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
The biggest thing GM hasn't accomplished since its federal bailout, however, is the most important: selling as many vehicles as it wants. Its share of the U.S. market declined to 18.7 percent during the first four months of this year compared with 19.1 percent in the same period last year, despite a sales rise of 14 percent.
It matters to GM!
Regards,
OW
Some are automated, some are not - but every important component and detail is gone over and checked by a person. It's perhaps the most fastidious plant in the world other than Ferrari. In some cases like this, you really do get what you pay for
Blasphemy!
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/spied/10q2/2012_buick_regal_wagon-spied
Part of that reason is that the new TL is UGLY! The LaCrosse is a much nicer looking car. And I have an 05 TL!
The union has 17.5% interest in Government Motors right now? That's alot higher than I thought.
So the government has 61%. the unions have 17 so really GM only owns less than 22% of it's own company?
Oh ya, they're doing wonderful... :sick:
Company never owns itself, shareholders or individual owners do. But I gather you meant to say that 22% of shareholders are other parties. That was one of the problem of the bancrupcy procedure they went through. The rightful debt owners were bullied by the Mr. G and the unions. Not to mention, the stock was (and still is) trading, which is a travesty of a mockery or a sham. In lawful Chapter 11 (reorganization) bancrupcy you have existing shareholder's equity wiped out (rendered worthless), then the debt owners settle the debt by exchanging it into new shares proportionally to seniority. Government takes its cut first of course, but only to extent of taxes, then the senior loans.
All those procedures were violated during the process - and the courts were too chicken to go against the bullying for one reason or another. How in the world anybody could hope for a healthy company if its inception is pretty much unlawful. :sick:
BTW, the unions want out already (i.e. they want to sell the equity they stole from the bondholders). So much for the "new way" and "partnership". :sick:
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Otherwise, forget GM!
Regards,
OW
All these folks who want to complain about the government owning 61% of GM currently probably would have liked it better with the government retirement fund paying out $50 billion a year to cover the retirements guaranteed for all the workers with GM total final bankruptcy. Plus there would have been lots more failures in the domino effect as GM folded.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You keep hoping for that.
Plus, the ES350 is more money then the LaCrosse, so just by pure economics, more people can afford the LaCrosse then they can the ES350. Plus, GM has been giving very good incentives on the LaCrosse where as I don't think Lexus has for the ES, at least not as much as GM does!
The problem is that everything is getting so damn big. Where is the car that is the old TSX size? I guess they don't think anybody would want a premium sporty smaller sedan (like the BMW 1 series, but cheaper). :mad:
Huh??? There is only a $1000 owner loyalty or conquest on the Lacrosse. Nothing else. But it is less expensive. Just a better value all around.
That's what is a problem for Buick. The similarly equipped Regal is $28,850 before delivery. Less than $600 separates the two. 146HP more for $600 is a no-brainer. One is a glorified commuter car and the other is properly entry-level luxury.
And if you add in BMW, Acura, and Lexus, it's an utter defeat as they all offer something for right around $30K that is better than what GM is offering. But the real nail in the coffin will be the G25 that Infiniti is coming out with. It will have roughly 210hp and compete directly with the Regal and the rest. Well, sort of. When the ads start showing it for $26K for the base model, it's going to blow a hole in Buick's side like a destroyer doing target practice.
Problem is, the 4G TL is far from being a 5-Series, E-Class, or M so Acura better get cracking on the 5G TL and really make a home run if they plan on moving it up market into the luxury sedan territory to compete with the 5, E, M, and GS! I suppose if this is the case, the next redesigned RL is going to become a Premium luxury flagship sedan to compete with the 7-Series, S-Class, LS, and A8! Thats a mighty high challenge for them!
I guess the 3G TSX will then get bigger to enter the entry-level luxury sedan market that the current and 3G TL filled to compete with the 330i, C350, Regal GS, and G37! I guess then if Acura is indeed moving their current sedans upmarket, that they'll have to introduce down the road, a new bottom entry level model to compete with the IS250, G25, Regal, 328i, and C300!
What else is new? Hyundai is just the latest to have improved it's products past the quality of GM and for a far better price.
New marketing slogan from GM: "Damn the torpedoes, FULL SPEED AHEAD!" (since we always can get another bailout loan, He,He,He!!!)
Regards,
OW
In comparison, the TSX jumped from 91 cubic feet to 95 cubic feet of interior volume, with the latest redesign. Trunk stayed the same though, at 13 cubic feet.
To keep on topic, when will GM put out a smaller, sporty, premium sedan? The market is plenty big enough. There is the Jetta, the TSX, the BMW 1-series, the C300. That's one reason I have not much interest in GM - they have (and have never had) any credible offerings in this segment.
LOL, from of all the places it could come from, Buick....
The other problem for GM is that you can get a similarly decked-out Malibu with the CTS 3.6 VVT engine in it for about $25K after incentives. Putting a 4 cylinder car in anything over 20K is dubious in the U.S. market. Even Mercedes and Audi don't sell the 4 cylinder versions very well. Everyone pays the extra for the V6 anyways and the 4 cylinder models rot on the lots.
Hold on. The GS is supposed to be AWD only. THAT'S where I used the G37x as an example. Rumor has it, but no hard facts yet, that the GS may get the 325 hp 2.8 turbo as well. A base 328 lists for $33,150 which will still be more than the Regal w/ the 2.0 turbo
Now your talking, doubt that will happen though. With 250+hp and 280ft-lbs or so torque output, it should perform well. Looks like an interesting car regardless.
Eventually it will be a 3.0, 3.1 and then 3.4? They skipped over the 2.6? :P
But the one I can buy today is front wheel drive and has a wimpy little 4 in it and costs 28K equipped like the competition. It doesn't even register as a blip on my radar after driving both the G37 and the Regal. (shoot, a 2007 CTS rips the Regal to shreds and you can get one certified for about 18K if you shop around.)
No kidding, around here you can get a low mileage 08 G35 for under $25k, found a jet black one with decent amount of equipment with with 18k miles on it. Asking price is $25k, probably could get a few more Gs off. No way would I pay $30k for a new car with over 100 less HP and 1/2 the prestige. Sure, I think the Regal looks nice, but I'd wait until you can get them used for a nice discount.
I'm already seeing used '10 LaCrosse's around here. 18 used 2010 LaCrosses within 50 miles of me and I basically live in the sticks. Ironically 0 2010 ES350's have turned up within 50 miles of me. I even entered 2008-2010 used ES350 in autotrader within 50 miles of my zip and only 8 turned up. I don't think the '10 LaCrosse has sold more than 2 1/2 years worth of ES350's. But maybe in central Illinois they have.
There is a new "baby" Buick slated for the 2012 model year. It will a Chevy Cruze size compact - not much smaller than the Regal in terms of interior volume but significantly smaller in exterior dimensions.. The "baby" Buick will be a large compact (oxymoron alert!) while the Regal is a small mid-size.
To pay off its shareholders, including the government, a United Auto Workers union health care trust and its old bondholders, the stock market would have to value GM at more than $70 billion. That would be almost double Ford Motor Co.'s market value of roughly $40 billion, but far less than the total value of Toyota's shares of about $120 billion.
link title
Hmmm... :lemon:
Regards,
OW
Give me one logical reason why not? Other than one sample being magazine subcribers and the other non-magazine subscribers, I see no differences in the population that correlate to that.
I think you allude to this in the other parts of your post. I for one, own a vehicle which CR doesn't rate very highly in terms of reliability, but I do not believe CR to be biased, they just report the truth of what happens in real life. Maybe I've just been lucky.
Give me one logical reason why not? Other than one sample being magazine subcribers and the other non-magazine subscribers, I see no differences in the population that correlate to that.
I think you allude to this in the other parts of your post. I for one, own a vehicle which CR doesn't rate very highly in terms of reliability, but I do not believe CR to be biased, they just report the truth of what happens in real life. Maybe I've just been lucky.
Well, here I am to defend the fact that CR readers are not fully representative! And I actually believe CR's surveys to be much more accurate than not!
I think I remember reading somewhere that CR readers are on average, more educated, more liberal, more conservation-oriented than the average US citizen.
If I had to guess, I would say that they are more the NPR/Democrat type. It would be interesting to see their demographics. I'd also be willing to bet that they own foreign makes in much higher proportion than the general population.
But the fact is that they STILL have GM owners, they STILL have Land Rover owners (two brands showing worse reliability than most makes). And those owners still have good and bad experiences.
So it really doesn't matter if the demographic is unbalanced. The real issue is: do GM owners who submit CR surveys rank their GM cars worse than the average GM owner? Do the Toyota owners who submit CR surveys rank their Toyotas better than the average Toyota owners? Etc.?
I don't see any reason to believe that there would be a bias for any make vs. the non-CR readers who also own those makes. This is not a vote of "how many people own brand X?". This is a survey of "how has your brand X car or truck been from a reliability viewpoint?". And why would their demographic bias those results?
I've certainly never used CU as my only source to determine if I'm going to buy a particular vehicle or not. I have had cars that were unreliable that I've loved and cars the were 100% reliable that I've hated.
Because the S-Class is known for having Chrysler like infected reliability, which is to say none. A LS460 might outlive you.
The answer is that the demographic does NOT bias the results, and the information gained by CR is very accurate and very applicable to the population as a whole. The fact you have to spend a stamp to send in your survey might eliminate some who've had a decent/average/mediocre experiences, but I don't think 44 cents will deter someone who's had a PERFECT STELLAR vehicular experience, nor one who's had a miserably HORRIBLE vehicular experience.
Agreed. But is there any logical reason to believe that the CR subscribers who fill out the survey and put a stamp on and return it would answer differently than the population as a whole? I don't see any reason to think that the responding population would have different experiences with their cars than the population as a whole.
but their data can be interesting and useful even without being statistically valid.
That similarly decked out V6 Malibu is hard to find. Maybe 1 in 30 is built that way. Over 95% of the people are buying 4 cyls and maybe a third of them go off the lot for under $20k. If Buick didn't offer a turbo 4 cyl alternative to the V6 in the 2011 Regal they'd be complained about. Obama just announced more stringent future fuel economy standards again. Damned if you do.. Damned if you don't.
I understand that CR data is not a PERFECT random statistical sample of the population as a whole (of car owners). However, I've heard no logical reasonable argument as to why the slight imperfections would cause any significant loss of statistical validity or applicability.
It like taking a survey of who prefers McDonald's to Burger King. If a Republican magazine took a survey, is there any logical reasonable reason to believe the Democratic magazine doing the same survey would turn out any different? Would Republicans like McDonald's anymore or less than Democrats? I haven't heard any reason a magazine subscriber base (or not being one) is relevant to the survey questions at hand.
Easy to criticize someone-- It`s not perfect but as close as it gets to reality.Maybe the "Elias" reliability surveys will have more statistical validity,accuracy,precision and sampling .