GM News, New Models and Market Share

1217218220222223631

Comments

  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    edited June 2010
    In defense of the Regal (did I just type that), it is several hundred pounds heavier than the Sonata. I'll go out on a limb and assume the extra weight was put to good use and that the Regal will feel like the more substantial car.

    But, not doubt in a straight line, it looks like a Regal would be staring at the Sonata's rear end. But their is a lot more to a car than just 0-60 times. I seriously hope the Regal offers a more refined driving experience, if not, then well, that would be the same ole, same ole, from GM.

    I've read a lot of positive things about the new Sonata and it is an impressive offering. But it appears (from what I've read) that Hyundai still hasn't match the competition when it comes to suspension tuning (not that GM has excelled in that area either, IMO but they seem to be getting better).
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    What's done is done. I'll buy a GM product if they offer something I like more than anything else on the market within the type of vehicle I'm shopping. That's never happened, but it's certainly possible sometime in the future.
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    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?

    The reason we're complaining about the $350/pp or whatever the amount is that the U.S. gave GM and Chrysler in a loan/buyout/grant ... is THOSE AND EVEN SMALLER HANDOUTS over the years is how we're killing ourselves. We're going to die from a million small to medium cuts, there is no one single give-away (stab to the heart) that kills us.
    We need to have every level of government stop giving money away or making promises of futrue handouts that we can't afford. We need to stop spending every dime we have when times are good, and then when times turn bad realize we can't afford all we promised.

    Many of us want to draw a line in the sand, and say NO MORE. We want politicians to stop spending and cut. Stop the corporate handouts. Stop the foreign aid handouts. Stop the technology transfer to other countries so they can compete with us. If we just continue to say well what's one more handout, then we continue the trend, and nothing ever changes. I believe every once in a while in history there is a major change, like twhen this country was formed with its ideals. Or like when serfdom and slavery ended, or the corrupt version of Communism failed.

    I'm happy that GM and Chrysler are now downsized and may not be too big to fail. The best thing that could happen is that we get 10 - 20 national auto producers and then if 1 of them goes under there won't be any big disruption, and the government can ignore their collapse like it should.
  • tbone_raretbone_rare Member Posts: 96
    Poor performance, fraud, deceit, deception, cheats, liars.....hmmmmmm..... it sounds like you might be describing Toyota with their recent snafus.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Poor performance, fraud, deceit, deception, cheats, liars.....hmmmmmm..... it sounds like you might be describing Toyota with their recent snafus.

    It's already starting to have any effect too, look at their sales. Toyota doesn't have anything I want either.
  • torque_rtorque_r Member Posts: 500
    In defense of the Regal (did I just type that), it is several hundred pounds heavier than the Sonata.

    What about the Camry V-6? It can't be lighter than the Regal. Yet it delivers 20 city mpg compared to the Regal's 19 mpg, and still offers 86 more horses.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    The Camry is about 100lbs lighter give or take a few pounds. No question the Regal's fuel economy is not impressive.
  • torque_rtorque_r Member Posts: 500
    Car And Driver:

    Cadillac borrows a turbo six from Saab; we wish it hadn’t.

    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q2/2010_cadillac_srx_2.8t-short_take_r- oad_test
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    In defense of the Regal (did I just type that), it is several hundred pounds heavier than the Sonata. I'll go out on a limb and assume the extra weight was put to good use and that the Regal will feel like the more substantial car.

    Extra weight is never a substitute for proper engineering. The new cars are dangerously close to what a Park Avenue/S Class/Towncar/7Series/etc weighed ten years ago, and those were very "solid" cars.

    Excess weight is like a cancer. It means you need larger engines(or a turbo), larger brakes, heavier suspension components, and on and on. 200lbs of weight means another 100+lbs to handle it, because you then have to factor in for the weight of the compensation(and on and on).

    And of course, handling is garbage. There's no way that a 3500lb car will do what a 3000lb car will short of very expensive parts and many extra months of engineering. Case in point - the (base)CTS gets worse times around the Nurburgring than a typical little VW. Even the CTS-V can't beat a BMW E46(previous generation) M3. That said, it's a fantastic car. But it's also a big, heavy fantastic car as well.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 14,008
    You have also assumed that none of the loan will ever be paid back by GM.

    Your forgetting that our tax money isn't supposed to be used to be in the LOAN business making 3%. I'd rather have my money with me so I can spend it how I see fit. Frankly, investing in GM has less of a chance of getting paid back than going to Vegas and betting it all on Black or having fun at the blackjack tables. That would be a wiser investment than GM; gambling.

    Who says I want to settle for 3% on large sums of loans? I want 30%, or better yet, 100% from Casinos. You are losing the opportunity cost.

    I have a problem with the gov't taxing us so much that they can afford to do bailouts. They should have all that extra money laying around (or really, they shouldn't be incurring all that extra debt).
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 14,008
    Should that make me support a lifetime ban of Honda?

    But Honda isn't a failure like GM. Honda actually makes money, meaning they pay taxes on profits. Profits from GM have been a misnomer for over a decade now. They don't pay any taxes, they just suck us all dry.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 14,008
    Poor performance, fraud, deceit, deception, cheats, liars.....hmmmmmm..... it sounds like you might be describing Toyota with their recent snafus.

    Some of that may be true but I dont' think poor performance is. They still have a wonderful fuel efficient and powerful V6 engine that is top notch, and they are reliable, unlike GM's.

    Toyota doesn't make anything I really want, (except maybe an IS-F) but they are darn reliable and cheap to run.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    ".....Yes, I know Hyundai and the Japanese have fleet sales as well but still no where near the % that GM, Chrysler, and Ford do! "

    You'd be surprised. Typically, 40% of Sonata sales are fleet, and that IS rental car fleet, while the domestic "fleet" is broken up between rental, corporate, and government fleet.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    "......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."

    I will agree that the Gov't wouldn't have bailed them out if not for the crisis, but I disagree that they would have gone bankrupt if not for the crisis. I use Ford to back up my claim.

    Ford stands mortgaged to the hilt. Why, they got the credit they needed to consolidate and reposition their debt. Now, it appears that Ford may very well be making profits when it comes time to pay the piper. Profits derived from higher prices paid on their now better vehicles.

    By the time GM was faced with this same situation (mid to late 2008), credit was frozen, and they went into a serious cash burn, coupled with the fact that the credit they could issue to potential customers was frozen by Cerberus Capital, majority stakeholder in GMAC. Today, GM is even making more on it's newer models than they were before the crisis.

    If not for BK, would Pontiac, Saturn, and Hummer still be here?? I dunno. If they were, would that have an adverse effect on GM??? Maybe. But, we are where we are now, and can only wait and see how this continues to play out.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    GM is no. 1 in sales in North America. Judge that as 'success not likely'???? GM had 32% sales growth over last May in top 4 keeper divisions. Consider a company doing $56 billion in annual sales is worthless far into the future?

    That is irrelevant. Success is measured by profitability and by not losing market share. GM FAILED COMPLETELY WHILE IT WAS #1 IN SALES!!!!

    "We lose money on every unit, but we make it up in volume". :P
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    In defense of the Regal (did I just type that), it is several hundred pounds heavier than the Sonata. I'll go out on a limb and assume the extra weight was put to good use and that the Regal will feel like the more substantial car.

    I don't know if this is still true, but in the past I've found that the US makes manage to simultaneously be heavier and still have dumpier interiors and fixtures. So yes they should be removing weight from their vehicles. Now I can understand why a Mercedes is heavier, but not a GM.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Sorry, I still think GM was headed for BK. They could not make money in even good years, and some day they would have run out of things to mortgage. The economy probably hastened it by a few years.

    You could argue that since the bailout probably would not have occurred if it took a few more years, what actually happened was the best for GM. It forced them to do things their management and board were never willing to do, but needed to be done. I still don't think they've gone far enough - they need to tame the UAW, fire the remaining original board members, and dump Buick in the US.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    I agree w/ what C&D says about the SRX. You could see that coming a mile away. They always did like the gen 1 SRX. MUCH more sporty.

    Problem is, look at the competition. The LR3 and X5 that gen 1 was likened to (and over) sell like $h!t, compared to the Lexus and Acura variants. The gen 1 SRX is getting it's [non-permissible content removed] handed to it on a silver platter sales wise by the gen 2 SRX.

    Provided that the gen 2 variant is at least on par (or better) than gen 1 in luxury and ammenities, and on par with the Lexus and Acura in those areas to (as well as sales), it's ok.

    Caddy still has the CTS wagon to appease those people, and make up for the gen 1 SRX's paltry sales, too
  • tbone_raretbone_rare Member Posts: 96
    Just a note....the Regal of which you speak is actually made in Germany. They haven't started producing them in North America yet. Since it's a European car, doesn't that automatically make it superior??? LOLOL
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Just a note....the Regal of which you speak is actually made in Germany. They haven't started producing them in North America yet. Since it's a European car, doesn't that automatically make it superior??? LOLOL

    That's a good sign; it's probably got a better interior and a more modern drivetrain. :shades:
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    Your just trying to play around with semantics now; regardless of where it goes its still rental fleet and having between 30-40% of your total monthly sales go to fleets is just unacceptable and not sustainable in the long run, Chevy resale values for instance will never improve from where they are, even if they can fix all the reliability issues, if that high of a % goes to fleet sales!

    I'd love to see a source that says 40% of Sonata sales goes to fleets! I have never heard that up to now, and if it is true, I would suspect that is on mostly 2010 leftover's and not 2011 Sonata's! I can not believe fleet sales would contribute that much to the new model's success because right now, its nipping on the Altima's heel's for 3rd place for mid-size sedan sales!
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    Very true! and what have we all learned about being number 1 in sales in this country (ie GM, Ford, and Toyota)? being number 1 is not good because the companies that have, have been the ones with the most amount of problems now!
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    "..... I still don't think they've gone far enough - they need to tame the UAW, fire the remaining original board members, and dump Buick in the US. "

    I do agree that it forced management to do things it wouldn't have done. But, if you look back to 2007, the labor agreement with the UAW managed to reduce costs significantly, with a new pay scale and the VEBA. Basically they told the UAW, you want lifetime HC bennies for the retirees, YOU handle it, and agrees to throw a wad of cash at them. This "wad of cash" ultimately ended up being the equity stake in the company. Right now, the UAW partly "owns" GM, and biting the hand that feeds them basically is biting their own hand. Now, if the UAW sells it's share of GM in an IPO and invests that cash elsewhere, you are right, they could be right back to playing hardball with GM, especially if they become sucessful (ie make a profit).

    As far as Buick, I see the point, as you make Chevy the basic model up too near luxury, and Caddy takes over at near lux. and up, but be careful what you wish for. Would GM be willing to abandon the nameplate here, the Chiese may look at it from a "if it's not good enough for them, why is it good enough for me" standpoint, and sales there could collapse, hurting GM bigtime.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    "....Your just trying to play around with semantics now; regardless of where it goes its still rental fleet and having between 30-40% of your total monthly sales go to fleets is just unacceptable and not sustainable in the long run, "

    Yes, a rental will affect profits, as they tend to be base models and in the long run you flood the market with base model used cars. As far as semantics, tell me, when was the last time you considered buying a former police car or taxi for a used car? Didn't think so. That is a "good" fleet sale. Even the feds keep their cars longer term, and are sold at GSA auctions, not wholesale "dealer only" auctions. Another good sale.

    As far as Hyundai's daily rental sales, I can't find anything about current (you have to pay for that). Here is something from 2006 about the then new last gen Sonata:

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143877636.html
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    I'm not concerned with 2006 and Hyundai has changed dramatically since just 2006, as there recent sales have illustrated, but I do no they have the highest amount of fleet sales of the foreign automakes I believe? I would even suspect that Hyundai will reduce their dependence or need for fleet sales with the success thus far of the completely new Sonata and Tuscon and with Hyundai's plans to extend that styling trend among their other models I think there sales are going to go up nicely!

    But with GM, they still have too much fleet sales. Take the Impala as an example, we all know the car is a dud, poor quality, boring style, bad reliability, etc etc and it hasn't benefited from the recent model improvements, like the Malibu, Regal, LaCrosse, Equinox, etc have gotten yet Chevy is selling between 15-20k of them a month, the entirely majority going to fleet sales! That is crumbling that car's reputation and resale value yet GM continues to do it? Very puzzling if you ask me? But even when they finally redo and get out a new Impala, even if the thing has improved quality, reliability, style, etc etc and sells well for GM, its going to have an incredibly difficult time every raising its resale values, reputation, etc because of how many have gone to fleet sales over the last several years!
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    I'm not concerned with 2006 and Hyundai has changed dramatically since just 2006, as there recent sales have illustrated, but I do no they have the highest amount of fleet sales of the foreign automakes I believe? I would even suspect that Hyundai will reduce their dependence or need for fleet sales with the success thus far of the completely new Sonata and Tuscon and with Hyundai's plans to extend that styling trend among their other models I think there sales are going to go up nicely!

    But with GM, they still have too much fleet sales. Take the Impala as an example, we all know the car is a dud, poor quality, boring style, bad reliability, etc etc and it hasn't benefited from the recent model improvements, like the Malibu, Regal, LaCrosse, Equinox, etc have gotten yet Chevy is selling between 15-20k of them a month, the entirely majority going to fleet sales! That is crumbling that car's reputation and resale value yet GM continues to do it? Very puzzling if you ask me? But even when they finally redo and get out a new Impala, even if the thing has improved quality, reliability, style, etc etc and sells well for GM, its going to have an incredibly difficult time every raising its resale values, reputation, etc because of how many have gone to fleet sales over the last several years!
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    This is the most recent I can find w/o paying big bucks for it.

    http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Statistics/StatsViewer.aspx?file=http%3a%2f%2fww- w.automotive-fleet.com%2ffc_resources%2fstats%2fAFFB09-14-Top5.pdf&channel=

    It is for 2008. If you notice, the Malibu isn't on the top 5, but the Impala is. But 48% of Impala's fleet sales went to LONG TERM (ie non daily rentals). Sonata doesn't even register on commercial or govt sales. I still cant find what % of total sales were to fleets.
  • jayriderjayrider Member Posts: 3,602
    edited June 2010
    Drove an impala ltz for a weekend. Had everything I wanted. Better seats than any of the Mercedes or Bmw sedans I checked out. Back seat legroom is a bit snug. I personally liked the look. Not awsome but when I'm driving I don't dwell on the exterior appearance much. Lots of legroom in the front [taurus center stack is a dealbreaker. Trunk is huge with fold up rear seats. Everything in the cabin was fitted well. The fake wood could be deleted but no big deal. Drove smooth and solid-- no rattles or noise. Cornered fine for my driving style and rough roads were handled very well. 3.9 engine was quick and smooth and the 4 speed transmission was no problem for me. Shifts were smooth and quiet. Mpg in the low to mid 20's. A low mileage cpo model will definitely be on my short list next year. There is no credible information that says these cars are junk. The represent a great buy for a nice sized car. Parts and service are reasonable and available anywhere. Talked to several trusted mechanics and they call this generation of impala bulletproof. There are so many on the road that you won't be skinned buying parts. I have an 09 murano and the impala rides and handles better for my needs. Wish I would have checked them out --- could have saved 12k. The other interesting thing is that after the huge first year depreciation they do well holding value.
    I can't imagine what I'd buy that would serve me better for under 20k than a cpo impala ltz or lt with the leather package. Drove vw, audi, ford, hyundai,bmw midsize cars and the value for comfortable transportation for the impala is very good.. I don't speed, slalom or race at stoplights. What else could I possibly need? :shades:
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 14,008
    Why are you worried about the cheap availability of parts if it is reliable. I don't want to need any parts for my vehicles, the original ones should last! :sick:
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • carnaughtcarnaught Member Posts: 3,588
    edited June 2010
    Drove an impala ltz for a weekend. Had everything I wanted. Better seats than any of the Mercedes or Bmw sedans I checked out

    In which way? size, comfort, appearance, materials, support, durability :confuse:
  • jayriderjayrider Member Posts: 3,602
    Look---I'm not trying to sell anyone on the impala. I researched AND took a 3 day test drive. Based on that info and first hand experience it is a great buy. Suits my needs. The seats were great in size-comfort- materials. Can't speak to durability but they seem well constructed. Nice seams and shape.Everything was tight -- nothing loose or poorly crafted. I put very little wear on my cars interiors--no kids or pets. They will last as long as I need them to. I sat in a 55k MB E350 and while they had a nicer look --- they were fake leather and not as comfy on my tush - back- thighs. What more can I say. The bmw's were nicer but I can't afford that either. The chrysler 300 is pretty nice but with leather they are pricey and visibility is poor all around. To each his own -- there are thousands of happy impala owners -- don't care for the mousehair base interior but the leather gives a whole different feel. I like a car that isolates you from poor roads and still gives you enough road feel. This ltz had everything I needed. :)
  • jayriderjayrider Member Posts: 3,602
    If you never drive a car beyond the warranty you won't need major parts. There are still filters and brakes to deal with. Please advise me of some cars that go 100-150k miles and never need parts. My 02 chrysler concorde never had any problem with anything until a trans sensor went out at 75k miles -- cost me $100.That is one of the worst reliability choices you could make. It worked fine for me . You state impalas are trash and I suppose anyone who would own one would be a moron. That's the vibe I'm getting from you. I hope I'm wrong. It happens to be a car I like. I'm not selling them -- just relating my personal experience and research. Have a nice day.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    Profits from GM have been a misnomer for over a decade now. They don't pay any taxes

    GM lost money so therefore they didn't pay taxes? Are you serious? Lets say they took in $56 billion and paid out 58 billion last year. Where do you think the 58 billion went? It ALL showed up on other's tax returns as income or revenue. AND it was all taxed. The part that was payroll got hit with 7.65% for soc. sec. from the employee, AND 7.65% tax paid in by GM or a supplier to GM. Honda builds their cars with robots and purchases many hi value, compact components from outside the US. That severely limits their payment of taxes within the US.

    You actually thought $58B just vanished?

    Further, since GM vehicles use so much gas, that adds even more tax money to the US coffers. I have to earn almost $5 to net enough money to buy a gallon of gas. In my silverado, that only gets me 15 miles around town. Most of the $5 ends up as tax income for the gov. In a Honda, I might have to drive twice as far to get my gov nearly $5 of tax income due to fuel use.

    Further, GM outsells all others, therefore generating more sales tax for states than any other manufacturer, and in states like mine, more excise tax than any other brand is generated by GM.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    GM needs to worker harder on their 4-cyl engines. Check out this comparison (all with 6-speed automatic transmissions):

    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


    My 14 yr old Buick (3.8L - 240 hp): 18/27 mpg (4 sp, 3650 lbs)
    I routinely got 27.5 using regular on tanks with 40% city driving and got over 30 mpg on trips. V6 engines don't have to work as hard to steadily push 3800 lbs of car down the hwy as 4 cyl engines. Thus only the slight difference in mpg.

    My new Chev (2.4L - 169 hp): 24/33 mpg (non turbo 6 sp)
    My 4th tank since new returned 29.8 mpg with less than 50% hwy miles.
    Car is 3630 lbs with me and empty tank. If the Regal 2.4L has 13 more hp and weighs 200 more lbs, I personally would expect to never get less than 24 mpg out of a tank from it, and to easily get the stated 30 on the hwy.

    Impressive of the Sonata to beat the Malibu by 2 mpg hwy. Both non turbo 2.4L. I wonder if it had to shed weight to accomplish that. less weight usually = more road noise and more noise in general. Sonata being impressive doesn't make a close second a dog.

    Yes, GM could work more on their 4 cyl engines and I'm sure they always are. They are already pretty good. I doubt you could name another 3425 lb midsize 2.4L that puts Malibu's 33 hwy to shame on reg gas.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    . Take the Impala as an example, we all know the car is a dud, poor quality, boring style, bad reliability, etc etc and it hasn't benefited from the recent model improvements, like the Malibu, Regal, LaCrosse, Equinox, etc have gotten yet Chevy is selling between 15-20k of them a month, the entirely majority going to fleet sales! That is crumbling that car's reputation and resale value yet GM continues to do it? Very puzzling if you ask me?

    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't GM decide that they were ONLY keeping the Impala for fleet sales? Is it still sold by dealers?

    As I've said in the past (maybe why I'm not a marketing expert like GM's marketers ;) ) - If GMC is "professional grade", then DUMP the Acadia, as it is a FAMILY vehicle and Chevy and Buick have rebadges of it. Move the Impala and any other fleet vehicles to GMC. Then those can be crude, tough, unappealing vehicles because they are GMC Professional Grade Vehicles. When you rent a car and it is a crude Impala you know that it is a GMC Professional Vehicle. It is NOT a CHEVY, as they make much NICER CARS. Chevy is NICE STUFF and GMC is UTILITARIAN STUFF. Don't tarnish the Chevy name (in this case, don't continue to further tarnish the already tarnished Chevy name) with crude fleet vehicles. Perhaps the old Pontiac G5 could be a GMC G5 or whatever, not a COBALT or a CRUZE, as those are going to be NICE CHEVY VEHICLES. Then you can decontent the GMC rental cars as much as you want and they won't drop the residuals on Chevys because the Chevys are much different cars.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Please advise me of some cars that go 100-150k miles and never need parts.

    I'm at 97K on an '05 Acura TL. I've replaced normal stuff like tires, brakes (front only), and battery. Other than that:

    - a door handle cap fell off and I had to buy a new one
    - the exterior temp sensor had to be reprogrammed due to a recall

    That is all.
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    Honda builds their cars with robots and purchases many hi value, compact components from outside the US. That severely limits their payment of taxes within the US.

    Are you really saying that the road to prosperity in this country is for companies to be LESS efficient with labor?

    You actually thought $58B just vanished?

    No, but if GM made zero it paid zero corporate income tax. If Totota had the same sales in the US and had a decent profit margin (say, 5%), then they would have paid income tax on $2.9 BILLION in profits. At say, a 20% tax rate (guess), that would be $580 MILLION to Uncle Sam.

    Further, since GM vehicles use so much gas, that adds even more tax money to the US coffers. I have to earn almost $5 to net enough money to buy a gallon of gas. In my silverado, that only gets me 15 miles around town. Most of the $5 ends up as tax income for the gov. In a Honda, I might have to drive twice as far to get my gov nearly $5 of tax income due to fuel use.

    So following along, we should have LESS efficient companies, and have more WASTEFUL fuel economy? So the US Government should PENALIZE those companies making energy-efficient cars! :P

    Further, GM outsells all others, therefore generating more sales tax for states than any other manufacturer, and in states like mine, more excise tax than any other brand is generated by GM.

    Number of units is not equal to total sales. So if you factor in sales prices, since Toyota's average sales price is much higher than GM's and they sold nearly as many vehicles, they generated MORE sales tax revenue than GM. :shades:
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    The #1 Problem that get's it all started: "the 2010 Cadillac SRX shares much of its bones with the decidedly less exciting Chevrolet Equinox."

    And then they put a Slob Turbo engine in it?

    Better rename the brand CadiLACK and get it over with. I have to say it looks decent but performance got WORSE than the old SRX?

    If the problems with acceleration weren’t enough, we had more trouble when we pressed the other pedal in our SRX turbo.

    SRX = Slob Response X-Over

    I know it's only a rag, but given the price of this wagon, why not buy an MDX?

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    But it's also a big, heavy fantastic car as well. So is this:

    why in the premium segment, the world leaders are frantically trying to REDUCE weight in the engineering formula as fast as possible. That is also why we need strict goals of mandatory high mileage from all manufacturers.

    I love rounding a turn and making those Escalades and Excursions look like water buffalos with wheels in my little CR-V. :shades:

    It won't be enough for automakers to tip the balance by selling a few electric vehicles and hybrids. In order to keep up with tightening fuel economy requirements, they'll have to reduce curb weight in their volume sellers.

    So we're heartened by a report on Autoblog today that suggests Audi will strip about 300 pounds out of the next-generation Audi A4, which is due in about 2015. Today's A4 sedan weighs anywhere from 3,500-3,700 pounds, depending on whether you get all-wheel drive. Although it carries its weight well, there's no denying it's fat for a compact-ish sedan.

    The savings, reports AB, won't necessarily come from a big increase in the use of high-strength (high-tensile) steel. As costs come down, Audi will try to incorporate comparatively exotic materials like carbon fiber.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    I agree things MIGHT have been different if not for the crisis. The crisis pushed them into bk but F did not because their business model, broken along with GM and C, made the tough devision WHEN TIME HAD NOT RUN OUT YET to get that mortage.

    I repeat, the business model of all 3 had failure written all over them. Ford is far from out of the woods and GM would be another Edsel save our help.

    Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer night have been but then again Buick, GMC and Hummer would not have.

    But at the end of the day, Fords stands on it's own feet like the P.I.G.S. and Hungary but GM will never repay all the taxpayer funds until a Chinese company buys them out! ;)

    Italian for C, China for GM.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    MDX wins hands down in every category. I'll give you the SRX styling, though. MDX needs a makeover. But in performance and dependability?

    No contest...Caddy weeded again by the Asians. I wonder why this tune sounds so familiar? GM hasn't changed much yet. Do they have time before the story remains the same for too long?

    Still not buying. Not even looking at anything GM makes...except for the 'Vette. I still feel this is the only time tested model they kept from the great days...even though even this icon is dying! :mad:

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    image

    image

    You know my choice. Which will you plunk your hard-earned, tax-paying money down on?

    Another high priced GM head fake or a thirsty over-achieving company that made junk and improved 1,000 per cent?

    You choose.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Why, you would buy a Sonata, of course. Tell me the Impala has better styling and then that would tell me why you'd buy one over the Sonata.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    edited June 2010
    Why, my 2003 Yukon went 78K and needed $3,800 worth of parts. It's the best personal example that I made a bad choice besides my parent's choice of a 1988 FW d' elegance ... 360 degrees opposite of elegance, would't you say? That car was a total disaster, brakes, a/c, engine....

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Well, I'm thinking your driving style might not suit the Impala. Take a look at this and you might go for the Sonata....unless you idolize Evil Knevil.

    link title

    The lady was OK but the Impala was BACON!

    Regards,
    OW
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,100
    Why, you would buy a Sonata, of course. Tell me the Impala has better styling and then that would tell me why you'd buy one over the Sonata.

    I know jayrider can speak for himself, but personally I'm not so wow'ed by the styling of that new Sonata. It may prove to be a fine car overall, but it just doesn't do it for me.

    I sat in a Sonata in the auto show, and can't remember much about the experience. I guess that's good or bad, depending on how you look at it. Didn't blow me over, but at the same time, didn't burn a horrible experience into my memory, either!

    As for the Impala, I do remember it having a front seat that was roomy and comfortable, for me at least. Okay, so it's not going to give you side bolstering support like a Recaro if you decide to test its slalom time, but I'm sure it would be comfy on long trips.

    The Impala, with the 3.9 at least, is also going to be faster than the Sonata. MT clocked a 2011 Sonata at 0-60 in 8.1 seconds, which is pretty good IMO for a ~3100-3200 lb car with a 175 hp 4-cyl. However, I found a test for a 2006 Impala LTZ, 3.9, that managed 7.4 seconds. Of course, it's a bigger, torquier engine (and a bigger, heavier car, too), so I'd expect it to be faster, so no surprise there I guess.

    Still, I think they're both decent cars in their own way. Obviously, if the Sonata is outselling the Impala, that shows the market prefers it. But, I can still see some strong points for the Impala.
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    I can tell you the Impala has some of the crappiest seats in the car business! Practically flat on the bottom with no support for the lower legs, thighs, hips, etc, but if you think they are so great, more power to you!
  • smarty666smarty666 Member Posts: 1,503
    None of these excuses for those high of fleet sales makes any difference. My whole point is this, if GM and Chrysler don't stop having such high %ed of their total monthy sales to fleet then their residual values will always remain at the bottom of the business, like they are today!
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    You might also agree the a 274 HP turbo i-4 for the Sonata should just about destroy 0-60 in a whole bunch of current GM 4-cylinders despite the high gas mileage!

    Regards,
    OW
  • fho2008fho2008 Member Posts: 393
    What else could I possibly need? 4 speed transmission. How about a 6 speed?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

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.