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
I like the car alot, but only for its features. Certainly not for its quality and performance. A lot of features for the money.
I think it's mainly I think your nuts if you think the auto bailouts were a good idea. People who think it was a good idea are extremely short sighted and illogical. The bailouts with our taxpayer money made no sense whatsoever.
I don't have a problem with people driving American cars, but I do have a problem with those people expecting me to subsidize failed companies and failed vehicles.
Malibu was out before the bankruptcy.
The BK has eliminated some brands that were not selling well enough. Malibu would have been bought by someone and continued on.
"a buck or two": Let's see, $60 billion to GM, divided by 300 million people in the US is $200 per person, times an average family size of 4 is $800 per family. Not a buck or two.
"We believe the Cruze can redefine the expectations for compact-car owners and shoppers who are new to the segment," said Jim Campbell, U.S. Vice President of Chevrolet Marketing. "For the price of a compact car, Cruze offers the styling, safety features, roominess, amenities, and refinement of a much more expensive car."
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/06/03/481103.html
Does it have leaf springs and drum brakes, too? :P
The Corvette does,,,,
I personally hate it, the Vette feels squirrelly and unplanted and any sort of road impercfections make the back end feels like it's clopping down the road. Plus, I've read that because of the design, if you clip something significant during lateral motion, the wheel can actually load itself up enough to flip the car :surprise:
Is it really that big of a deal? The new Ford Fiesta is using a twist beam rear suspension too and I've read nothing but goodt things about how it drives. As long as it's tuned properly, most won't care. I had a VW Jetta a while back with a twist bear rear axle and the ride/handling trade off was better than most comparable small cars at the time, heck it was better than many larger cars too.
Rear disk brakes are overrated for a compact fwd car. When you have over 60% of the weight on the front axle and the front brakes will be doing 70% of the braking, I doubt you gain very much with rear disk unless you plan on doing repeated high speed stops. I believe the Fiesta has rear drums too. I've had vehicles with rear drum brakes that performed great and I've had 4 wheel disk vehicles that had horrible braking performance. Bottom line, as long as it works well, it will be fine.
I never noticed the rear suspension miss behave in my '00 Jetta and I had a '98 Ford SVT Contour previously that was one of the best handling FWD vehicles back then. That car was a hoot to drive fast. But I didn't buy the Jetta for "on rails" like handling either. At the time I was driving 30-40k miles per year and I wanted the diesel's 50mpg hwy fuel economy.
So it really comes down to what you want and expect. I'm not going to expect a Cruze or Fiesta to drive like a refined sports car/sedan. If the rear suspension has the right spring rates and dampening, it should be fine for those who will buy it.
I'm still not happy with the % of GM and Chrysler fleet sales per month. The GM fanboys love to quote these sales figures against the Korean and Japanese competition yet how much of those Malibu, Impala, etc sales were to fleet? No way to know.
Yes, I know Hyundai and the Japanese have fleet sales as well but still no where near the % that GM, Chrysler, and Ford do!
In fact, this new Maxima is extremely comfortable, even when the road becomes less than ideal! The Maxima also handled better than the 2010 Accord I test drove. The only place the Accord still beats the Maxima, but only by a very slim margin now, is with the new interior. The Maxima has a very nice, high quality interior, but the fit/finish in a couple of places is just not up to Honda Accord standards yet. But the sporty/aggressive body style of the new Maxima just kills the ugly/boring bloated look of the Accord!
Performance wise, the Accord is nothing special anymore. It's a competent, solid, and well performing car except for the brakes, they suck (in stopping power and durability).
My dad has an 09 Accord EX-L v6 and my brother now has a 2010 Fusion Sport with the 3.5v6. I prefer the Fusion Sport. It's quicker, much quieter, and overall Ford has done a better job (IMO) of hiding the cost cutting. What blew me away the most was how quiet the Fusion is. The Accord sounds like it has zero sound insulation by comparison. You can constantly hear road noise all of the time and my bother's Fusion had more aggressive rubber.
Plus my dad has already gone through a set of rear brakes on the Accord at 30k miles (that includes two 2k mile round trips to Florida from Indiana). What's up with that? I don't think I've ever replaced a set of rear brakes on any car, I've ever owned. My dad's previous car was a '00 Taurus. Over the same type of driving he replaced the rear brakes once over 180k miles.
I've had to replace rear brakes, but I've NEVER had them wear out faster than the front brakes! Probably the most brake-hungry car I ever had was my 1968 Dodge Dart with its mildly beefed-up 318. It usually went through the front shoes every 10-15K miles, while the rears usually lasted more like 15-20K.
My 2000 Dodge Intrepid needed new front brake pads at 39000 miles, and new rears at 51000. And that was back when I delivered pizzas part time, so those were also some pretty rough miles! Oddly though, even though I gave up delivery driving, subsequent brakes didn't seem to last any longer. I had to replace the rear pads again around 102,000. And the fronts had to be done again at around 69K, 99K, and 130K. I was budgeting for new rear brakes again around 152-153000 miles, but the car got totaled just north of 150,000, so I didn't have to worry about it. :sick:
My buddy with the 2006 Xterra just had his front pads replaced for the first time at 60,000 miles. I was impressed they lasted that long, with it being a fairly heavy, powerful vehicle. Plus, he tends to wait until the last second and then stop quickly, rather than gradually. Scares the hell out of me sometimes! Nissan must be doing something right. Actually, now that I think about it, he hasn't had one thing go wrong on that Xterra yet. He's overpaid in maintenance IMO, because he takes it to the dealer for service and has everything done that they recommend. But, nothing's broken on it yet!
My 01 Nissan Pathfinder LE was tough as nails. Brakes were never a problem I know the Titan/Armada had brake issues, but I believe that was due to rotors warping. Overall, I think my Pathfinder was the best built vehicle I've owned. It could take a serious beating and not break a sweat.
Both my wife's 07 GP and my 07 Expedition are pushing 70k miles and both are still on the original brakes. I will have to get tires by winter and I will have the front brakes pads replaced regardless of condition then (of course I'll check the rear brakes too).
Now that I think about it, my Mom and stepdad's /99 Altima must have close to 330,000 miles on it. At first, I thought that car was going to be a piece of junk, because its transmission went out around 35,000 miles. But, other than that I don't think it's needed anything other than regular maintenance type stuff. And by this time, tranny #2 has more than made up for tranny #1.
I don't know if my Park Ave is on its original brakes or not. I had it in the shop a month or so ago to get a few things done (supercharger oil, regular oil, and fix a broken swaybar link), and they checked the brakes and other stuff while it was in there, and just said they looked "good". That was at 59,000 miles. Hopefully I won't have to worry about 'em for awhile.
As a customer, that line won't be bought. As a domestic auto executive, I can see trying to sell that line all day long. I don't want drum brakes on any car I buy. For goodness sakes, my Neon SPORT model from 1994 had 4 wheel disk brakes.
world (CTS-V) and the best sports car for the money (Corvette and Z variants)
I think I'd rather have a brand new Audi S4 or BMW M3 over the CTS-V.
I'll take a Nissan GTR over the Corvette (if Nissan will start honoring their warranties on the tranny rather then acting in bad faith).
I for one, am one American who has just strengthened and hardened my resolve to continue a lifetime ban of Chrysler and GM due to the bailouts. It just strengthened and renewed my position.
However, the bailouts had the unusual and unexpected effect of putting Ford on my radar screen. I will "consider" Ford when making future new or used vehicle purchases. They will still have a "trust & quality" gap with the foriegn competition, but they will be considered. The other 2 domestic SHAMS and SCAMS of companies only kept alive with tax payer funds will receive no consideration.
Well, the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, Chevy Aveo, Ford Fiesta, and Focus ALL have rear drum brakes. I don't know of any car in that category with rear disk brakes.
I understand what your saying about disk brakes being superior, but rear disks really aren't needed on a 2500lb car that is not performance oriented. The Fiesta takes 170 ft stop from 70mph with rear drums. A 2010 Mazda 3 with 4 wheels disk brakes stops from 70mph in 168 feet (according to car and driver). Hardly a huge difference. What's important is whether or not the brakes are sized appropriately for the weight of the vehicle.
BTW, 2004 Neon SRT-4 70-0 braking was 169 feet according to C&D. Harldy better than a lowly Fiesta with rear drums. Now I would expect the Neon to have better pedal feel and better braking performance on the track, but these economy cars will never see track duty.
True, without the bailouts I doubt there'd be many Malibu's still on the road as most would be in the junkyards by now.
I have driven 3 S4s - my likely next car.
I have driven a CTS-v.
[ the sales rep. 'insisted'... ]
I would much prefer to drive the CTS-v.
- Ray
Seduced by
[ great steaming piles of ]
TQ....
I wish we had bailed neither GM nor AIG. Personally we should have required breakup of the banks as a condition for the bailouts.
Banks, companies, governments, etc, all require a means to borrow money and manage risks, without financial markets and institutions, we wouldn't have an economy worth saving. Many business borrow short term to make payroll and buy inventory etc. No credit market, no pay, no job, anywhere.
While financial institutions were certainly at fault, the guy making $50k a year who signed a $500k mortgage and thought it was a good idea to allow the broker to pad his/her income numbers to qualify for the loan has to share some of the blame too. It's to easy to blame some else. No one company, politician, political party, or person is blame.
Have you ever bought anything you didn't have the cash for? If so, you need a bank. How many cars would you sell if you couldn't find a place to loan money to your customers? We need banks!
No they don't, but I've been happier with my Ford's vs. GM. I don't stick to any one manufacturer. I'd prefer to buy domestic, but I'm not going to buy something I don't care for to do so. Currently I have an 07 Expedition that I replaced a '00 Suburban with. I'm much happier now, but of course that could change at any time. I've already been bitten by Ford's 5.4 spark plug debacle.
I certainly understand your frustration. Nobody should be giving you BS about what GM has gone through.
But, the difference to me between GM and BOA is that GM was on the path to bankruptcy for a long time. I'm 90% positive GM would have had to reorganize under bankruptcy protection even if the financial crisis would not have happened. I don't think the government would have bailed them out either w/o the crisis.
The markets would have handled it and GM may or may not be around and it wouldn't bother me either way. If some bank or investment group recognized value within GM's assets, they would have financed the reorganization, if not they would be gone. If the banks shouldn't be allowed to be to big to fail, than neither should GM.
Well even though it's a pain, I'm beginning the process of moving my accounts OUT of one of the bailed out banks to a Charles Schwab checking account. Interest, free checks, and reimbursed ATM charges.
I didn't know Schwab had checking...guess I need to start paying attention! My 401k is with them, as is my rollover IRA from my previous company. The free checks would be nice. I'm with Bank of America now, and I forget how much I pay for checks. I don't write that many these days, with everything being electronic, but still, it's fee I could do without.
One question though...how would you make a deposit with Schwab? I know you can do direct deposit with your paystub, but what if you want to deposit some cash, or a check someone else wrote you?
Why do I have to choose between two evils (the lesser of two evils?)?
Can't I just say that bailing out absolutey no one and nobody would be best?
Bailouts should be outlawed. We could of used all that bailout money towards funding entrepenuers who would make better more successful companies than GM could ever dream of. I know I could out CEO any GM CEO of the past 30 years even with 5 beers in me.
Bailouts reward AND encourage AND motivate bad behavior, poor performance, fraud, deceit, deception, cheats, liars, thieves, beggers, and destructive behaviour.
Not bailing out failures and failed companies and failed people encourages and motivates good behaviour, positive perfromance, honesty, truth, goodwill, and constructive behaviour.
Yes, we need banks, but it doesn't follow that we needed AIG. AIG isn't a bank (or at least wasn't a bank pre-bailouts). Yes, more banks would have failed for making the incompetent decision to buy useless insurance from an insolvent fraudulent company (AIG).
But I could have opened up the Bank of Andres to make up for their poor performance. We don't need the old banks, we need NEW banks that don't require bailouts.
And all of a sudden "You Need to Support Us! No questions asked just be American, will you please!"
Sounds like a winner for a new reality show called "Looser American Automotive Executive's Households". Add some Bankers and you have a nice story that should last for 20 - 30 years on national TV like Wheel of Fortune.
Regards,
OW
As for boycotting GM, I think you can do so if you feel strongly about the bailout, but you only limit your choices and potentially hurt your pocketbook. I mean, it happened, its over - let's hope GM can overcome the UAW and succeed since its better for the American economy and taxpayers if they do.
According to your way of looking at it, The $787 bil bailout was about $10k for a family of 4 of immediate taxation due. How'd that feel when it hit you? It missed me. I think I got $800 FROM the gov on my tax return.
You have also assumed that none of the loan will ever be paid back by GM.
Regarding your ban....GM is only trying to get about half of 1 percent of the population to buy from them in any given year. 140 million cars out there on the roads are GM and they need spare parts and service. You can be part of that first 199 non-GM buyers between the first and second GM vehicle buyers. Wow, what impact.
By owning 5 GM vehicles today, it is in my interest to see that I can service them 5, 10, or 15 years from now. Your goal is to just not help me or the owners of the other 140 million GM's on the road today. Unfortunately, when Honda was given hundreds of millions of Indiana state taxpayers money to set up a factory here, I had no choice but to contribute my share. Should that make me support a lifetime ban of Honda?
They said you have to send it in by mail, which is the biggest disadvantage. I just also was thinking that if they reimburse ATM fees that could still be money going to the crooked banks, so maybe I'll rethink and go credit union instead.
Bringing it back to GM, on principle alone, I'm not going to support companies that should have failed in the market but only exist due to the government. They may still be around, but let the shrivel to a shell of their former selves if they can't compete.
..and we will NEVER know what might have happened with temporarily displaced workers and shut down companies.... perhaps Ford would be much stronger and would be coming out with ever more products, other auto startups might have a better chance to thrive, or the US could emerge to lead a totally new industry started by entrepreneurs left over from the failure of GM and C.
Pruning the weak branches on trees gives better fruit in the long haul.
Instead our tax dollars are used to make Suburbans and Impalas. :mad:
According to your way of looking at it, The $787 bil bailout was about $10k for a family of 4 of immediate taxation due. How'd that feel when it hit you? It missed me. I think I got $800 FROM the gov on my tax return.
You have also assumed that none of the loan will ever be paid back by GM.
No, you have a number of errors in your post.
1 - We only lent under $10 billion to GM. We BOUGHT the rest of GM for over $50 billion
2 - GM repaid all of the puny loan with the money we BOUGHT them with.
3 - Given that we OWN GM, there is no loan left to "repay". There is a company to sell shares in on the stock market, which will judge that value of GM.
4 - The value of GM was never the amount we spent, even in it's peak of success. So our chances of getting the money back on our "investment" are about zero.
Also, as posted above:
- UAW is still there and just dying to "crap in the nest" as they did with Ford by getting those concessions reversed
- If GM were by any chance very successful, the unions will look for blood and the destructive cycle will start again
- It's not that likely GM is going to be VERY successful, anyway
If you got $800 from the government on your tax return, consider yourself lucky. That's money the government DOES NOT HAVE. That's money your and my kids and grandkids will owe in some way, whether through taxes, inflation, or some other decline in the US standard of living.
"See son, let me tell you about finance and taxes. See that Impala over there? See that Cobalt? You will get to pay for the company making those vehicles once you grow up and start paying taxes. We borrowed that money and you get to pay for it. Isn't capitalism wonderful?".
You could always move to another state. :shades:
My share of the national debt is $86k. The $350 worth of GM that each taxpayer owns, not being worth the full $350, is a game changer? I think that is only part of the rounding error of the $86k number. The gov already has almost $200k of my soc sec taxes, not including interest. Where has all that gone that we should worry about GM's measley $350 or that we supported some tiny piece of a Cobalt? Drive more jobs out of America and then who will pay into soc sec to support you in retirement?
Did you forget about the strike a few years ago to keep jobs in america when they (GM) wanted to move a plant to mexico? (ac delco div......alt batteries etc)
That would have been ok with you?
And GM has plants in Mexico.........................hows that for your SS?
As long as GM makes cars/trucks people dont want........and think the money they make from trucks and vettes will make em competitive,they will not be sucesfull.
I dont care how you try to rationalize it...........I DID NOT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS GOING TO A BUSINESS THAT WAS FAILING.
GM Chrysler, banks........we are sending a message that if you cant pay your bills, its ok, the good old USA taxpayers will help ya, they have no choice.
Let GM and the rest fail......others will step in, BUILD A BETTER MOUETRAP, and ya know what?
Hyundai Sonata (2.4L - 200 hp): 22/35 mpg
Toyota Camry (3.5L - 268 hp): 20/29 mpg
Ford Mustang (3.7L - 305 hp): 19/30 mpg
Buick Regal (2.4L - 182hp): 19/30 mpg
Regards,
OW