac.
It's just like how dumb VW was for putting the Phateon in VW instead of Audi.
GMC does have the brand image of "tough trucks for the professionals". so I can understand why they would like to keep it.
As to Chevy offering trucks too, the bulk of the GM dealerships are Chevy and some people do want to keep their vehicles under one brand, for comfort, for dealership access, etc.
I do agree that they still have too many brands, a Cadillac + Chevy approach probably would have worked better than a Cadillac + Buick + Chevy + GMC approach.
But then, GM has done lots of irrational things in its past and keeping more brands keeps the union happy so what should we complain about?
Is there any market evidence that the CTS is actually widely cross-shopped against the E or 5er? I still don't believe it.
The old one, of course not. The new one, certainly, along with the Acura TL, the Lexus GS, and the Infiniti E45. They all fill that "large luxury sport sedan" niche. They aren't supercars or high-end luxury - that's a whole other segment occupied by the 7 series, S class, the larger Cadillacs, Lexus, and so on.
As for them wanting something different, it's like ice cream. Vanilla sells more than any other flavor. Most people buy it because they have to rather than because it's a special treat that they want. When economic times get worse, they buy less vanilla and tend to buy it as a treat rather than a staple. When they are in that mindset, they always go for something that's not vanilla.
I call this the candy shop scenario. The kid who gets $5 a week in allowance will usually blow it on any candy they can get. But if it drops to $1 a week, they carefully make a choice for something that they really desire.
With cars, it's exactly the same. Now that economic times are tough, people will save for a better car that they can own for a longer time rather than just seeing it as a means to get from point A to B. Nobody buys new unless they want to, and used cars are what they buy if the have to have a car. Essentially reversing the consumer and money madness of several years ago. Back then, it was the opposite.
They shop more carefully, kick the tires much more, and are far tighter with their decisions. So anything that is vanilla or a jellybean with no soul is right off of everyone's list - well, other than government and rental fleets that is...
Well, let's see...BMW and Mercedes are shooting for the small car market also with Smart and Mini. The 2008 NYIAS I attended featured a Mini exhibit that was 6 deep at each display. I couldn't get close if I wanted to....yet I easily got into the Malibu which was brand-spankin' new. I did wait on a 15 minute line to get a pix in the ZO-6, however.
Since their best International car is the 'Vette, I can't see it as any other division's car because of the history with Chevy. The Chevies of the past were phenomenal and the 'Vette got you into that heart beat. That's why today's Chevies are so bland. Each '60's nameplate had an exceptional personality that you could not wait to own, starting with the 'Vette.
Not today...Chevy has been destroyed until 2008 with the Malibu....besides the trucks. GMC is a low quality, upscale copy of Chevy trucks. It hasn't changed so far...wake me up when it does.
I don't know if the M, TL, or GS (does the GS sell at all anymore?) are usually shopped against those pricier Germans either. But against the CTS, yeah I can see that.
That vanilla idea at the end IMO is a big reason why Lexus products are virtually invisible in Europe.
That vanilla idea at the end IMO is a big reason why Lexus products are virtually invisible in Europe.
Perhaps it is because even Toyota does not have the same reputation in Europe. Since Europe appears to prize driving quality much more than elsewhere, you have VW/MB/BMW/Audi/etc. which are all higher quality driving cars. Since Toyota is mostly the opposite of that, they aren't as popular. So therefore Lexus is somewhat the same story.
Even Honda should appeal more to Europeans than Toyota, since Honda's usually have more sporting character.
Normal Toyotas seem to sell well enough there (but they don't get our numb Camry or Avalon of course, and even their old Corolla seemed sportier)...I think they do have a quality rep. I think it is a combination of things - first, perhaps greater driving training and/or skill gains greater appreciation for a car that's nice to drive. Secondly, the roads are usually pretty excellent, so cars with less isolating/numbing/soul draining suspensions and other driving inputs can shine. And third, motoring is relatively much more expensive, so if someone is going to spend a fortune on a car and running it, they might want to enjoy the experience a little more. All of this is my anecdotal opinion, of course.
It's funny that in Europe a Honda Fit/Jazz is very much a senior citizen's car and not the hip little runabout it is here.
>Honda Fit/Jazz is very much a senior citizen's car
That's true here. A neighbor down the road has a bright red Fit purchased not too long after they came out. Their other cars I've spotted in the garage are a Corvette, several years old, and a mid-eighties Buick Regal, original and not perfect condition.
Around here I will see an oldster in an Accord now and then, but not much else from Honda...however the west coast Olds/Buick crowd seems to be pretty happy in their respective Camrys and Avalons today.
Did you ever see that unintentionally funny commercial for the IS with the young person driving it very aggressively with the wild look on his face? In reality, that would be some aging boomer experiencing a massive heart attack as his Lexus has a SUA incident and the golf clubs in the back seat are flying around! :P
Well, the IS is probably the only Lexus that can be driven with any spirit, so they weren't too far off. There is the IS-F model too, although they are as common around here as Lamborghinis. What you describe sounds very close to the average ES or LS driver. All of those are made in Japan, so they should be safe, and they rarely encounter acceleration, intended or otherwise.
This is a demographic Lexus stole from Buick and/or Olds. Will it be won back? :shades:
I find it funny what is seen as sporty and cool here is seen as something for the blue-hair brigade across the pond. I also remember Car or Top Gear magazine said the LS is something to be driven in rather than drive. And on that note, on reading my latest copy of Top Gear, I noticed they didn't really trash the CTS and STS...but are displeased about the engine choices.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has begun two investigations into reports of problems with power steering and unintended acceleration in some General Motors automobiles with front-wheel drive.
".....Well, let's see...BMW and Mercedes are shooting for the small car market also with Smart and Mini. The 2008 NYIAS I attended featured a Mini exhibit that was 6 deep at each display. I couldn't get close if I wanted to....yet I easily got into the Malibu which was brand-spankin' new. "
And now that the novelty has worn off, despite their low price, sales of the Mini and Smart are in the tank. Smart sales were off 85%, leading only Saturn and Pontiac, 2 cars that aren't even manufactured anymore.
The SMART and the MINI aren't really comparable. The MINI is a real car and the smart is just well not.
MINI's sales had been on a tear for the past few years. They were going up through most of 2008 while most other makes were falling. Be kind of hard for them to continue to go up in 2009 while the carpacolypse was going on and they had had such a good 2008.
I've seen a few discussions about the use of the traditional bowtie badge on Chevy vehicles and wanted to lend my take.
In my opinion, the logo is too closely tied to the brand to be radically changed, however, I do believe that the brand has been so tarnished by past perception issues and lackluster quality of components, that the powers that be at GM need to strongly consider a slight modification to the familiar chevron badge in order to send a signal of the "new" attitude at Chevy.
This new attitude should be all about over delivering on quality, value, safety and fuel efficiency.
To that end, the very simple thing that needs to happen with the badge is that the gold inlay should be immediately discontinued in favor of stainless steel monochrome look and slightly smaller in size (similar to the Opel badge).
This would preserve the bowtie emblem, while updating it for the new "precision" approach to making Chevrolet automobiles.
In my opinion, the gold chevy bowtie is holding the brand back (from a perception standpoint) just as stridently as steller vehicles like the Malibu and Equinox are pushing it forward (from a reality standpoint).
In light of the news that the government did indeed push/pressure Toyota to do more, your "Glenn Beck. Right." condescending remarks to my post I'll take as a compliment.
It's being openly talked about on CNBC and on other networks whether the government has a conflict of interest in its ownership of GM and how it is treating Toyota. Transportation secretary Ray LaHood's remarks helped crash Toyota stock even futher today.
n light of the news that the government did indeed push/pressure Toyota to do more, your "Glenn Beck. Right." condescending remarks to my post I'll take as a compliment.
The gov't was pushing Toyota to do something not more. They were basically ignoring the issue and the NHTSA did everything but issue a mandatory recall which as we have talked about before is very rare.
Don't we have a separate sub-board for conspiracy theories?
Well, I am VERY critical on GM and as for Toyota, they DID NOT handle this recall well. I am very disappointed in how long it took to admit the problem wasn't related to floor mats, then the time it took to establish a root cause and now it seems there might be additional issues besides the friction issue.
At least they stopped production. I'll give them that. As for GM going for the kill with incentives, all's fair in business but it looks very bad from a moral POV considering this company used taxpayer money to fund a complete business failure of it's own.
I'm sure we will see future recalls like I pointed out from GM....but we might have to go to the U.S. D.O.T. for compensation! :surprise:
Comments
Can someone stop the world(?); I want to get off.
A speeding ticket at 85??? Get your Mom back on the road immediately!!!
She should be rewarded, not punished for that. Most 80+ I see on the road are driving way too slow and impeding traffic and thereby causing accidents. She should get a bonus for being able to drive that fast safely (after all, a ticket isn't an accident, it's just some bozo officer deciding to make revenue for the State on a particular day - probably a nice sunny warm day).
Tell her to go to traffic school to erase the ticket and her insurance won't go up either.
Sorry GM fans, now she's getting hauled around by a Lincoln Continental at the living center she moved to.
Someone should do a study to see how Corvette & Camaro sales plummet in States that enact and legalize Unconstitutional photo radar enforcement for GM.
1. Price the enclave is cheaper then the XC90 and if you already have a GM vehicle there are apparently some very solid loyalty offers.
2. Styling the Enclave isn't a bad looking vehicle at all. Looks much better in person then pictures.
3. The XC90 is long in the tooth and a couple of years past needing a redesign already.
I haven't driven he Enclave but from what people tell me it drives pretty good. One couple had one as a rental after their old van got totaled and they were between a XC90 and the Enclave for a replacement and they bought the Enclave.
LOL, I still think it is one of the more handsome utes out there and I love the ergonomics (It is a Volvo...) and the seats are some of the best. Only thing I've been told to stay away from was the T-6 because the automatic trannies are garbage. Did they change those out yet?
Are these folks cross shopping the 3.2 or the V8 in the XC90 to the Enclave?
2. Styling the Enclave isn't a bad looking vehicle at all. Looks much better in person then pictures.
I've seen the Enclave and have to agree.
3. The XC90 is long in the tooth and a couple of years past needing a redesign already.
Probably true.
My wife likes the XC90, though we don't have a need for 3 rows of seats anymore. Depending upon the budget (and whether we need an SUV), we may look at an XC60 when the VUE needs to be replaced - which, I hope, is many, many years down the road.
LOL, I still think it is one of the more handsome utes out there and I love the ergonomics (It is a Volvo...) and the seats are some of the best. Only thing I've been told to stay away from was the T-6 because the automatic trannies are garbage. Did they change those out yet?
Not much of a deal cause there aren't any out there. We only have two XC90s in stock and one of them was sold till the woman switched to... an Enclave.
She had a SAAB and Volvo was giving their regular owner loyalty to SAAB owners but GM gave her a whole lot more. Oh and the lemon lawed her SAAB too which we haven't had happen in a long, long time. I can't remember the last SAAB buy back we have had.
No T6 engines in the XC90 since 2004 or 2005 I forget and yes the trans in those are garbage. They happen to be a GM trans too. They had the only transmission that would fit in a transverse mount behind an engine as long as that twin turbo inline six.
There is a new T6 motor that goes in the S80, XC70 and XC60 but that motor has nothing to do with the old twin turbo T6. So far those new T6 engines have been great with no problems.
Volvo only has 500 dollars back on XC90s right now and another 1000 dollars of loyalty.
re these folks cross shopping the 3.2 or the V8 in the XC90 to the Enclave?
Mostly the 3.2 as the Enclave doesn't have an equivalent trim level to the V8
Well that was a few years ago. BMW's upcoming 3 & 5 Series are incredible performance wise (styling is subjective of course). The upgraded 320Hp 335 coupe will have a 0-60 under 5 seconds while offering 26mpg/hwy. That will be about a second quicker than the new CTS coupe. The new 5 series will be offering a turbocharged 4.4L v8 offering 400hp and 450 ft-lbs of torque. Cadillac doesn't have an engine that can compete. Even the current 300hp turbo 3 liter in a 335 will blow away a 3.6 CTS. Granted you will pay more for a BMW, but I thought we are talking about the standard of the world, and in that regard Cadillac still has a long way to go.
I think the CTS is still more than good enough. I really like the styling. The new CTS coupe looks great. But if you don't have the V model, I'd suggest not picking fights with BMWs.
Also, Porsche is developing a new 2011 911. The competition just keeps plugging along improving the product where GM seems to take twice as long to update models. They are competitive when introduced, but within 3 years or so, they are behind again.
Even Lincoln is ahead in the powertrain department. Caddy doesn't anything to compete with Ford's Ecoboost v6. An MKS is a lot quicker than a CTS, same goes with MKX/MKT vs SRX, powertrain wise, the Lincolns have a significant advantage.
Let me know when GM/Caddy beats the 3-series in the compact category....I'll be gone wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy before that happens! Send me a paranormal message from Earth!
Yeah, the Alpha-based Caddy will be announced this year but I'm SURE it will not even come close to 328/335 or even the G37/G25/A-4.
The CTS competes with the 5'er. Period.
Regards,
OW
the CTS is a good starting point. There ought to be a smaller version of it that is less pretentious and more versatile.
May the BEST car win. No room for mere survival.
Regards,
OW
No, but GM has to compete against SOMEBODY in some market. What market does GM excel in such that they can support all their operations and retirees?
Cadillac can survive, quite well actually, if their cars are just not as bloated and superfacial.
Well I don't have the breakdown of what Cadillac contributed to GM over the last 3 decades, but do you think Cadillac was making money and holding it's market-share while GM sales dropped each year, and they lost money most years? Cadillac needs to survive on what they make, not what they draw or wish they built. The guy down the street could play in the NBA if he weren't so bloated and he could shoot.
not sure about "excelling" but GM does a pretty good job with trucks and large SUVs. it is too bad that that market is shrinking.
there is a huge market for lowly priced low quality cars and if GM focuses on it it can be a great business to be in. It supported Toyota / Honda / Nissan on their way up and I am not sure why it wouldn't support GM on its way up.
"Well I don't have the breakdown of what Cadillac contributed to GM over the last 3 decades, but do you think Cadillac was making money and holding it's market-share"
we are all speculating here but I would say that Cadillac is one of the better run divisions within GM. Chevy isn't bad either.
GM's issue is fundamentally a management issue (no products that consumers want to buy) and a cost issue (UAW). Cadillac has consistently put out some reasonably good products since the turn of the century, with its flashy SUVs and CTS, etc.
Unfortunately, the brand has been so tarnished that I don't think BMW / MB buyers would seriously consider a Cadillac now. thus you see the quick and heavy discounting of their vehicles.
I think Cadillac is better served just being comfortable where they are and produce products for the segment they are in: near luxury vehicles, and being a 2nd tier player, for now. Establish their brand image and improve their reputation. Once they fix that, they will be able to move up the chain.
And I still agree. Racing to see who can turn a sedan into a 4 wheel jet fighter isn't necessarily a sane thing to do. There's a reason that Lexus and Acura sell so well. They've (finally figured out that bigger isn't always better.
Don't know how you define "well run". Chevy can be as well run as they want, but if they don't have vehicles that are decent it hardly matters.Compare many key categories and what Chevy (or any part of GM) has in those categories:
- Good quality economy car: FAIL (nothing likea Civic)
- Quality Sporty sedan: FAIL (nothing likea BMW-3 or even TSX or Jetta)
- Small entry level luxury sedan: FAIL (nothing like an A4 or MB-C class)
- Minivan: FAIL (no need to comment)
- Small truck: FAIL
I guess that is well run? Just no good products in too many categories for the biggest car company (almost) in the world. This level of fail is ok for Mazda or Subaru or Mitsubishi (niche brands). Not for such a large manufacturer.
1 - Doing what Hyundai does in undercutting the competition and offering a 5 series/E class competitor for $10-$20K less. (new CTS)
2 - Making retro revival cars. The Camaro is awesome - cheap, fast, and fun to look at and drive.
The thing is, they need to continue doing only this. You'll note that Ford as well as Hyundai already have this figured out. If you can't BEAT the competition, then make a similar car for less, or make something so unique that it has no competition.(the Mustang for Ford, for example, comes to mind)
if you read what I wrote, I said Cadillac is one of the *BETTER* run divisions.
a *BETTER* run division can still be run terribly. it is a relative measure within the GM family. I never said that either unit is *WELL* run; just that they are *BETTER* run.
let's make that clear before we go any further.
"- Good quality economy car: FAIL (nothing likea Civic)
- Quality Sporty sedan: FAIL (nothing likea BMW-3 or even TSX or Jetta)
- Small entry level luxury sedan: FAIL (nothing like an A4 or MB-C class)
- Minivan: FAIL (no need to comment)
- Small truck: FAIL"
everyone of them is true. But since we were talking about BMW, let me list their "failures" in the spirit of this discussion:
- Good affordable quality economy car: FAIL (nothing likea Civic)
- Quality affordable Sporty sedan: FAIL (nothing likea Miata or even TSX or Jetta)
- Midsize affordable family sedan: FAIL (nothing like an Malibu or Camry class)
- Minivan: FAIL (no need to comment)
- Small truck: FAIL
- Medium truck: FAIL
- Full size truck: FAIL
- Full market coverage: FAIL
- Large displacement affordable sports cars: FAIL
- Vehicles to haul my work gears: FAIL
- Class 6/7/8 trucks: FAIL
.....
the point is that every manufacturer / brand has a niche and they play within that niche to maximize their competitive advantage.
that means Chevy doesn't need to be BMW and BMW doesn't need to be Chevy. It is downright stupid to insist that one brand is a failure just because it doesn't offer products that another brand does.
agreed. they need to provide a reason why people should consider their vehicles because their revival is even a possibility.
It's not about need. Who needs a Cadillac or a BMW? Nobody. It's about what people want.
the CTS seems to be somewhere in between the 3 and 5, or C and E/S. it is smaller than a 5/E but bigger than a 3/C.
so I am not sure if an average 5/E buyer would seriously cross-shop a CTS. To me, a Cadillac buyer will like come from an upgrade from a traditionally domestic buyer, rather than import buyer. aka a Malibu buyer may buy a Cadillac, but a Honda buyer is less likely to buy a CTS.
The CTS may have physical dimensions much closer to an E/5er than a C/3er, but I just don't see it as really competing with the former, and the previous CTS certainly didn't compete with the former. I am not trying to knock the current CTS as it is a nice car and light years ahead of the original, I just think it has somewhat of an undetermined market position.
that means Chevy doesn't need to be BMW and BMW doesn't need to be Chevy. It is downright stupid to insist that one brand is a failure just because it doesn't offer products that another brand does.
Agreed, and I was not trying to argue, just comment on how well/not well Chevy is run. The problem is that in your comparison, BMW is a niche brand. Chevy is supposed to be the pedestrian mainstream brand of the largest car company in the world. So while they might not have a competitor to the 3-series, they SHOULD have competitive offerings in small car, small truck, minivan, entry level sporty car, etc. VW has the Jetta and they are not a high end brand. Mazda has the Miata and they are not a high end brand. Chevy, in their defined niche, is missing competitive vehicles in too many areas.
Agree also that Caddy is the best run GM division. Any others, well, they still have a long way to go.
Well if the auto engineers got off their behinds and built some flying cars, maybe we could use 400+ hp more frequently. I would also like a force-field to protect against things like hitting deer.
Hmmm....perhaps that's why they kept GMC....for trucks. So why are there trucks in Chevy? Not too great of a decision for a company that HAD to go bankrupt and then shed as much cost as possible.
As far as comapring BMW, that would be directly at Caddy. The 3'er can't be touched by any Caddy in refinement, performance and desirability. Same goes for the 5'er.
Looking at sales data, 2008 - 2009 saw CTS sales fall from 58,774 - 38,817. (-34%)
The 3-Series sold 112,468 in 2008 and dropped to 90,960. (-19.1%)
The 5-Series sold 45,915 - 40,109. (-12.6%)
AFAIC, the CTS, as good as it is, still does not best BMW comparing either category.
Why is CTS slipping??? Even after all of the incentives????
May the Best Car Win.
Regards,
OW
You know that has been the basis for my (and many others') criticisms of GM in the past. Remember '62vette was always positive and professional, and he would say that the many divisions helped GM sell to different demographics. But it seems that GM was more enamored of having lots of divisions than of *having good cars!*.
So while the recent changes are a huge step in the right direction, it still puzzles me why you have a Corvette in the pedestrian Chevy, you have big SUVs in Chevy and GMC which are rebadges of each other, but you also have crossover SUVs in Buick, Chevy, AND GMC. Although the divisions have been pared down, they still don't have enough brand identity, with the possible exception of Cadillac.
It's just like how dumb VW was for putting the Phateon in VW instead of Audi.
As to Chevy offering trucks too, the bulk of the GM dealerships are Chevy and some people do want to keep their vehicles under one brand, for comfort, for dealership access, etc.
I do agree that they still have too many brands, a Cadillac + Chevy approach probably would have worked better than a Cadillac + Buick + Chevy + GMC approach.
But then, GM has done lots of irrational things in its past and keeping more brands keeps the union happy so what should we complain about?
The old one, of course not. The new one, certainly, along with the Acura TL, the Lexus GS, and the Infiniti E45. They all fill that "large luxury sport sedan" niche. They aren't supercars or high-end luxury - that's a whole other segment occupied by the 7 series, S class, the larger Cadillacs, Lexus, and so on.
As for them wanting something different, it's like ice cream. Vanilla sells more than any other flavor. Most people buy it because they have to rather than because it's a special treat that they want. When economic times get worse, they buy less vanilla and tend to buy it as a treat rather than a staple. When they are in that mindset, they always go for something that's not vanilla.
I call this the candy shop scenario. The kid who gets $5 a week in allowance will usually blow it on any candy they can get. But if it drops to $1 a week, they carefully make a choice for something that they really desire.
With cars, it's exactly the same. Now that economic times are tough, people will save for a better car that they can own for a longer time rather than just seeing it as a means to get from point A to B. Nobody buys new unless they want to, and used cars are what they buy if the have to have a car. Essentially reversing the consumer and money madness of several years ago. Back then, it was the opposite.
They shop more carefully, kick the tires much more, and are far tighter with their decisions. So anything that is vanilla or a jellybean with no soul is right off of everyone's list - well, other than government and rental fleets that is...
Since their best International car is the 'Vette, I can't see it as any other division's car because of the history with Chevy. The Chevies of the past were phenomenal and the 'Vette got you into that heart beat. That's why today's Chevies are so bland. Each '60's nameplate had an exceptional personality that you could not wait to own, starting with the 'Vette.
Not today...Chevy has been destroyed until 2008 with the Malibu....besides the trucks. GMC is a low quality, upscale copy of Chevy trucks. It hasn't changed so far...wake me up when it does.
Regards,
OW
That vanilla idea at the end IMO is a big reason why Lexus products are virtually invisible in Europe.
Perhaps it is because even Toyota does not have the same reputation in Europe. Since Europe appears to prize driving quality much more than elsewhere, you have VW/MB/BMW/Audi/etc. which are all higher quality driving cars. Since Toyota is mostly the opposite of that, they aren't as popular. So therefore Lexus is somewhat the same story.
Even Honda should appeal more to Europeans than Toyota, since Honda's usually have more sporting character.
It's funny that in Europe a Honda Fit/Jazz is very much a senior citizen's car and not the hip little runabout it is here.
That's true here. A neighbor down the road has a bright red Fit purchased not too long after they came out. Their other cars I've spotted in the garage are a Corvette, several years old, and a mid-eighties Buick Regal, original and not perfect condition.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This is a demographic Lexus stole from Buick and/or Olds. Will it be won back? :shades:
I find it funny what is seen as sporty and cool here is seen as something for the blue-hair brigade across the pond. I also remember Car or Top Gear magazine said the LS is something to be driven in rather than drive. And on that note, on reading my latest copy of Top Gear, I noticed they didn't really trash the CTS and STS...but are displeased about the engine choices.
Wonder what ever came of those UIA cases with the 3800? Did GM just shove it under a rug?
link title
No mention of the event. Must have been dismissed ?
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has begun two investigations into reports of problems with power steering and unintended acceleration in some General Motors automobiles with front-wheel drive.
And now that the novelty has worn off, despite their low price, sales of the Mini and Smart are in the tank. Smart sales were off 85%, leading only Saturn and Pontiac, 2 cars that aren't even manufactured anymore.
MINI's sales had been on a tear for the past few years. They were going up through most of 2008 while most other makes were falling. Be kind of hard for them to continue to go up in 2009 while the carpacolypse was going on and they had had such a good 2008.
In my opinion, the logo is too closely tied to the brand to be radically changed, however, I do believe that the brand has been so tarnished by past perception issues and lackluster quality of components, that the powers that be at GM need to strongly consider a slight modification to the familiar chevron badge in order to send a signal of the "new" attitude at Chevy.
This new attitude should be all about over delivering on quality, value, safety and fuel efficiency.
To that end, the very simple thing that needs to happen with the badge is that the gold inlay should be immediately discontinued in favor of stainless steel monochrome look and slightly smaller in size (similar to the Opel badge).
This would preserve the bowtie emblem, while updating it for the new "precision" approach to making Chevrolet automobiles.
In my opinion, the gold chevy bowtie is holding the brand back (from a perception standpoint) just as stridently as steller vehicles like the Malibu and Equinox are pushing it forward (from a reality standpoint).
In light of the news that the government did indeed push/pressure Toyota to do more, your "Glenn Beck. Right." condescending remarks to my post I'll take as a compliment.
It's being openly talked about on CNBC and on other networks whether the government has a conflict of interest in its ownership of GM and how it is treating Toyota. Transportation secretary Ray LaHood's remarks helped crash Toyota stock even futher today.
The gov't was pushing Toyota to do something not more. They were basically ignoring the issue and the NHTSA did everything but issue a mandatory recall which as we have talked about before is very rare.
Don't we have a separate sub-board for conspiracy theories?
At least they stopped production. I'll give them that. As for GM going for the kill with incentives, all's fair in business but it looks very bad from a moral POV considering this company used taxpayer money to fund a complete business failure of it's own.
I'm sure we will see future recalls like I pointed out from GM....but we might have to go to the U.S. D.O.T. for compensation! :surprise:
Regards,
OW